| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#21
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
An article about medical costs
|
|
#22
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
An article about medical costs
|
|
#24
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
An article about medical costs
|
|
#25
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
An article about medical costs
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 01:45:00 -0400, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:49:56 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:56:35 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:37:37 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:39:55 -0400, wrote: On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:21:12 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: Yep, and Medicare, by law can't negotiate with either hospitals of Pharma. That's quite a free market system isn't it. Go read the article again. Medicare pays about 10% of the Charge Master price on the bills they looked at. That was a big part of what Brill was saying. That isn't a negotiation. They're barred by law from negotiating. It's a fixed price that Medicare pays. And, 10% of complete bull**** is still complete bull****. the costs are way below that. Try again. The 10% is higher than the reality. Medicare pays more like 6-7% OK I will try quoting the article you didn't seem to read. Chest X ray $283 Medicare $20.44 Troponin Test $199.Medicare $13.64 CBC $157.61 Medicare $11.02 EKG $1200 Medicare $96 The list goes on Brill says Medicare does pay too much for medical equipment tho. What the **** is your problem? You said 10%. They don't negotiate. It's a fixed percentage for each item. You go read the ****ing article. I said 10% and it was actually lower than that. You are right, it is not a negotiation, they just say what they pay and the provider has the choice, take it or leave it. A lot of providers are "leaving it" and not taking Medicare patients. Not many actually. Most take it and do just fine. Read the fricken article! I thought you were claiming to be well-read and reasonable? |
|
#26
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
An article about medical costs
|
|
#27
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
An article about medical costs
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:25:24 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:13:30 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:22:34 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:04:30 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:08:49 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:44:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote: What in the article on health care costs do you disagree with and why? Please give examples proving it wrong. Brill did a lot of good research and I believe the cost numbers he wrote but I disagree that simply putting everyone on Medicare would fix anything. Perhaps if they would actually tell us what the tax increase in your FICA would have to be to do this, people would understand. Just to pay what Medicare actually costs for seniors right now, the tax needs to go up about 4% on your "first dollar" income with no cap (total, both sides). We spend well over two times what MC takes in with a 3% tax and the trend is going more in the red every day Cause you don't know what the **** you're taking about.. that's why you "disagree." Are you trying to say the SSA trustees report is a lie? I'm saying that when you say this **** "but I disagree that simply putting everyone on Medicare would fix anything" you're making **** up. Do I need to tell you what page of the article we are talking about? Start with the bold print "The way out of the sinkhole" So, perhaps you need to read that section?? You mean this: "I was driving through central Florida a year or two ago," says Medicare's Blum. "And it seemed like every billboard I saw advertised some hospital with these big shiny buildings or showed some new wing of a hospital being constructed ... So when you tell me that the hospitals say they are losing money on Medicare and shifting costs from Medicare patients to other patients, my reaction is that Central Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients and all those hospitals are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell me they're losing money ... Hospitals don't lose money when they serve Medicare patients." or this: "If that's the case, I asked, why not just extend the program to everyone and pay for it all by charging people under 65 the kinds of premiums they would pay to private insurance companies? "That's not for me to say," Blum replied. In the debate over controlling Medicare costs, politicians from both parties continue to suggest that Congress raise the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to 67. Doing so, they argue, would save the government tens of billions of dollars a year. So it's worth noting another detail about the case of Janice S., which we examined earlier. Had she felt those chest pains and gone to the Stamford Hospital emergency room a month later, she would have been on Medicare, because she would have just celebrated her 65th birthday. If covered by Medicare, Janice S.'s $21,000 bill would have been deeply discounted and, as is standard, Medicare would have picked up 80% of the reduced cost. The bottom line is that Janice S. would probably have ended up paying $500 to $600 for her 20% share of her heart-attack scare. And she would have paid only a fraction of that — maybe $100 — if, like most Medicare beneficiaries, she had paid for supplemental insurance to cover most of that 20%. In fact, those numbers would seem to argue for lowering the Medicare age, not raising it — and not just from Janice S.'s standpoint but also from the taxpayers' side of the equation. That's not a liberal argument for protecting entitlements while the deficit balloons. It's just a matter of hardheaded arithmetic." |
|
#28
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
An article about medical costs
|
|
#29
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
An article about medical costs
On 3/12/13 10:15 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:25:24 -0400, wrote: Are you trying to say the SSA trustees report is a lie? I'm saying that when you say this **** "but I disagree that simply putting everyone on Medicare would fix anything" you're making **** up. Do I need to tell you what page of the article we are talking about? Start with the bold print "The way out of the sinkhole" So, perhaps you need to read that section?? You mean this: "I was driving through central Florida a year or two ago," says Medicare's Blum. "And it seemed like every billboard I saw advertised some hospital with these big shiny buildings or showed some new wing of a hospital being constructed ... So when you tell me that the hospitals say they are losing money on Medicare and shifting costs from Medicare patients to other patients, my reaction is that Central Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients and all those hospitals are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell me they're losing money ... Hospitals don't lose money when they serve Medicare patients." Cost shifting is the name of *the* game in paying for medical care in this country. Just about everyone in the game does it, too. Yesterday, I was running errands and picked up an Rx for a neighbor who has the flu. He is diabetic and takes insulin in those "handy" pen cartridges. The full "price" of the Rx for a month's supply (one shot a day, three shots per cartridge), was $800 and change. His co-pay amounted to about 20%, and his insurance company paid the rest. Now, you have to ask yourself, why is insulin so damned expensive? It's not a new drug, it's been around for a long, long time. It's not the packaging, the cartridges are no more complicated than a decent Pentel plastic pen. The needles are sold separately. The answer is that everyone along the way is making a huge profit off this relatively simple but life extending drug, and that includes the neighbor's insurance company. We do almost nothing in this country to actually control medical costs. If Medicare "under-reimburses," those "lost profits" are assessed against someone else, either an insurance company or an individual. The insurance company covers its "losses" by overcharging its clients. In my wife's field of psychotherapy, psychiatrists charge about $200 per patient visit, and what do most of them do during that visit, which, typically, lasts about 15 minutes? They try to find out if the meds they are prescribing are "helping." They don't provide any therapy; that is left to various non-medically-degreed mental health professionals. Ever paid $20 for a Tylenol in a hospital? Or $15 for a package of facial tissues? It's cost-shifting. We need to entirely restructure how we pay for medical care in this country. I don't see it happening, so we all will continue to be ripped off by the supply chain...hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, and to a lesser degree, direct providers of services. |
|
#30
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
An article about medical costs
On 3/13/2013 8:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/12/13 10:15 PM, Urin Asshole wrote: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:25:24 -0400, wrote: Are you trying to say the SSA trustees report is a lie? I'm saying that when you say this **** "but I disagree that simply putting everyone on Medicare would fix anything" you're making **** up. Do I need to tell you what page of the article we are talking about? Start with the bold print "The way out of the sinkhole" So, perhaps you need to read that section?? You mean this: "I was driving through central Florida a year or two ago," says Medicare's Blum. "And it seemed like every billboard I saw advertised some hospital with these big shiny buildings or showed some new wing of a hospital being constructed ... So when you tell me that the hospitals say they are losing money on Medicare and shifting costs from Medicare patients to other patients, my reaction is that Central Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients and all those hospitals are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell me they're losing money ... Hospitals don't lose money when they serve Medicare patients." Cost shifting is the name of *the* game in paying for medical care in this country. Just about everyone in the game does it, too. Yesterday, I was running errands and picked up an Rx for a neighbor who has the flu. He is diabetic and takes insulin in those "handy" pen cartridges. The full "price" of the Rx for a month's supply (one shot a day, three shots per cartridge), was $800 and change. His co-pay amounted to about 20%, and his insurance company paid the rest. Now, you have to ask yourself, why is insulin so damned expensive? It's not a new drug, it's been around for a long, long time. It's not the packaging, the cartridges are no more complicated than a decent Pentel plastic pen. The needles are sold separately. The answer is that everyone along the way is making a huge profit off this relatively simple but life extending drug, and that includes the neighbor's insurance company. We do almost nothing in this country to actually control medical costs. If Medicare "under-reimburses," those "lost profits" are assessed against someone else, either an insurance company or an individual. The insurance company covers its "losses" by overcharging its clients. In my wife's field of psychotherapy, psychiatrists charge about $200 per patient visit, and what do most of them do during that visit, which, typically, lasts about 15 minutes? They try to find out if the meds they are prescribing are "helping." They don't provide any therapy; that is left to various non-medically-degreed mental health professionals. Ever paid $20 for a Tylenol in a hospital? Or $15 for a package of facial tissues? It's cost-shifting. We need to entirely restructure how we pay for medical care in this country. I don't see it happening, so we all will continue to be ripped off by the supply chain...hospitals, drug companies, insurance companies, and to a lesser degree, direct providers of services. Krausie needs to get his facts in order before he makes dumb statements over the internet. You could help cut down excessive cost shifting if you would only limit your annual checkups to annually instead of monthly. Are you some kind of hypochondriac, or what. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Another reason for high medical care costs... | General | |||
| Medical CDs - [Part 1], [Part 2], [Part 3 = MEDLINE 1986-1998] CDs, [Part 4 = Dragon Naturally Speaking CDs, and IBM Via Voice CDs, including Medical Solutions], [Part 5 = Math Solving, and Statistics Porgrams], [Part 6 = Various - Medical Cliparts, | ASA | |||
| Medical CDs - [Part 1], [Part 2], [Part 3 = MEDLINE 1986-1998] CDs, [Part 4 = Dragon Naturally Speaking CDs, and IBM Via Voice CDs, including Medical Solutions], [Part 5 = Math Solving, and Statistics Porgrams], [Part 6 = Various - Medical Cliparts, | Tall Ships | |||
| Medical Kits | General | |||
| Medical skills | ASA | |||
![iBoaterer[_2_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
