Skip to main content

http://www.timesdaily.com/stor...the-recession,183096

 

It seems like geological ages ago I was sitting in political science class listening to a friend tell me about the hateful and ignorant comments that were made on the TD forum by posters who knew nothing about the healthcare situation and their determination to fight helping not only themselves but their fellow citizens by bashing  universal healthcare.  I decided to check it out.  Fast forward 3 years and there are the same types of opinions being posted regarding anything which would benefit those who are less fortunate.  The funny part is it seems the same ones who "preach" the "I've got mine, to hell with everyone else" line seem to frequent the religious forum the most.  One word comes to mind:  HYPOCRITES!

This sad situation of healthcare HAS affected ALL areas of society including the little niche called the SHOALS.

The President and the democrats caved and failed miserably on this and the republicans came one step closer to fulfilling their true mission of eliminating the poor who rarely support them unless they are indoctrinated due to ignorance which is akin to genocide through societal hardship.  BUT, you have to give them credit for flipping the script and accusing those who are protesting about inequities of promoting "class warfare"  Once again:  HYPOCRITES!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

The wonderful clinic has been in Florence for several years. I'm not sure when Bonita McCay took over as admin, but she failed to speak of those who actually make the clinic what it is: the CRNPs. These ladies are instructors at the UNA CON who volunteer one day a week to work with the patients. Renee', who was pictured, is also part of the backbone, doing the phlebotomy and scheduling.

 

Neither did the article mention that the clinic is happy to take donations of supplies. One should call first to see if the items are needed.

 

Their free Health Fair will be the first week in November (and I'm at a loss as to why this wasn't mentioned in the article). It's free for everyone, and I know many nurses, including myself, who will get a flu shot there. Again, kudos to those who have worked so long to bring this to the Shoals.

rocky, welcome back.

Sadly the healthcare debacle orchestrated by the Dems was a focus in the wrong direction.  Many of us who know about healthcare have said for years that one of the primary issues in any healthcare reform has to be an element of tort reform, which this administration, who is in the pockets of the trial lawyers, has totally ignored.  For instance take a gander at this little bit of info I got recently....you will see that some studies have shown that a physician practicing in Alabama at one time had a 99% chance of being sued.  With just a little bit of manipulation of the law, they turned this around.  however, again the trial lawyers plan on supporting legislation that will make it even easier to file a suit, further endangering your access to a physician.  There has to be a balance, and it requires compromise on both sides.

 

Fear of Lawsuits Still a Top Concern,

 

Survey Says Fear of lawsuits, a recent survey found, is still a top concern for physicians. The poll of U.S. primary care physicians, published in the September 26 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, showed that more than three-quarters of those questioned said malpractice concerns cause them to practice more aggressively. Soon after the survey was made public the American Association for Justice (AAJ, formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association) issued a release calling the survey’s findings unreliable and stating that “malpractice cases are extremely rare.” Despite the plaintiff lawyer association’s claims that malpractice cases rarely occur, a study entitled “Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty” that was published in the August edition of the New England Journal of Medicine and that also came under fire from the AAJ, found otherwise. The authors found that by age 65, three-quarters of physicians practicing in low-risk specialties and 99 percent of physicians practicing high-risk specialties had faced a malpractice claim. The study’s authors concluded that “The cumulative risk of facing a malpractice claim is high in all specialties” – hardly a sporadic occurrence, as the AAJ assumes. The national plaintiff lawyer group is on record saying “doctors’ perceptions of medical malpractice claims are not in line with actual risk” but Medical Association President Jeff Terry, MD, believes Alabama physicians’ fear of lawsuits is justified. “Physicians who have faced a lawsuit would certainly dispute that such cases are ‘extremely rare,’” Dr. Terry said. Alabama courts have in the past had a well-known re****tion for frivolous lawsuits and high jury verdicts, both of which helped cause the professional liability and litigation crisis of the 1970s and 1980s that drove insurers from the state. These were the early days of “tort hell” – a phrase coined in a Forbes magazine article to describe Alabama’s lottery-like legal system that was rife with large jury awards. This crisis and the unfriendly business environment it fostered pushed the Medical Association and other allied groups to fight for tough tort reform changes in the Alabama Legislature for respite from the barrage of lawsuits. For physicians, that relief came in the form of the Medical Liability Act of 1987, a law that Medical Association General Counsel Les Hayes says is one of the strongest of its kind in the nation. “The Medical Liability Act allows Alabama physicians the freedom to practice medicine to the best of their ability and in the best interest of their patients without fear of being dragged into a frivolous medical liability suit every time a patient walks in the waiting room,” Hayes said. Nearly two-and-a-half decades have passed since the Medical Liability Act became law and in that time additional tort reform measures have also been enacted, some as recently as the 2011 Legislative Session. While it used to make the American Tort Reform Association’s (ATRA) annual “Judicial Hellholes” list, Alabama has been absent from the report for several years and recently was selected by Area Development as one of the top three states for doing business. Forrest Latta, an attorney with the Birmingham law firm of Burr & Forman, in the November 2008 edition of Business Alabama describes Alabama as “a state that found its way back from hell as a leader in tort reform.” He also says “few disagree that Alabama’s legal climate has improved the last 10 years.” Dr. Terry says that by all accounts, the pendulum has indeed swung the opposite direction since the days of tort hell. The question, he says, is whether it will stay in its current position. “Pendulums, by their nature, never stop swinging – they may pause for a time but their movement always continues,” Terry said. “If it goes back the other way we could be in trouble.” With five of the nine seats on the Alabama Supreme Court up for election next year, plaintiff lawyers are most certainly watching the candidates and their races closely. While they have traditionally contributed heavily to Democrats in judicial races, it is anticipated that given the new Republican majority in state government, plaintiff trial lawyers will recruit and support their own candidates to run in the Republican primary in March 2012. Dr. Terry is not surprised. “I’m sure they’d like to see the pendulum swing back the other direction and from their recent statements and news releases, it appears they are gearing up for the elections,” Dr. Terry said. Latta also says in the Business Alabama article that “Alabama’s legal system is inherently political,” since all judges in the state are elected to office. In the same vein, could the strides Alabama has made over the past 25 years because of medical liability and other tort reforms be reversed by a future court? Latta believes they could. “The benefits of tort reform can be wiped away in one election cycle,” Latta said in the article. Dr. Terry agrees. “Seems physicians’ continued fear of lawsuits has merit,” he said. “We’ll never be totally out of the woods on this issue.”

Originally Posted by teyates:

rocky, welcome back.

Sadly the healthcare debacle orchestrated by the Dems was a focus in the wrong direction.  Many of us who know about healthcare have said for years that one of the primary issues in any healthcare reform has to be an element of tort reform, which this administration, who is in the pockets of the trial lawyers, has totally ignored.  For instance take a gander at this little bit of info I got recently....you will see that some studies have shown that a physician practicing in Alabama at one time had a 99% chance of being sued.  With just a little bit of manipulation of the law, they turned this around.  however, again the trial lawyers plan on supporting legislation that will make it even easier to file a suit, further endangering your access to a physician.  There has to be a balance, and it requires compromise on both sides.

 

Fear of Lawsuits Still a Top Concern,

 

Survey Says Fear of lawsuits, a recent survey found, is still a top concern for physicians. The poll of U.S. primary care physicians, published in the September 26 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, showed that more than three-quarters of those questioned said malpractice concerns cause them to practice more aggressively. Soon after the survey was made public the American Association for Justice (AAJ, formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association) issued a release calling the survey’s findings unreliable and stating that “malpractice cases are extremely rare.” Despite the plaintiff lawyer association’s claims that malpractice cases rarely occur, a study entitled “Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty” that was published in the August edition of the New England Journal of Medicine and that also came under fire from the AAJ, found otherwise. The authors found that by age 65, three-quarters of physicians practicing in low-risk specialties and 99 percent of physicians practicing high-risk specialties had faced a malpractice claim. The study’s authors concluded that “The cumulative risk of facing a malpractice claim is high in all specialties” – hardly a sporadic occurrence, as the AAJ assumes. The national plaintiff lawyer group is on record saying “doctors’ perceptions of medical malpractice claims are not in line with actual risk” but Medical Association President Jeff Terry, MD, believes Alabama physicians’ fear of lawsuits is justified. “Physicians who have faced a lawsuit would certainly dispute that such cases are ‘extremely rare,’” Dr. Terry said. Alabama courts have in the past had a well-known re****tion for frivolous lawsuits and high jury verdicts, both of which helped cause the professional liability and litigation crisis of the 1970s and 1980s that drove insurers from the state. These were the early days of “tort hell” – a phrase coined in a Forbes magazine article to describe Alabama’s lottery-like legal system that was rife with large jury awards. This crisis and the unfriendly business environment it fostered pushed the Medical Association and other allied groups to fight for tough tort reform changes in the Alabama Legislature for respite from the barrage of lawsuits. For physicians, that relief came in the form of the Medical Liability Act of 1987, a law that Medical Association General Counsel Les Hayes says is one of the strongest of its kind in the nation. “The Medical Liability Act allows Alabama physicians the freedom to practice medicine to the best of their ability and in the best interest of their patients without fear of being dragged into a frivolous medical liability suit every time a patient walks in the waiting room,” Hayes said. Nearly two-and-a-half decades have passed since the Medical Liability Act became law and in that time additional tort reform measures have also been enacted, some as recently as the 2011 Legislative Session. While it used to make the American Tort Reform Association’s (ATRA) annual “Judicial Hellholes” list, Alabama has been absent from the report for several years and recently was selected by Area Development as one of the top three states for doing business. Forrest Latta, an attorney with the Birmingham law firm of Burr & Forman, in the November 2008 edition of Business Alabama describes Alabama as “a state that found its way back from hell as a leader in tort reform.” He also says “few disagree that Alabama’s legal climate has improved the last 10 years.” Dr. Terry says that by all accounts, the pendulum has indeed swung the opposite direction since the days of tort hell. The question, he says, is whether it will stay in its current position. “Pendulums, by their nature, never stop swinging – they may pause for a time but their movement always continues,” Terry said. “If it goes back the other way we could be in trouble.” With five of the nine seats on the Alabama Supreme Court up for election next year, plaintiff lawyers are most certainly watching the candidates and their races closely. While they have traditionally contributed heavily to Democrats in judicial races, it is anticipated that given the new Republican majority in state government, plaintiff trial lawyers will recruit and support their own candidates to run in the Republican primary in March 2012. Dr. Terry is not surprised. “I’m sure they’d like to see the pendulum swing back the other direction and from their recent statements and news releases, it appears they are gearing up for the elections,” Dr. Terry said. Latta also says in the Business Alabama article that “Alabama’s legal system is inherently political,” since all judges in the state are elected to office. In the same vein, could the strides Alabama has made over the past 25 years because of medical liability and other tort reforms be reversed by a future court? Latta believes they could. “The benefits of tort reform can be wiped away in one election cycle,” Latta said in the article. Dr. Terry agrees. “Seems physicians’ continued fear of lawsuits has merit,” he said. “We’ll never be totally out of the woods on this issue.”

Lawsuits account for less than 1% of healthcare costs. Kind of an important fact to leave out of your rant.

Your reply explains why you know nothing about healthcare.  It is the costs ASSOCIATED with the fear of a lawsuit that is driving the costs upwards.  Unneccessary testing and hospital admissions contribute a huge amount to the costs of care.  high liability insurance increases doctor overhead tremendously.

These are the types of things that people who don't have a clue about what they are talking about tend to forget.

The malpractice myth lives on.

At facilities that pay doctors a salary, instead of paying for the number of patients seen and a percentage of the profit on each test ordered, the costs of patient care are about half of other typical facilities. 

Docs want you to believe that they pay exorbitant insurance cause it makes for good public perception. 

Another capitalism fail!!!

Ditto,

Facilities that pay doctors a salary also see lower productivity, with most setting a limit to the patients they see.  These organizations also are limited by the amount they can be sued so the rates are lower for an organization than for a slef employed physician.  I think I have been a physician longer than you, don't know for sure, but I can assure you that if you think that liability insurance is cheap you are defitinely a mo-ron.

Most primary care phsycians are beginning to close up shop.  Most do not practice in the hospital, but allow hospitalists to take over patient care.  There is usually a disconnect, and more often than not people are not satisifed with their care in this manner.

Needless to say, again if you don't hink that malpractice suits, the threat of them, and the practice to avoid them does not contribute to the increasing costs of care, you are sadly misinformed.

Originally Posted by teyates:

rocky, welcome back.

Sadly the healthcare debacle orchestrated by the Dems was a focus in the wrong direction.  Many of us who know about healthcare have said for years that one of the primary issues in any healthcare reform has to be an element of tort reform, which this administration, who is in the pockets of the trial lawyers, has totally ignored.  For instance take a gander at this little bit of info I got recently....you will see that some studies have shown that a physician practicing in Alabama at one time had a 99% chance of being sued.  With just a little bit of manipulation of the law, they turned this around.  however, again the trial lawyers plan on supporting legislation that will make it even easier to file a suit, further endangering your access to a physician.  There has to be a balance, and it requires compromise on both sides.

 

Fear of Lawsuits Still a Top Concern,

 

Survey Says Fear of lawsuits, a recent survey found, is still a top concern for physicians. The poll of U.S. primary care physicians, published in the September 26 issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine, showed that more than three-quarters of those questioned said malpractice concerns cause them to practice more aggressively. Soon after the survey was made public the American Association for Justice (AAJ, formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association) issued a release calling the survey’s findings unreliable and stating that “malpractice cases are extremely rare.” Despite the plaintiff lawyer association’s claims that malpractice cases rarely occur, a study entitled “Malpractice Risk According to Physician Specialty” that was published in the August edition of the New England Journal of Medicine and that also came under fire from the AAJ, found otherwise. The authors found that by age 65, three-quarters of physicians practicing in low-risk specialties and 99 percent of physicians practicing high-risk specialties had faced a malpractice claim. The study’s authors concluded that “The cumulative risk of facing a malpractice claim is high in all specialties” – hardly a sporadic occurrence, as the AAJ assumes. The national plaintiff lawyer group is on record saying “doctors’ perceptions of medical malpractice claims are not in line with actual risk” but Medical Association President Jeff Terry, MD, believes Alabama physicians’ fear of lawsuits is justified. “Physicians who have faced a lawsuit would certainly dispute that such cases are ‘extremely rare,’” Dr. Terry said. Alabama courts have in the past had a well-known re****tion for frivolous lawsuits and high jury verdicts, both of which helped cause the professional liability and litigation crisis of the 1970s and 1980s that drove insurers from the state. These were the early days of “tort hell” – a phrase coined in a Forbes magazine article to describe Alabama’s lottery-like legal system that was rife with large jury awards. This crisis and the unfriendly business environment it fostered pushed the Medical Association and other allied groups to fight for tough tort reform changes in the Alabama Legislature for respite from the barrage of lawsuits. For physicians, that relief came in the form of the Medical Liability Act of 1987, a law that Medical Association General Counsel Les Hayes says is one of the strongest of its kind in the nation. “The Medical Liability Act allows Alabama physicians the freedom to practice medicine to the best of their ability and in the best interest of their patients without fear of being dragged into a frivolous medical liability suit every time a patient walks in the waiting room,” Hayes said. Nearly two-and-a-half decades have passed since the Medical Liability Act became law and in that time additional tort reform measures have also been enacted, some as recently as the 2011 Legislative Session. While it used to make the American Tort Reform Association’s (ATRA) annual “Judicial Hellholes” list, Alabama has been absent from the report for several years and recently was selected by Area Development as one of the top three states for doing business. Forrest Latta, an attorney with the Birmingham law firm of Burr & Forman, in the November 2008 edition of Business Alabama describes Alabama as “a state that found its way back from hell as a leader in tort reform.” He also says “few disagree that Alabama’s legal climate has improved the last 10 years.” Dr. Terry says that by all accounts, the pendulum has indeed swung the opposite direction since the days of tort hell. The question, he says, is whether it will stay in its current position. “Pendulums, by their nature, never stop swinging – they may pause for a time but their movement always continues,” Terry said. “If it goes back the other way we could be in trouble.” With five of the nine seats on the Alabama Supreme Court up for election next year, plaintiff lawyers are most certainly watching the candidates and their races closely. While they have traditionally contributed heavily to Democrats in judicial races, it is anticipated that given the new Republican majority in state government, plaintiff trial lawyers will recruit and support their own candidates to run in the Republican primary in March 2012. Dr. Terry is not surprised. “I’m sure they’d like to see the pendulum swing back the other direction and from their recent statements and news releases, it appears they are gearing up for the elections,” Dr. Terry said. Latta also says in the Business Alabama article that “Alabama’s legal system is inherently political,” since all judges in the state are elected to office. In the same vein, could the strides Alabama has made over the past 25 years because of medical liability and other tort reforms be reversed by a future court? Latta believes they could. “The benefits of tort reform can be wiped away in one election cycle,” Latta said in the article. Dr. Terry agrees. “Seems physicians’ continued fear of lawsuits has merit,” he said. “We’ll never be totally out of the woods on this issue.”

Teyates, I respect your opinions knowing your knowledge of the healthcare industry and will agree to some extent about the need for tort reform in medical malpractice but I think this is an excuse that is used far too frequently by republicans and doctors instead of addressing the real issue of the uninsured who are dying everyday because of neglect, either by the medical profession via insurance payments or self neglect because of lack of money.

How can someone who ignores their own health due to lack of health insurance sue a doctor if they never even see one until it is too late?

This is the problem I see with the system as it currently is and will continue to be.

I have heard all the FALSE horror stories about country's which have universal healthcare and long waiting lines but the FACT is that country's like Canada have far better health statistics among their citizens than do the US.

I know you are in administration Teyates but I am married to a "front liner" and she has relayed very sad story's to me of those in real need of care who waited until it was critical and then and only then do they show up in the ER when they could have been helped much earlier.  Even those with health insurance are sometime denied care.  The only true reform of the health care situation is to take the "industry" and the "insurance" out of the equation and to put those who need care at the top of the healthcare debate.

Politicians from BOTH parties have failed miserably on this.  I do admire those in the healthcare field (I better! : )  and especially those who staff this clinic.  I just wish more in need could be helped and I believe a complete overhaul in the form of universal healthcare is necessary to achieve this.

I think you have me figured wrong Rocky.  I am not in an administrative job, I too am a "front liner".  My wife is also a nurse.  We have seen and know many similar horror stories.  I even had a personal experience with one this past year with my mother.

I know people who do not seek out care, and I also know many doctors who have become calloused to the system because of lawsuits and legal issues which have them scared to give care.

The answer is not as simple as a "one payor" system.  I will agree that Canada's system has its advantages, especially for those are in an area where there are abundant caregivers.  I also know that in some areas waiting times are brutal and do take a toll on patients who need immediate care.

The same takes place here, EXCEPT those who are truly in need, and in an emergent situation, can go to any ER and be taken care of.  Also there are plenty of programs such as the health department where preventive care can be administered.  In the ER they may be asked to pay for it later on, but lets face it, you can't get blood out of a turnip,

So in answer to your posts, I am not the callous distanced person who has no idea what is going on.  I do know.  I curse the system everyday, but I also see that most of our problems and alot of our costs come from government beauracracy and demands that have little to do with patient care.  They also come from tests and studies that add to patient (and insurance) bills in an effort to avoid litigiation.  It is a real threat that needs to be addressed and not swept under the rug.

There is your problem.  Residents don't have a clue to the real world, just as I didn't. Fourteen years our of residency your image becomes a little clearer.  I would go back in a few years and ask their opinion.    They don't have to worry about insurance, overhead, and office staff. Unless of oucrse they are overly priviledged and come out of medical school owing no debt.  They also live in a protected world where someone else carries all of the liability.  They don't squat unless someone gives them the OK.  It is about like taking international business and political advice from a local pollworker.....oh, but then again you may do that.

Originally Posted by Ronnie P.:

Rocky Obama's legislation will mean higher costs, fewer choices, longer lines, longer waits, fewer new drugs.  Heath care wasn't a issue for 70% of Americans and now Obama has changed that.

And RP still doesn't know fact from fiction. So, the 50% of Americans without health insurance didn't have a "issue" with that? Sure. That makes sense. Started picking out your new avatar yet?

Originally Posted by teyates:

I think you have me figured wrong Rocky.  I am not in an administrative job, I too am a "front liner".  My wife is also a nurse.  We have seen and know many similar horror stories.  I even had a personal experience with one this past year with my mother.

I know people who do not seek out care, and I also know many doctors who have become calloused to the system because of lawsuits and legal issues which have them scared to give care.

The answer is not as simple as a "one payor" system.  I will agree that Canada's system has its advantages, especially for those are in an area where there are abundant caregivers.  I also know that in some areas waiting times are brutal and do take a toll on patients who need immediate care.

The same takes place here, EXCEPT those who are truly in need, and in an emergent situation, can go to any ER and be taken care of.  Also there are plenty of programs such as the health department where preventive care can be administered.  In the ER they may be asked to pay for it later on, but lets face it, you can't get blood out of a turnip,

So in answer to your posts, I am not the callous distanced person who has no idea what is going on.  I do know.  I curse the system everyday, but I also see that most of our problems and alot of our costs come from government beauracracy and demands that have little to do with patient care.  They also come from tests and studies that add to patient (and insurance) bills in an effort to avoid litigiation.  It is a real threat that needs to be addressed and not swept under the rug.

It seems we have found points of agreement on this topic and I don't know where I got that you were in administration, my mistake.  You have my admiration for the job you and all those who work in this stressful field perform daily  and I certainly never meant to insinuate that you were anything but a caring professional, I was generalizing about the positions of those who vehemently oppose ANY reform that would benefit more patients instead of insurance companies.  And although I am  a  cautious supporter of the Affordable Care Act, it is a step albeit one which may be in the wrong direction, to see that more people have adaqaute and timely healthcare.

In the meantime, it is those like you, your wife and mine who are the one's who deal with the misery that IS healthcare in America today.  AND, the angels(I won't call YOU an angel teyates although you probably have some wings hidden somewhere but I am sure you think your wife is one as I KNOW my wife is) like the one's who donate their time to help others in the clinic referenced in the article in todays paper.  God bless all of you!

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Teyates,

 

I assumed you were a successful small businessman. That, that business is medicine increases my respect.  With the policies Obama is trying to implement, you must feel like the duck in a shooting gallery. 

Ignorance, pure and simple. Clueless about health care and fighting against his own self-interests. Nothing could be more foolish.

rocky, I am not an angel, at least probably not as you thinnk of your wife.....haha.....but you are right, there is probably more we agree on than not.  If the government would open its ears, and its mind, and actually take some assistance from the medical community in their endeavors, they would have a much easier time designing a system that would work.  Instead they are allowing academicians and those who have no idea of what is going on in the trenches to design a system that does not work.  We spend over half of our time each day doing adminsitrative jobs, and paperwork, when it realitity that could be spent seeing or treeating patients. 

Not everyone is going to be happy with the solutions that have to be made, but each little step we take, by each group, instead of asking one group to do all of the stepping, makes it easier to come up with a viable solution.

 

jimi,

Again, you don't have a clue.  When almost 50% of your income can come from government payors (like Medicare and Medicaid) and those payors have the ability to hold up payment for 60-90 days, cut your rates by up 30% a whim, and force you to jump thru ridiculous hoops in order to qualify as one of their rpoviders, you tend to become a little cautious of thier true motives.  If every insurance company operated with the same immunity and careless disregard as Medicare, you could not find a doctor in this hemisphere who would treat you for a bloody nose, much less the chronic illnesses that plague most of the people in that system.  Try running a business where you are never sure when they are going to reimburse you, or living in fear that if someone applies a code incorrectly you will be subject to heavy fines, or one where you are subjected to taking ridiculous profeciency testing and score above 90% just to be able to bill them.  I know plumbers who make more money than some primary care doctors (of which I am not one).  It is no wonder it is so hard to find a primary doctor these days.  No physician wants to see a government run single payor system when they know how hard Medicare is to work with.  It will be the death of the medical system in this country, taking with it millions of jobs.

 

Why then are people that live in countries with a single payer system generally happy with their care?  And, generally as healthy or healthier than Americans?

 

Why wouldnt a nationalized insurance plan make things easier by standardizing plans, and forms and procedures, rather than the 50+ different state required plans on top plus all the hoops put in place by each insurance company?

Let me explain it once more for those in the crowd who are slow learners......

The only system the government has given us thus far is Medicare, and its evil step sister Medicaid which is operated by the state.  This entity does nothing to make it easier to file claims, if anything they make it 10X harder than any other insurance comapny including BC/BS.  They often times change their system, delaying payments up to 90 days (try paying your office staff if you are behind reimbursement by 3 months).  They often do this without prior notification, they are the government, so they can do what they want.  And typically they pay less than what it actually costs you to do the procedure.  Say for instance a common lab tests.  The comapny may charge you the physician $37.50 for the instumentation and supplies to do this test.  You have a few dollars in labor costs and quality control.  Although some insurance companies may reimburse $50 or $60, Medicare will typically reimburse $35.  you actually lose money by doing the tests.  If not for the other volume from another company, you would be unable to provide it.  That is is far more common than not.

No, as a practicing physician, anyone who typically deals with medicare will tell you that they want no part of government run system when the only model we have seen offered is something akin to this.

Ditzy:

 

"Why then are people that live in countries with a single payer system generally happy with their care?  And, generally as healthy or healthier than Americans?

 

Why wouldnt a nationalized insurance plan make things easier by standardizing plans, and forms and procedures, rather than the 50+ different state required plans on top plus all the hoops put in place by each insurance company?"

 

Ditzy,

 

There are only two nations that have single payer systems -- Canada and North Korea.  Canadians have the option of crossing the border, plus they have a certain level of humanity lacking in the latter nation.  North Koreans have the option of dying.  Don't mention Cuba, they have a three tier system -- one for the Party, one for medical tourists, and one for the rest of the Cubans.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

Yeah, another layer of bureacracy to contend with. Just what we need. Who's paying off the regressives -- the Chinese or the Iranians! 


We have 50 states worth of cluttered laws and rules and 50 bureaucracies to go along with them.  There is no logical reason to have insurance as the only thing regulated by the states, except to benefit the insurance companies.

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×