Health care - administrative incompetence

Bookitty: I see no difference. Every medical system needs people to see the patients, people to schedule the patients and people to deal with the money. In our system, the billing people like PD are a crucial piece of the puzzle. They are no more a parasite than the finance administrators in the NHS.

Insurance company says that it will reimburse the doctor this amount for that procedure. They don't. Not just occasionally but to the degree that an entire outside industry has sprung up to deal with it. That industry exists solely to hold the insurance company accountable for services it has already contracted to pay. It adds to administration rates that have doubled in less than 10 years.

You don't see that as parasitic?
 
Yeah. I've said about all I have to say on the subject. All I can say to my fellow Americans on this thread is this:

Healthcare in America is a mess; no doubt. We need a change. If you truly believe that a Single Payer system is what's best then I respectfully disagree with you. I've indicated the direction I think we should go and I support the candidates and organizations that are trying to further those goals. I encourage you to do the same. It honestly does no good at all to :rule10: and moan on an internet forum. The only thing that creates change in America is political action. So go out there and support your candidates and organizations. Raise your voices and make yourselves heard. I know that's what I'm doing. Together, we'll all come up with compromises that work for America.

And to the UKers/Canadians/others: I'm not trying to trash your systems. I'm trying to point out (maybe not very well) the reasons why they won't work in America. There are real obstacles to a single payer system here; there are so many interests to try and appease. Americans will study your systems and the systems from around the world and we'll fix our mess. Believe it or not, our debate on here has given me a lot of food for thought and it will certainly inform my thought on the subject. For that I thank you.

To everyone: Happy New Year! As we toast here in South Texas (at least in my family): ¡Salud, amor y dinero! ¡Y mucho tiempo para disfrutar los!

(Health, Love and Money! And lots of time to enjoy them!)
 
Rolfe, you are a smart person - surely you recognize that someone has to pay for medical services in your country. You guys are bandying about phrases like "it's free" and "don't pay a brown penny" but certainly you must know that nothing in life is free.

No-one has said it's free, but thanks for demonstrating the perfect Straw Man fallacy. What we have said, is it is free at the point of need. It is paid for out of taxes--which everyone pays into at a progressive tax rate and with VAT.

GB
 
The US government is a TRILLION dollars in debt so it clearly cannot manage its money. It is full of corruption and backroom slimy deals amongst its leaders. To have it take over 1/6th of the economy seems insane to me.

Yes! Because the Right Wing Government has given away the store to the Right Wing Rich. Don't blame "da gubmint", blame the Corporations that run it. The US is a Plutocracy. Why do you keep dodging that issue?

GB
 
You'll never get a government to administer any social programme competently, so long as you make the word "socialism" a dirty word, and scream hate against the recipients demanding that the benefits be withdrawn from these freeloaders.

Your ideology is broke.

Rolfe.
 
And exactly how much are you paying in to your non-crappy universal system per year? What tax bracket are you in?

What are you referring to? Are you referring to how much I pay into the private insurance system? If so, I pay nothing, because I can't. And I get nothing, like the 50 million other Americans who have no health insurance whatsoever.
 
Yes, private insurance's reimbursement rates have dropped dramatically over the last decade.

For primary care physicians this is very true. And this is a problem for everyone, since primary care is a very important aspect of any health system. Primary care physicians are in fact being fired because they're not "profitable", this is not a good way to run a health "system".
 
Bookitty: I see no difference. Every medical system needs people to see the patients, people to schedule the patients and people to deal with the money. In our system, the billing people like PD are a crucial piece of the puzzle. They are no more a parasite than the finance administrators in the NHS.

But whilst, most of us I assume, believe that there's too many corporate style parasites within the NHS it still works remarkably well for the same percentage out of our wages that pays for your Medicaid\care.

We see 'you guys' as having another couple of layers of parasites (no offence PDiGirolamo) whose sole job is to fill in forms, argue with the insurance companies and obfuscate forms\procedure so it's easy to deny payments whilst still paying your Medic* premiums on top of your medical insurance.

Between the choice of Government run and Private industry run in these matters I'd rather have Government. The NHS uses clinicians to guide it's decisions based on efficacy and cost effectiveness, the insurance companies use accountants and actuarists to maximise shareholder profits - who's hands would you put your life in?
 
To have it take over 1/6th of the economy seems insane to me.

Pay attention!
The health care industry is 1/6th of the economy.

1/3rd is Medicare/Medicaid.

We just want to enact some changes that would allow that 1/3rd to cover the whole population the way every other developed nation on earth has been able to.
 
And to the UKers/Canadians/others: I'm not trying to trash your systems. I'm trying to point out (maybe not very well) the reasons why they won't work in America. There are real obstacles to a single payer system here; there are so many interests to try and appease. Americans will study your systems and the systems from around the world and we'll fix our mess. Believe it or not, our debate on here has given me a lot of food for thought and it will certainly inform my thought on the subject. For that I thank you.
A huge problem is whenever Americans think of health care reform, they immediately look at Canada's single-payer system, declare it to be "socialist," and run away foaming at the mouth. (The Canadian system is socialized to the extent that the government is the primary insurer for all Canadians, but it does not run the hospitals. It does, however, have pretty firm legislation in place about how the health care system in each province should be run.)

Other countries, especially in Europe, have systems much more amenable to Americans. The Obama health care bill was a small step toward getting there. And it was viciously fought by all the entrenched interests in the US system.

To everyone: Happy New Year! As we toast here in South Texas (at least in my family): ¡Salud, amor y dinero! ¡Y mucho tiempo para disfrutar los!

(Health, Love and Money! And lots of time to enjoy them!)
I'm going to be a curmudgeon here. In the USA it is all too easy to completely lose one because of complications with the other. More difficult in Canada and Europe.
 
Last edited:
Pay attention!
The health care industry is 1/6th of the economy.

1/3rd is Medicare/Medicaid.

We just want to enact some changes that would allow that 1/3rd to cover the whole population the way every other developed nation on earth has been able to.

With an effective universal system, it'd probably not be 1/3rd of the economy anyway. No need to spend 16% of our GDP on a wasteful patchwork system.
 
With an effective universal system, it'd probably not be 1/3rd of the economy anyway. No need to spend 16% of our GDP on a wasteful patchwork system.

Doh! I meant to say (more clearly) we would only be spending 8% (ish) of our GPD on health care if we killed the gravy train aspect.
 

In addition, governors and state legislatures have used up the one-time savings options or budget gimmicks, and they have already cut the fat, and in some cases muscle, from their budgets. The only cuts left are hard ones, usually in the areas that hit the most vulnerable. This means Medicaid first and foremost.

Of course, they won't raise the already low tax rates of the higher earners in their respective states. Can't very well do that. Or further regulate the excesses of the parallel private insurance industry (which drives up the cost of Medicaid) either :P
 

According to the supreme law of the land, the Supreme Court:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/se...sion or erisa&url=/supct/html/98-1949.ZS.html

However, inducement to ration care is the very point of any HMO scheme, and rationing necessarily raises some risks while reducing others.

We've had "death panels" for decades. The new development is our becoming aware of them and possibly being given the option to VOTE on how they ration health care.
 
THIS is what America would get if it adopted universal healthcare.

Committee members listened for the factors they’re supposed to consider when deciding whether to accept someone for the dialysis program.

Phillips “never smoked, never used any drugs,” Swart continued. “He only drank over weekends with his wife, but they would only buy about four bottles, 750 ml., between the two of them.” Phillips was, Swart said, “not a party animal.”

That was a point in his favor. Under the guidelines, active substance abuse automatically excludes a patient from receiving dialysis.

Swart also discussed Phillips’s living conditions. “It’s a one bedroom house, with a lounge, kitchen, and a bathroom,” she said. The bathroom had a tub, sink, and a toilet.

The guidelines call these “good home circumstances,” and they, too, improved Phillips’s chances of being chosen for dialysis. Doctors say having running water, sanitation and electricity is helpful for a certain type of dialysis performed at home. However, these criteria disadvantage the poorest South Africans, who often lack utilities at home.

Swart offered more personal details. “He is employed on a farm,” she said. “His income is more or less 1,200-1,500 rand a month.” He had “no criminal record” and was married to a 33-year-old woman. “They’ve got three children of 13, 9, and 4 years old, all three living with them.”

These factors—criminal and employment history, whether the patient is a parent—have little to do with the chances of benefiting medically from dialysis. They are, instead, a measure of social worth.

Dr. Moosa says the committee used to weigh these factors heavily when considering patients for dialysis. “I suppose we used a utilitarian approach,” he said. “The question that we used to ask ourselves—you know, if we put this patient onto our program, of what benefit can he be to the society?”

Universal healthcare? Hell no!
 
THIS is what America would get if it adopted universal healthcare.



Universal healthcare? Hell no!

You are basing your rejection of universal healthcare on a single biased report about organ transplants in South Africa.

wow.
 
You are basing your rejection of universal healthcare on a single biased report about organ transplants in South Africa.

wow.

No, it's just a taste of what's to come when the government gets involved in your own healthcare.
 
Of course, they won't raise the already low tax rates of the higher earners in their respective states. Can't very well do that. Or further regulate the excesses of the parallel private insurance industry (which drives up the cost of Medicaid) either :P

They've tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
 
No, it's just a taste of what's to come when the government gets involved in your own healthcare.

This thread is very long. There have been a lot of different topics covered, including the hyperbolic horror stories.

If you have some evidence to back up your reiteration of this popular theme (OMG! Govm'nt bad!), I'll be happy to take it into consideration. Otherwise, you've offered nothing I couldn't get from a bumper sticker.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom