View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 18th, 2014, 10:28 pm



Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
I'm sure this will be back at the forefront of national discussion shortly, especially considering the SCOTUS is expected to rule on PPACA (ObamaCare) by the end of summer and with the Presidential election cycle getting ready to hit its full stride. Regardless of how we may feel about PPACA, I'm sure we can agree that something needs to be done to curb the rising costs of HC...the big question of course, is what???

Quote:
Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
By Aaron Carroll, Special to CNN
updated 9:21 AM EDT, Mon May 7, 2012

Editor's note: Dr. Aaron E. Carroll is an associate professor and vice chair of health policy and outcomes research in the department of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. He blogs about health policy at The Incidental Economist and tweets at @aaronecarroll.

(CNN) -- For decades, the attempts at health care reform have aimed to increase access. The United States is one of the few industrialized nations in the world that does not provide universal health care to its citizens. And repeatedly, those who oppose it have been forced to argue that access isn't the problem some make it out to be. Why?

The emergency department, they say. After all, it is a commonly held belief that no one can be denied care there. So -- in essence -- everyone can get free health care if they need it. We have a universal system after all.

That, of course, is not true.

It's not even close. Let's start with the idea that emergency rooms must provide you care.

What's important to remember is that you can't be refused emergency care. That's because the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires that any hospital that takes Medicare or Medicaid must check you for emergent conditions and treat them if they exist. Since nearly every hospital in the country takes federal funds from one of these programs, nearly all hospitals are subject to EMTALA.

But "emergency medical condition" has a pretty narrow definition. It includes active labor for women and acute conditions that would cause death, serious bodily organ harm or serious bodily function impairment if they were not treated right away.

If politicians are meaning to say that women have universal access to delivery care, then I suppose there's an element of truth to that. But there's no guarantee of prenatal care in the emergency department.

If they are saying that we have universal access if we're acutely having a heart attack, then I suppose there's truth to that as well. But there's no such access for lipid panels, stress tests or prescriptions for cholesterol medications that might help you avoid the heart attack in the first place.

If you're acutely obstructed by massively advanced colon cancer, it's likely you can get emergency surgery to end the blockage. But your cancer is likely too far advanced to cure at that point. Moreover, you're not going to get chemotherapy in the emergency department nor could you have gotten the colonoscopy that might have detected the cancer far earlier.

You can't get preventive care in the emergency department. You can't get screened for a host of disorders. You can't get treatment for your depression there or really for any chronic mental disorders. You can't get help with your child's autism, ADHD or developmental delay.

And even if you could, it wouldn't be free.

That's the second and perhaps more misunderstood part of this emergency department misconception. The costs of treatment in the emergency room are not quickly dismissed or written off. You'll get that emergent care, but you'll also be charged for it.

And hospitals aren't going to let that go easily. A recent article in the New York Times detailed how Accretive Health, a medical debt collector, is using aggressive tactics such as confronting patients in their hospital beds to collect the money owed for even emergent care. The article also describes how collection agencies have long been used to go after patients after they've left the treatment facility. In some cases, patients were even confronted and stalled by debt collectors as they entered the emergency department on some later occasion so that the company could collect on old bills before more care was offered.

An even more recent story covered by Kaiser Health News and NPR reported on a family of four sued by its local nonprofit hospital. The family earned about $25,000 a year -- below the poverty line -- but the parents did not qualify for Medicaid in Ohio. It seems that the hospital had sued almost 1,600 people for unpaid medical bills from 2009 to 2011. Further, the piece reported, "[w]hile Ohio has a law that prevents foreclosures based on medical debt alone, it is legal for hospitals to garnish patient wages, attach bank accounts and get a lien on any future earnings, including from the sale of a house."

It might even be worse in North Carolina, where a group of nonprofit hospitals sued 40,000 patients from 2005 to 2010. This is problematic because nonprofit hospitals are supposed to provide a certain level of charity care in exchange for their tax-exempt status. A recent review found that three hospitals in Illinois were providing a very small amount of care for free or at discounted rates. This has led to a number of facilities losing their nonprofit status and legislators to try to pass new laws requiring specify charity care minimums for nonprofit status.

Before you get all riled up, I understand that hospitals need money to run. The American Hospital Association reports that hospitals lost upward of $40 billion in unpaid bills in 2010 alone. I'm not suggesting care should be given out freely or that hospitals should be forced to operate at a loss. But let's acknowledge that patients will be held accountable for the costs of their care, even in the emergency room. If they can't pay those bills, their credit can be ruined. Medical bills are a very significant cause of bankruptcy in this country.

So it's true that an emergency room won't let you die if you show up at the door, but short of that, you can't get care for a host of medical issues. And, while they will provide that lifesaving care to you even if you have no insurance and no money, they will send you a bill. And if you can't pay, it may cause you, and your family, financial ruin.

That's a far cry from universal health care, and nothing to brag about.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/07/opinion/c ... index.html
Ready now? Flame away! 8)

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


May 7th, 2012, 2:18 pm
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
The "emergency room" care is definitely a fallacy that I've covered on here before. This is really nothing new. However, the article doesn't go on to explain viable alternatives. The bottom line is that health care is too damn expensive to give to everyone, and giving it to everyone "for free" cripples the entire system, and the entire system is no where near even relatively close to being able to accommodate "everyone."

Donald Trump said it best:
Quote:
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t,
Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country that’s broke!!

What the hell could possibly go wrong?”


May 7th, 2012, 2:25 pm
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
No retort?


May 8th, 2012, 10:00 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
No retort?
For what? You already agreed with the article's author; the Trump quote doesn't seem to discuss this particular topic: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap.

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


May 9th, 2012, 10:13 am
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
No retort?
For what? You already agreed with the article's author; the Trump quote doesn't seem to discuss this particular topic: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap.


You seem to constantly post articles with a left-leaning agenda, and you seem I'm favor of Obama Care, which is why I'm guessing you posted an article that discredits an argument from its critics. I posted a pointed quote that attacks Obama Care on its merits, yet you come back with nothing.


May 9th, 2012, 10:51 am
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
No retort?
For what? You already agreed with the article's author; the Trump quote doesn't seem to discuss this particular topic: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap.
You seem to constantly post articles with a left-leaning agenda, and you seem I'm favor of Obama Care, which is why I'm guessing you posted an article that discredits an argument from its critics. I posted a pointed quote that attacks Obama Care on its merits, yet you come back with nothing.
Apparently no one can post articles without having an agenda, huh? I have repeatedly stated that I post these articles in an effort to generate a discussion, one that I believe our nation needs to have, and I am continually labeled according to the readers viewpoint. How nice, eh? So much for taking things at face value... Not too mention I've stated before that I am against PPACA/ObamaCare, but I guess that doesn't matter, huh?

All that said, it is my opinion (we are still allowed to have those, right?) that something needs to be done to curb health care costs in this country.
Do I know what exactly needs to be done? No.
Do I claim to know more about how to resolve this issue than anyone else? Again, no.
Are there parts of the PPACA that I like? Yes.
Are there parts I don't? Again, yes.

Truth be told I am conflicted when it comes to HC. I'm trying to have a real discussion. I don't like 'talking points' as I think they just derail the topic being discussed. My hope is that we can have a real discussion without name-calling and flame-baiting.

Here are a couple of my thoughts (they may not make any sense, if there's a question, please ask):

*I think everyone should have access to basic preventative medicine (annual physicals, immunizations, testing, etc) - More cost effective and better chances of survival / recovery the earlier a disease / condition / etc is discovered

*I don't think people should have to file bankruptcy in order to pay for their medical bills

*We are already paying for the so-called "free healthcare" provided at hospitals via higher taxes (I think) and higher health insurance premiums (fact). One way to look at it could be should be pay before or after the services are performed? Personally I would say before; as mentioned above, it is usually more cost effective than after.

*Most everyone, at some point in their lives, will need some sort of health care

*I think our health insurance should be portable, not tied to job benefits. If I choose to work for another company and I have diabetes chances are I will have a difficult time getting "new" insurance at my new job. Sorry, but something about that just doesn't seem right (perhaps the lack of freedom that we Americans believe we are entitled to).

*I do not trust the Govt as far as I could throw it

*I don't like the idea of paying higher taxes

*If, as I believe, we are all brothers and sisters then shouldn't we do what we can to ensure our 'family' is healthy and cared for?

*If we're only as strong as our weakest link (as was drilled into me via team sports & military) then wouldn't it make sense to have strong, healthy fellow Americans?

*As the supposed World leader & only true 'Super Power', shouldn't we not only have the richest country, but also one of the healthiest and most educated (yes, I realize that is another topic altogether, which we can discuss in a separate thread)

*If American Exceptionalism is indeed true / fact, then wouldn't one think we should be able to create a system that is inherently American / Democratic / Free and ensures the weakest of our nation have access to the support they need?

Like I said above, these are my thoughts and prolly don't make too much sense in and of themselves, but my hope is that they might be able to spark and honest, respectful discussion (but I'm not holding my breath)

So, wjb, is that what you're looking for? Is that the type of response you're wanting? If so, you've got it now what will you do with it?

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


May 9th, 2012, 11:45 am
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9252
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
Wags, thanks for detailing your desires for a HC system. While most of that sounds great, much of it is also contradictory in nature. For example:

Quote:
I do not trust the Govt as far as I could throw it

*I don't like the idea of paying higher taxes


yet many of your suggestions would require more $ and gov't oversight.

I have a couple of issues, first as somone from a country with socialized health care (England) - I have seen first hand the issues with that program. As someone with kids, I want the BEST HC I can get for my kids - and that ain't it. My parents actually left yesterday for 5 weeks there to deal with my grandfathers ailing heath and the mess it is over there.

My second issue is individual accountability. What is the reason someone is the weakest link? Is it the fact that they eat McDonald's every day, drink a 12-pack while smoking two packs of cigarettes?

IMO - preventive medicine starts with diet and exercise. Sure I want to have "strong, healthy fellow Americans" - but if they don't care about it themselves that isn't going to help.

As a country, we've seen countless examples of how if you don't hold people accountable they don't hold themselves accountable.

That leads me to my #1 issue, individuals need to be held accountable for their own health. I don't have an issue helping out the man/woman/child who takes care of themself but gets sick due to no fault of their own. I don't, however, want to enable the terrible habits which have overtaken this country.

My #2 issue is another form of accountability - HC prices and the free market system. Are doctors held accountable for their prices? Do you know what it cost for your last doctor visit - did you shop around? The answer is of course yes, if you had Lasik surgery. They advertise their prices on the radio, and in print/on-line ads. Funny how the free market on some proceedures continually pushes prices down. Let's face it, American's don't care how much things cost because they don't pay for it directly - there is zero accountability.

We already have the best quality HC in the world. What we need to do is add accountability in the form of individual health and a true free market system to improve the level of health in this country and to get a handle on skyrocketing cost.

Two years ago I had my wife on my health insurance from work, her policy alone cost me almost $800/month or approx $9,600 for the year. During that year, she visited her OB/GYN once for her annual visit (which cost around $200). We dropped her coverage, bought catastrophic coverage online and have damn near an extra $9K/year. Now that we are funding her HC we are much more cost conscious than before. Want to know something crazy, we play less for a doctors visit than either of my previous insurance companies did (Cigna and United Health). You might think that an individual would have a lot less purchasing power than an organization representing hundreds of thousands of patients - but that wasn't the case.

I don't mind insurance overall, but don't think it should be tied to employers either. There is so little choice in those plans, it is a one-size fits all approach for people with all sorts of different needs. You pay different car insurance rates based upon your age, sex, where you live, how far you commute, volume discounts, etc - why wouldn't all insurance take individual factors into account?

Doctors don't care about prices, they "negotiate" rates with HC Insurance companies who don't care about prices because they can simply pass on the cost in the form of higher premiums to maintain higher profit levels (in fact, the higher the cost the higher the profit given a constant profit margin).

I see the fix to the problems fairly simple - indidual insurance and accountability along with a free market cost system, but we want to be so coddled as a country very few are willing to put some effort into their own HC needs.

My 2 cents anyways....

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


May 9th, 2012, 2:18 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
I have never seen you post a right leaning article, ever. Your articles aren't non-biased, so you're going to get accused of having an agenda (and it sure seems like you do). Even if you're just trying to "generate discussion" you're generating a discussion on a left leaning topic, and you're starting it off with a positive left-leaning premise.

You're not typing a generic discussion thread that says "heath care your thoughts" you're posting something that says "the primary reason that people say that a single payer system isn't needed is the emergency room, and they're wrong." Of course it looks like you're coming from a perspective and a certain viewpoint, especially when you raise no counter-points, and as I've stated, we've already discussed this previously.

Quote:
All that said, it is my opinion (we are still allowed to have those, right?) that something needs to be done to curb health care costs in this country.


That is just flat out ridiculous. When do I say that you or anyone else isn't entitled to their opinion? All I did was point out that it seemed like you HAD an opinion, and YOU didn't further the DISCUSSION (that's what you were trying to do, right?) that I was trying to keep going...

So, which is it? Are you trying to have a discussion, or are you bent and jaded and attacking someone for questioning your agenda (that you do seem to have)?


Quote:
I don't like 'talking points' as I think they just derail the topic being discussed.


1) I don't see how anyone could say that what Trump said was a "talking point," and;

2) IMO the phrase "talking point" is a Liberal BS way of avoiding discussing REAL issues. They just call something a "talking point" whenever they don't want to discuss something, and say that they're not going to go there, rather than address the merits. It's ridiculous.



Quote:
*I think everyone should have access to basic preventative medicine (annual physicals, immunizations, testing, etc) - More cost effective and better chances of survival / recovery the earlier a disease / condition / etc is discovered - preventative medicine is something that is consistently brought up, but what do you do when you find that someone has early cancer? Do you cover that too? Where does it stop? There are early treatments (even dietary adjustments) that can be made, but no one wants to take them, everyone wants the quick, medical, EXPENSIVE fix. I guaranty you that if we did the "preventative" part and found the disease early, everyone will still complain if the disease itself isn't treated. So, you're back to covering everything, for everyone, which is utterly impossible without a massive waiting list and literally "death lines."

*I don't think people should have to file bankruptcy in order to pay for their medical bills - me neither, and the problem is the "medical bills" aren't paid when someone files bankruptcy, which is why costs have to get passed down. However, IMO one of the BIGGEST problems with our HC industry is that they OVER CHARGE and OVER SERVE people to the point where they HAVE to file bankruptcy to cover their bills. A hospital charges about 400%-1200% more for an MRI/CAT Scan, X-Ray, EKG etc. than a "boutique clinic" that specializes in the service. 1) that's ridiculous, but 2) they often do UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES. I went to the hospital for a mild concussion that I KNEW was a mild concussion but I HAD to get written proof. I knew I wasn't in any danger, and I knew that I was fine. Not only did I have to get a cat scan, I also had to have 6 X-rays of my spine, and an entire jaw scan from this weird thing that went around your head in a circle. After everything was said and done what my family doctor could have done for $60-90 ended up costing over $2k, and ALL THEY WANTED TO DO WAS USE THEIR TOYS AND DRIVE UP THE COST. If I refused ANYTHING they said that they wouldn't even diagnose me, and they said that I would get billed for everything they did and not get any paperwork stating what they treated. And on top of that I got not one but TWO $25 tylenol, when a bottle costs $5, and I HAD to take them right there in front of the doc. Now what did I do about it... I phucked 'em, and I don't feel bad about it one bit. I disputed the charge with the collection company, threatened to take them to court, and paid $200 total, so the hospital received about $100 after I was there for almost 12 hours, unnecessarily so. And this is COMMON PLACE, and it happens EVERY DAY!

*We are already paying for the so-called "free healthcare" provided at hospitals via higher taxes (I think) and higher health insurance premiums (fact). One way to look at it could be should be pay before or after the services are performed? Personally I would say before; as mentioned above, it is usually more cost effective than after. - But again, what do you do after the preventative part is done?

*Most everyone, at some point in their lives, will need some sort of health care - true, but our current system can't accommodate everyone, it is impossible, and it is likely impossible to build a system that can cover everyone, for everything, 100% of the time.

*I think our health insurance should be portable, not tied to job benefits. If I choose to work for another company and I have diabetes chances are I will have a difficult time getting "new" insurance at my new job. Sorry, but something about that just doesn't seem right (perhaps the lack of freedom that we Americans believe we are entitled to). - This I agree with fully, but contracts expire, and is an insurance company supposed to insure someone that they KNOW will cost them $10,000-$100,000 per year to cover for $1,200? I understand the difficulty in this, and I know its frustrating, but how is an insurance company supposed to keep the same rates for someone with a million dollar disease? It's just plain not do-able. Maybe if we had some sort of life-long policy with higher startup costs where they can offset the costs with healthy individuals, but you know as well as I do that people are too short-sighted for that, and they'll pass on the high cost health care for the cheap alternative, until they actually get sick, then its someone else's fault.

*I do not trust the Govt as far as I could throw it - me neither

*I don't like the idea of paying higher taxes - me neither, and what people don't realize is that if we shift the burden of "health care" into a "burden of paying taxes" we've saved nothing, we've just created a mechanism to give something to people that aren't paying for it, and the system needs more than that.

*If, as I believe, we are all brothers and sisters then shouldn't we do what we can to ensure our 'family' is healthy and cared for? - Sorry, this is just plain BS, and the majority of the World doesn't operate this way.

*If we're only as strong as our weakest link (as was drilled into me via team sports & military) then wouldn't it make sense to have strong, healthy fellow Americans? - not really, it would be more beneficial to kill them off and get rid of them. Heartless, sure, but you asked whether or not we would be better off with them healthy, we wouldn't be.

*As the supposed World leader & only true 'Super Power', shouldn't we not only have the richest country, but also one of the healthiest and most educated (yes, I realize that is another topic altogether, which we can discuss in a separate thread)

*If American Exceptionalism is indeed true / fact, then wouldn't one think we should be able to create a system that is inherently American / Democratic / Free and ensures the weakest of our nation have access to the support they need?

Like I said above, these are my thoughts and prolly don't make too much sense in and of themselves, but my hope is that they might be able to spark and honest, respectful discussion (but I'm not holding my breath)


My response is in red.

Honestly, I like the Republican ideals best (I know, surprise, surprise, but sorry, they make the most sense). They say that we should eliminate corruption first, fix the system that we have 2nd (medicade/medicare), and allow for health insurance to be sold across State lines. All three of these things would IMMEDIATELY reduce health care costs and start us down the right path. What the Democrats tried to do was build a mansion on top of a crumbling foundation from a 600 sq. ft. shack. That's why I like Trump's comments, he correctly points that out.

Quote:
So, wjb, is that what you're looking for? Is that the type of response you're wanting? If so, you've got it now what will you do with it?


That's exactly what I was looking for, but I don't see why the disrespect had to be thrown in there left and right... :roll:


Last edited by wjb21ndtown on May 9th, 2012, 3:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.



May 9th, 2012, 2:48 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
Pablo wrote:
Wags, thanks for detailing your desires for a HC system. While most of that sounds great, much of it is also contradictory in nature. For example:
Quote:
I do not trust the Govt as far as I could throw it

*I don't like the idea of paying higher taxes
yet many of your suggestions would require more $ and gov't oversight.
First off, thank you for your thoughtful response. Secondly, I understand that many of my statements & ideas are contradictory in one way or another, that's just life in my head (its really scary) :shock: :wink:
That said, I'm sure we can agree that the Govt wastes a ton of money. By eliminating the duplicity and sometimes triplicity (is that even a word? :confused:) as well as cutting other outdated and/or unneeded processes there might not be a need to raise taxes, or at least limit what the raise might be.
Pablo wrote:
I have a couple of issues, first as someone from a country with socialized health care (England) - I have seen first hand the issues with that program. As someone with kids, I want the BEST HC I can get for my kids - and that ain't it. My parents actually left yesterday for 5 weeks there to deal with my grandfathers ailing heath and the mess it is over there.
With all due respect I can appreciate your personal anecdotal experience, however that does not mean that the entire system is bad. I'm quite sure there are plenty of British that enjoy they're HC system. Just like our system here, you have the good and the bad. There will never be a perfect system. I would like to think that America could come up with a hybrid system that incorporates the good of existing systems, whilst limiting the bad.
Pablo wrote:
My second issue is individual accountability. What is the reason someone is the weakest link? Is it the fact that they eat McDonald's every day, drink a 12-pack while smoking two packs of cigarettes?

IMO - preventive medicine starts with diet and exercise. Sure I want to have "strong, healthy fellow Americans" - but if they don't care about it themselves that isn't going to help.

As a country, we've seen countless examples of how if you don't hold people accountable they don't hold themselves accountable.

That leads me to my #1 issue, individuals need to be held accountable for their own health. I don't have an issue helping out the man/woman/child who takes care of themselves but gets sick due to no fault of their own. I don't, however, want to enable the terrible habits which have overtaken this country.
Couldn't agree more. People must have personal responsibility. However, there are still people that do get sick through no fault of their own and are currently unable to afford health insurance or health care. How do you suggest those people get the help they need?

Pablo wrote:
My #2 issue is another form of accountability - HC prices and the free market system. Are doctors held accountable for their prices? Do you know what it cost for your last doctor visit - did you shop around? The answer is of course yes, if you had Lasik surgery. They advertise their prices on the radio, and in print/on-line ads. Funny how the free market on some proceedures continually pushes prices down. Let's face it, American's don't care how much things cost because they don't pay for it directly - there is zero accountability.

We already have the best quality HC in the world. What we need to do is add accountability in the form of individual health and a true free market system to improve the level of health in this country and to get a handle on skyrocketing cost.

Two years ago I had my wife on my health insurance from work, her policy alone cost me almost $800/month or approx $9,600 for the year. During that year, she visited her OB/GYN once for her annual visit (which cost around $200). We dropped her coverage, bought catastrophic coverage online and have damn near an extra $9K/year. Now that we are funding her HC we are much more cost conscious than before. Want to know something crazy, we play less for a doctors visit than either of my previous insurance companies did (Cigna and United Health). You might think that an individual would have a lot less purchasing power than an organization representing hundreds of thousands of patients - but that wasn't the case.
Agreed. Transparency of medical costs would help a lot.

My wife & I have HSAs, which IMO are the way to go. By having this type of insurance, we have to be very cognizant of what the services cost. Currently we pay around $500/year for our insurance, but we do have to pay for every doctor's visit and have higher our of pocket costs. Obviously this type of plan might not work for everyone, but considering as we are relatively healthy, young adults (ok, I might not be too young anymore :mrgreen:) who usually only see the doctor for our annual physicals, it works for us.

For those that may not be familiar w/HSAs: You contribute a chosen amount of money, until to an annual limit determined by IRS, which goes into a personal / family savings account for all authorized medical expenses. This money is yours and yours alone. If you change employment, you still keep it. Once the balance reaches a certain amount ($5,000 I think) you are then able to invest the overage amount similar to how a 401k is used (money market, bonds, stocks, etc).

Pablo wrote:
I don't mind insurance overall, but don't think it should be tied to employers either. There is so little choice in those plans, it is a one-size fits all approach for people with all sorts of different needs. You pay different car insurance rates based upon your age, sex, where you live, how far you commute, volume discounts, etc - why wouldn't all insurance take individual factors into account?
Agreed, just seems to make sense.

Pablo wrote:
Doctors don't care about prices, they "negotiate" rates with HC Insurance companies who don't care about prices because they can simply pass on the cost in the form of higher premiums to maintain higher profit levels (in fact, the higher the cost the higher the profit given a constant profit margin).
Again, agreed. Would it be possible to place a 'cap' on what those profits could be? Not without raising holy hell and the scream of wharballrghrble durr socialism durr communist durr etc etc etc

Pablo wrote:
I see the fix to the problems fairly simple - indidual insurance and accountability along with a free market cost system, but we want to be so coddled as a country very few are willing to put some effort into their own HC needs.

My 2 cents anyways....
If it were really that simple, then why don't we already have that system in place?

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


May 9th, 2012, 3:04 pm
Profile
RIP Killer
User avatar

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 am
Posts: 9252
Location: Dallas
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
Pablo wrote:
I see the fix to the problems fairly simple - indidual insurance and accountability along with a free market cost system, but we want to be so coddled as a country very few are willing to put some effort into their own HC needs.

My 2 cents anyways....
If it were really that simple, then why don't we already have that system in place?


Why don't we have a playoff system is college football? Why don't "fill in the blank"? Easy - money and laziness. HC is a huge % of our GNP and they like their power and profits, there is the money part. Second, guess how many folks know nothing about HSAs - the vast majority. It takes effort to keep yourself healthy and learn about all the HC options out there. Most people are drones and simply select one of the two options made available at work and don't give it a second thought.

_________________
Image
LB Tweet


May 9th, 2012, 3:15 pm
Profile WWW
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I have never seen you post a right leaning article, ever.
Your profile says you've been a member since 2005, that tells me that either you haven't been paying attention or your memory may be lacking. I'll go with the latter. Perhaps you could review some posts from our last Presidential election cycle to refresh your memory.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Your articles aren't non-biased, so you're going to get accused of having an agenda (and it sure seems like you do). Even if you're just trying to "generate discussion" you're generating a discussion on a left leaning topic, and you're starting it off with a positive left-leaning premise.
Health care is a 'left-leaning' topic??? Damn, I could've swore that it is an American problem, thanks for setting me straight.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
You're not typing a generic discussion thread that says "heath care your thoughts" you're posting something that says "the primary reason that people say that a single payer system isn't needed is the emergency room, and they're wrong." Of course it looks like you're coming from a perspective and a certain viewpoint, especially when you raise no counter-points, and as I've stated, we've already discussed this previously.
The author of the article posted, Dr. Aaron Carroll is considered to be a Health Policy expert. You can read a short bio on his if you're so inclined. Please feel free to share an opposing viewpoint.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Quote:


*I think everyone should have access to basic preventative medicine (annual physicals, immunizations, testing, etc) - More cost effective and better chances of survival / recovery the earlier a disease / condition / etc is discovered

*I don't think people should have to file bankruptcy in order to pay for their medical bills

*We are already paying for the so-called "free healthcare" provided at hospitals via higher taxes (I think) and higher health insurance premiums (fact). One way to look at it could be should be pay before or after the services are performed? Personally I would say before; as mentioned above, it is usually more cost effective than after.

*Most everyone, at some point in their lives, will need some sort of health care

*I think our health insurance should be portable, not tied to job benefits. If I choose to work for another company and I have diabetes chances are I will have a difficult time getting "new" insurance at my new job. Sorry, but something about that just doesn't seem right (perhaps the lack of freedom that we Americans believe we are entitled to).

*I do not trust the Govt as far as I could throw it

*I don't like the idea of paying higher taxes

*If, as I believe, we are all brothers and sisters then shouldn't we do what we can to ensure our 'family' is healthy and cared for?

*If we're only as strong as our weakest link (as was drilled into me via team sports & military) then wouldn't it make sense to have strong, healthy fellow Americans?

*As the supposed World leader & only true 'Super Power', shouldn't we not only have the richest country, but also one of the healthiest and most educated (yes, I realize that is another topic altogether, which we can discuss in a separate thread)

*If American Exceptionalism is indeed true / fact, then wouldn't one think we should be able to create a system that is inherently American / Democratic / Free and ensures the weakest of our nation have access to the support they need?

Like I said above, these are my thoughts and prolly don't make too much sense in and of themselves, but my hope is that they might be able to spark and honest, respectful discussion (but I'm not holding my breath)

So, wjb, is that what you're looking for? Is that the type of response you're wanting? If so, you've got it now what will you do with it?
No comments on the rest? Would you care to share your thoughts on what our HC system should be like? Perhaps address some of the concerns I've listed?

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


May 9th, 2012, 3:17 pm
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I have never seen you post a right leaning article, ever.
Your profile says you've been a member since 2005, that tells me that either you haven't been paying attention or your memory may be lacking. I'll go with the latter. Perhaps you could review some posts from our last Presidential election cycle to refresh your memory[/code]

Weren't you a Barrak Obama supporter for the last Presidential election cycle?

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Your articles aren't non-biased, so you're going to get accused of having an agenda (and it sure seems like you do). Even if you're just trying to "generate discussion" you're generating a discussion on a left leaning topic, and you're starting it off with a positive left-leaning premise.
Health care is a 'left-leaning' topic??? Damn, I could've swore that it is an American problem, thanks for setting me straight.


A single-payer HC system IS left-leaning, and you know it, which is what this article is advocating for by discounting arguments against it.

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
You're not typing a generic discussion thread that says "heath care your thoughts" you're posting something that says "the primary reason that people say that a single payer system isn't needed is the emergency room, and they're wrong." Of course it looks like you're coming from a perspective and a certain viewpoint, especially when you raise no counter-points, and as I've stated, we've already discussed this previously.
The author of the article posted, Dr. Aaron Carroll is considered to be a Health Policy expert. You can read a short bio on his if you're so inclined. Please feel free to share an opposing viewpoint.


I read his bio, he's a college professor, you really think he's not a Democrat?


TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Quote:
*I think everyone should have access to basic preventative medicine (annual physicals, immunizations, testing, etc) - More cost effective and better chances of survival / recovery the earlier a disease / condition / etc is discovered

*I don't think people should have to file bankruptcy in order to pay for their medical bills

*We are already paying for the so-called "free healthcare" provided at hospitals via higher taxes (I think) and higher health insurance premiums (fact). One way to look at it could be should be pay before or after the services are performed? Personally I would say before; as mentioned above, it is usually more cost effective than after.

*Most everyone, at some point in their lives, will need some sort of health care

*I think our health insurance should be portable, not tied to job benefits. If I choose to work for another company and I have diabetes chances are I will have a difficult time getting "new" insurance at my new job. Sorry, but something about that just doesn't seem right (perhaps the lack of freedom that we Americans believe we are entitled to).

*I do not trust the Govt as far as I could throw it

*I don't like the idea of paying higher taxes

*If, as I believe, we are all brothers and sisters then shouldn't we do what we can to ensure our 'family' is healthy and cared for?

*If we're only as strong as our weakest link (as was drilled into me via team sports & military) then wouldn't it make sense to have strong, healthy fellow Americans?

*As the supposed World leader & only true 'Super Power', shouldn't we not only have the richest country, but also one of the healthiest and most educated (yes, I realize that is another topic altogether, which we can discuss in a separate thread)

*If American Exceptionalism is indeed true / fact, then wouldn't one think we should be able to create a system that is inherently American / Democratic / Free and ensures the weakest of our nation have access to the support they need?

Like I said above, these are my thoughts and prolly don't make too much sense in and of themselves, but my hope is that they might be able to spark and honest, respectful discussion (but I'm not holding my breath)

So, wjb, is that what you're looking for? Is that the type of response you're wanting? If so, you've got it now what will you do with it?
No comments on the rest? Would you care to share your thoughts on what our HC system should be like? Perhaps address some of the concerns I've listed?


Click refresh...


May 9th, 2012, 3:55 pm
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
Ok Wags, Carrol also wrote "don't cut medicade, fund it better," and constantly insists that Obama Care could survive without the individual mandate, which most that have studied constitutional law (including myself), disagree with.

Like I said, the guy is a Liberal Democrat, flat out. Perhaps you don't see it because that's the way you see the world. After all, if you ask a fish "how's the water" it would likely reply "what water?" if it could...


May 9th, 2012, 4:08 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11825
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
I have never seen you post a right leaning article, ever.
Your profile says you've been a member since 2005, that tells me that either you haven't been paying attention or your memory may be lacking. I'll go with the latter. Perhaps you could review some posts from our last Presidential election cycle to refresh your memory


Weren't you a Barrak Obama supporter for the last Presidential election cycle?
Ah, no. I voted 3rd party.
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Your articles aren't non-biased, so you're going to get accused of having an agenda (and it sure seems like you do). Even if you're just trying to "generate discussion" you're generating a discussion on a left leaning topic, and you're starting it off with a positive left-leaning premise.
Health care is a 'left-leaning' topic??? Damn, I could've swore that it is an American problem, thanks for setting me straight.


A single-payer HC system IS left-leaning, and you know it, which is what this article is advocating for by discounting arguments against it.
I'm sure you'll dismiss them as "Rino" or some other creative label, but there are Republicans in favor of single-payer. Not too mention isn't Medicade or Medicare (get them mixed up) actually a single-payer system? Aren't most of those on said program satisfied with it?
That said, see below

wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
You're not typing a generic discussion thread that says "heath care your thoughts" you're posting something that says "the primary reason that people say that a single payer system isn't needed is the emergency room, and they're wrong." Of course it looks like you're coming from a perspective and a certain viewpoint, especially when you raise no counter-points, and as I've stated, we've already discussed this previously.
The author of the article posted, Dr. Aaron Carroll is considered to be a Health Policy expert. You can read a short bio on his if you're so inclined. Please feel free to share an opposing viewpoint.

I read his bio, he's a college professor, you really think he's not a Democrat?
He very well might be, but what does that have to do with solving the health care issue? Personally I don't care if someone is Dem, Rep, Ind, Lib, Green Party or whatever if someone that is credible has an opinion on Health Care, then shouldn't we listen to what they have to say?
Sorry, I do not follow any partisan rhetoric or tow any company line; I choose to think for myself. If you're the type of person that will automatically dismiss a credible source just because they're Dem or Rep or whatever, then IMO I don't think there is any hope for a rational, decent discussion. If that is indeed the case, then peace out sir, my conversation with you on this and any other topic is over.

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


May 9th, 2012, 4:15 pm
Profile
Post Re: Why emergency rooms don't close the health care gap
TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
A single-payer HC system IS left-leaning, and you know it, which is what this article is advocating for by discounting arguments against it.
I'm sure you'll dismiss them as "Rino" or some other creative label, but there are Republicans in favor of single-payer. Not too mention isn't Medicade or Medicare (get them mixed up) actually a single-payer system? Aren't most of those on said program satisfied with it?
That said, see below


Most people on Medicare or Medicade HATE the system, but no, it's NOT a single-payer system. There are other alternatives available for purchase, and that's the whole point. Obama Care creates a single payer system where everyone will more or less be on govt. health care. I have a problem with that, and so do most. There isn't ONE nation that has a single-payer health care system that likes it. The Canadians were telling us that we were crazy for pursuing Obama Care, as well as the Britts. I hear Cuba has a pretty good single-payer system... [-X

TheRealWags wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
The author of the article posted, Dr. Aaron Carroll is considered to be a Health Policy expert. You can read a short bio on his if you're so inclined. Please feel free to share an opposing viewpoint.

I read his bio, he's a college professor, you really think he's not a Democrat?
He very well might be, but what does that have to do with solving the health care issue? Personally I don't care if someone is Dem, Rep, Ind, Lib, Green Party or whatever if someone that is credible has an opinion on Health Care, then shouldn't we listen to what they have to say?[/quote]

You can listen to what he has to say, but realize that it comes with an agenda. He provides Liberal solutions of bigger government when there are other alternatives. Most Liberals want to GROW a BROKEN SYSTEM. Most Republicans say "fix the system, THEN grow it, incrementally." The latter makes more sense to me. Does it make more sense to you?


TheRealWags wrote:
Sorry, I do not follow any partisan rhetoric or tow any company line; I choose to think for myself. If you're the type of person that will automatically dismiss a credible source just because they're Dem or Rep or whatever, then IMO I don't think there is any hope for a rational, decent discussion. If that is indeed the case, then peace out sir, my conversation with you on this and any other topic is over.


No, I don't dismiss a credible source because of their ideology. If they're on point or make a good point then I'll agree with them. I saw the Liberal leanings in his post before I looked him up or knew who he was. I could see his agenda and I could see where he was going with his piece. Dont' get me wrong, I don't mind Liberal solutions that actually work. I'm a Libertarian at heart, I just don't like this big government, we're too stupid to think for ourselves, we're too weak to make our own decisions, lets bail everyone out all the time, philosophy - which is what they advocate...

You claim that you don't lean any certain way, yet time after time you tend to think govt. is the answer to our problems, yet you say that you don't like big government. You say that you "think for yourself" yet you let Liberal leaning articles and the Liberal leaning media weigh heavily on your mind-set. You say you're not a Liberal, but on most social issues, you are.


May 9th, 2012, 4:27 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 64 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.