Who should pay the healthcare costs of the uninsured?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brisar
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
In the discussion, participants explore the financial burden of medical treatment for uninsured individuals, exemplified by a case where John Smith faces a $100K trauma bill. They highlight that hospitals often absorb costs not covered by insurance, leading to increased healthcare prices for everyone. The conversation touches on the limitations of emergency treatment and the challenges uninsured patients face in affording necessary prescriptions post-treatment. There is debate over the merits of universal healthcare versus private insurance, with concerns about government inefficiency and the ongoing financial strain on those who cannot afford care. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the complexities of healthcare financing and the need for systemic reform to address these issues.
  • #61
mheslep said:
We're not getting anywhere as this post is a non-sequitur. Up thread I posted, and you agreed twice ala 'LOL, exactly': 1) the US health system fails, 2) the US health system is not a free market, its a 3rd party payer system. Then you reply w/ this aha! post that 1) says the US health system fails and 2) says nothing about my assertion that other countries may be allowing more private alternatives in addition to their government run systems (they are, e.g. Ireland, Canada, Netherlands).

BTW: Here's an interesting debate between Kuttner and the author of the piece I provided, Friedman.



Non sequitur? You are the one who posted this:

Other countries are moving away from failing universal plans and opening up free market health care. Government care is just another 3rd party payer system, it doesn't work either. There is no way around supply and demand

And I simply linked to a NEJM article that pointed out the failures of some of the free market aspects of the US health care system. Examples of the same free market failures in the US are already seen in the free market approaches in places like the UK--they result from profits being the #1 motive.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear, the US certainly isn't a free market health care system, but that is only because it has evolved into an oligopolist run market due to the free market approach. The oligopolist system that we have is due to the inherent nature of the market. Huge barriers to entry in providing health care will always limit free market activity. We have let private insurance companies run around freely controlling our health care and all it has produced are a handful of conglomerates that control the vast majority of health care, driven up health care costs, and limited choices.


So you don't have to wait 4 months to get surgery?


OK. So what? Consider someone here in the US that needs the same surgery, but who is uninsured. HOW LONG WILL THEY HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE SAME SURGERY? 1 year, 2 years, indefinitely before they can save up enough cash to pay for the surgery?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Evo said:
It's all computerized now. When my doctor needs to prescribe something, what my plan pays for pops up and he asks me which option I want.

Nothing is as great as anyone thinks. My Italian fiance's father was diagnosed with lung cancer. Socialized medicine. They diagnosed him from a single x-ray and scheduled him for chemotherapy. Ooops, x-rays can't determine the difference between the two types of lung cancer and he was given the wrong treatment. He was almost killed because he was also given a near lethal dose of chemo by mistake. When I urged my fiance to raise a rucus, his father was put on a 6 month waiting list to get an MRI, which was at the other end of the country.

My fiance's family finally had to make the decision to fly his father out of the country to get immediate and accurate care, all at their own expense. So much for socialised medicine that they have to pay through the nose for in taxes.
So how does an uninsured person in the US get treatment for lung cancer without having to sell their house? Don't even get me started on medical mistakes. The US has some of the highest medical error rates in the world. So much for the "great" health care system we have here in the US that we pay for the most in per capita terms right? http://www.commonwealthfund.org/newsroom/newsroom_show.htm?doc_id=313141
Also,it is not all computerized now. I forget where I read it (either in Nature, Science, NEJM, or JAMA), but something only like 10% of all medical records are actually in computers.
 
Last edited:
  • #63
Danger said:
I'm not at odds with you, Baywax, but we seem to have different opinions and experiences with the health system. Since I'm at work, I'm somewhat inebriated at the moment, so I'll hold further comments until sobriety rears its ugly head.

Yeah but Danger... you're in Alberta... Canada's Texas of the north... as far as I know you have some pretty different experiences going on with public Health Care and private health care in your province. (And you got the best part of the Rockies...aghhhhh!)
 
  • #64
Evo said:
So much for socialised medicine that they have to pay through the nose for in taxes.

(In Italy.)
 
  • #65
mheslep said:

After assessment by what you hope is a qualified and competent specialist there is a wait period designed for you...

If the tumour cells are dividing exponentially at a rate of double per hour... you are shuffled to the front of the line as best can be done... at least this is how I have seen it managed.

Priority and severity of condition play a major part in determining the wait. If a patient is upset and anxious about their condition, they may be exasperating it and making it worse. These types usually go to John Hopkins (the beer making hospital) or some other instant $500,000 dollar clinic in one of your United States. Then... get this... they come back and stick the tax payer with the bill for their impatience... or for the advice of a doctor on the take.

Anyway... Canucks are a bit ahead of other countries with MRI facilities, Surgeons, specialists etc... but you do see the talent slipping south to bigger $$$. On the other hand, I don't know if its been the cooler climate or what or if its the small population (when compared) but we tend to stay away from those doctors and their contraptions. We are continually bombarded with health education... and some of it welcome and some of it in poor taste and of commercial interest. The education of our people is the way to take the burden off of the care givers.

Education really costs much less, now and over time, than most doctors, linear accelerators, drugs, tongue irradiators, mammagrams, x-rays, MRIs, CT scans and the rest of all the gak.

Happy Valentines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #66
baywax said:
But if you think about it... Canucks pay dearly through the nose along with the monthly fee. At the end of the year we're seeing 26 percent govt tax (provincial and federale) on an income under 40 grand. Over 40 grand and you're paing 33 percent and over 50 grand you're paying close to 50 percent of your income.
... you should see the thousands of Americans who've moved here FREAK at that tax bill!

Which province is that? In Alberta the highest tax rate for anybody is 40%. As you go east it gets higher and higher and higher until you get to newfoundland where there's 15% sale tax and infinite percent income tax.

edit: I have to favour public health simply because my mother has had more surgeries than anyone can afford. Under the US system she would have died when I was around 3 years old; she had a significant portion of her intestines removed and a bag was put in place of it. It was just last year that he spent about 2 weeks in hospital and had another surgery for that same problem. Total cost out of pocket: $0
 
Last edited:
  • #67
More example of the profit motivated tactics that insurance companies are concerned with first:

http://www.delawarewoman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080208/NEWS/802080354/1104/opinion

(from the News Journal, my home state's main news paper)

Aetna pulls full sedation coverage for colonoscopies
Opponents say move will discourage some from getting screened for cancer



Aetna Inc., eager to cut costs, is restricting coverage of a doctor-preferred anesthetic used during colonoscopies.

Doctors fear the move will discourage patients from getting the vital cancer screening because the anesthetic, propofol, makes the patient more comfortable. The change in coverage comes as many baby boomers turn 50, the age doctors recommend people begin getting the test.

"It would make it very difficult to get an adequate exam," said Dr. Joseph Hacker, a gastroenterologist at Gastroenterology Associates in Stanton.

The use of propofol "allows me to get a better examination if patients are laying still, basically asleep and not fighting me," he said.

Aetna has about 95,000 subscribers in the state. Along with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Delaware, it is one of two insurers that provide health coverage to about 110,000 state workers and retirees in Delaware.

Aetna has notified physicians in its coverage networks nationwide that, as of April 1, the insurer will no longer pay for an anesthesiologist to administer propofol to sedate patients and monitor their level of consciousness during routine colonoscopies. Aetna figures the move will shave $300 to $1,000 off the cost of the procedure

...

But Delaware physicians such as Dr. Michael Katz, an anesthesiologist with Outpatient Anesthesia Specialists in Wilmington, say Aetna's decision is more about saving money than patient care.

"The insurance company is playing doctor," Katz said. "It's really a business decision for them. It's a cost-cutting move."


BTW colorectal cancer is the 2nd leading cause of cancer deaths.


Seriously, what is stopping insurance companies from simply taking your money and then denying you coverage? That is what you get when you get a privatized system of health care aimed at maximizing profits first.



Like I said before, just because you have health insurance in the US doesn't mean sh*t. Insurance doesn't guarantee affordable health care at all for an American.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #68
My father had colo-rectal cancer, and with surgery and subsequent chemotherapy and radiation, the bill was well over $100K. Compare that to $300-$1000 per check up - every 5 to 10 years, and there's a bargain.
 
  • #69
Evo said:
It's all computerized now. When my doctor needs to prescribe something, what my plan pays for pops up and he asks me which option I want.

Nothing is as great as anyone thinks. My Italian fiance's father was diagnosed with lung cancer. Socialized medicine. They diagnosed him from a single x-ray and scheduled him for chemotherapy. Ooops, x-rays can't determine the difference between the two types of lung cancer and he was given the wrong treatment. He was almost killed because he was also given a near lethal dose of chemo by mistake. When I urged my fiance to raise a rucus, his father was put on a 6 month waiting list to get an MRI, which was at the other end of the country.

My fiance's family finally had to make the decision to fly his father out of the country to get immediate and accurate care, all at their own expense. So much for socialised medicine that they have to pay through the nose for in taxes.
Just wait till one is older. My mother-in-law often has to wait weeks or months for medical care. She gets put in a queue.

If one does not have insurance, or the insurance doesn't cover a procedure, one may not get treatment. That applies to nearly 50 million Americans at the moment.

Those with limited medical insurance, Medicaid or Medicare, may not get adequate treatment. In some cases, less effective (less expensive) medicine is used, with adverse consequences (sometimes/often?).

Retired folks NEED supplemental insurance, and that is no guarantee of better or even adequate care.
 
  • #70
Astronuc said:
Just wait till one is older. My mother-in-law often has to wait weeks or months for medical care. She gets put in a queue.
65 and older and everyone is covered by Medicare. Is that what she's on / causes the queue?

If one does not have insurance, or the insurance doesn't cover a procedure, one may not get treatment. That applies to nearly 50 million Americans at the moment.
I think the 50 million number is indefensible, or at least not helpful to choosing a better system. Lots of holes: part of that number is ~10million in illegals. Do other countries w/ universal systems cover illegals?

Those with limited medical insurance, Medicaid or Medicare, may not get adequate treatment. In some cases, less effective (less expensive) medicine is used, with adverse consequences (sometimes/often?).

Retired folks NEED supplemental insurance, and that is no guarantee of better or even adequate care.
Suggestions/alternatives? If you are proposing government care, we have examples of that in the form of Medicaid/Medicare already. If one finds shortcomings in those two systems its plausible to suggest a universal government plan would contain more or the same.
 
Last edited:
  • #71
mheslep said:
Suggestions/alternatives? If you are proposing government care, we have examples of that in the form of Medicaid/Medicare already. If one finds shortcomings in those two systems its plausible to suggest a universal government plan would contain more or the same.

I remember someone saying that doctors don't always get paid by Medicare on time so they'll end up treating an old person and expect to get paid... but the money just doesn't show up or it arrives extremely late. Does anyone know if this is true? It would certainly explain wait times caused by doctors refusing to treat uninsured old people because they know they won't get paid for it.
 
  • #72
gravenewworld said:
Universal coverage- just what is sounds like, everyone has health coverage.
Well exactly who is everyone? Does that cover illegal aliens or just Japanese citizens? They NYU article on Japan you reference does not address that ( probably not much of a problem there).

Could be a combo of private+government,
Well that could equally well describe the US system: private+Medicaid+Medicare+veterans care, etc.
 
  • #73
Astronuc said:
My father had colo-rectal cancer, and with surgery and subsequent chemotherapy and radiation, the bill was well over $100K. Compare that to $300-$1000 per check up - every 5 to 10 years, and there's a bargain.
Would those checkups do anything prevent the cancer and associate chemo costs, or just provide an earlier notice and a better chance of survival?
 
  • #74
Astronuc said:
Just wait till one is older. My mother-in-law often has to wait weeks or months for medical care. She gets put in a queue.
That's because there are fewer doctors that deal with medicaire and medicaid, dealing with the government is a nightmare. I'm well aware of this with my own mother. Private care is immediate and better quality, but it's not free.

This is likely the reason that an increasing number of people in countries that have socialized medicine that can afford private medical care and insurance opt for it rather than being restricted to using the socialized care available to them.
 
  • #75
It seems natural that a society that ensures the right for every individual's education (up to a certain age) could justify and legalize the practice of universal health care and education. But, if the result is major disparity between economic districts and a respectively determined quality of (education, health care) then the model is flawed and inefficient.
 
  • #76
gravenewworld said:
So how does an uninsured person in the US get treatment for lung cancer without having to sell their house?
That's obviously ridiculous. So, unless someone has a house to sell, they can't get cancer treatment? What if they have a house, but there is no profit to be made? What if they don't own a house?

Also,it is not all computerized now. I forget where I read it (either in Nature, Science, NEJM, or JAMA), but something only like 10% of all medical records are actually in computers.
You would be hard pressed to find a medical office or hospital that isn't computerized in the US. We're not talking about historical medical records. :rolleyes:
 
  • #77
ShawnD said:
... my mother has had more surgeries than anyone can afford. Under the US system she would have died when I was around 3 years old;
How can you possibly know that?

she had a significant portion of her intestines removed and a bag was put in place of it. It was just last year that he spent about 2 weeks in hospital and had another surgery for that same problem. Total cost out of pocket: $0
Of course its not zero. First, as you and Baywax posted above the Ca tax rates are very high, second I read that in addition everyone in Ca must pay an annual health care premium; in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(Canada)#User_premiums". The hit on the US system is not that it could be 'free' if the US switched to socialized med, its that its very inefficient taken as a whole, as is well documented by Turbo-1 and others above. US spends more per capita than anyone in the world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
mheslep said:
How can you possibly know that?
Did you ever see that episode of the simpsons where Homer needs a quadruple bypass but can't afford it, so they're talking about what it will be like when he dies? That's exactly what would happen. When you don't pay for colon surgery, you die.
 
  • #79
Evo said:
That's obviously ridiculous. So, unless someone has a house to sell, they can't get cancer treatment? What if they have a house, but there is no profit to be made? What if they don't own a house?

You would be hard pressed to find a medical office or hospital that isn't computerized in the US. We're not talking about historical medical records. :rolleyes:

Exactly, it is ridiculous. If you are uninsured and need treatment here in the US, you don't get it unless you have the cash to pay for it. If you are uninsured you don't get screened for cancer, you don't get your cholesterol and blood pressure checked, and you don't get your medication. You [being uninsured] only get treatment when it is too late and you have to take a trip to the ER. Then after you get out of the ER you have to pay all of the 1000s of dollars in bills yourself.



Also who said anything about just historical medical records? Hardpressed to find a hospital that doesn't use electronic records? ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THIS CLAIM?

Groups Push Physicians and Patients to Embrace Electronic Health Records
Tracy Hampton, PhD


JAMA. 2008;299(5):507-509.



Experts agree that electronic health records can save lives and money by reducing the costs and harms associated with medical errors and by cutting down on redundant tests and procedures. But a number of unresolved issues, including affordability and privacy concerns, have made hospitals, physicians, and patients slow to adopt them.

Although those hurdles remain, government and nonprofit organizations, as well as technology giants such as Microsoft and Google, are attempting to drive the technology forward. What is envisioned is an easily accessible electronic system that, by coordinating the storage and retrieval of individuals' health records, increases efficiency, reduces costs, and promotes standardization of care.

Numerous vendors have been marketing patient health records that are managed and controlled by each patient, but only a minority of consumers are buying into them. Although most individuals have yet to be sold on the idea of a personal medical diary, experts say that new technologies and an expanded scope of their benefits may change their minds.

"Millions of people are going every day to the Internet to look for medical information. We are in a time where patients are being empowered, and they're looking for convenience," said C. Peter Waegemann, CEO and executive director of Medical Records Institute Incorporated, a Boston-based company that promotes adoption of health information technology.

One of the most recent and ambitious projects that strives to tap into this perceived patient empowerment is Microsoft's HealthVault, a free software and services platform aimed at helping people better manage and monitor their personal health information (http://www.healthvault.com). "People . . . must navigate a complex web of disconnected interactions between providers, hospitals, insurance companies and even government agencies," said Peter Neupert, corporate vice president of the Health Solutions Group at Microsoft. HealthVault allows individuals to collect their health information from many sources, store it in one place, and share it with whomever they choose. They also can connect a wide variety of devices to a computer and upload the data to their individual HealthVault accounts.

Google plans to follow suit, although details are not yet available. Similarly, Intuit Incorporated, a provider of business and financial management solutions, is expected to come onto the scene and offer a system of its own. Other types of vendors also are striving to boost patient interest. Wal-Mart and Intel are leading a large employer coalition to develop a model called Dossia, and America's Health Insurance Plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association have worked together to develop a personal health record model that enables patients to transfer data when they change health insurers (http://www.chcf.org/documents/chronicdisease/PHRPerspectives.pdf).

Waegemann envisions a time when a personal health record site might include not only a patient's prescription data, but also a list of nearby pharmacies with information such as details on drug prices and hours of operation. "Or it might suggest that before you have your scheduled surgery, there's an alternative way through rehab," he noted. Some physicians will not be happy about these qualities, he conceded.

Efforts are being made to regulate and monitor such personal health record systems as they evolve. According to the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (the statutory public advisory body on health information policy to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services), personal health records that are available today are heterogeneous, which makes collaboration and policy making difficult. The committee has published recommendations for realizing the full potential of personal health record systems to improve health and health care: vendors should clarify the respective rights, obligations, and potential liabilities of patients, clinicians, and other stakeholders; consumers should have the right to make an informed choice concerning the uses of their personal information; security should be ensured; and information should be exchanged with electronic medical records, which are documentations of care provided by clinicians to patients and are maintained by hospitals or health care practices (http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/0602nhiirpt.pdf ).

This last recommendation is particularly important, said Waegemann. Personal health records will be valuable only if accurate medical information is provided by physicians and other clinicians through electronic medical records generated at the point of care. "Microsoft and Google are trying to create partners in the electronic medical record world who can directly download information into a patient's personal health record," said Waegemann.


PHYSICIAN ADOPTION

But only a minority of practices and clinics currently use electronic medical records. A study of surveys on electronic health record adoption published last year found that approximately 24% of physicians used electronic health records and only 5% of hospitals used computerized physician order entry (Jha AK et al. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25[6]:w496-w507).
"There's a wide range, though," said Waegemann. "In Massachusetts, there are between 70% and 80% [of physicians who use electronic medical records], but in Mississippi, there are only single digits." He added that there also are differences among specialties.

The lack of widespread use of electronic health records can be attributed to a number of factors, from finances and logistics to privacy concerns and lack of interest. A 2007 poll of more than 800 health care professionals conducted by the Medical Records Institute found that the most commonly cited barriers to implementation of electronic medical records systems include a lack of adequate funding or resources, anticipated difficulties in changing to an electronic medical records system, difficulty in creating a bridge from paper to electronic documentation and record keeping, and an inability to find a system at an affordable cost (http://www.medrecinst.com/MRI/emrsurvey.html ).

In an attempt to encourage more use of electronic medical records, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced a pilot program that will give higher Medicare payments to physicians who adopt them (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/DemoProjectsEvalRpts/MD/itemdetail.asp?itemID=CMS1204776 ). The agency will begin recruitment in the spring and would like 1200 physician practices to participate. The program is part of President Bush's technology agenda, which seeks to have electronic health records for most US individuals by 2014 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/technology/ ).

In the first year of the CMS program, physician practices will receive extra payment for using an approved electronic medical record to manage patient care. Within the program, practices that perform better than others on designated clinical quality measures will receive larger bonuses.

However, critics say that many physicians in small- and medium-size practices cannot afford to establish and maintain electronic records. Physician organizations would like Congress to consider offering financial help, such as grants, loans, and tax credits for physicians who purchase the necessary technology.

The CMS anticipates that most physicians would improve the quality of care and save money over time by using electronic medical records. One cost-benefit study of ambulatory primary care settings found that the estimated net benefit from using an electronic medical record for a 5-year period was $86 400 per clinician (Wang SJ et al. Am J Med. 2003;114[5]:397-403).


PRIVACY ISSUES

One of the greatest concerns over adoption of either electronic medical records or patient health records is ensuring adequate confidentiality. In a 2006 telephone survey of 1003 US individuals by the Markle Foundation, a New York City–based organization that promotes information and communication technologies, 80% of individuals said they were very concerned about identify theft or fraud and 77% were worried about the possibility of their information getting into the hands of marketers (http://www.markle.org/downloadable_assets/research_doc_120706.pdf).

The Coalition for Patient Privacy—a bipartisan group of state and national consumer organizations—wants the federal government to pass privacy laws that will place patients in control of how their electronic records can be used and shared (http://www.patientprivacyrights.org/coalition ).

"Congress should restore every American's right to control access to their sensitive health and genetic records," said Deborah Peel, MD, founder of Patient Privacy Rights, a national consumer health privacy watchdog organization based in Austin, Tex, and a member of the Coalition. She noted that after signing their Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) forms, most US individuals believe their health information will not be disclosed without their permission. According to her organization, the HIPAA rule authorizes more than 4 million entities—such as insurers, health care clearinghouses, and clinical professionals—to use and disclose an individual's health information without his or her consent.

Microsoft has joined the Coalition for Patient Privacy in calling for legislation to include basic privacy protections for electronic health records. "Such protections are needed to ensure the creation of a health IT ecosystem that consumers can trust," said Frank Torres, Microsoft's director of consumer affairs.

Peel said the privacy protections built into Microsoft's HealthVault reflect the privacy principles of the Coalition for Patient Privacy. "They have set a new and high bar for the entire health IT industry—they're specifically stating up front that they're going to meet 17 principles for privacy from the Coalition for Patient Privacy," she said. Those include patient control of all access, no secret databases, and no data mining. Microsoft has stated that it will log every time records are created, changed, or read, leaving a clear audit trail.

While adoption of electronic medical records and personal health records are considered the way of the future, "the majority of them actually violate long-standing laws that information should not be released without consent," said Peel. She noted that most vendors of hospital-wide electronic medical record systems reserve the right to data mine and own patients' health information.

"We want health IT—it's going to do great things. But it's going to destroy people’s futures, including jobs and credit, if we don't build in privacy," said Peel.


So where are all these uses of electronic medical records that you speak of? Do you only have anecdotal evidence? Where are your facts to support your claim that most of medicine "is computerized now"?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #80
gravenewworld said:
..., the US certainly isn't a free market health care system, but that is only because it has evolved into an oligopolist run market due to the free market approach. The oligopolist system that we have is due to the inherent nature of the market.
No, as I explained above the current system (3rd party payer) is based on government policy (employer based tax break) that has been in place since WWII, which in turn stemmed from a government wage and price control policy.

Huge barriers to entry in providing health care will always limit free market activity.
Its not about the insurance companies. The only 'barrier' to the individual dealing directly with health providers is put in place by the government.
 
  • #81
gravenewworld said:
Also who said anything about just historical medical records?
The 'Electronic Health Records' to which the article refers are historical medical records. Please no flood posts, a link and a paragraph or two will do.
 
  • #82
gravenewworld said:
Exactly, it is ridiculous. If you are uninsured and need treatment here in the US, you don't get it unless you have the cash to pay for it. If you are uninsured you don't get screened for cancer, you don't get your cholesterol and blood pressure checked, and you don't get your medication. You [being uninsured] only get treatment when it is too late and you have to take a trip to the ER. Then after you get out of the ER you have to pay all of the 1000s of dollars in bills yourself.
Hospitals that aren't already charity hospitals work with charities and government agencies to help uninsured patients cover some or all of their medical expenses. You don't know what you are talking about.

So where are all these uses of electronic medical records that you speak of? Do you only have anecdotal evidence? Where are your facts to support your claim that most of medicine "is computerized now"?
Again, pay attention, we're not talking about medical records, we're talking about billing.
 
  • #83
Did Americans get a govt. sponsored program called "Participaction"? The whole thing was injected into the curriculum of elementary schools across Canada. And an aggressive media ad campaign supported the effort. It was simply about kids and adults getting active with the science info backing the health benefits of staying physically fit.

Nutrition, cell physiology and human physiology are taught in elementary schools here now. Kids are able to one-up me about some of the function of organelles, absorption rates of certain foods and tons of stuff I didn't learn until grade 10 biology. A ten year old knows how to break a fever, the ideal body temperature and quell a cough without cough medicine without going to a doctor or even calling a medical help-line. This is what I would call the development of a self-reliant population. You may think that having money is a sign of self-reliance when it comes to medical issues... but, think again.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
baywax said:
It seems natural that a society that ensures the right for every individual's education (up to a certain age) could justify and legalize the practice of universal health care and education.
I suppose the idea of considering education or health care as a 'right' is seductive but regardless its a misuse of the concept. A right may not be denied, as in freedom of speech/assembly, and since education and health care by their nature are provided to you by someone else, the label of 'right' inevitably grants you the ability to force someone to provide the service which brings you into conflict with their 'rights'. People may well choose to underwrite these systems via charity or governmental means, but its illogical to consider them rights. Also, regarding providers, there's no reason government should be in the business of producing education. Government might subsidize it, or regulate it, but should not produce it anymore than it should produce cars. I hope government involved health care does not go the way government has in education.
 
  • #85
I see several sources saying the US has higher incidence of medical errors than most countries, but I don't see any clear reason why this is so. I see some suggestions about patients moving about from doctor to doctor, but I assume that must happen in many countries. I only see this somewhat wonkish list http://www.nchc.org/facts/quality.shtml" but again seems like good advice to any system:
* Redesigning care processes based on best practices;
* Using evidence-based medicine to improve clinical practice;
* Using information technologies to improve access to clinical information and support clinical decision making;
* Coordinating care across patient conditions, services, and settings over time, and
* Incorporating performance and outcome measurements for improvement and accountability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
mheslep said:
I suppose the idea of considering education or health care as a 'right' is seductive but regardless its a misuse of the concept. A right may not be denied, as in freedom of speech/assembly, and since education and health care by their nature are provided to you by someone else, the label of 'right' inevitably grants you the ability to force someone to provide the service which brings you into conflict with their 'rights'. People may well choose to underwrite these systems via charity or governmental means, but its illogical to consider them rights. Also, regarding providers, there's no reason government should be in the business of producing education. Government might subsidize it, or regulate it, but should not produce it anymore than it should produce cars. I hope government involved health care does not go the way government has in education.

Good points... however you're missing the key ingredients to rights... that is the "facilitation of human rights" and that is what a government is bound by law to do... facilitate the right to free speech, and facilitate the right to assembly. This is why you see police separating certain factions at assemblies... they are (apparently) facilitating the right to assemble in a peaceful fashion. This is why you see federal libraries with access available to everyone to freely read and write. Are you telling me that the right to freedom of speech is impinging upon a librarians right to unemployment... no... actually, what are you telling me?

We do not infringe on the rights of doctors, nurses etc... by employing them to provide health care to the population. We facilitate the rights of humans to receive adequate and quality heath care. This involves employing and paying 150 grand a year to doctors or a fee schedule that matches their patient load.

There are no laws that prohibit a doctor's right to practice privately, elsewhere, perhaps in a country where human health issues are a gold mine for the private and commercial interests of incorporated clinics.

The cowardly Hyenas always go for the weak and injured in the population.
 
Last edited:
  • #87
mheslep said:
No, as I explained above the current system (3rd party payer) is based on government policy (employer based tax break) that has been in place since WWII, which in turn stemmed from a government wage and price control policy.

Its not about the insurance companies. The only 'barrier' to the individual dealing directly with health providers is put in place by the government.

Monopoly and oligopolist markets arise due to natural barriers to entry like huge start up costs etc. This is exactly what has happened in the US, natural barries to entry into supplying health insurance have created a system where only a few companies control almost all the health care for the majority of the population (like the finding by the GAO found).
Find me an example of a 100% free market of something in the US, you won't find it, everything has some form of government policy regulating it. Even with government regulated health care in the US, the health insurance industry is still aimed at maximizing profit$ first, patient care second.

The free market is OVERRATED. It shouldn't be used as the best approach for everything. You don't see people clamoring for a free market based approach to something like national defense.


The 'Electronic Health Records' to which the article refers are historical medical records. Please no flood posts, a link and a paragraph or two will do.

YES SIR, MR. BOARD MODERATOR SIR!

Hospitals that aren't already charity hospitals work with charities and government agencies to help uninsured patients cover some or all of their medical expenses. You don't know what you are talking about.


You don't know what you are talking about. Charities and government agencies don't cover the costs for entire procedures many times. Did you even read the NY times article? Where were these so called government agencies and charities that would pay off all of the debts of those patients mentioned in the article? Medical care isn't free. If you read the FTC link also, you would have read that medical debt is debt you are obligated to pay, just like credit card debt. Apparently you seem to think that large amounts of medical debt doesn't exist for people since it could always be paid off by the government or through a charitable organization. I think that you, me, and everyone else knows that is absurd.

So apparently you know more about medical debt than this Harvard study

http://www.hms.harvard.edu/news/releases/2_2Himmelstein.html

Illness and Medical Bills Cause Half of All Bankruptcies
2 Million Americans Financially Ruined Each Year
Harvard Study Finds 2200% Increase Since 1981
Most of Those Bankrupted by Illness Were Middle Class and Had Insurance

So where are all those "government agencies and charity organizations" if that many people filing for bankruptcy have medical debt?

Again, pay attention, we're not talking about medical records, we're talking about billing.


Really, so how am I supposed to deduce that you are talking aout billing exlusively when you posted this?

It's all computerized now. When my doctor needs to prescribe something, what my plan pays for pops up and he asks me which option I want.

Your doctor would have to have a record of any medications that you may be allergic to or possible other medications you may be on to avoid drug drug interactions before asking and prescribing which drug choice you would want that your company would pay for.

When you say It's all computerized now, I assume that your doctor was able to pull up your medication history electronically before asking which medication you want.


So, if the US health care is so great, then why do only 5% of hospitals use electronic medical records? Electronic records save lives, time, and money.
 
Last edited:
  • #88
Graven raises an interesting point about bankruptcy. I did a google search to compare bankruptcy rates in Canada so I could compare with the US, and it looks like somebody thought of this before me and already made a website about it

http://www.bankruptcycanada.com/blog/canadian-and-us-bankruptcy-rates/

The US bankruptcy rate (6.9 per thousand) for the year 2004 is more than twice as high as the Canadian bankruptcy rate (2.6 per thousand). The main reason for the huge disparity in bankruptcy rates in Canada and the US is because of the different health care systems in the two countries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
gravenewworld said:
You don't know what you are talking about. Charities and government agencies don't cover the costs for entire procedures many times. Did you even read the NY times article? Where were these so called government agencies and charities that would pay off all of the debts of those patients mentioned in the article? Medical care isn't free. If you read the FTC link also, you would have read that medical debt is debt you are obligated to pay, just like credit card debt. Apparently you seem to think that large amounts of medical debt doesn't exist for people since it could always be paid off by the government or through a charitable organization. I think that you, me, and everyone else knows that is absurd.
I am basing this on first hand knowledge.

So apparently you know more about medical debt than this Harvard study
Apparently.

You have said that if you aren't insured you can't get medical treatment without going bankrupt, that is really not true. No one is saying that medical expenses can't become overwhelming, but it is not the scenario you are painting that without insurance there is no help. Here is an example of what I am talking about
Healthcare for all New Yorkers
Paying for your healthcare

Financial concerns should not keep New Yorkers from seeking the healthcare their families need. At HHC we are committed to helping our patients find financial assistance, whether through a low or no cost insurance program or through a reduced fee arrangement.

HHC offers its patients the opportunity to examine a variety of payment options. Click below to learn more:

HHC Options - HHC's own financial assistance and charity care program
MetroPlus - An HHC subsidiary which offers health plans under Medicaid, Child Health Plus, Family Health Plus and MetroPlus Gold
HHC hospitals accept a variety of other health insurance plans.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/hhc/html/access/paying.shtml

So where are all those "government agencies and charity organizations" if that many people filing for bankruptcy have medical debt?
See above. As I mentioned previously, if the medical expenses aren't emergency, you would have agreed to the expense, so a creditor would have a better chance of collecting. What percentage of the medical debts were for emergency medical treatment that the patient hadn't previously agreed to? Also, many people aren't aware of the help available to them, although it's unusual for a hospital nowdays to not offer assistance in finding ways of being paid. Bankruptcy is an all too easy way of getting out of paying off debts, but courts are starting to crack down and make it harder to file for bankruptcy. Just because people aren't aware of the help available to pay for medical expenses doesn't mean they aren't there.

Really, so how am I supposed to deduce that you are talking aout billing exlusively when you posted this?
Because it was in response to
Doctors spend a LOT of time and money deciding which insurance plans to participate with, and their staff have to learn the ins and out of each plan, including which procedure codes are acceptable and covered under each plan and which are not.

When you say It's all computerized now, I assume that your doctor was able to pull up your medication history electronically before asking which medication you want.
Each time I go to the doctor the nurse asks me what drugs I am allergic to and verifies which drugs I am currently taking, she inputs this into the computer in the examining room.

So, if the US health care is so great, then why do only 5% of hospitals use electronic medical records? Electronic records save lives, time, and money.
Again, we're not discussing medical "records". You are the one that is bringing up medical records. I brought up the fact that billing is computerized, that includes knowing which drugs my insurance covers best. As of 3 years ago 3/4ths of US physicians had computerized billing, that number is probably closer to 100% now. I can't imagine a hospital that doesn't have computerized billing.

The use of electronic records in health care lags far behind the computerization of information in other sectors of the economy. In health care, billing applications were the first to be computerized. Electronic billing systems are used in three-quarters of physician office practices, but computerization of clinical records has been much slower.

http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/pressroom/05news/medicalrecords.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #90
Moonbear pointed out the problem that, I think, most are missing. Hospitals really do bill things like $10 kleenex boxes and major insurance companies pay rates like $1.25 and the hospital accepts that. The uninsured person is stuck with the whole $10. And this is done on most things. Some physicians are fighting back by setting prices at the standard insurance reimbursement rate, but that is still few and far between.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
9K
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K