Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
JJJ
Posts: 3767
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Mon Jul 04, 2011 4:12 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 99):
Perhaps in Germany but there are other countries in which they are paid significantly less and work more hours to boot. U.S. care is expensive, but when you look at what that money is actually spent on, a larger majority than elsewhere in the civilized world if you want to narrow it down to that is elective medical care.

What's the problem with the Germany example? Their doctors make a great living (actually they're the better paid professional group) and if you take into account that they don't have the huge debts US doctors take on student loans they're probably better off on average.

Still, care in Germany covers everyone and is significantly less expensive than US care.

And, of course, if you want fancy bells and whistles healthcare and have the pockets you can go all private, which quite a few people do.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10146
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:45 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
The 60% to 80% loss ratio does not include investments that the company needs to make to prepare for big payouts and company growth. That is not included in overhead either.

Overhead is not 40%. Easiest way to demonstrate that is to see how many companies stop selling health insurance. I think you will find that they continue to make a nice, plump profit with the 15% they will have to work within.

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
I guess, if you don't expect the company to grow.

Health insurance companies have traditionally been more focused on eliminating "expensive" customers than they have been simply growing the com[any.

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
fair market value

Fair Market Value? You've got to be kidding.

Fair market value in Medicine is the amount of money that a provider is willing to accept for a exam, test, treatment, etc. If a provider does not want to accept government payments (which would include funding of grants, etc.) then they don't have to. Not a big deal.

It is, however, folly to believe that the only acceptable fee payment is the initial retail fee less what every private insurance discounts are in effect for that particular patient at that particular time.

If you want to eliminate cost shifting on the nanny care your employer provides you then you need to support the movement of Medicaid to Medicare AND shifting all federal employees to Medicare. That means Medicare will be funded with the same increases that private companies charge - but you can handle that.

And let's go ahead and start including your nanny care in your compensation. We can no longer to give you your free ride like we have in the past. After all the years you have enjoyed this free ride you shouldn't complain about finally manning up and paying those taxes.

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
The loss comes from medicare not paying what it costs to operate the machine per hour.

Are you talking about the fixed or variable costs of the MRI machine? What is the cost of that machine going an hour without a patient being imaged? What is the additional costs of actually running a patient through the machine? You gotta understand the difference between those fixed and variable costs before you even start talking about losses from medicare.

Then you have to face the reality that most major hospitals have multiple MRI machines as well as a long list of other imaging devices. CT, PET/CT, x-ray machines. etc. Those machines continue to generate their fixed costs with or without patients. Why do you think that the hospitals advertise using "old looking" actors? They need those Medicare dollars, regardless of what you believe.

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
Private insurance patients are already paying all the costs,

Bull. The US government pays out major amounts in the area of health care. Those dollars pay the fixed costs of tests, treatments, etc. and also cover the variable costs. They don't pay funds for profits or for building special funds, but they cover the costs. And they plow major investments into research.

Any hospital that does not want to treat Medicare patients simply has to say "No". We both know that and I haven't seen any local hospitals rejecting Medicare patients outside of the ER.

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
For someone who is always looking to simply take some more money from the "rich"

There you go again - anyone not following the Koch Brothers is a communist, Marxists, or socialist.

The simple fact is that Bush delivered massive tax cuts to the rich because we were supposed to be able to afford it and these days we cannot. Part of our financial situation is the Bush Ego War. Read the other day that wars in the Middle East has now cost us $4 Trillion. Take out the unnecessary costs (in blood as well as money) and out national debt looks far better, doesn't it? Take away the Bush mentality of Guns & Butter & Cake and out deficit would probably be half of what it is today.

Calling me (directly or indirectly) names will not reverse those massive FUBARS from the years the GOP was in power or in the White House.

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
What is truly sad is how blind you are to the multiple problems that medicare faces over the next few decades and the multiple solutions that will be required to fix the program.

What I'm not blind to is the reality of the hard right working so hard to kill Medicare - and shorten the quality of life for most Americans in their later years.

The GOP isn't totally ignorant - they know how rapid private costs have increased, but will never allow Medicare funding to increase at anything near the same rate. If you want to be honest about it you would acknowledge the inflation rates of private insurance and how much lower rates of increases go to Medicare.

And you might actually tell us what you thing will happen when Medicare is taken from your generation. Where will those without the funds for your employer nanny care go? Strip them of their assets (a simple thing with a lot of medical for the elderly) and you will get to pay for their treatment. Talk about cost shifting!'

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
Also sad is that you seem to want to saddle your children and grandchildren with unsustainable debt that will force them to live a life less than yours as more and more of what they earn has to be sucked away to pay for your generations lifetime of largess.

Keep the GOP and their unnecessary wars out of the White House and those family members following me will have a better chance.

Keep the lap dogs for the rich from handing more goodies to Big Money and the future will improve for all Middle Class. (And, yes, we know that the Upper Class folks like you look down your nose at the Middle Class, but the Middle Class, IMHO, is the foundation of this nation.)

As far as forcing my kids and grandkids to live a life that is "less than mine", my wife and I continually invest in their lives. We've done it by paying for their education, helping them get into a house, putting money away for the grandkids education, etc.

The efforts we have made will not be the problems they face in the future. The redistribution of the wealth FROM the Middle Class TO the "Upper Class" that we have been seeing is the greatest risk they face. A future without Medicare or Social Security is reality for them as long as the greed of the GOP overly influences this country. And you are part of that danger for future generations. Just another lap dog for Big Money.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 98):
Why is US-care so expensive? Legal costs, administrative costs and less economies of scale, that's it.

Legal costs are trivial. Texas proved that by not lowering costs when they established tort reform. Economies of scale are a benefit when setting health care costs. Major equipment is heavily used in most hospitals and they can be run 24 hours a day. A bit different situation for smaller cities and towns, but still manageable.

Our biggest problem with costs are the private insurance companies who prefer to pass on unnecessary cost shifting to the employers providing nanny care. We have reached a point where the average person cannot afford private insurance on their own and employers are getting more than saturated by the increases in that nanny care.

At some point we will hit a level of insanity where even the conservatives are able to understand the need for universal core care. The only question is if we will still have a reasonable middle class when the conservati

Quoting dxing (Reply 95):
your generations lifetime of largess.

There you go again.

You couldn't even drive to work without the efforts of my generation and those that went before me. Hope you are enjoying those roads we built. And the airports? Maybe you should thank previous generations for that as well. And ATC that we have paid for, as well as the FAA.

Or do you want us to pretend that you have done all that all by yourself?         
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:23 pm

Quoting JJJ (Reply 100):
What's the problem with the Germany example?

Nothing. As I have said, no system is perfect. That would include Germany but if it works well for the Germans, more power to them.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 100):
d, of course, if you want fancy bells and whistles healthcare and have the pockets you can go all private, which quite a few people do.

And there you have it. If the public system were utopia, no one would feel the need to spend extra on private insurance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Overhead is not 40%.

Investments are not overhead.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
I think you will find that they continue to make a nice, plump profit with the 15% they will have to work within.

Sure, by cutting the workforce or outsourcing. Yet another way your government is hard at work for you.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Health insurance companies have traditionally been more focused on eliminating "expensive" customers than they have been simply growing the com[any.

Feel free to post a link proving that. But I won't hold my breath waiting.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Fair Market Value? You've got to be kidding.

Sorry, I forgot, you're all about paying what you think it it is worth regardless of the actual costs involved.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Are you talking about the fixed or variable costs of the MRI machine?

The total cost per hour to run the machine. That would include variable and fixed costs.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
You gotta understand the difference between those fixed and variable costs before you even start talking about losses from medicare.

Evidently you don't understand them. You seem to think it is fine and dandy for medicare to pay what "they" think it costs versus the actual costs involved. Hospitals accept that payment because as of now they know they can pass the cost on to private insurance companies in the form of more expensive rates. That's cost shifting and it has been documented many times no matter how much you want to ignore it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Bull.

It's been documented in many different reports, from both government and private sources.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
There you go again

I can start listing the quotes where you have called for the rich to be taxed at the old 90% rates many times over is you wish.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Keep the GOP and their unnecessary wars out of the White House and those family members following me will have a better chance.

Would that include Libya?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Legal costs are trivial. Texas proved that by not lowering costs when they established tort reform.

Again, both government and privately sponsored reports completely disagree with your position on this matter. In addition, as has been pointed out many times, since medical malpractice insurance is sold nationwide, until there is nationwide reform there will be no reduction in overall costs. The simple fact that many doctors and other medical professionals have chosen Texas to hang their shingle belies that it does work. Of course your retort will be that they are all quacks and frauds but that has been disproven as well. For some reason you feel the need to continue to post myths and incorrect statements that have been repeatedly shown to be false.

BTW, I drive to work on a toll road paid for by bond money. So yes I could drive to work without driving on a road that your generation supposedly paid for. You have also been shown how your theory on what money the roads and airports were built with is in error, several time over in fact, but here too you continue to post something that has been shown to be completely false.

[Edited 2011-07-05 06:27:25]

[Edited 2011-07-05 06:29:14]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 12708
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:50 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 101):
Legal costs are trivial

They most certainly are not. Have you any idea what the premiums are going for these days? Guess who they pass those costs on to?

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
As I have said, no system is perfect

Yeah well, yet again, this pointless throwaway platitude needs to be negated. No system is perfect, but that's not a point for comparison. The US system sucks, and many of its users think so.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
If the public system were utopia, no one would feel the need to spend extra on private insurance.

That's not quite accurate. People only buy private insurance in Japan for example because they want the 30% out of pocket copay for services rendered covered.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
JJJ
Posts: 3767
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 2:51 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
And there you have it. If the public system were utopia, no one would feel the need to spend extra on private insurance.

It's no utopia, it just has the nice side effect of having everyone covered.

Moreover, paying private on top of tax in Germany will still set you back less than 100% private in the US. Because private has to compete vs. something essentially free, they really take great pains in offering an outstanding service that's great value.

The only people who are worse off in this scenario is insurance and pharma companies.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:00 pm

Quoting JJJ (Reply 104):
Moreover, paying private on top of tax in Germany will still set you back less than 100% private in the US. Because private has to compete vs. something essentially free, they really take great pains in offering an outstanding service that's great value

If the free stuff were so great, there would be no need at all for the private. It speaks to what people want versus what they need. As I said, if it works well for Germans, I'm happy for them. It would not work well in this country since there is such an inherint distrust of the government and its ability to deliver what it says it will at the price advertised. Also, if you break those figures down, as was done in an earlier thread on health care, Americans seem to spend a lot more on elective type procedures than most everyone else in the world.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
JJJ
Posts: 3767
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:24 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 105):
If the free stuff were so great, there would be no need at all for the private. It speaks to what people want versus what they need.

"People" in this case refers to about 1 in 10. Hardly "need", then.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:30 pm

Quoting JJJ (Reply 106):
"People" in this case refers to about 1 in 10. Hardly "need", then.
Quoting JJJ (Reply 100):
And, of course, if you want fancy bells and whistles healthcare and have the pockets you can go all private, which quite a few people do.

Which is it?

As I have maintained, I don't have a problem with German health care. If it is what they want, I hope they are happy with it. That does not mean that the German system is the be all and end all nor that it would work here.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
JJJ
Posts: 3767
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:39 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 107):
Which is it?

1 in 10 Germans is 8 million people. Your call whether that's "quite a few" or not.

Quoting dxing (Reply 107):
That does not mean that the German system is the be all and end all nor that it would work here.

The German system proves that a system that a) costs less and b) covers everyone is feasible.

If you don't mind almost 20% of your GDP going to health care then by all means, keep your current system but most indicators tell that you just can't afford it anymore.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Quoting JJJ (Reply 108):
If you don't mind almost 20% of your GDP going to health care then by all means, keep your current system but most indicators tell that you just can't afford it anymore.

Since a large portion of that is elective, evidently we can. It has also been noted, and I will link it again, that the relative percentages that we spend on housing, health, energy, and food have barely changed since the 1950's.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will062909.php3

Betsy McCaughey, writing in the American Spectator, says that in 1960 the average American household spent 53 percent of its disposable income on food, housing, energy and health care. Today the portion of income consumed by those four has barely changed — 55 percent. But the health-care component has increased while the other three combined have decreased. This is partly because as societies become richer, they spend more on health care — and symphonies, universities, museums, etc.

Again, what the German system shows, is that Germans are happy with it. Good for them. It does not necessarily follow that it is better for us.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
JJJ
Posts: 3767
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Wed Jul 06, 2011 7:52 am

Quoting dxing (Reply 109):
Since a large portion of that is elective, evidently we can

Tell that to those who clog the ER room for not being able to get primary treatment elsewhere.
 
Ken777
Posts: 10146
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Wed Jul 06, 2011 4:46 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
Sure, by cutting the workforce or outsourcing

Or by taking less profit per policy holder? Gee, what a pity - they might not be able to justify their huge premium increases when nothing else in the economy is close,

As far as outsourcing, I doubt they will do more than in the past.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
Investments are not overhead.

When you look at the costs of private health insurance and compare it to the average Americans ability to pay (or their employer's ability to pay) it's pretty clear that we need policies available that don't add in the extra's. Maybe that public option was a better idea than you thought.  Wow!
Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
Feel free to post a link proving that.

Here's one:

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/1...rmer_insurance_exec_wendell_porter

Google "Health insurance dumping the sick" for a list, or use any similar phrase. It's not a mystery - just a well known fact of life.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
Sorry, I forgot, you're all about paying what you think it it is worth regardless of the actual costs involved.

Did you actually write "actual costs involved"? Finally! Medicare focuses on actual costs involved, not some retail (market) price. Of course the GOP will be fighting to cut Medicare payments in order to kill the program, but honest funding of the program will allow a continuation of a reasonable payment level to cover actual costs involved.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
The total cost per hour to run the machine.

Only the fixed costs are applied when the machine is not in use. Variable costs only come into play when the machine is in use.

Medicare more than pays for those variable costs and then addresses the fixed costs. Obviously fixed costs are variable based on volume to the added use from Medicare patients cover the variable costs (which are generally fixed at the individual patient level) and help reduce the fixed costs at the individual patient level.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
Evidently you don't understand them.

I understand fixes and variable costs. i also understand that Medicare pays whet it pays. Providers who wish to accept Medicare know exactly whet they will be paid. Providers who do not want to accept Medicare don't. It is not hard to understand.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
You seem to think it is fine and dandy for medicare to pay what "they" think it costs versus the actual costs involved.

Medicare pays whet it pays. If it is to pay more then it needs to have more funding. So we raise the FICA taxes as fast as private insurance companies raise their premiums? Sure. You want it to pay the same inflated fees that private insurance pays then get ready for a tax hike. Maybe you can just start paying taxes on that tax free nanny care and those taxes can be applied to increasing the Medicare Fund. Works for me.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
Hospitals accept that payment because as of now they know

Hospitals accept Medicare patients because they want those funds flowing into their hospital, and not the competition a few miles away. If you don't believe there is competition for Medicare patients then you have been missing most of the advertising the hospitals spend their money on.

Strip out Medicare patients (and payments) from most large hospitals and they will hit a financial crisis.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
It's been documented in many different reports,

Start with the important document: the Budget.

In 2010 Medicare accounted for about 14% of the Federal Budget, with payments of $452 Billion.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

That is $4.5 Trillion over 10 years.

Now, try to think of how many elderly would be unable to pay for care if there was no Medicare. Then try to figure out how most hospitals would survive without the almost half a trillion dollars in payments each year.

So, like I said, Bull.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
I can start listing the quotes where you have called for the rich to be taxed at the old 90% rates many times over is you wish.

You can list the many times I have noted that the top rate was 90% during a Republican Administration with a Republican Congress. And you'll probably find that I've said that the country was in a better financial condition than it is today.

I've also probably mentioned more than once that people back then didn't whinge about taxes like they did today. The Greatest Generation understood the importance of Social Security, especially as their parents were on it. They held political power when Medicare was introduced, and they understood the need to have ti. And they understood in the need for post war investments, be it from the GI Bill to the Marshall Plan type investments.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
Would that include Libya?

SInce we have not invaded Libya there is no comparison to Iraq.

We went into Afghanistan because we went after OBL - I'll assume you remember 9/11. But then Bush & Cheney turned their attention away from Afghanistan and focused on the oil in Iraq. An invasion built on lies and total ignorance of what to do after the boots on the ground won the "war".

The importance of Libya today is not based on the ego of the President, but the reality of what is happening in the country. (Remember Egypt?). We have joined with NATO in a very limited manner, not a Bush style FUUBAR. I see a difference between Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Obviously you don't

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
Again, both government and privately sponsored reports completely disagree with your position on this matter.

Ask your employer how much your nanny care costs have gone DOWN after the tort reform. That simple number should be all you need to understand in order to completely agree with me. I would guess, however, that you are afraid to ask? Can you provide the nanny care costs reductions from the tort reform your employer enjoys?         

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
until there is nationwide reform there will be no reduction in overall costs.

And you actually believe that?         

With different states having different tort laws it is really queer to believe that the insurance companies don't have that situation well researched. If the tort reform in Texas had required companies selling policies to only use the Texas risk pools for BOTH health insurance and malpractice insurance it would have been done with ease.

Quoting dxing (Reply 102):
The simple fact that many doctors and other medical professionals have chosen Texas to hang their shingle belies that it does work. Of course your retort will be that they are all quacks and frauds but that has been disproven as well. For some reason you feel the need to continue to post myths and incorrect statements that have been repeatedly shown to be false.

I haven't said they are ALL quacks. I have said, however, that Texas is a great place to practice for those providers who cannot get malpractice insurance in their home state. And I've noted that there is one dentist I know of who has moved to Texas after basically being kicked out of town.

In terms of all being "quacks" I've previously noted that I had a four and a half hour neck surgery for cancer in Houston with full confidence in my surgeon. She was, however, a native Texan locally trained (including MDA) and would not have fit into the "immigrant doctor: group.

Quoting dxing (Reply 105):
If the free stuff were so great, there would be no need at all for the private.

You seem to have a problem with understanding how public and private medical care functions outside the US. The critical piece missing is the fact that the bulk of health care is paid for by universal care. You don't always have a choice, but then many times in the US you don't always have choices. Get a serious burn in Tulsa and you are heading to the one hospital with the largest burn unit. The others will simply get you stabilized to where you can be transferred.

As far as the "free stuff" goes, it isn't free when you cover it with your taxes. Just like your free nanny care from your employer isn't free because the employer pays for it. Well, it is tax free for you so I guess you are ahead of those who pay.

Quoting dxing (Reply 109):
that the relative percentages that we spend on housing, health, energy, and food have barely changed since the 1950's.

Now break that down into a clearer view - which means don't hide health care in with food and housing.

What percentage of the average American's budget goes to health care? What is the differences in percentages between the younger Americans and the older Americans? And which average are you talking about? Mean? Median? Mode? A quick glance at that link shows a lack of balance and mixed up data.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:53 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Here's one:

           

I try and stay away from the smileys anymore but couldn't resist. Not one mention of any documenting material. Just a guy sitting there with no real questioning, save to egg him on, about his facts. Nice try.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Did you actually write "actual costs involved"? Finally! Medicare focuses on actual costs involved, not some retail (market) price.

Medicare decides what they think a test, procedure, or service is worth regardless of the actual costs involved. This is documented fact and nothing you have said or linked has disproved that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Only the fixed costs are applied when the machine is not in use. Variable costs only come into play when the machine is in use.

Together you get the total cost of what it takes to run the manchine and pay the labor to make it work. Nothing you have posted or linked changes this basic fact.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
I understand fixes and variable costs.

Medicare and yourself calculate the same way, and both of you, and it, come up short so private insurance gets stuck paying the difference which equates to a hidden tax on private insurance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Medicare pays whet it pays.

Based on some caculations that are not real world. Again, this is documented fact and nothing you have posted or linked to changes it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Hospitals accept Medicare patients because they want those funds flowing into their hospital, and not the competition a few miles away.

Hospitals accept medicare patients (although fewer and fewer are such as the Mayo Clinic) because they know they can recoup their costs through private insurance payers.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Strip out Medicare patients (and payments) from most large hospitals and they will hit a financial crisis.

Strip out the medicare patients and the costs would go down as those people would then have to pay the true actual cost of an MRI thus unburdening the private insurance companies from having to make up the difference.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Now, try to think of how many elderly would be unable to pay for care if there was no Medicare. Then try to figure out how most hospitals would survive without the almost half a trillion dollars in payments each year.

No one anywhere has stated that there shouldn't be a program like medicare. No one. Scare tactic time has long since past. We need people who can discuss the solution to medicare's financial position in a serious way, not toss out party lines or try to portray extreme minority cases as the normal.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
You can list the many times I have noted that the top rate was 90% during a Republican Administration with a Republican Congress. And you'll probably find that I've said that the country was in a better financial condition than it is today.

And you fail to mention that immediately after the war the United States was the last man standing when it came to production of steel and other building materials. In addition the 90% bracket fit one a few select rich people. The situation today is much different both in the world economy as well in as in the make up of our own population financially.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
I've also probably mentioned more than once that people back then didn't whinge about taxes like they did today.

Because most people were concentrated in the bottom tiers of the tax brackets.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
SInce we have not invaded Libya there is no comparison to Iraq.

But we are continuing to spend money there running support missions for our NATO allies as well as the rebels so money is being spent.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
The importance of Libya today is not based on the ego of the President,

Really? Then why does he refuse to put forward legislation to legitimize the operation rather than hiding behind the War Powers Act that as a United States Senator he said the President didn't have?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Ask your employer how much your nanny care costs have gone DOWN after the tort reform.

If or when we finally get national tort reform in a new health care bill that adresses real world problems in a serious way then costs will go down.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
If the tort reform in Texas had required companies selling policies to only use the Texas risk pools for BOTH health insurance and malpractice insurance it would have been done with ease.

As you were shown. Texas makes up roughly 10% of the population. Using that as a baseline there is simply no way to offer medical malpractice insurance at the same cost as a nationwide pool.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 111):
Now break that down into a clearer view - which means don't hide health care in with food and housing.

If you had bothered to read the article you would have known that it was broken down.

Most Americans do want different health care: They want 2009 medicine at 1960 prices. Americans spent much less on health care in 1960 (5 percent of gross domestic product as opposed to 18 percent now). They also spent much less — nothing, in fact — on computers, cellphones, and cable and satellite television.


Again, it is a sad thing to see someone that is so into the "me" thing that they are willing to put their children and grandchildrens financial future at such great risk.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 10146
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:07 pm

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
Just a guy sitting there with no real questioning, save to egg him on, about his facts.

Just a guy who worked in the business and probably knows more about it than your and you right wing buddies know. But, hey, your employer is your Sugar Daddy handing out nanny care so why are you concerned about it at all?

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
Nothing you have posted or linked changes this basic fact.

And you actually believe that providers setting fee schedules, like car companies setting MSRP, is any different? Medicare decides how it will allocate the funds they have, based on costs. You want to to see the payments higher then let's raise the FICA levels. Maybe start taxing your nanny care and apply those funds to Medicare.

You cannot argue against Medicare without adversely impacting your own personal situation. Gut the care to the seniors and you will find out what cost shifting is really about.

Now, I will admit that the GOP will work hard to cut Medicare payments as they want the program killed. The more old folks who die faster the less SS will pay out. The GOP wants money from both programs to cut the top rate even more and add more loopholes for the Big Money.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
Medicare and yourself calculate the same way, and both of you, and it, come up short so private insurance gets stuck paying the difference which equates to a hidden tax on private insurance.

You sound like a guy who insists on paying full MSRP when buying a new car or truck. Got an idea that the MSRP is the only price that will give the dealer sufficient profit to survive? Medicare pays a fleet price - just like the rental car companies.

Private insurance pays MSRP. less a percentage discount. individuals without insurance are charged MSRP.

As I noted before, the last time my wife was in the hospital Medicare took a 26% discount. The insurance we used to have would get a 25% discount. Medicare sure screwed the hospital with that extra 1%, didn't they? Hopefully that extra 1% will not cause them to close their doors.  
Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
(although fewer and fewer are such as the Mayo Clinic)

ANd as I have noted before, hospitals and clinics who do not take Medicare should not be receiving any federal granrts. It's not hard to understand that these grants add to the financial viability of the provider - that money needs to go to providers who accept patients financed with federal dollars. That doesn't take brain surgery to figure out.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
Again, this is documented fact and nothing you have posted or linked to changes it.

25% -v- 26%. You gonna loose sleep over that massive 1% difference?

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
In addition the 90% bracket fit one a few select rich people.

It was still the top tax rate, compared to 35% today.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
The situation today is much different both in the world economy as well in as in the make up of our own population financially.

And we have taken some pretty queer steps in the wrong direction. Especially when there are tax benefits for moving jobs overseas. Today the GOP is focused on protecting the wealthy and keeping the Tea Party happy. They will cut Medicare and Social Security for the elderly (who contributed all their lives to have those two programs) without regard to the impact it is going to have. The situation today for the Average American is pretty pathetic IMO.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
But we are continuing to spend money there running support missions for our NATO allies as well as the rebels so money is being spent.

We are not spending the trillions like the invasion of Iraq based on lies has costs. Afghanistan because critical to our national interests after 9/11. It is even more important today because of the massive natural resources that have been discovered there. Basically that country has sufficient natural resources to heavily fund terrorists for a hundred years.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
No one anywhere has stated that there shouldn't be a program like medicare.

If you really believe that there should be a program like Medicare then why not stick with Medicare, stop holding funding increases and grow the program to avoid cost shifting caused by Medicaid. We have the systems in place so it's not that big a deal.

And, think about it. Your tax dollars are paying for the ever priced private health insurance for all federal employees. If we move them all to Medicare (including the elected politicians) you are saving some manor money there - enough to impact the deficit. Move that shift on down the the state county and city levels and we're talking trillions. That allows your insurance companies to deliver significant reductions in premium costs because we have shifted so much of the cost shifting off their backs.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
Nothing you have posted or linked changes this basic fact.

What I posted lets you see the differences in cost areas. If the MRI is not used during an appointment slot then the variable costs associated with it are not incurred. The fixed costs are incurred even when the MRI is not in se - they are fixed for a period of time - lets say one year. The bean counters may have used 8 hour sessions per day for 250 days a year in order to calculate how the foxed cot is spread to each imaging session. If the annual fixed costs are $100,000 then there is a $50 fixed cost per session. Let's say the variable costs are $75 per appointment serviced. As long as Medicare pays the $125 for the imaging they have covered both fixed and variable costs. If they pay less they may cover only the variable and part of the fixed costs, but there is still a reduction in the annual fixed cost needed to be covered.

Other ways of meeting those costs are using the machine more than 8 hours a day and most machines are used far more than that,. But your MSRP is going to be based on the 8 appointments a day in order to be conservative in setting fees. Spend enough time budgeting in just about any industry and some things become pretty clear.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
If or when we finally get national tort reform in a new health care bill that adresses real world problems in a serious way then costs will go down.

Like they have in Texas? Sure they will.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
Using that as a baseline there is simply no way to offer medical malpractice insurance at the same cost as a nationwide pool.

I'm still amazed that you believe that. Major states like Texas have significant powers. Texas can establish which school text books will dominate the country. California can establish standards that the rest of the country eventually follow in car emissions. Yet you actually believe that your state politicians could not have required a state level risk pooy with lower costs as the quid pro quo for tort reform. Maybe that quid pro quo went directly into the pockets of the politicians. Regardless, You folks were taken for a ride there.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
Again, it is a sad thing to see someone that is so into the "me" thing that they are willing to put their children and grandchildrens financial future at such great risk.

And it is particularly sad that so many people cannot see the Ryan Rape as the greatest risk for anyone under 55. Ryan goofed when he mentioned that those changes will allow the GOP to lower the top tax rate to 25%. Makes it clear
why Ryan wants to take the Medicare dollars - they are needed to feed the rich.

And with that in mind you should be doubting that Ryan and his money men will actually wait 10 years. Within a year of "passing the Ryan Rape" there will be other additions - "unexpected, but important". More for the rich and less for the middle class.

Quoting dxing (Reply 112):
We need people who can discuss the solution to medicare's financial position in a serious way, not toss out party lines or try to portray extreme minority cases as the normal.

This is the most interesting comment you have made. You want to get serious about Medicare funding? Simply look at the inflation rate of private insurance companies and you will see that Medicare needs more funding. That might mean an increase in the FICA percentage. It could also mean shifting other federal health care dollars (and patients) to Medicare.

But to "design" cuts in order to cut the top tax rate to 35% is as far from serious as you can get. Talk about spewing out party lines! Especially since you are one of those who get the shaft from the Ryan Rape.
 
zhiao
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:52 am

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:08 am

Quoting JJJ (Reply 100):
What's the problem with the Germany example? Their doctors make a great living (actually they're the better paid professional group) and if you take into account that they don't have the huge debts US doctors take on student loans they're probably better off on average.

I don't think so Avg in Germany is $95,000 for a GP, and USA is $150,000. This is a $500,000 difference over 10 years which more than covers medical school. Of course, after a while the loans are paid off and the advantage is actually 1 million per decade. Specialists make in some cases well over $300,000 as an AVERAGE. Also, Germans at that tax bracket pay much higher taxes. There's no doubt US doctors are better off. And I am not saying that's a good thing!
 
JJJ
Posts: 3767
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Mon Jul 11, 2011 2:03 pm

Quoting zhiao (Reply 114):
I don't think so Avg in Germany is $95,000 for a GP, and USA is $150,000

Where did you get that figure?

2007 avg was 116.000 euro for a GP (meaning 160.000$ at todays rate), radiologists are raking in 264.000 euro (best paid speciality).
 
User avatar
autothrust
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 8:54 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Mon Jul 11, 2011 3:06 pm

The problem are this system of private health care.

Its proved by the UNICEF surveys that private health care systems like in US, Germany or Switzerland are nowhere as effective a general healthcare systems.

Even much will contradict the quality isn't better in this overexpensive systems.
In Switzerland its so expensive they had to limit the doctors permit has Switzerland has one of the highest density of doctors worldwide.

Why? Because in Switzerland the doctors make lots of money due the huge pharmaceutical industy.

Ouf course its a luxury to not have to wait until being attended. However i would prefer to wait a little longer but to pay less insurance. (About 450 dollars monthly!!!!!)

Some hospitals are crowded and you get a very bad therapy.

Switzerland has the second most expensive health care system in relation behind US. Both systems are very similar.!! This is unsustainable!!     

And meds aren't going to be cheaper. So im not surprised by the comments of the threadstarter.

Just my honest opinion.
Flown on: DC-9, MD-80, Fokker 100, Bae 146 Avro, Boeing 737-300, 737-400, 747-200, 747-300,747-400, 787-9, Airbus A310, A319, A320, A321, A330-200,A330-300, A340-313, A380, Bombardier CSeries 100/300, CRJ700ER/CRJ900, Embraer 190.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:18 pm

Quoting Autothrust (Reply 116):
Its proved by the UNICEF surveys that private health care systems like in US, Germany or Switzerland are nowhere as effective a general healthcare systems.

I thnk that just proves that those in charge of UNICEF don't feel they can get quite the same amount of graft out of a private system as opposed to a public one.

Secondly, if the UN did the survey, you can bet it is all screwed up.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
zhiao
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:52 am

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:24 am

Quoting JJJ (Reply 115):
Where did you get that figure?

2007 avg was 116.000 euro for a GP (meaning 160.000$ at todays rate), radiologists are raking in 264.000 euro (best paid speciality).

Where did you get YOUR rates? In 2006 it was 80,000 euro (see below). The US figure is a MEDIAN not a MEAN, while DE figure is a MEAN. Plus, a third of all German doctors now earn less than €2,000 a month after tax. That's pretty bad.

In any case, it is a mistake to convert it using exchange rates, as this is not indicative of one's purchasing power. You use PPP rates, and with that I got $95,000, to make it comparable. When comparing salaries, you never use exchange rates.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...uropean_football/article793030.ece

Also, another source, though not directly comparable:

"Nevertheless, a general trend is clear: Estimates of hospital doctors' average annual earnings in 2002 ranged from $35,000 to $56,000 in Germany; $127,285 in Britain; and $165,000 to $268,000 in the US. Swedish hospital doctor salaries were estimated at only $56,000 a year - similar to the German figures."

http://www.globalaging.org/health/world/2006/packing.htm

and here's yet another source that puts Germany well below UK and USA:

http://www.bmj.com/content/334/7587/236.full.pdf

[Edited 2011-07-11 19:28:13]
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 12, 2011 7:45 am

Be happy you don't have vet bills to pay.
We were charged €600 for having our dog treated, policlinically, for an ear infection. 10 minutes work...
I wish I were flying
 
Dazed767
Posts: 5004
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:55 am

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:18 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 78):
And for the record, I watched my grandmother go to an aggressive lymphoma from a breast cancer relapse. And that's as much as I'll say about it.

Sorry to hear. My mom, to make a long story short, has been fighting cancer since I was 14. I'll be 30 soon and never thought she'd be here to see her grandkid. Quality of life has been reduced after being on chemo once a week for a good 7 years now and has trouble getting around but it's better than the other alternative.
 
JJJ
Posts: 3767
Joined: Wed May 31, 2006 5:12 pm

RE: Outrageous Hospital/Doctor Bills!

Wed Jul 13, 2011 9:41 am

Quoting zhiao (Reply 118):
Plus, a third of all German doctors now earn less than €2,000 a month after tax. That's pretty bad
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,6008266,00.html

This is a German source:

Quote:
On the same day as the protest, the Central Association of Statutory Health Insurers published current data on doctor compensation. The approximately 150,000 doctors and psychotherapists in Germany are to receive an average of 164,000 euros per year in fees from public insurance agencies, a 22,000 euro increase since 2007.

However, general practitioners indeed earned less than that figure - an average of 116,000 euros in 2007 - while orthopedic surgeons earned 186,000 euros and radiologists earned 264,000 euros in the same year.

Nevertheless, Thomas Ballast, head of the Association of Health Insurance Companies, said the protesting doctors were harming their own reputations.

"General practitioners earned an average gross monthly income of 8,300 euros in 2009, in addition to private revenue," he said. "That's a salary that will give you a very good life."

And talks about 2007 to 2009 figures, which are more up to date than your sources.

It may well be that your 80.000 euro figure is after tax, as I can't explain such a huge difference.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: abfr1, B717fan, BHMNONREV, Dieuwer, lentokone, luckyone, petertenthije and 31 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos