 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Prostate Cancer / April 2008Course in Brain Surgery
From my e-mail inbox: ..........yet another wake up call for all the people in favor of Government ran healthcare. A Short Course On Brain Surgery In Canada A short but poignant independent film on government sponsored healthcare systems. http://www.freemarketcure.com/brainsurgery.php -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Visit fidotel for Free Email, Fun, Games, FidoNet, and More! FidoTel - Fidonet Finally Grew Up. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 > From my e-mail inbox: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12 Why do you assume there are only two choices, our model which fails to adequately address the needs of 20 to 50 million and very expensively addresses the needs of the rest, or the Canadian model. Do you suppose that there just might be some other possible way to get a good system that covers everyone and doesn't cut you off from the quality you are getting now and at little or no additional cost??? >> From my e-mail inbox: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > adequately address the needs of 20 to 50 million and very expensively > addresses the needs of the rest, or the Canadian model. Because Cauliflower (and Leaky) need brain surgery themselves. They distort the facts. Leaky claims the U.S. system is not the most expensive in the world. The Congressional Research Service says it is. Probably not an "authoritative" study in the mind of Leaky. Not only does the U.S. system fail to address the needs of 20 to 50 million; it also fails to provide better access to the rest of the U.S. population and it does not provide superior service in spite of being twice as expensive as European systems. opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf > Do you > suppose that there just might be some other possible way to get a good > system that covers everyone and doesn't cut you off from the quality > you are getting now and at little or no additional cost??? Most if not all European countries provide better service at half the U.S. price. >> ..........yet another wake up call for all the people in >>favor of Government ran healthcare. > Why do you assume there are only two choices, our model which fails to > adequately address the needs of 20 to 50 million and very expensively > addresses the needs of the rest, or the Canadian model. Do you > suppose that there just might be some other possible way to get a good > system that covers everyone and doesn't cut you off from the quality > you are getting now and at little or no additional cost??? Certainly, in that nothing is perfect, all things may be improved. I don't recall anyone in decades proposing an improvement. I have heard pundants and politicians propose systems that have failed everywhere they've been tried. Personally, it seems we had a good system. When I first started working at a real job (1972), I got insurance that covered just about everything. It was a perquisite for working with the company. It paid for everything and I paid nothing for it. Was it free? Nah. It was just a segmented portion of my benefits that included pay, overtime, vacation time, sick time, etc. But, when my wife got pregnant, it was nice to pay nothing more than the telephone and TV. By contrast, now I am older and many occasions to take me, my wife, my mother, my mother-in-law, etc. to the ER and find it packed with people who I am now paying for out of my premiums and taxes. This years, I had to pay ten percent of the premiums for much less coverage. I spent $13,000 out of pocket for medical care. Two of my relatives had concurrent pregnancies. One made some poor decisions and has no health insurance. One does. The one without went to clinics that you and I pay for. The other went the normal route. The one without health care had the same doctor, same hospital, same care and paid less money out of pocket. Yeah, I'd say there is lots of room for improvement. And the best improvement would be to eliminate some of the recent improvements. >>> ..........yet another wake up call for all the people in >>>favor of Government ran healthcare. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Yeah, I'd say there is lots of room for improvement. And the best > improvement would be to eliminate some of the recent improvements. Steve, I certainly agree with you, when I was dx'd with coronary blockages that could not be treated with angioplasty, the bypass surgery was immediatly scheduled to be performed within a week. I don't think that would have occured within the Canadian or UK health stytems; would it have hurt to wait 6-8 months, I'll never know, but I thank God I didn't have to wait. As far as the population of ERs and who is bearing that cost, it's Joe average and his employer who pay higher premiums and higher taxes. Here in NJ the problem has grown out of hand and will continue to do so until there's no one left except the politicians, public employees and illegals. Enough of my political rant. Tom > ... > Two of my relatives had concurrent pregnancies. One made some [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pocket. > ... That's pretty amazing isn't it? I think this is one of the greatest failings of the system. Consider three cases, two of which you've mentioned and one of which you didn't. Case 1: Patient has insurance. The hospital bills insurance for everything they can. The insurance cuts the payment to what they think is reasonable. The hospital, having less clout than the insurance company, accepts the payment. Case 2: Patient has no insurance and no money. The hospital bills the patient for everything they can, probably much higher than they billed the insurance for Case 1. The patient has no money and can't pay. The hospital does not bother trying to squeeze the patient because they know there's nothing to get. Case 3: Patient has no insurance but does have money. The hospital bills the patient for everything they can, probably much higher than they billed the insurance for Case 1. But this time, they go after the patient, suing him if he won't pay and ruining his credit. This patient winds up paying three times as much as insurance would have paid, unless he fights down to the mat. The whole thing is not just inequitable, it's crazy. And think about all the insurance executives, managed care administrators, bill collectors, lawyers, accountants, clerks and paper pushers that feast on the process. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what should be done, but I don't think you need too much knowledge to know that what we're doing now doesn't work very well. Alan . > Case 1: Patient has insurance. > > The hospital bills insurance for everything they can. The > insurance cuts the payment to what they think is reasonable. > The hospital, having less clout than the insurance company, > accepts the payment. The amount to be billed by the hospital and to be paid by the insurer is the amount agreed upon in the applicable contractual relationships between hospital, insurer and policyholder. Obviously, it's not a question of "billing everything you can" and then cutting to "whatever is reasonable". > I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what should be done, but I > don't think you need too much knowledge to know that what we're > doing now doesn't work very well. I've not studied it at length, but strongly suspect that our system works pretty dang well as designed as long as people follow these steps *in order*: 1. Learn a marketable skill (be it an M.D. or welding certification). 2. Get one or two jobs. 3. Stay sober and clean and smoke-free, eat right and exercise (all free but with *ENORMOUS* tangible benefits. 4. Buy insurance (or acquire it as part of your employment compensation). 5. Invest some money. 6. *With what's left of your money*, buy whatever else you can afford, such as that nice car, house, TV and cable, children, furniture, restaurant meals, cell phone, iPod, Air Nikes, etc. 7. Those mentally or physically incapable of #1 and #2 are cared for on the taxpayers' dimes. Those in category #7 who screw up #1-#6 should not be rewarded for screwing up #1-#6, because rewards encourage more of the same behavior whether we're talking mice, humans, or engineering systems. I.P. >> I'm not knowledgeable enough to know what should be done, but I >> don't think you need too much knowledge to know that what we're [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >I.P. The problem is that we pay MORE for treating these people in the ER. Many smaller hospitals have gotten out of the ER business because of this. Last time I went to the ER in great pain due to kidney stones I waited for an hour while some illegal's were getting their kids treated for a cold. > The problem is that we pay MORE for treating these people in the ER. > Many smaller hospitals have gotten out of the ER business because of > this. Last time I went to the ER in great pain due to kidney stones I > waited for an hour while some illegal's were getting their kids > treated for a cold. I would say that is A problem, but not THE problem. THE problem is that we pay anything at all to anyone at all who is ready and able, but not willing, to be self-sufficient. Of course, that can be said about just about everything, not just ERs. >> The problem is that we pay MORE for treating these people in the ER. >> Many smaller hospitals have gotten out of the ER business because of >> this. Last time I went to the ER in great pain due to kidney stones I >> waited for an hour while some illegal's were getting their kids >> treated for a cold. That sounds more like a triage breakdown rather than a payment source issue. I'd file a complaint or notify "somebody". I.P. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.