Healthcare, as I experience it

[MickintheHam]

This may be old news to everyone here, but I have been meeting with our Company's Healthcare provider about what is new on HC reform or Obamacare. Begining in July we will pay a new tax on each employee enrolled in the plan, $1/employee/year. In 2014 it goes to $2. Also Beginning January 1 2014, we will pay $63/enrolled member/yr. Enrolled member being employees and their covered family members. So if you have 100 employees and average 3 covered dependents per employee you are looking an additional tax of $18,900. That's a lot of money.

Some carriers will call this levy a premium increase. Our carrier indicates they will do all they can to list it for what it is, an additional tax. The craziness we have been talking about for 3 years is now coming into reality. If these costs are passed on to the employee, you will see an immediate impact on the economy. If they pass through only to the employers, it will have a slower but equally as deep of an impact. Folks, we are getting hosed.

[KeithKSR]

Obamacare will price the middle class out of healthcare.

[suncat05]

Obamacare will price the middle class out of healthcare.

That was the plan all along. And now that the SCOTUS has taken sides against the American people on this(THANK YOU, TRAITOR CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS!!)Congress will do nothing to correct or alleviate this problem. So we're stuck with legislation that should never have been passed because it truly is outside the scope of the government's authority, contrary to what traitor Roberts believes, and which will decimate the American economy in untold ways.

[jazyd]

Sad what has happened to us but of course those that voted this piece of garbage i isn't affected by this because many don't work and many of the rest make just enough to keep from going off the free ride. And the rest were just plain stupid for not truly paying attention to what is happening. I hope they are affected by this in a big waway and yes Roberts put a big screw in our backs



That was the plan all along. And now that the SCOTUS has taken sides against the American people on this(THANK YOU, TRAITOR CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS!!)Congress will do nothing to correct or alleviate this problem. So we're stuck with legislation that should never have been passed because it truly is outside the scope of the government's authority, contrary to what traitor Roberts believes, and which will decimate the American economy in untold ways.

[bigsky]

Liberals have become the new Calvinists when it comes to health care. If you're sick, it's because of some sin like "thou shalt not drink big gulps".

[CattyWampus]

"We have to pass it, to see what's in it".

[BigBlueBrock]

Obamacare will price the middle class out of healthcare.

You say that as if the middle class could afford healthcare without heavy employer subsidies to begin with. That's not a defense of Obamacare as its a **** bill that just sent more people and money to private health insurers that deserve dismantling and replacement, not more of our money, but still. The idea that health care is "affordable" to anyone other than the rich or those on Medicare/Medicaid is false. The entire system needs MASSIVE reform, but all we got was a Heritage Foundation insurance mandate rebilled as Obamacare.

[badrose]

You say that as if the middle class could afford healthcare without heavy employer subsidies to begin with. That's not a defense of Obamacare as its a **** bill that just sent more people and money to private health insurers that deserve dismantling and replacement, not more of our money, but still. The idea that health care is "affordable" to anyone other than the rich or those on Medicare/Medicaid is false. The entire system needs MASSIVE reform, but all we got was a Heritage Foundation insurance mandate rebilled as Obamacare.

We agree. Tort reform would help a lot but that has never been close to getting the support needed to make it happen.

[BigBlueBrock]

Tort reform would be a necessary, albeit small, part of the solution. But health care needs bottom-up reform. It starts with why it costs so much at the provider and ends with for-profit insurance companies built to NOT pay out.

[badrose]

Tort reform would be a necessary, albeit small, part of the solution. But health care needs bottom-up reform. It starts with why it costs so much at the provider and ends with for-profit insurance companies built to NOT pay out.

They could start by allowing providers to compete including across state lines.

[BigBlueBrock]

They could start by allowing providers to compete including across state lines.

The problem with that is that there isn't (or hasn't been) a national standard for what a health insurance company should cover with its policies. Allowing across-state insurance purchasing would eventually have all or most insurance companies located in a few small population states where the companies would promise X amount of jobs and Y amount of taxes as long as they (the insurance companies) could have a hand in writing the insurance regulations. So we'd end up with insurance policies that covered very little, were really cheap for healthy people, but would price those with chronic illness into financial destitution. I believe the existence of for-profit health insurance is, in and of itself, immoral. Health insurance companies being answerable to shareholders and not, ya know, sick people is just crazy to me. They make money, not by providing, but by denying coverage and payment of benefits. Hence my advocation of dismantling the industry entirely.

I'm sure I'm going to be raked over the coals for that belief and statement, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[bigsky]

Health care worked for me, because I've worked for it. For most of my life I've thought about it, what job I took, what job opportunity I didn't take, when my wife and I began trying to have kids, etc. I've exercised, I don't smoke and I drink in moderation.

Now, not only will I wait in line behind the people who didnt give a flip about insurance or their lifestyle until they got sick, but my benefits are cut and my options limited to pay for their treatments.

So you bet you're gonna hear it.

[BigBlueBrock]

Healthcare "working for you" being a reason for why the system is "OK" is anecdotal nonsense and ignores the fact that there are thousands, maybe millions, who've paid their premiums and been cheated out of coverage because their health insurance company's team of well-paid lawyers found some loophole that allowed them out of paying benefits due. Normal, hard-working, goodhearted Americans are swindled out of health care coverage every day because the insurance companies are set up to find a way to deny benefits because that is what suits their bottom line. And those people end up bankrupt because a procedure or illness that thought they'd paid premiums to cover was denied payout due to some legal loophole. It's BS and it's categorically wrong.​

[bigsky]

I have not heard of that happening to anyone I know. Ever. Could it happen? Sure. But as little as I know of fraud by insurers, I know of plenty of insurance fraud by people, and abuse of their health insurance for their imagined chiropractic and needle poking and wholistic and naturopathic and Psychiatric and chemical indulgences.

So, since you've shown nothing in your bet
On the millions who have been cheated by blue cross blue shield,et al, I'll see your bet and raise you bureaucratic waste by the billions.

[BigBlueBrock]

I have not heard of that happening to anyone I know. Ever. Could it happen? Sure. But as little as I know of fraud by insurers, I know of plenty of insurance fraud by people, and abuse of their health insurance for their imagined chiropractic and needle poking and wholistic and naturopathic and Psychiatric and chemical indulgences.

So, since you've shown nothing in your bet
On the millions who have been cheated by blue cross blue shield,et al, I'll see your bet and raise you bureaucratic waste by the billions.

People are denied coverage all the time because of "pre-existing conditions." And I'm not just talking about someone who was uninsured, found out they were sick, and then tried to get insurance. People who've had insurance for years, but because some medical condition (like high blood pressure or asthma) predates the start of their coverage by X amount, they're denied benefits. That's completely bogus.

I agree with you on bureaucratic waste by the billions. Another great reason to reform the system, IMO. We have no shortage of reasons for why the current system by which Americans are provided health care should be massively reformed. Personally, I think we should start with why it's so damned expensive at the provider level. :idea:

[BigBlueBrock]

By the way, as far as my experience with health insurance goes, my monthly premium is $24, my copays are $10 or $15 depending on the kind of doctor, UK covers 100% of a great many procedures and 80% of almost all others. I'm really healthy and rarely see a doctor, so the plights and pitfalls of the health care and insurance industry isn't something I have to deal with personally. But that doesn't mean I can't sympathize with people that can't afford coverage or who have been denied benefits for a procedure and/or who've gone bankrupt because of an expensive procedure that saved their life or the life of a loved one. You'll excuse me for believing life-saving procedures shouldn't leave people financially destitute.

[bigsky]

What is worth spending every dime you can beg borrow or steal on, if not yours or your kids or spouses life?

I guess that's where we differ; I do think you get what you pay for.

[BigBlueBrock]

What is worth spending every dime you can beg borrow or steal on, if not yours or your kids or spouses life?

I guess that's where we differ; I do think you get what you pay for.

Yes, obviously we differ in that I believe health care for a premature baby shouldn't bankrupt a family, whereas you think it's OK.

[bigsky]

So I'll say it again, isn't that the one thing worth spending every dime on? Of course, you don't have to answer, you can continue to duck the question. And the truth is, even with insurance, these kinds of emergencies, cancer, accidents, etc, bankrupt families. Government isn't intended to eliminate all the risks of this mean ole world.

[BigBlueBrock]

Sure, if anything is worth spending every red cent you could ever scrape up, then the life of a loved one is certainly "worth it." But it shouldn't require it. That you think it's peachy keen is, quite frankly, appalling.

[bigsky]

Sure, if anything is worth spending every red cent you could ever scrape up, then the life of a loved one is certainly "worth it." But it shouldn't require it. That you think it's peachy keen is, quite frankly, appalling.

And I'm appalled that you think government exists to take care of everyone's every need from cradle to grave.

[badrose]

And I'm appalled that you think government exists to take care of everyone's every need from cradle to grave.

That's the whole thing in a nutshell, isn't it?

[BigBlueBrock]

And I'm appalled that you think government exists to take care of everyone's every need from cradle to grave.

I think the government exists to provide for the common defense and general welfare of it's people, so long as both things are properly paid for by Congress.

[CitizenBBN]

The problem with that is that there isn't (or hasn't been) a national standard for what a health insurance company should cover with its policies. Allowing across-state insurance purchasing would eventually have all or most insurance companies located in a few small population states where the companies would promise X amount of jobs and Y amount of taxes as long as they (the insurance companies) could have a hand in writing the insurance regulations. So we'd end up with insurance policies that covered very little, were really cheap for healthy people, but would price those with chronic illness into financial destitution. I believe the existence of for-profit health insurance is, in and of itself, immoral. Health insurance companies being answerable to shareholders and not, ya know, sick people is just crazy to me. They make money, not by providing, but by denying coverage and payment of benefits. Hence my advocation of dismantling the industry entirely.

I'm sure I'm going to be raked over the coals for that belief and statement, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.


There would be no good insurance without 50 states regulating it to be so? Yeah, open competition always leads to a market bereft of any products.

If you find me that right to health insurance we can discuss morality. I have no intention of debating this as not the time nor patience to start far enough back to address that position either from a market or morality perspective. In short if you want to provide something to people, create a market driven by profit motive to do it. The moral choice is to provide for people's needs, nothing does that more completely or efficiently than a free market.

I do agree a lot of the insurance business needs to be dismantled, but not by government. Bring market forces back to health care providing and the massive costs and bureaucracy that necessitates massive insurance systems will dwindle, taking a lot of the insurance business with it.

[CitizenBBN]

I think the government exists to provide for the common defense and general welfare of it's people, so long as both things are properly paid for by Congress.

It's to provide for the common defense, to PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide it. All the difference in the world.

[CitizenBBN]

I think the government exists to provide for the common defense and general welfare of it's people, so long as both things are properly paid for by Congress.

Oh, and NOTHING is paid for by Congress. It's paid for by the People, they just decide who pays and who doesn't and whose welfare is promoted and whose isn't.

[bigsky]

"General welfare" relieves no one of their own responsibilities. It's not a guaranty of a free ride; not food, not shelter, not health care. The government has no resources of its own. Your interpretation, that government exist to provide, really means that I should provide for you. Your point of view makes me your slave.

[BigBlueBrock]

It's to provide for the common defense, to PROMOTE the general welfare, not provide it. All the difference in the world.

Article I Section 8:


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

That's from the transcript taken directly from www.archives.gov.

[badrose]

From your link:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[BigBlueBrock]

From your link:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Keep scrolling down until you reach Article I, Section 8.

[bigsky]

The general welfare of the United States is hardly paying for each individual's every need. I do recognize this is what the Supreme Court hung its obamacare decision on, the taxation clause, and that's the current law. I didn't approve of segregation, either.

[badrose]

...the general welfare of the United States. That's a far cry from free health care. The key word there is general. It's the pursuit of happiness that is free.

[BigBlueBrock]

...the general welfare of the United States. That's a far cry from free health care.

"Common defense" is a far cry from a multi-trillion dollar military, but there it is.

[BigBlueBrock]

At any rate, I don't expect to change the minds of unwavering ideologues. Please continue in your supplication to dogmatic philosophy that serves no one as well as the corporations to which you have allowed yourselves to be sold.

[bigsky]

At any rate, I don't expect to change the minds of unwavering ideologues. Please continue in your supplication to dogmatic philosophy that serves no one as well as the corporations to which you have allowed yourselves to be sold.

Well well. The last defense of the indefensible. And your analogy with trillion dollar defense industry is apt; your attempt to enslave me is just like theirs.

[Doc]

The myth that the middle class can't afford insurance is just that, a myth. When I got out of school we were lower middle class yet because I had a child and a wife, we made it a priority to have health insurance. We put that priority above having a nice car, above owning a home, above taking vacations, above having a big screen TV, etc. It was right up there with paying my and my wife's student loans and other debts, putting food on the table and a roof over our heads. I didn't need the gov't to "provide my general welfare". I took care of it myself. The problem with the middle class not having insurance is that it isn't a priority. There have always been affordable medical insurance to cover major illnesses. As a 30 year old father of 1 it was quite affordable to have a policy with a large deductible that covered major illness. It didn't cover birth control like ACA, every sniffle or boo boo, but then I could have taken a policy that did for more money. Back then, we took what we could afford that offered us the coverage that gave us security to know that if somebody got injured or ill, we wouldn't end up in the poor house. The ACA removes that option of having a high deductible policy because those are no longer "approved", cuz the government knows best! If somebody who was living on 35,000K a year back in the early 90's could do it, I'm pretty sure a whole lot of today's uninsured folks could as well.

[Doc]

At any rate, I don't expect to change the minds of unwavering ideologues. Please continue in your supplication to dogmatic philosophy that serves no one as well as the corporations to which you have allowed yourselves to be sold.

Because everybody is enslaved by corporate America :indifferent0020: Unlike "big government" where there is no other option.

[bigsky]

So true, Doc.

[Doc]

The other interesting aspect is that if I elect to have deluxe coverage (aka a cadillac policy) I have to pay additional taxes. Isn't that a hoot? Penalize you more for having better coverage :533:

[bigsky]

The other interesting aspect is that if I elect to have deluxe coverage (aka a cadillac policy) I have to pay additional taxes. Isn't that a hoot? Penalize you more for having better coverage :533:

President Robbin Hood

[CitizenBBN]

At any rate, I don't expect to change the minds of unwavering ideologues. Please continue in your supplication to dogmatic philosophy that serves no one as well as the corporations to which you have allowed yourselves to be sold.


Don't plead about personal attacks when you make insulting, conceited posts like this one.

Your interpretation of "general welfare" makes the Constitution meaningless and contradictory, and it belies everything we know about the Founder's intentions for the nation. If we interpret the commerce clause and "general welfare" and the rest the way you and the Left do there's really no point to having a constitution at all really, as it apparently allows unfettered Federal authority to make any law it chooses. There is no limitation of government whatsoever intended by the document or its creators, it's just a procedural manual for the 3 branches of government and a lousy one at that since it didn't actually spell out things like SCOTUS review.

That's how you know you've defined a term or statement wrong: when accepting that definition or interpretation makes the term or phrase meaningless.

Just like in the discussion of Texas education. If the Holocaust isn't a "genocide" then the word genocide loses any meaning. If we abandon the preamble's clear distinction, and that of dozens of writings of the Founders, to say that promote the General Welfare means government run health care, something about as intimate to people as possible, there's no limit on the ability of the government to make any law, and there never was a desire to found a nation free of the tyranny of government.

Of course that's false. Denying that the Founders had a deep fear of government and wanted to limit it as much as possible with the Constitution is like denying the earth revolves around the sun.

But please don't continue to insult the intelligence of people on here. This isn't the first time.

[CitizenBBN]

Because everybody is enslaved by corporate America :indifferent0020: Unlike "big government" where there is no other option.

It's always those nasty evil corporations. You know, the ones who take your money and if you don't give it to them send armed people to drag you to jail. Oh, wait....

They can't be stopped. Huge companies like GM and the investment firms. Oh wait, it's government that protects them and saves them. The power of corporations is the power to control government. If we got rid of the ability of the government to regulate every aspect of our existence the corporations would have to compete more, and many like GM would fade into history. yet somehow the solution to this is MORE government power and regulation, not less. lol.

[bigsky]

Those evil corporations; Red Cross, deaconess hospitals, blue cross blue shield, md Anderson, the thousands of corporations incorporated under 501, not to mention the s corporations that are family farms and small businesses. Or even the dang investors of all this for profit corps whose pensions and retirements depend on them making money from willing buyers. Gosh darn that Nike and apple and ford!

[bigsky]

I'm grateful that one of those evil for profit drug corps invented the drugs that knocked back my leukemia, and another the 5k dollars shots that boosted my white blood cell count after the chemo.

I have great insurance and it still cost me $7-8k for that first round of treatment, not to mention the thousands spent on Drs and tests under the yearly deductible trying to find out what was wrong with me over the last six years.

I get it. People will buy just about everything before they buy at least a catastrophic health policy. I did it as a young man; of course that choice is a taxable event now. Young men have to pay a penalty if they don't buy insurance that covers birth control, anxiety and menopause drugs. And btw, I did once pay several thousand bucks over time for an ACL operation I had to have while a young ski bummin uninsured adventure seeker. Hospital carried my loan and I paid it off in three or four years.

[CitizenBBN]

bigsky I want the cure for cancer to be worth billions to the person who finds it, b/c that way I know the best and brightest are looking for it. Obviously we'd want that cure available to everyone, but without the big reward what company or group or individual would be willing to risk hundreds of millions on research or spend their lives in poverty to find it? Without profits who would buy the stock and bond issues to generate the funding?

It would be great if the world were filled with pure altruists who would teach and research and provide medical care and be willing to live in hovels, but there aren't enough of them to run the country. People won't go through all those years of medical school and residency to live no better than the guy who spent a summer in trade school. They for sure aren't going to accept the weight of life and death decisions without compensation.

America didn't invent the drive of economic self interest, we simply harnessed it. Whether we vote to ignore it or not it won't go away. All we'll do is bury its benefits and strengths in the form of graft and corruption. Far better to accept that it exists and work to direct it rather than to try to suppress it. It's how we went from an insignificant backwater of the world with no production base whatsoever to the most powerful economic nation in history in less than a century.

[bigsky]

I just don't see the "pure altruism" model going anywhere that "good intentions" don't usually go.

[CitizenBBN]

I just don't see the "pure altruism" model going anywhere that "good intentions" don't usually go.

It won't even go that far. lol.

[UKHistory]

There are a lot of problems with the healtcare coverage plan out there. I will start with insurance companies who make money by paying into a system and not paying out.

Insurance companies give you back pennies for the dollar and don't want to really help.

Great example: My wife has an eye disease that grows her corneas into points which makes it difficult for her to see. No surgery is approved in the country (experimental is being done in Canada). Glasses don't fix the problem but contact lenses that physically resist and push back do help.

But guess what? Insurance companies say that contact lenses are cosmetic in nature and there is no questioning that.

It is a damn racket and only the rich get truly good service consistently from insurance companies and doctors.

[KeithKSR]

Doc, the myth that the middle class can't afford insurance will quickly become reality thanks to Obamacare.

[Doc]

There are a lot of problems with the healtcare coverage plan out there. I will start with insurance companies who make money by paying into a system and not paying out.

Insurance companies give you back pennies for the dollar and don't want to really help.

Great example: My wife has an eye disease that grows her corneas into points which makes it difficult for her to see. No surgery is approved in the country (experimental is being done in Canada). Glasses don't fix the problem but contact lenses that physically resist and push back do help.

But guess what? Insurance companies say that contact lenses are cosmetic in nature and there is no questioning that.


The next logical question is do you believe that a federalized health care system would help that?

My personal belief is that it will do exactly the opposite. I'm 100% for letting a licensed doctor determine my treatment plan. I've personally had my health care affected by what the government will allow despite my Dr wanting to do something different. I believe that the chances of having something non-traditional approved is greater thru private coverage because essentially you can sue a private company and you can't the gov't. Additionally, if the insurance companies give back "pennies on the dollar" they why would anybody have health insurance? I mean if you pay thousands a year in premiums but only expect back a small fraction, then why have insurance? No, insurance companies do pay out a large percentage of their revenues back to providers. I'm not here to defend insurance companies but there is a false sense that they are out to screw you. They aren't. Should they be allowed to "drop people" who have paid premiums for years? No. Should they be allowed to jack up your rates when you get older on clients who have paid for policies for years? No. However they should be allowed to make a profit without being vilified for doing so.



It is a damn racket and only the rich get truly good service consistently from insurance companies and doctors.
I disagree. You might not get what you want but that does not mean you can't get quality care. I'm hardly "rich" but over the years I have had good consistent health care through a wide myriad of medical problems. At times I have not gotten what I wanted but I'd not equate that to failing to receive good service. Insurance companies are a business and like any other business they have a right to be profitable otherwise they go out of business. The profit margin for insurance companies is roughly 3% (link (http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/truth-about-health-insurance-premiums-profits)). In my business, a 3% profit margin would put me out of business (currently we run in the 19% area)

[Doc]

Doc, the myth that the middle class can't afford insurance will quickly become reality thanks to Obamacare.


True. But the idea that we needed Obamacare because it was unaffordable to the middle class is a myth. Obamacare has made it more expensive because those paying are being forced to cover more people who are not.

[KeithKSR]

Deleted, multiple post.

[Doc]

Doc, the myth that the middle class can't afford insurance will quickly become reality thanks to Obamacare.

Deja Vu..... LOL

[KeithKSR]

True. But the idea that we needed Obamacare because it was unaffordable to the middle class is a myth. Obamacare has made it more expensive because those paying are being forced to cover more people who are not.

I didn't think we needed it when it was passed, I know we cannot afford it now.

[MickintheHam]

Yes, obviously we differ in that I believe health care for a premature baby shouldn't bankrupt a family, whereas you think it's OK.

Well, I feel compelled to speak up on this one. To get my premie out of the hospital in 1984 cost $129,000 out of pocket after insurance. It defined my life. It wiped out my savings and it left me with large bills to pay. But, we made the decision to have the kid. It was our responsibility. No one told us we had to have a kid. Why should someone else pay for what we chose to do?

I learned a lot from the experience at a very young age. I learned to review the invoices completely and get line items corrected where necessary. There were a bunch of errors on the invoices. I learned to negotiate with the doctors and the hospital to eliminate charges. Do you really think any federal bureaucrat would challenge an invoice or negotiate lower rates or get charges comped? They have no knowledge of what was really provided or not provided. They can develop some inflated sense of what a comparable charge should be, but they have no way of knowing the specific circumstances. All of that adds to the burden of the healthcare tab for everyone. There wasn't a baby in that neonatal unit that was neglected or allowed to die because the parents could not pay.

The burden needs to be placed on the cost causer. It's the only way there is accountability.

[bigsky]

Trillion dollar price tag! The old bait and switch.

[CitizenBBN]

Well, I feel compelled to speak up on this one. To get my premie out of the hospital in 1984 cost $129,000 out of pocket after insurance. It defined my life. It wiped out my savings and it left me with large bills to pay. But, we made the decision to have the kid. It was our responsibility. No one told us we had to have a kid. Why should someone else pay for what we chose to do?

I learned a lot from the experience at a very young age. I learned to review the invoices completely and get line items corrected where necessary. There were a bunch of errors on the invoices. I learned to negotiate with the doctors and the hospital to eliminate charges. Do you really think any federal bureaucrat would challenge an invoice or negotiate lower rates or get charges comped? They have no knowledge of what was really provided or not provided. They can develop some inflated sense of what a comparable charge should be, but they have no way of knowing the specific circumstances. All of that adds to the burden of the healthcare tab for everyone. There wasn't a baby in that neonatal unit that was neglected or allowed to die because the parents could not pay.

The burden needs to be placed on the cost causer. It's the only way there is accountability.


Mick, I can sum up the reason health care is a disaster very simply.

Markets function on consumers choosing products based on some combination of cost and quality once we define the parameters of their product demand. In health care the consumers, patients, have little reliable info on the real quality of care beyond what they subjectively feel they get as the government collects a lot of data on hospital quality performance but doesn't release it. there's no consumer reports for hospitals like there is for cars, one of the larger purchase items most people make, nor is there a home inspector or appraiser for your physician's office like there is for your home purchase.

Far more important, consumers are removed from many if not most cost decisions due to the medicare/medicaid/insurance system. Once the deductible is paid what do they care if the MRI costs $4,000? I went in for a severe abdominal cramp some years ago. Worst pain I'd ever felt b/c I don't run to hospitals. They did a MRI, found out it was a kidney stone. When I was leaving, having gotten morphine and told to come back if it didn't pass, they said "yeah we could tell it was a kidney stone from across the room." So why did they run a MRI? the bill for it was $4,000, paid by my insurer.

I went to a close hospital with no knowledge of their actual quality of service, and allowed procedures without consideration of their cost (once my deductible was met, which was almost immediately).

You show me an industry where consumers make choices without significant (or any) consideration of cost or quality, and I'll show you one f-ed up industry.

It really is that simple. Until we re-introduce market forces by having consumers incentivized to make decisions based on cost and quality it will only get worse whether government is running it or not. That's why the basic concept of medical savings accounts is a good one. Don't let a bureaucrat make the decisions on what to pay for and what procedures to have done, push that dollar expenditure decision to consumers and let them decide if they're willing to pay for the MRI and forgo something else somewhere else or if they'll give it a day to see if the stone passes.

FWIW they never told me it was probably a kidney stone pre-MRI. If they had I'd have said "OK, give me the morphine and if it doesn't pass by tomorrow I'll be back." Health care doesn't mean getting the $4,000 MRI for a belly ache just in case of the 1 in 1 million chance something is wrong only it can catch and it must be caught before we try seeing if it's a kidney stone.

If it cost me that $4,000 I guarantee we'd have waited on the stone to pass. A generation ago that's how it was handled, but now if we don't bring in Dr. House for every person off the street with a pain it's a lawsuit and a moral outrage.

Yes the health care industry can be fixed. by going in exactly the opposite direction we are going now re who makes the decisions. Subsidize those decisions, fine, allocate how much each person gets in "health care dollars" every month and they can spend them or save them or if they don't spend them they get to keep a percentage or some such. Let's try those very imperfect solutions versus the utterly useless solutions of Obamacare and government centralized planning.

[jazyd]

I agree with Mick, sky, Keith Doc on all they said. Like Mick, and probably the rest , I learned to negotiate payments and get nice discounts on large dr or hospital bills. Best yet has been 35% for paying off the bill. They will work with you on monthly payments or discounts for paying the whole thing. Had one bill for my wife for injections in her back for $1400 because she had not met deductible. I asked for a disc to pay it at once. Was told they didn't give disc because if BCBS found out they would make the dr office rebate back to insurance. My argument was I was paying and it was between me and the doctor. After some back and forth she told me to not pay my bill for 3 months and they would declare it uncollectible. She assured me she would keep it separate and not affect my credit. 3 months later I walked I and she gave me 35% off the bill. I found if you are honest they will work with you, they want their money.

Obamacare will screw the middle class. Corp must make reasonable profits or they are gone, too much and they lose their competitive edge. Most people have no clue what companies make net profit. Have a good friend that is a successful lawyer who thought companies had a profit of 40%



Well, I feel compelled to speak up on this one. To get my premie out of the hospital in 1984 cost $129,000 out of pocket after insurance. It defined my life. It wiped out my savings and it left me with large bills to pay. But, we made the decision to have the kid. It was our responsibility. No one told us we had to have a kid. Why should someone else pay for what we chose to do?

I learned a lot from the experience at a very young age. I learned to review the invoices completely and get line items corrected where necessary. There were a bunch of errors on the invoices. I learned to negotiate with the doctors and the hospital to eliminate charges. Do you really think any federal bureaucrat would challenge an invoice or negotiate lower rates or get charges comped? They have no knowledge of what was really provided or not provided. They can develop some inflated sense of what a comparable charge should be, but they have no way of knowing the specific circumstances. All of that adds to the burden of the healthcare tab for everyone. There wasn't a baby in that neonatal unit that was neglected or allowed to die because the parents could not pay.

The burden needs to be placed on the cost causer. It's the only way there is accountability.

[jazyd]

One thing I might add, most of us are a little older and have experience and understand the real world and accept our personal responsibilities and not depend on government to take are of us.

had an interesting little joke sent to me by a friend who sent it to his sister who is charge of some dept at UT. She said she had a student whe wanted his refreshments paid for at some meeting. She turned him down so he paid with his food stamps. It seems many younger 'adults' and use that loosely, want more and more from the government, less responsibity and no accountability.

And History, am sorry about your wife. But Doc is right, the gov will not help her. When I read some of the things Obamas advisors have said, your wife would get no help and just be discarded