If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(RealClearPolitics)   Some Doctors in Oklahoma came up with a genius idea. Why not let free markets and open pricing decide medical care. Surprisingly it has led to better care, lower costs and it isn't done in a back alley and no one is fed dog food   (realclearpolitics.com) divider line 192
    More: Cool, dog food, free markets, pricing, anesthesiologists, health cares  
•       •       •

13418 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Nov 2012 at 2:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



192 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-18 07:25:00 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The Southern Dandy: WhyteRaven74: MyRandomName: You can't provide every treatment for every person.

And yet plenty of countries do just that.

And do it better and cheaper than us.

B-b-but Norway doesn't have the blacks, and the messicans! Universal healthcare won't work because lazy poor people.


Out of curiosity, what is Norway's mean average income? Unemployment rate? Do we have comparative data on lifestyle, health, and other factors? Do we have a comparison of overall financial health and average cost of healthcare per capita?

Seems to me that if we're comparing the US and Norway on the basis of healthcare systems, we'd need a lot of data and points of comparison to factor in a host of things to make a true extrapolation of feasibility of their system here in the US.

But, don't let my pointing out that simply saying "well it works in Norway!" Doesn't even begin to cover the vast differences between them and us that might make such a system unfeasible here stop you from shoving a square peg in a round hole.
 
2012-11-18 07:31:00 PM  

SpeedingLunatic: Wish I had thought of that


You live and learn....

/glad your baby boy is all better, give him extra hugs for me tonight :)
 
2012-11-18 07:48:45 PM  

BronyMedic: OscarTamerz: The hospitals have to deal with unfunded mandates which say anyone can get free emergent care that shows up on their doorstep by federal law. The federal government doesn't pay a penny for this and healthcare is the only industry affected. Just imagine how much you'd pay for a car or food if every criminal alien that showed up at the dealership or supermarket didn't have to pay for their new S class Mercedes or steak and lobster. It's tantamount to a tax on sick people and the politicians know it and never talk about it.

OTOH, the reason that EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act exists is because hospitals would turn away people from their doors, without even giving them an exam or lifesaving stabilizing treatment, and either let them die on their doorsteps, or send them across the county to the "poor" hospital, which didn't have either the resources or the staff to care for them.


I second that, They aren't coming to the hospital for a lobster dinner, they are coming because they don't want to die. That example is completely off-base. Good trollin though.
 
2012-11-18 07:50:55 PM  

The Southern Dandy: Um...medical care isn't a luxury. It isn't caviar, where the free market can get you the best caviar at the lowest price, but still unaffordable to many. Everyone NEEDS medical care.


When did this happen, it certainly hasn't always been the case.
 
2012-11-18 08:03:55 PM  
The prices we have now are being set by the free market and the free market has been increasing costs at a rate much larger than the rate of inflation. If you really want to lower cost, you would have a single payer system where they also price everything out. So the drug that cost $1.50 a dose, will be charged as $1.50. This system is exactly what the right and gop do not want.
 
2012-11-18 08:10:25 PM  
"One reason our prices are so low," says Smith, "is that we don't have administrators running around in their four or five thousand dollar suits."

i1189.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-18 08:12:50 PM  
FTFA:

The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.

Conversely, what this really means is there is all the incentive in the world by doctors and hospitals to gouge the fark out of insurance companies.

FTFY, subby
 
2012-11-18 08:22:42 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: Health care should not be a for-profit business.


Too bad. Not only is it a for-profit business, it's a for-political-profit business too. It shouldn't be that either, but it is.

Putting aside the obvious issue that medical training and technology cost a shiat-ton of money...there's something even simpler going on.

People want to have their cake and eat it too, then have more cake - and not get fat or diabetic or impotent. They're willing to spend rather a lot of money on that - preferably somebody else's money, either the insurance company's or the taxpayers'. And that's the whole argument right there. Who pays for anything you can't take care of yourself...or WON'T take care of yourself in the case of the lifestyle diseases that are driving most of our health care costs...becomes either a business decision, a political decision, or some hybrid of both.

Meanwhile, you are NEVER going to hear a politician say that the person most responsible for each American's health care is staring at them in the mirror, and the cause of the bulk of our health care costs is also staring at them in the mirror. And the band plays on.

We make countless dumbass choices in everything from food to drugs to sex to driving, and expect a disembodied somebody else to endlessly pay for it when shiat blows up.

You want single payer to work here? You will need a business and political class with strong traditions of honesty, competence, and care with money - and that's lacking, to understate things. Even more importantly, you need people with strong traditions of good personal choices - meaning they won't burden the system as much as a Fattysmokes McStarchnbooze would here in the States.

Basically we'd need to be someplace like Norway. We've got our work cut out for us.
 
2012-11-18 08:42:42 PM  

Gulper Eel: TuteTibiImperes: Health care should not be a for-profit business.

Too bad. Not only is it a for-profit business, it's a for-political-profit business too. It shouldn't be that either, but it is.

Putting aside the obvious issue that medical training and technology cost a shiat-ton of money...there's something even simpler going on.

People want to have their cake and eat it too, then have more cake - and not get fat or diabetic or impotent. They're willing to spend rather a lot of money on that - preferably somebody else's money, either the insurance company's or the taxpayers'. And that's the whole argument right there. Who pays for anything you can't take care of yourself...or WON'T take care of yourself in the case of the lifestyle diseases that are driving most of our health care costs...becomes either a business decision, a political decision, or some hybrid of both.

Meanwhile, you are NEVER going to hear a politician say that the person most responsible for each American's health care is staring at them in the mirror, and the cause of the bulk of our health care costs is also staring at them in the mirror. And the band plays on.

We make countless dumbass choices in everything from food to drugs to sex to driving, and expect a disembodied somebody else to endlessly pay for it when shiat blows up.

You want single payer to work here? You will need a business and political class with strong traditions of honesty, competence, and care with money - and that's lacking, to understate things. Even more importantly, you need people with strong traditions of good personal choices - meaning they won't burden the system as much as a Fattysmokes McStarchnbooze would here in the States.

Basically we'd need to be someplace like Norway. We've got our work cut out for us.


we need to find ways in which we incentivize people. Say for example, if you're a type II diabetic who is overweight and you don't lose weight, your copay for your insuline/glyburide/metformin is twice as much. Likewise, for hypertension, and definitely likewise for smoking. I bet you if we can get people to just take a modicum of responsibility for these three conditions, we could significantly affect our healthcare costs.
 
KIA
2012-11-18 08:46:59 PM  
The fundamental problem is that insurance sets a floor for costs. They will always pay "x" so the caregivers will charge "x". There is zero incentive to reduce prices below "x" - although hospitals can find ways to cut corners to boost profits from x. The competitive process is suspended by insurance, so prices never go down. It's sad, really. Still, nice to see free enterprise working around the obstacles.
 
2012-11-18 08:48:49 PM  

rugmannm: The real concern in the coming years will not be cost as much as availability. As we add 40 million people to the health care rolls and have so many millions of baby boomers aging, there will probably not be enough doctors to do all of the knee and hip replacements that people need. The ACA ("Obamacare") doesn't address this problem. Neither did it address costs, which are much higher in this country with worse outcomes than many countries with socialized medicine.

Still, this is an interesting concept. I suspect medical tourism may play a big role for baby boomers needing treatments that are too pricey or have too long a waiting list in this country.


orthopedic surgeons don't want more orthopedic surgeons to help do more orthopedic surgeries. They want to do them themselves so they can have more job security, make more money, have a higher status in the hospitals they work at, etc, etc.
 
2012-11-18 08:52:21 PM  
Spend some time in an ER and you will quickly find that most of the people on Medicaid are scum or the bastard offspring of scum, And they show up for non emergencies. Six year knee pain that became an emergency on a Saturday night? The girl that came by ambulance because her orthodontic retainer broke and her mother became irate when she was sent out to triage instead of going right to a room. Now the nurse has to triage her and she has to be evaluated by a doctor just so she can hear "we don't fix retainers. Call your orthodontist." And of course her mother demands a taxi voucher so they can get home. Frig them. ERs need to be able to turn people like those two examples away. We need to stop rewarding people that make bad decisions with free or reduced health care while people like me are forced to pay the cost of their bad decisions. We need to start stigmatizing people that are burdens to society.
 
2012-11-18 09:09:34 PM  

rga184: we need to find ways in which we incentivize people. Say for example, if you're a type II diabetic who is overweight and you don't lose weight, your copay for your insuline/glyburide/metformin is twice as much. Likewise, for hypertension, and definitely likewise for smoking. I bet you if we can get people to just take a modicum of responsibility for these three conditions, we could significantly affect our healthcare costs.


First thing we do is blow up agriculture subsidies. If we can't do that, base the subsidies on carbs.

.
 
2012-11-18 09:26:26 PM  

rga184: Gulper Eel: TuteTibiImperes: Health care should not be a for-profit business.

Too bad. Not only is it a for-profit business, it's a for-political-profit business too. It shouldn't be that either, but it is.

Putting aside the obvious issue that medical training and technology cost a shiat-ton of money...there's something even simpler going on.

People want to have their cake and eat it too, then have more cake - and not get fat or diabetic or impotent. They're willing to spend rather a lot of money on that - preferably somebody else's money, either the insurance company's or the taxpayers'. And that's the whole argument right there. Who pays for anything you can't take care of yourself...or WON'T take care of yourself in the case of the lifestyle diseases that are driving most of our health care costs...becomes either a business decision, a political decision, or some hybrid of both.

Meanwhile, you are NEVER going to hear a politician say that the person most responsible for each American's health care is staring at them in the mirror, and the cause of the bulk of our health care costs is also staring at them in the mirror. And the band plays on.

We make countless dumbass choices in everything from food to drugs to sex to driving, and expect a disembodied somebody else to endlessly pay for it when shiat blows up.

You want single payer to work here? You will need a business and political class with strong traditions of honesty, competence, and care with money - and that's lacking, to understate things. Even more importantly, you need people with strong traditions of good personal choices - meaning they won't burden the system as much as a Fattysmokes McStarchnbooze would here in the States.

Basically we'd need to be someplace like Norway. We've got our work cut out for us.

we need to find ways in which we incentivize people. Say for example, if you're a type II diabetic who is overweight and you don't lose weight, your copay for your insuline/glyburide/metform ...


I get a $250 credit from my healthcare company if I get a yearly check-up, report my numbers, and do one or two other minor things. The great part, other than being severly under-weight from high metabolism, i'm in great shape. So I get credit for being me. Isn't that special?
 
2012-11-18 09:45:25 PM  

dennysgod: If free market health care works so well why is it being replaced by "Obamacare"?


We don't have a free market system right now. A free market would be doctors competing on price. Right now most people simply go to whatever doctor takes their insurance.
 
2012-11-18 09:55:49 PM  

UseLessHuman: I second that, They aren't coming to the hospital for a lobster dinner, they are coming because they don't want to die. That example is completely off-base. Good trollin though.


Really, because if you don't eat you die right? But if the supermarket is forced to give away steak and lobster to criminal aliens then the price of your mac and cheese and Wonderbread is going to be astronomical.

The dumboshats transferred the costs of medical care onto the backs of everybody's grandmas who go in to get their broken hip fixed and come out with a bill that is higher than the cost of granny's house. The dumboshats make the grannys pay for the criminal aliens' medical care and then they prevent the use of voter ID cards so the criminal aliens vote by almost 3 million to keep them in office through widespread voter fraud. If you aren't willing to defend your right to no taxation without representation then you're worse off than the Boston Tea Party people and right now the criminal aliens have taken the representation from honest voters with the collusion of President Obama.
 
2012-11-18 10:11:41 PM  
you know, all you people talking about lowering health care costs by making people healthier have it back asswards.

We want diabetics and smokers and fatties. THEY DIE SOONER.

If everyone lived a healthy lifestyle, we'd start having tons of people living 90-100 years. The long term costs for caring for someone who lives 100 years is higher then the cost of caring for a fatty that dies at 50.
 
2012-11-18 10:24:46 PM  

fluffy2097: you know, all you people talking about lowering health care costs by making people healthier have it back asswards.

We want diabetics and smokers and fatties. THEY DIE SOONER.

If everyone lived a healthy lifestyle, we'd start having tons of people living 90-100 years. The long term costs for caring for someone who lives 100 years is higher then the cost of caring for a fatty that dies at 50.


Are we doing "The American Dream (tm)" or not?

I get so confused....
 
2012-11-18 10:28:21 PM  

fluffy2097: you know, all you people talking about lowering health care costs by making people healthier have it back asswards.

We want diabetics and smokers and fatties. THEY DIE SOONER.
.


When healthy people die (mo one survived life yet) they tend to be fighters... VERY expensive.
 
2012-11-18 10:46:11 PM  

OscarTamerz: The hospitals have to deal with unfunded mandates which say anyone can get free emergent care that shows up on their doorstep by federal law. The federal government doesn't pay a penny for this and healthcare is the only industry affected. Just imagine how much you'd pay for a car or food if every criminal alien that showed up at the dealership or supermarket didn't have to pay for their new S class Mercedes or steak and lobster. It's tantamount to a tax on sick people and the politicians know it and never talk about it.

The surgery center doesn't have to deal with any of that so it's disingenuous of them to pretend they've discovered this fantastic new business model that everyone else is too greedy to implement.


so you're saying we should socialize medicine and that includes undocumented workers

/imokwiththat.jpg
 
2012-11-18 11:02:48 PM  
Those guys are going to be farked if the conservatives in congress get their way and manage to pass that abortion bill that requires all surgeons to have surgery privileges in hospital operating rooms in order to do surgery in surgery centers. You can bet that if they have thier own surgery center, they don't have hospital privileges any more.
 
2012-11-18 11:21:06 PM  
Health care is too complicated for people to shop around and you usually can't even get a price ahead of time. So the average person is supposed to call around and get the best price, understanding that one place charges less because they use anesthesia drug A but the other place uses anesthesia drug B. What's the difference? Is one safer or did that particular hospital just get a better price on the drug because they buy a larger quantity?

When my husband was in agony and needed an immediate appendectomy, I didn't call around for prices. Crazily enough, he went from the ER to surgery in the same hospital. Is anyone seriously suggesting I should have sat in the emergency room at 1:00 in the morning, calling around to check prices on appendectomies?

Insurance companies have the ability to negotiate prices and they they do negotiate. The original bill for my husband's surgery was ~$40,000. After "insurance discounts" the price was $3000. If we weren't insured, you think we would have been able to negotiate that $40,000 down to $3000?

His company is switching to one of those "we don't pay for anything but it's awesome because now you can have a health savings account and shop around and save money" health plans. We're still getting details, but we're worried, especially since it only pays for a % of prescription drugs, rather than a standard co-pay. And it looks like our out-of-pocket maximum will be ~$18,000.
 
2012-11-19 12:12:06 AM  

Phins: Health care is too complicated for people to shop around and you usually can't even get a price ahead of time. So the average person is supposed to call around and get the best price, understanding that one place charges less because they use anesthesia drug A but the other place uses anesthesia drug B. What's the difference? Is one safer or did that particular hospital just get a better price on the drug because they buy a larger quantity?

When my husband was in agony and needed an immediate appendectomy, I didn't call around for prices. Crazily enough, he went from the ER to surgery in the same hospital. Is anyone seriously suggesting I should have sat in the emergency room at 1:00 in the morning, calling around to check prices on appendectomies?

Insurance companies have the ability to negotiate prices and they they do negotiate. The original bill for my husband's surgery was ~$40,000. After "insurance discounts" the price was $3000. If we weren't insured, you think we would have been able to negotiate that $40,000 down to $3000?

His company is switching to one of those "we don't pay for anything but it's awesome because now you can have a health savings account and shop around and save money" health plans. We're still getting details, but we're worried, especially since it only pays for a % of prescription drugs, rather than a standard co-pay. And it looks like our out-of-pocket maximum will be ~$18,000.


HSAs are good plans, what you don't spend on the premium you should be investing in your HAS. I just switched from a copay plan I got for free to an HSA I get 1800 in employer funding (the difference in premium). I have a $3,000 deductible, so there is a narrow window of medium usage where the copay plan is better. Less usage or more usage (catastrophic) the HSA plan works better.

Also I think you are wrong about the out of pocket max, I dont remember the family plans being that high, though I could be wrong.

See my post above. Almost all employer and private health plans will soon have a deductible. It's like this in MA already. Every employer is discussing rolling out an HSA plan or atleast a front end deductible. Even state and municpal plans got hit hard this year, virtually every school is in transition.
 
2012-11-19 12:49:39 AM  
Phins: His company is switching to one of those "we don't pay for anything but it's awesome because now you can have a health savings account and shop around and save money" health plans. We're still getting details, but we're worried, especially since it only pays for a % of prescription drugs, rather than a standard co-pay. And it looks like our out-of-pocket maximum will be ~$18,000.

ChuDogg: HSAs are good plans, what you don't spend on the premium you should be investing in your HAS. I just switched from a copay plan I got for free to an HSA I get 1800 in employer funding (the difference in premium). I have a $3,000 deductible, so there is a narrow window of medium usage where the copay plan is better. Less usage or more usage (catastrophic) the HSA plan works better.

Also I think you are wrong about the out of pocket max, I dont remember the family plans being that high, though I could be wrong.

See my post above. Almost all employer and private health plans will soon have a deductible. It's like this in MA already. Every employer is discussing rolling out an HSA plan or atleast a front end deductible. Even state and municpal plans got hit hard this year, virtually every school is in transition.


The plan we've been on has a deductible ($3000). I don't object to that too much. And there were co-pays for dr. visits and prescriptions. But the new plan is so much worse.

The premiums are cheaper and I haven't done all the math. But the basics of the plan are:

• $3000 deductible (for the two of us)

• everything not-preventive (doctors, labs, MRIs, etc.) in network, 80% of UCR after the deductible is met. So it's not 80% of the actual charge, it's 80% of some random, made up amount that they declare it should cost. In my experience, it means they pay 20%-40% of the actual charge. Out of network, it's 50% of UCR after the deductible is met.

• Separate deductibles for in-network and out-of network (so $3000 each)

• For prescriptions, they pay 30% of the cost of a non-generic, after you meet the deductible. If there's no generic available, that's TS (I'm on a medication that has no generic, it's ~$500/month).

• The out-of-pocket max is $9000 but once again, in and out of network are separate, so that's where I got the $18,000.

• Only the amount of the UCR applies to the deductible, not the actual cost.

So it doesn't pay for anything until we meet the $3000 deductible and only a small % of the actual cost will be applied to the deductible. So we don't get much coverage until we've spent $9000 in-network or $9000 out of network.
 
2012-11-19 01:31:23 AM  
Phins: Phins: His company is switching to one of those "we don't pay for anything but it's awesome because now you can have a health savings account and shop around and save money" health plans. We're still getting details, but we're worried, especially since it only pays for a % of prescription drugs, rather than a standard co-pay. And it looks like our out-of-pocket maximum will be ~$18,000.

ChuDogg: HSAs are good plans, what you don't spend on the premium you should be investing in your HAS. I just switched from a copay plan I got for free to an HSA I get 1800 in employer funding (the difference in premium). I have a $3,000 deductible, so there is a narrow window of medium usage where the copay plan is better. Less usage or more usage (catastrophic) the HSA plan works better.

Also I think you are wrong about the out of pocket max, I dont remember the family plans being that high, though I could be wrong.

See my post above. Almost all employer and private health plans will soon have a deductible. It's like this in MA already. Every employer is discussing rolling out an HSA plan or atleast a front end deductible. Even state and municpal plans got hit hard this year, virtually every school is in transition.

The plan we've been on has a deductible ($3000). I don't object to that too much. And there were co-pays for dr. visits and prescriptions. But the new plan is so much worse.

The premiums are cheaper and I haven't done all the math. But the basics of the plan are:

• $3000 deductible (for the two of us)

• everything not-preventive (doctors, labs, MRIs, etc.) in network, 80% of UCR after the deductible is met. So it's not 80% of the actual charge, it's 80% of some random, made up amount that they declare it should cost. In my experience, it means they pay 20%-40% of the actual charge. Out of network, it's 50% of UCR after the deductible is met.

• Separate deductibles for in-network and out-of network (so $3000 each)

• For prescriptions, they pay 30% of the cos ...

I live in England. I go to the doctor and they treat me then I go home. All for 6% of GDP as opposed to the US's 15+%. Anybody who supports the current US system is innumerate or evil.
 
2012-11-19 02:02:18 AM  
The title is "Oklahoma Doctors vs. Obamacare", but I fail to see why they are actually mutually exclusive.

Obamacare only stipulates that you need to have care, how much care employers need to provide, and provides assistance for people who can't afford it. It doesn't say anything about how much you need to spend on it in terms of specific costs. If doctors and hospitals all around the country did this, they'd simply succeed in driving the cost of health plans down and making Obamacare much cheaper to implement.
More power to em, but lets not pretend like this is some fight between the free market and ObamaSocialismTM.
 
2012-11-19 02:10:33 AM  
Phins

So it doesn't pay for anything until we meet the $3000 deductible and only a small % of the actual cost will be applied to the deductible. So we don't get much coverage until we've spent $9000 in-network or $9000 out of network.


Reason #1 sh*t needs to change.

I work as a practice manager. I see a lot of these problems(this thread). I think, personally, Obamacare is a step in the right direction overall, albeit remaining something of a mixed bag. Care costs are indeed completely out of control. First let's look at current/future changes implemented by Obamacare:

Pluses:
No more uninsurable. We have some patients in the high risk pool now, and I can tell you it is something, that is, it's better than nothing, which is what these poor (literally & figuratively) sumbiches had before. This is by far the most significant portion of the legislation, and the most necessary. Also rules regarding dropping people who get sick - sorry, that's what the insurance business is. If you can't compete then we should nationalize your industry.
No more lifetime limits. Lifetime limits were bullshiat policies instituted by smart accountants to try to deal with outliers, like the guy who was born a hemophiliac, got hep c through a dental procedure, AIDS from a blood transfusion, got stable in 2009 but then developed treatable mesothelioma. Yes, there are a few people who have extremely complicated and expensive-to-treat condition, no I don't think we should abandon them.
Transparency increases.
Medicare refunds & gap coverage. Moar coverage for people on fixed incomes. Niiiiiiiiice.
Tax breaks for care increase.
No more federal insurance for Congress. Welcome to the real world, assholes.

Minuses:
Food labeling. When I want a Big Mac because I didn't get laid tonight, I'm not going to count the farking calories.
Requirements to buy a health plan. This is horsesh*t. If you require it you should provide a public option and then it's a tax. Forcing people to buy a private product (especially one as flawed as medical insurance) is unconscionable and morally indefensible. This is especially egregious because of the population it most affects the 20-somethings - the population least likely to need it or use it and most fiscally impacted because of where they are in life. This amounts to a wealth transfer from the healthy to the cost of the system, which is completely f**king broken.
More medicare documentation requirements. The one maxim about bureaucracy you can't escape is that they'll make more damnable paperwork for everyone.
Dr. pay determined by rating, which doesn't exist as a system yet. I put it in minuses because I assure you whatever is put in place will be inferior to Yelp in every way and it'll cost a pile of money to boot.

Mixed bag/too soon to tell:
More generics. This doesn't seem like it can be mandated into existence, but I guess we'll see what happens.
Tax increase on the wealthiest 5-7%.
Taxes on medical devices, pharma companies, insurance companies.
Medium-business requirements. This will help workers, but hurt growth.
Taxes are always mixed bag, although again I do not see why we should not have a public option with all the expense, regulation and taxing going on. It seems that the insurance companies will/have become unnecessary.


In my office, we are happy to provide our fees for services upfront to our patients, and certainly these Oklahoma docs are doing that. Perhaps the doctors also volunteer, like my employer, at a local free clinic. But the problem is too big to address in this manner; our system needs an overhaul the market cannot provide; ultimately whenever you have a product that people need in order to survive, you need either nationalization or intense regulation, otherwise you end up with profit at the expense of human life. Pithy statements about freedom and markets and capitalism don't mean a whole hell of a lot when your child needs an operation you simply can't afford. And evil insurance companies have no interest in the public good - they routinely deny medication in my office to people who without it cannot work, damaging the system one ruined life at a time. I make free use of the Dept of Insurance in my state to force the insurance companies to provide care, which they are legally obligated to do, to the very mother f**kers whose money they rely on to stay in business.

Maybe in someone else's' office, you were told your insurance denied a medication, but unless you have an exclusion in your policy, I will get it for you in mine. 

/some other time you can get me going on big pharma
 
2012-11-19 03:43:18 AM  
Came here for the lefties who can't understand the free market. Wasn't disappointed.
 
2012-11-19 03:48:08 AM  

fluffy2097: We want diabetics and smokers and fatties. THEY DIE SOONER.

If everyone lived a healthy lifestyle, we'd start having tons of people living 90-100 years. The long term costs for caring for someone who lives 100 years is higher then the cost of caring for a fatty that dies at 50.


Your theory would hold correct if it was 1951, but it's not - 'managing' lifestyle diseases like diabetes is quite lucrative. Somebody diagnosed at 40 can easily be a buyer of diabetes-related drugs, products and services for another 30.

It's already $45 billion for diabetes management every year, just in the Medicare budget.

Maybe they still die sooner, but now they die at 70 instead of 50.
 
2012-11-19 06:27:07 AM  

ShivaHVishnu: Came here for the lefties who can't understand the free market. Wasn't disappointed.


Came here for idiots mouthing of about a free market system that they don't understand.
/Wasn't disappointed.
 
2012-11-19 07:17:54 AM  
Had a heart ablation a year ago which entailed me spending the night in the hospital. That's it. One night. The bill I got? $87,000 and change. For real. All I can say is that SOMETHING needs to be done differently.
 
2012-11-19 10:24:12 AM  

Xploder: Had a heart ablation a year ago which entailed me spending the night in the hospital. That's it. One night. The bill I got? $87,000 and change. For real. All I can say is that SOMETHING needs to be done differently.


THIS.

My general practitioner signed me up to get an MRI with a leading KC hospital. The hospital told me that MY cost up front was $1000, just for the MRI. I asked my Dr for a second option wherein I was directed to a clinic similar to the Oklahoma service provider that just performs these types of scans. My cost up front was a typical co-pay and the total fee for the scan was less than $500.

I can only imagine what the first hospital charges our insurance company once they get their hard-earned $1000 out of their patient. Now explain to me how the US gov't is going to manage our healthcare when they can't even keep a postal delivery service solvent?
 
2012-11-19 11:28:37 AM  

NetOwl: It's okay for the free market to decide the value of scarce things like yachts. The whole point of a market is to find the fairest way to distrbute scarce goods. If I don't get a yacht, oh well.

Medical care is another story.


All goods are, essentially, scarce, because human needs/wants are infinite, but there are only finite resources with which to meet them.
 
2012-11-19 12:23:50 PM  

kcfarker: Now explain to me how the US gov't is going to manage our healthcare when they can't even keep a postal delivery service solvent?


Seriously? This bullshiat, you're dropping in this thread? If you let people who knew what they were doing run the government, then maybe the government would be able to function. If you elect assholes whose sole goal is to fark the system over until it breaks, then you're going to end up with a broken system. Look at FEMA for a perfect example.
 
2012-11-19 01:08:36 PM  

NetOwl: Both 1 and 2 make society better for everyone.


Says who?
 
2012-11-19 02:54:52 PM  

phyrkrakr: kcfarker: Now explain to me how the US gov't is going to manage our healthcare when they can't even keep a postal delivery service solvent?

Seriously? This bullshiat, you're dropping in this thread? If you let people who knew what they were doing run the government, then maybe the government would be able to function. If you elect assholes whose sole goal is to fark the system over until it breaks, then you're going to end up with a broken system. Look at FEMA for a perfect example.


I see you're from Missouri.


So I guess we're even then.
 
2012-11-19 03:27:21 PM  

Yogimus: fluffy2097: you know, all you people talking about lowering health care costs by making people healthier have it back asswards.

We want diabetics and smokers and fatties. THEY DIE SOONER.
.

When healthy people die (mo one survived life yet) they tend to be fighters... VERY expensive.


Hmm....what about those of us with stage 4 Hodgkin's lymphoma?

Healthcare workers LOVE us!!
 
2012-11-19 04:45:51 PM  

lamecomedian:

All goods are, essentially, scarce, because human needs/wants are infinite, but there are only finite resources with which to meet them.


Medical care isn't a good, chuckles. It's a service, and the need for it is limited by disease, injury and infirmity. Unless you're talking about plastic surgery, where the limiting factor tends to be vanity, but I don't see anyone making the case for publicly funded elective surgery.
 
2012-11-19 05:43:54 PM  
I'm marking 11/18/2012 when I first saw "Oklahoma" and "genius idea" in the same sentence. Bucket list nearly complete; now, just waiting on "Texas" and "elects black governor" ...
 
2012-11-20 12:50:07 AM  

Azlefty: $o the Why ha$en't thi$ taken the Country by $torm?

Sorry but most doctors are greedier A$$holes than litigation lawyers


Damn those pediatricians and their lavish yachts!
 
2012-11-20 07:42:20 PM  

Phins: So we don't get much coverage until we've spent $9000 in-network or $9000 out of network.


The two deductibles don't add up. Once you hit $9,000 out of pocket it's covered in full after that. You don't have to go out of network. Depending on your location, most health plans have decent in-network coverage. It's really to dissuade more emotional ties to certain doctors, as those doctors are usually just in-network to a different health plan anyway. YMMV. if you need to go out of network they do include that option, but that should really only be for life-threatening events and you really shopped around.
 
2012-11-21 10:14:30 AM  
See? We're not as dumb as you think we are. Now if we could get a voter's information pamphlet like Oregon does, we might actually have a shot at having someone who isn't a stupid asshole representing us...
 
Displayed 42 of 192 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report