Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The CEO of a prominent physician recruitment firm says that the surest way to cut medical costs and reform health care is to eliminate insurance companies.
Good points. I read a letter in a magazine recently and here it is:
The cost of insurance and health care
I retired five years ago. I have had the prostate-specific anti-gen test annually for the past 13 years. Since I retired, I have had at least a $2,000 deductible (or more) on my health insurance. The PSA testing cost me approximately $260 ($60 to my doctor’s office and $200 to the hospital where my blood was drawn and analyzed).
This year I asked my doctor to draw my blood in his office to save money. We discussed that my insurance plan does not cover lab work. He offered a discount if he could bill me directly and not file with my insurance company. By not using my insurance, I paid only $55 ($30 for the office visit, $7.50 to draw my blood and $17.50 for the lab analysis). I am very grateful to my doctor.
Shows what you can do when you cut out the middle man!
That sounds like a great idea - they just want their profits, so they charge ridiculous premiums to get them. But, if you're sick, they don't want to pay!! Unfriggin' believable. They do everything they can to get out of paying.
I'd love for the health insurance companies to if not disapear be reigned in.
They are a huge black cloud on health care reform, they have mega lobbyists in DC.
I worked in the medical field for 10 years and they were and are a constant thorn in the side of medical practice.
Years ago my fav ENT doc quit practicing...he said he got tired of working the first 6 months for the cost of his malpractice insurance.
I have many friends that are rural family practic docs and most have had to quit doing OB because of insurance and their rural communities are now having to drive a 100 miles or more...not safe.
As a patient I've watched my co-pays, medicines, deductibles sky rocket.
Several years ago I had an emergency that left me in the hospital for about 5 days and lots of lab work and tests even WITH insurance I'm now in major debt to try and pay these bills off. I have no credit cards, a small fixed rate mortage but now I'm a "credit risk" because of crappy health insurance.
Now I'm unemployed and of course uninsured...who can afford cobra on unemployment...I can't even qualify for a stand alone policy because of pre-existing conditions...so my only hope of even getting health insurance is a job with a group plan.
I don't know what the best solution to our health care is but it certainly is broken!
The CEO of a prominent physician recruitment firm says that the surest way to cut medical costs and reform health care is to eliminate insurance companies.
YES!!!! (I've posted this elsewhere on several threads for months now). I think the time has come for a major overhaul of the outrageously expensive healthcare system - and a big part of that would be in establishing a direct patient to doctor connection - and elimination of insurance companies, except perhaps for catastrophic coverage.
One comparative (and illustrative) cost I'd really like to see analyzed over the last four decades is the cost of having a baby. Anyone here had a baby recently? In my family's case the total hospital and doctor costs for my first child forty years ago were about $1200 - no need for insurance back then. The costs two years ago for the delivery of my grandson were in the neighborhood of $50,000.
I think if you took a survey of doctors you'd find most of them would be thrilled to have the insurance companies off their backs. I wonder too if a survey has been done of how much could be saved in basic healthcare by elimination of insurance companies from the healthcare equation. Obviously there'd be many complex issues to resolve - such as the cost of major surgical procedures. But the insurance companies (and their lobbists) have maintained such a chokehold on Congress - and any changes that might affect their industries that it would clearly be a huge uphill battle.
But given that, IMHO, this is why national HEALTH CARE care, NOT a national health care INSURANCE program is what this country needs to reduce costs that have become financially debilitating for most families and businesses to handle.
It looks to me that his proposal is really no different than most single-payer health care systems in Canada, Australia, etc. Those stand in contrast to truly socialized plans like in the UK. I wish people would wake up and see the difference between having government fund health care, versus making all providers direct government employees.
It looks to me that his proposal is really no different than most single-payer health care systems in Canada, Australia, etc. Those stand in contrast to truly socialized plans like in the UK. I wish people would wake up and see the difference between having government fund health care, versus making all providers direct government employees.
Could you elaborate on this? Which type of plan do you think would have the best chance of passage?
Unfortunately though, before any real changes could occur, lobbyists for health care insurers would have to be neutralized. I wonder if they've already laid plans to prevent this from happening.
Could you elaborate on this? Which type of plan do you think would have the best chance of passage?
Unfortunately though, before any real changes could occur, lobbyists for health care insurers would have to be neutralized. I wonder if they've already laid plans to prevent this from happening.
Oh, I don't know that any universal health care plan has a good chance at passing.
But to elaborate. There are a few different universal health care systems in the world. For example in Canada, health care providers are private and self-employed, just like our doctors. When they treat a patient, they bill the patient's insurance company -- which is the Provincial government. If an area is under-served, doctors are likely to move there because they would see more patients and get more pay.
In that sense, Canada uses a market-based system to allocate resources. In contrast, the United Kingdom runs its health care system the way we run (say) our schools. Doctors are government employees and the government plans openings of new hospitals and clinics.
There are systems that use private insurance companies and have universal care, like Switzerland. You have to buy your own insurance, and if you can't, it will be bought for you -- but either way, you get private insurance. They tend to be the most expensive.
You might want to watch Frontline's "Sick Around The World". It goes into detail about the differences in the systems, contrasting and comparing them:
Thank you.. Excellent link! I wasn't able to watch the video but read the synopsis of all the different country's health care programs. Some of the items I thought interesting were;
Often dismissed in America as "socialized medicine," the NHS {in England} is now trying some free-market tactics like "pay-for-performance," where doctors are paid more if they get good results controlling chronic diseases like diabetes. And now patients can choose where they go for medical procedures, forcing hospitals to compete head to head.
And - Reid reports next from Japan, which boasts the second largest economy and the best health statistics in the world. The Japanese go to the doctor three times as often as Americans, have more than twice as many MRI scans, use more drugs, and spend more days in the hospital. Yet Japan spends about half as much on health care per capita as the United States. One secret to Japan's success? By law, everyone must buy health insurance -- either through an employer or a community plan -- and, unlike in the U.S., insurers cannot turn down a patient for a pre-existing illness, nor are they allowed to make a profit.
And - As they do in Japan, medical providers {in Germany} must charge standard prices. This keeps costs down, but it also means physicians in Germany earn between half and two-thirds as much as their U.S. counterparts.
And - Reid's last stop is Switzerland, a country which, like Taiwan, set out to reform a system that did not cover all its citizens. In 1994, a national referendum approved a law called LAMal ("the sickness"), which set up a universal health care system that, among other things, restricted insurance companies from making a profit on basic medical care. The Swiss example shows health care reform is possible, even in a highly capitalist country with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Today, Swiss politicians from the right and left enthusiastically support universal health care. "Everybody has a right to health care," says Pascal Couchepin, the current president of Switzerland. "It is a profound need for people to be sure that if they are struck by destiny ... they can have a good health system."
Among the many important pieces of info, a few items that stood out to me included the criteria that insurance companies could not make a profit on basic health care, that people with pre-existing conditions were covered and that doctors must charge a standard price for procedures.
Last edited by SarahSal; 11-13-2008 at 11:26 AM..
Reason: added
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
