Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-12-2009, 11:24 AM   #101
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
$30,000,000,000 Does not seem like much!.......I'm convinced........OAG for Congress! Heck, they don't even think $1,000,000,000,000 is much! OAG you would fit right in.
__________________

__________________
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 01-12-2009, 01:44 PM   #102
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
OAG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Central, Ohio, USA
Posts: 2,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic23 View Post
$30,000,000,000 Does not seem like much!.......I'm convinced........OAG for Congress! Heck, they don't even think $1,000,000,000,000 is much! OAG you would fit right in.
1.5% of something is, in most cases, a small amount considering the whole. My point was that SAVING 1.5% was small but good. AND I did say the subject (elimination of litigation AND Malpractice Insurance costs for practitioners would go far to REDUCE Medical costs in the USA). Additionally, I did say it WOULD NEVER HAPPEN - so the size of the number, big or small, is meaningless. I sure do not need the ego trip either, so forget OAG for Congress plug.
__________________

__________________
Vietnam Veteran, CW4 USA, Retired 1979
OAG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 03:03 PM   #103
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Brat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 5,913
What could work better is a scheduled payment to victims of malpractice as a part of whatever health plan is developed, and medical board review of the practices of physicians who commit malpractice. I am aware of instances where OBs had an unfortunate outcome on a delivery that was not the result of malpractice or negligence but the jury felt bad for the parents. So often the practice of medicine involves choices each with different risks and sometimes the risk bites.
__________________
Duck bjorn.
Brat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 03:07 PM   #104
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
If the 1.5% does not include malpractice insurance then the figure is, IMO, of very little value. I knew an OBGYN that was getting out of the service and moving to Montana. At the time he said he was going to make $200,000 a year, but his malpractice was going to cost $100,000 a year. This was in the mid 70's.
__________________
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 03:24 PM   #105
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic23 View Post
it's the typical scare tactics put forward the last time the u.s. discussed health care reform. What they fail to mention is the fact that all the limits they talk about the govt mandating are already mandated by your insurance company, assuming you have one.

Today your insurance company tells you what doctors you can or can not visit, what procedures are covered or not, etc. They even tell you whether or not your insurance is in effect or rescinded after paying it for months or years... because you forgot to tell them about a head-ache, etc. you might have had 5 years ago. Additionally, your insurance company routinely refuses to cover anything they think might be pre-existing conditions, and once again, that's assuming they allow you in at all.

I don't see much advantage letting insurance companies decide whether or not I get coverage personally.
__________________
barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:11 PM   #106
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
Barker,
Spoken like a someone that trust government! They run a tight ship! No problem getting them on the phone! They always listen and take action! They know how to stick to a budget! and They certainly know what's best for you.

I have never had a problem with any of my health Insurance Companies. I have had several run-ins with incompetent government. Presently there are some reprieve i.e. the courts, from bad insurance co. There is little or no reprieve from bad government. Otherwise we would have better government than we do.

Look, everyone says we have one of the worst health care system in the modern world. However, IMO, much of that is media scare based on anecdotal evidence. Ask the question 'Well what would you change?'

It all boils down to money. What people really want is Donald Trump care and someone else to pay for it. It's not going to happen. The people that post on this board are going to pay for it. We are the ones that have the money! and as Jesses said that's why I rob banks!

It just amazes me that folks are willing to turn their health care decision over to politicians.
__________________
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 04:39 PM   #107
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by OAG View Post
Does not seem like much, but every little bit would help. It also does not consider the money providers and practitioners spend for Malpractice Insurance (or whatever they are now calling it). Anyway, it will never happen since there is probably more profit in the insurance and attorney business than what is spent on medical care.
I'm not sure why you concluded the $30 billion doesn't include insurance premiums. It includes these things:
Quote:
benefits paid or expected to be paid to third parties (hereafter referred to as “losses”), defense costs, administrative expenses.

page 8.


These are all the costs included in the premium, the only thing missing is the insurer's profit. Note, however, that they aren't including the plaintiff's attorneys.

I'll agree that $30 billion is a big amount - it's $100 per American. And the cost of defensive medicine could easily be another $100. And I'll also agree that, since our total medical bill is $7,000 per person, it's a fairly small percent. If we could save some of the malpractice costs, that would be good. But I don't think malpractice lawsuits are the primary reason that medical care is expensive.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 05:03 PM   #108
Moderator Emeritus
Martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: minnesota
Posts: 13,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic23 View Post
If the 1.5% does not include malpractice insurance then the figure is, IMO, of very little value. I knew an OBGYN that was getting out of the service and moving to Montana. At the time he said he was going to make $200,000 a year, but his malpractice was going to cost $100,000 a year. This was in the mid 70's.
Cost varies dramatically depending where you live and your specialty. Juries in my neck of the woods do not like malpractice claims and insurance here is pretty reasonable.

This is interesting reading: http://www.rwjf.org/pr/synthesis/rep...o10_primer.pdf

Problems with the malpractice system persist even as malpractice crises come
and go. There is enduring dissatisfaction with the medical liability system. Upswings in premiums
bring these complaints into sharper relief, pushing the policy debate in the direction of sweeping
reform rather than tinkering around the edges. Complaints about the system span its performance
on several measures:
• The system does a poor job compensating patients injured by medical malpractice. Epidemiological
studies of medical injury and malpractice claiming suggest that only about two percent
of injuries due to medical negligence become malpractice claims (12, 30).
• The system has high transaction costs. For every dollar paid in malpractice insurance premiums,
only about 40 cents goes to injured patients (15). The remainder is absorbed by insurers’
administrative expenses and litigation expenses. Compared to other compensation systems
that rely on administrative rather than legal processes to direct compensation to injured
people, such as Social Security Disability Insurance or worker’s compensation, these transaction
costs are extremely high.
• Awards in malpractice cases are inequitable. Many plaintiffs with meritorious claims receive
nothing, while others receive awards that seem disproportionate to the severity of their injury.
Moreover, plaintiffs with similar injuries receive quite different awards, even in the same jurisdiction
(8, 29).
• The system focuses on the misdeeds of individual healthcare providers, but medical errors
are often due to breakdowns in whole systems of care. There is no systems orientation in the
liability system, despite the growing awareness of the role of systems in patient safety (11). It is
difficult to hold a hospital or other healthcare system liable for a medical error so malpractice
awards are usually levied against individual physicians.
• There is no real evidence that the medical liability system deters negligent care. The tort system
tends to be defended primarily on the basis of its deterrent effect, but the available evidence
suggests that deterrence of medical error is limited at best (20).
• The system has perverse effects on patient safety initiatives. Rather than deterring error, a
heated liability environment may actually impede patient safety improvement by discouraging
physicians from participating in initiatives such as adverse event reporting which may help
analysts learn why medical errors occur (19, 25).
__________________
.


No more lawyer stuff, no more political stuff, so no more CYA

Martha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2009, 07:38 PM   #109
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 97
firedoglake has a pretty good article up right now talking about using stimulus $$ to boost the health-care industry. The good thing about this is all the money stays here at home and is used to advance health care for more Americans.

Some of the specifics are things like increasing scholarship programs for new doctors and nurses substantially, to even include residence cost, etc., in exchange for 8 years of service in a hard to staff location(city hospital, rural area, etc.) We all know we need more doctors and nurses. And if we didn't have a shortage of doctors today, they wouldn't be turning away medicare patients.

Increase funding of the VA to help vets better.

Close the medicare part D prescription "doughnut hole" that now plagues our seniors. Also allow negotiation for prescription prices with drug makers.

Expand the congressional health care plan to allow uninsured to buy in. And/or expand medicare to age 50 or 55+ people, helping early retirees make room for unemployed. Right now I'd be delighted to switch my wife and myself from private health insurance with exclusions to medicare.

Fully fund substance abuse programs.

There's lots to do, and lots that needs to be done to improve health care.
__________________
barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 03:28 PM   #110
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by barker View Post
And if we didn't have a shortage of doctors today, they wouldn't be turning away medicare patients.
Got a reference for this statement or is it your opinion?

Seems like what you are saying is 'if we produce more doctors they will work for the low wages created by medicare'

However, you may be right. If doctors are forced to only take medicare wages, then they will accept. However, good luck on finding a doctor that has an opening.
__________________
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 03:40 PM   #111
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic23 View Post
Got a reference for this statement or is it your opinion?

Seems like what you are saying is 'if we produce more doctors they will work for the low wages created by medicare'

However, you may be right. If doctors are forced to only take medicare wages, then they will accept. However, good luck on finding a doctor that has an opening.
Not sure what you mean for a reference, but here's a NYT article:
PHYSICIANS REFUSE MEDICARE PATIENTS

I'm just assuming that if there were a higher doctor/patient ratio, doctors would have more time and be willing to accept medicare patients - the old "some money is better than no money" for my time and office space expenses, etc.

Another way of looking at it is if almost all your patients are only paying you medicare rates, than you need to accept them or go out of business. Not saying the medicare rates are correct, that should be adjusted one way or another I suppose.

The bailout money we're spending now and will in the future could help many of these health-care issues if some is directed that way. And like I said, it keeps the money all in the U.S., unlike some of the financial bail-outs and even the automakers(who source parts and manufacture outside the U.S. also).
__________________
barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 04:11 PM   #112
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
I believe you are right. If doctors are forced to accept wages lower than they deem their services are worth they will quit. Thus forcing a system on doctors that causes this, IMHO, is not going to solve the problem.

Grinding out more doctors is not the answer, IMO. Good doctors, for the most part, are smart. Some, but I suspect not a lot, would put in the hours to become a doctor no matter what the monetary reward. However, I believe most would find another profession, and in the long run the quality of medicine in this country would go down, and even more doctors would be required.
__________________
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-13-2009, 04:12 PM   #113
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic23 View Post
I believe you are right. If doctors are forced to accept wages lower than they deem their services are worth they will quit. Thus forcing a system on doctors that causes this, IMHO, is not going to solve the problem.
The other thing is: Many young doctors have $100-200K in student loan debt. It would be awfully hard for some of them to pay off that debt AND malpractice insurance with nothing but Medicare reimbursement rates.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 09:19 AM   #114
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rustic23 View Post
I have never had a problem with any of my health Insurance Companies.
I think you've been lucky Rustic. Perhaps you've never tried to get insurance on the private market with pre-existing health conditions.

Or you've not had to deal with insurance companies illegal practices: Health insurer accused of overcharging millions - Health - MSNBC.com

This illegal abuse of patients has been going on for years - I've run into it myself also, as I'm sure most patients have whether they know it or not. It can be as simple as when your insurance company refuses to fully cover your entire doctor bill due to it exceeding "customary and normal" charges for your geographic area.

So imo Rustic, insurance companies are no bargain, and I know some from the inside as I worked for one for 27 years.
__________________
barker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2009, 10:08 AM   #115
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rustic23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lake Livingston, Tx
Posts: 3,624
You have just done what is so often done here. You have used anecdotal incidences, even some which may have happened to you, to condemn the entire system.

No I have no pre-existing conditions. If that is what you want fixed, then fix that. You don't buy a new car every time you run out or gas.

I have been covered by a government health care system. Twenty years ago CHAMPUS, military folks should know what that was, was a nightmare. No one but foreign doctors starting a practice, or recent med school graduates would accept it. Getting the agency the government put in charge to respond was like pulling teeth. Now to be fair, some folks had good experience with CHAMPUS. It depended more on where you were than anything else. I have had no problems with Medicare, but I have had no health care problems to generate a problem. My next door neighbor can not say the same thing.

Currently, unless a change in the health care system changes Medicare, the debate will not effect me. However, for those it will, I still caution 'Be careful what you wish for'. Go register you car, get a new drivers licsense, pay your taxes, call the IRS for and try to get them to change a decission, try to get an appointment with your Senator or Congressman for an hour to discuss this.
__________________

__________________
Rustic23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Obama offers universal health care plan Trek Health and Early Retirement 268 11-21-2007 11:33 AM
ER health insurance with MS qkayak Health and Early Retirement 8 11-13-2007 08:57 PM
Health Insurance tomz Health and Early Retirement 9 12-06-2006 10:50 AM
health history for health insurance vic Health and Early Retirement 22 10-26-2006 10:07 AM
health insurance and effect on increased health care costs Martha Other topics 9 08-08-2006 02:54 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:36 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.