I went to my ear doc on Tuesday. Met with him for 15 minutes. $165.
U.S. House passes healthcare bill in big win for Trump
- Thread starter Spike
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
This is the biggest problem with our healthcare system, and one that is not addressed at all by either the ACA or AHCA. No patient involvement in price decisions, hence no competition.
My daughter had to have an EKG awhile back and because we have a $7000 individual deductible I tried to call around and get prices. Not one place would give them to me, and yes they acted like I was out of my mind for even asking.
Elective surgeries like say Lasik or cosmetic are not covered by insurance. Because you can compare prices and have to pay for them out of pocket, SOMEHOW doctors and hospitals manage to keep the prices somewhat within reach for a lot of people. When procedures are covered by insurance they can charge whatever they want.
Couple this with the fact that Medicare, Medicaid and HMOs have set (low) reimbursement rates, that means prices get jacked up on everyone else to make up the difference.
Not to mention, our pediatrician charges 250.00 for a physical, I can get the exact same thing at the Minute Clinic for $75.00. I mean this is not neurosurgery, for God's sake at this point I can practically perform the physical myself! But because my insurance is required to pay for this in full, I go with the 250. I have no incentive to utilize the cheaper option.
It's totally ****** up, there has got to be a better way. Hopefully this bill is just a start and there will be more innovative reforms coming.
Last edited:
You know there are people dying to get into these places ?
https://c.ypcdn.com/2/c/rtd?ptid=YL...tampa?stx=funeral homes&csz=Tampa, FL&fr=lsrp
https://c.ypcdn.com/2/c/rtd?ptid=YL...tampa?stx=funeral homes&csz=Tampa, FL&fr=lsrp
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,564
- Reaction score
- 22,397
- Points
- 113
The amount of liability insurance charged to doctors is insane. You can thank the ambulance chasing lawyers for that. Doctors get sued constantly over frivolous baseless nonsense. The amount of schooling cost is massive as well. There's got to be a happy medium in it. You start putting caps on what highly skilled doctors can make and you will lose them. Canada has that **** and the best ones leave for the states.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 11,931
- Reaction score
- 15,740
- Points
- 113
notice how liberals constantly complian about how much Doctors and Hospitals cost but they have no problem with what colleges no cost. Doctors are ******** that we have to force to accept less money for their services but Colleges? Nope, we just need to raise taxes so government can pay them whatever they charge.
Why the difference? Because liberals control colleges so they like that they are now turning away from education, to indoctrination. It's also why Obama declared war on technical colleges and "private" colleges. Can't have people going to ITT Tech and getting good paying jobs and their friends who majored in transgender studies and owes over 100K in loans can't get work. Nope, better shut them down over the absurd premise that not enough of their students got jobs immediately in a bad economy. No such standard held to the liberal arts colleges though.
This whole focus on healthcare is nothing but a Trojan Horse to impose socialism through the back door. Which is the only way any liberal policy can ever get passed.
BTW, notice how they use the term healthcare instead of health insurance. As if they are the same thing. American has the best healthcare in the world in terms of quality and availabliity. Nobody is ever turned away from healthcare. The argument is about how to pay for it for people who can't afford it.
Haven't wwe always addressed such needs through welfare and medicaid programs? Why not just argue that those programs need more money instead of insisting on changing the system that worked fine for about 95% of people?
Because solving problems is not what liberals do. They use problems as a way to implement their "fix" which is always some form government expansion that doesn;t solve the problem at all but does give them more power.
Look at global warming. Even if you believe in it, how do their proposed remedies help the situaion? They don't. We're going to reduce greenhouse gas by penalizing companies. Sure, we all know businesses are evil so if we crush them then all problems will get better even if that business had nothing to do with it. Of course, that business can get out of the penalties if they just make some "gifts" to the right people.
Why the difference? Because liberals control colleges so they like that they are now turning away from education, to indoctrination. It's also why Obama declared war on technical colleges and "private" colleges. Can't have people going to ITT Tech and getting good paying jobs and their friends who majored in transgender studies and owes over 100K in loans can't get work. Nope, better shut them down over the absurd premise that not enough of their students got jobs immediately in a bad economy. No such standard held to the liberal arts colleges though.
This whole focus on healthcare is nothing but a Trojan Horse to impose socialism through the back door. Which is the only way any liberal policy can ever get passed.
BTW, notice how they use the term healthcare instead of health insurance. As if they are the same thing. American has the best healthcare in the world in terms of quality and availabliity. Nobody is ever turned away from healthcare. The argument is about how to pay for it for people who can't afford it.
Haven't wwe always addressed such needs through welfare and medicaid programs? Why not just argue that those programs need more money instead of insisting on changing the system that worked fine for about 95% of people?
Because solving problems is not what liberals do. They use problems as a way to implement their "fix" which is always some form government expansion that doesn;t solve the problem at all but does give them more power.
Look at global warming. Even if you believe in it, how do their proposed remedies help the situaion? They don't. We're going to reduce greenhouse gas by penalizing companies. Sure, we all know businesses are evil so if we crush them then all problems will get better even if that business had nothing to do with it. Of course, that business can get out of the penalties if they just make some "gifts" to the right people.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
Bravo. Nail on the head.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
I've had two OB-GYNs leave the state of PA because the malpractice insurance is so high here. I actually know people who got pregnant and had trouble finding an OB who is accepting new patients.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 9,394
- Reaction score
- 6,217
- Points
- 113
2 OB/GYN' s left the state after seeing your cooch?....
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
Yes, they said "It's perfect. Our work here is done."
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Well said. That's why the market economy works and scares them. Bullshit walks.
goddammit. you really think I want this motherfuc...
oh. this should be a PM. nevermind. carry on.
Can vouch for that. The study one has to put in to be a doctor is overwhelming. Depending on what field you choose, you are not established until you're in your 30's.
They deserve every penny they make imo.
My son is 28, a resident in Philly...owes a $250,000 bill for med school.
Free market argument for healthcare is bullshit. Free market is fine for products or services the consumer can say "no" to if the price is too high. If a gallon of milk ever exceeds the price that I am willing to pay for it, I just won't buy milk anymore. In a life threatening situation, going to the hospital is not something someone is going to refuse to do because they can't afford it. When your choices are.... A. Go home and die in excruciating pain or B. Stay here and we'll fix the problem and treat your pain but it's going to cost a ridiculous amount of money, I'm willing to bet my next 50 paychecks that the number of folks that choose option B will hover right around 100 percent.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I agree. For outpatient stuff that can "wait" or you can "live with", competition among hospitals and doctors is fine. But the truth is when **** hits the fan and you are getting 100's of billable procedures done (everything from meals to overnight stays to different tests to 5-10 different doctors all who charge different fees) and you have only one major hospital within 50 miles of you house, you are stuck. There is no "competition".
Hospitals are way too expensive to staff and equip to have 5 hospitals around us to "compete" with each other. That's a complete waste of resources. An MRI machine can cost $1 million. You really think it's best for our country that MORE hospitals buy this stuff to create competition and lower prices? Makes no sense.
Sure, some competition is important. Doctors visits should compete. You should have choices for you your everyday doctor is. Small, ER service stations could compete. That's all small peanuts in the scheme of things. That's not what is driving up costs. It's the overnight stays and specialized services and tests that can only be done is very specialized hospitals with very expensive equipment that is driving up costs. Our technological advancements in health care has created Cadillac services that we all feel entitled to (and logically should be available to both rich and poor alike) but cost a fortune (both in research and development costs and real hardware costs).
A competitive health care system doesn't resolve this.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
That's just stupid. When you are talking about the overall cost of healthcare, which is what drives premiums, you aren't talking about "would you like to spend a lot of money, or would you prefer to die?". You are talking about a whole host of services where people can compare costs, should have some kind of investment in the cost, and make decisions based on cost. Gazilliions of medical expenses are not emergent, life or death situations...what pharmacy should you get your insulin from? Where should you get the MRI of your knee? Where should you get your monthly bloodwork drawn for any number of chronic conditions? Where should you get your knee replacement done? Where should you get your mole biopsied? Where should you go for your annual OB GYN vists, your kids' pediatric checkups, your stress test, your dietitian services, your vaccines, a therapist for your OCD or ADHD, or for your physical therapy?
If people had to shop for these things on price you would see prices, and the overall cost of healthcare, drop precipitously.
Like I said before, I could go to the minute clinic and get my kids' physicals done for 75.00, but instead I go to the ped where it costs 250.00 because it's "free" with the outrageously expensive insurance I have to buy to cover catastrophic illness. There is no incentive for me to try to get my preventative care more cheaply, since it's "free", and there is no incentive for the doctor to reduce his charges.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2014
- Messages
- 5,307
- Reaction score
- 4,795
- Points
- 113
I still don't think the things you describe are what is driving up health care costs. Those are being competitively priced out (often by the insurance companies themselves). And people are more and more (since deductibles are so high) looking around for things like that.
And I have stated before that if we go to a nationalized health care system, things under the yearly stuff like that, through your primary care physician, could still be covered by a competitive based insurance system.
I'm more concerned with specialized stuff. Overnight stays, major emergencies, major testing, cancer treatments, M.S., congenital defects and children's diseases. These are the $100,000+ items. These are the things people can't afford and are causing health care to go up. There has to be some way to make that work.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,105
- Reaction score
- 7,804
- Points
- 113
The number one healthcare expenditure in the US is the management and treatment of diabetes, followed by heart disease and neck/back pain. Cancer, MS, congenital defects and children's diseases don't even make the top 10. Yes, introducing some competition into managing chronic illness would reduce costs. Keeping costs down on common ailments means we can better afford to treat the big ticket items. The only thing on this list that I can't see competition being necessarily practical is injuries from falls.
The top 10 most costly health expenses in 2013 were:
Diabetes – $101.4 billion
Ischemic heart disease – $88.1 billion
Low back and neck pain – $87.6 billion
Hypertension – $83.9 billion
Injuries from falls – $76.3 billion
Depressive disorders – $71.1 billion
Oral-related problems – $66.4 billion
Vision and hearing problems – $59 billion
Skin-related problems, such as cellulitis and acne – $55.7 billion
Pregnancy and postpartum care – $55.6 billion
Last edited:
These are not my words. But written by a friend and former co-worker of mine. He's absolutely 100% spot on. Healthcare in the US is our first step towards Venezuela. And oh how the Lefties loved Chavez. He was a GREAT leader, a great man who improved the life of the poor and the downtrodden and made Venezuela a shining star for socialists around the world. Except...well...that socialist story ended like every other.
My friend's words:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm listening to grown adults talk about healthcare. I am no economist, but I am continually shocked by the lack of understanding about markets and economics.
The definition of economics is [not just free market economics, but ALL economic systems] 'the allocation of scarce resources that have a variety of uses'. Capitalism believes that prices, markets, most efficiently allocate those resources - and they do, without question. Not perfectly, but they do with much greater efficiency than centrally planned (government) economic systems.
The free market makes millions of 'decisions' every hour, every minute without the involvement of a government central planner. Markets reward good behavior, and penalize bad choices. Hence, good health should be rewarded with lower premiums. Thats what insurance underwriters do. Poor health decisions - drinking, smoking, diet - are considered when underwriting premiums.
In contrast, big government lefties believe bureaucrats can magically wave aside the laws of economics and make everything free and universal. That's preposterous.
They suggest that government can make healthcare "affordable" and "universal". Nothing can be made universal and affordable! There is a finite number of hospitals, doctors, etc. There is a finite number of kidneys, X ray machines, etc.
This is why in places like the former Soviet Union, and modern day Venezuela, people couldn't, and can't get, what they want(ed) and need. It's why Venezuela has to prosecute bakeries. The shelves were often bare because the government peddled the lie that everyone could have everything. That defies all common sense. Everyone cannot have everything. Consequently, the choice becomes, what allocates with greater efficiency - not perfect efficiency - and whether you are talking about healthcare, housing or Coca Cola, the free market allocates resources with much greater efficiency than government central planners.
The big lie behind Obamacare was, and has always been the idea that healthcare can be made universal and "affordable". It can't. Nothing is infinite in supply. Thats why providers are pulling out of every market. Healthcare can only be made affordable when people have a lot of choices and when people understand there is an association between prices and behavior.
Thats why Thomas Sowell famously claimed that healthcare cannot be made any more "universal" and "affordable" than beach front property. Both are in demand, and finite in supply. The question is - what system allocates those resources more efficiently. For the life of me, I cannot understand why socialists and lefties continue to peddle the lie that people can have everything, for free, all the time - college education, housing, healthcare.
My friend's words:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm listening to grown adults talk about healthcare. I am no economist, but I am continually shocked by the lack of understanding about markets and economics.
The definition of economics is [not just free market economics, but ALL economic systems] 'the allocation of scarce resources that have a variety of uses'. Capitalism believes that prices, markets, most efficiently allocate those resources - and they do, without question. Not perfectly, but they do with much greater efficiency than centrally planned (government) economic systems.
The free market makes millions of 'decisions' every hour, every minute without the involvement of a government central planner. Markets reward good behavior, and penalize bad choices. Hence, good health should be rewarded with lower premiums. Thats what insurance underwriters do. Poor health decisions - drinking, smoking, diet - are considered when underwriting premiums.
In contrast, big government lefties believe bureaucrats can magically wave aside the laws of economics and make everything free and universal. That's preposterous.
They suggest that government can make healthcare "affordable" and "universal". Nothing can be made universal and affordable! There is a finite number of hospitals, doctors, etc. There is a finite number of kidneys, X ray machines, etc.
This is why in places like the former Soviet Union, and modern day Venezuela, people couldn't, and can't get, what they want(ed) and need. It's why Venezuela has to prosecute bakeries. The shelves were often bare because the government peddled the lie that everyone could have everything. That defies all common sense. Everyone cannot have everything. Consequently, the choice becomes, what allocates with greater efficiency - not perfect efficiency - and whether you are talking about healthcare, housing or Coca Cola, the free market allocates resources with much greater efficiency than government central planners.
The big lie behind Obamacare was, and has always been the idea that healthcare can be made universal and "affordable". It can't. Nothing is infinite in supply. Thats why providers are pulling out of every market. Healthcare can only be made affordable when people have a lot of choices and when people understand there is an association between prices and behavior.
Thats why Thomas Sowell famously claimed that healthcare cannot be made any more "universal" and "affordable" than beach front property. Both are in demand, and finite in supply. The question is - what system allocates those resources more efficiently. For the life of me, I cannot understand why socialists and lefties continue to peddle the lie that people can have everything, for free, all the time - college education, housing, healthcare.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
Obamacare was falsely advertised. It is way too expensive.
Most people who do not have Obamacare, but are penalized with a luxury tax by having a different insurance might actually see their costs go down.
A win for Trump, but a plan is needed for the chronically ill and people with pre-existing conditions.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
Let's see what kind of piece of **** the senate comes up with.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 2,921
- Reaction score
- 831
- Points
- 113
The US is the poster child for why free markets don't work with healthcare. We have lower life expectancy
at twice the price than many advanced countries with single payer.
And its killing businesses and costing jobs. Buffett has it right, when he says its not taxes but healthcare that's hurting
business in the US. A family of 4 plan at my company cost 20K per year. One person at my company makes 40K and the
cost for her health plan is 20K.
We will have single payer when more businesses drop coverage for employees. It's just a matter of time.
at twice the price than many advanced countries with single payer.
And its killing businesses and costing jobs. Buffett has it right, when he says its not taxes but healthcare that's hurting
business in the US. A family of 4 plan at my company cost 20K per year. One person at my company makes 40K and the
cost for her health plan is 20K.
We will have single payer when more businesses drop coverage for employees. It's just a matter of time.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 18,601
- Reaction score
- 29,977
- Points
- 113
- Location
- The nearest Steelers bar.
You are incorrect in cause-and-effect. Specifically, several nations with a greater life expectancy than the United States currently feature diets which place much greater emphasis on fish and fish oil, which are proven to lessen heart disease and cardiac death. Japan is the best example.
Other developed nations with greater life expectancy - Canada and Australia, most notably - have very small populations with extremely limited immigration. The United States has millions of immigrants, the majority illegal, who have not had childhood immunizations, have re-introduced tuberculosis into the United States, and reduce life expectancy significantly.
It is an undeniable mathematical statement that smaller, homogenous populations in the developed world, and with little immigration, will have greater life expectancies. The United States is neither small nor immune from immigration.
so we should give all of them free immunizations, education and housing. and anything else free that they want. because free.
I think we already do that.....
Similar threads
