Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;565772]Sounds like an Orthopedic Surgeon. They suffer one of the higher malpractice premium rates, probably second highest to obstetricians.

Our Orthopedic Surgeons get paid about $350,000 plus incentives, and then the Medical School pays for their malpractice coverage, about $60-$70K per doc on average. $85K does not sound unreasonable, the only reason our medical school docs have a lower premium is because they're getting a "group rate" of sorts.

Obstetricians deal with about $100K apiece.

Malpractice costs aren't some buzzword or hot button issue; it's a serious problem.[/quote]
Yes Orthopedic Surgeon is right I just could not think of what he was called when making the post. I'm sure he makes around that figure himself but I'll have to say the guy puts in alot of hours and works hard for every penny he makes.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;565779]Yes Orthopedic Surgeon is right I just could not think of what he was called when making the post. I'm sure he makes around that figure himself but I'll have to say the guy puts in alot of hours and works hard for every penny he makes.[/quote]

There's a nationwide shortage in Orthopedic Surgeons, and for good reason. It's hard as hell to be skilled enough to do it, malpractice is high, and the hours are a bitch (especially for trauma sub-specialists like your buddy). He probably gets paged in the middle of the night to put people back together.

Even non-trauma sub-specialties like Hand, Joint Replacement, Spinal Fusion, they all take incredible skill. Hard to make it as an orthopedic surgeon.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;565788]There's a nationwide shortage in Orthopedic Surgeons, and for good reason. It's hard as hell to be skilled enough to do it, malpractice is high, and the hours are a bitch (especially for trauma sub-specialists like your buddy). He probably gets paged in the middle of the night to put people back together.

Even non-trauma sub-specialties like Hand, Joint Replacement, Spinal Fusion, they all take incredible skill. Hard to make it as an orthopedic surgeon.[/quote]
Yes he does get paged at all hours of the night and that's why we wonder why he puts himself through that when his sports medcine practice does very well. He says he just likes the challange that comes with trama cases. With the sports thing he does alot of joint replacement stuff and its kind of cool because his son is a sales rep selling replacesment joints.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

Here's another question -- with a finite supply of doctors, and no more than the usual number of new med students entering the field, what will it mean to instantaneously add 47 million Americans to their workload?

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=Beemnseven;565806]Here's another question -- with a finite supply of doctors, and no more than the usual number of new med students entering the field, what will it mean to instantaneously add 47 million Americans to their workload?[/quote]

First, it should be noted that those 47 million you're speaking of (the uninsured) currently do get care in the form of emergency care. If they have a heart attack they don't stay away from the ER.

But on the elective and preventative side, you're right, docs will see a huge influx. With no increase in the supply of capable physicians, but a large increase in demand, you'll see prices for appointments going up significantly. You'll call to request an appointment for this week and will be surprised when they tell you they don't have an open appointment for 3 weeks.

You'll also see physicians move about the country. When those 47 million people become insured, suddenly having a physician practice in the inner city isn't such a bad proposition. Physicians will relocate to fill voids in underserved locations, fleeing from now well-insured but competitive locations.

Short answer: things get a lot better in the poor neighborhoods, but a lot worse in the well-to-do neighborhoods.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

Came across this article, thought it a very worthwhile read. It presents both sides' views on the Canadian healthcare system.

[url=http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system/index.html]Reality check: Canada's government health care system - CNN.com[/url]

The realities are:

- Canada does have a longer life span and they spend less on healthcare. This does not at all mean you can conclude they have a better healthcare system, because A) they're not nearly as obese as the US and B) their docs & nurses make less than ours and their patients exhibit lower healthcare utilization.

- Access to care is restricted due to a shortage of physicians and an overabundance of citizens with healthcare coverage. If you're in shitty shape, with a brain tumor or something, you'll get seen swiftly. But if you're just dealing with something painful, like a knee replacement, you've got to wait 3 months. This results in lower healthcare costs because many people say 'ya know what, screw it, seeing a doctor isn't worth it.' In other words, Canada's lower healthcare spend is not so much due to lower costs, it's due to simply not going to the doctor.

This speaks to the issue we began trying to define in this thread: what does "quality" healthcare mean? Is it good enough to provide a balance between life-saving treatments, coping with pain as you wait for non-life-saving treatments, and lower costs? Or like everything else in the world, will we Americans demand more? Ask yourself, are you OK with waiting 3 months for a procedure to replace a hip or knee?

If we demand more, we better be ready to pay for it.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

For those interested where the overall national healthcare expenditure went and where it came from you [URL="http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:Ay-IvWCWPrAJ:www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/PieChartSourcesExpenditures2007.pdf"]might be interested in this chart[/URL] produced by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

Sneed we currently have an HMO or maybe its called a PPO and the rates have jumped to over $700 per month for a family of three. Me and my wife both have a Life/Health ins lic. but we do not sell any health ins. I have been bugging my wife for the past 2 years to switch over to a health savings plan and after taking a course (she had to take something for continued education requirments) she took a course on HSP and has now agreed to switch. We all have appointments to have everything checked out before we switch over so we will know we are all in good health. Besides having a higher ded. is there anything we should look for in a HSP that we may or may not want? I'd also like your opinion on these plans. My figures show we will save almost $400 a month which we can put into the savings sides which I no are tax defered if used for med. bills. I read something that we may want to work out something with our doctor on billing so we don't pay top dollar for every visit and get billed closer to what they bill ins. co's.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;566438]For those interested where the overall national healthcare expenditure went and where it came from you [URL="http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:Ay-IvWCWPrAJ:www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/PieChartSourcesExpenditures2007.pdf"]might be interested in this chart[/URL] produced by the United States Department of Health and Human Services.[/quote]

This is actually very helpful for illustrating a point, thanks for posting.

You'll see on slide 2 of saden's link, it shows that 19% of healthcare spending was paid for through Medicare, and 15% through state Medicaid programs. Combined, that's 34% of the nation's healthcare spending from government programs.

Government budgets are suffering right now, and Obama's budget includes minimal increases in reimbursement from Medicare. State budgets are even worse off, and most aren't increasing reimbursement at all.

Overall, healthcare expenses are growing 7% per year. But, as noted, no increases are expected to come from the government. This means the rest of the payers need to fund the entire nation's 7% increase in expenses.

So for those of us not covered by government programs, the increase will feel like a 10.6% increase. We have to carry the government's share of the increase (7% / [1-.34] ) = 10.6%.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;566454]Sneed we currently have an HMO or maybe its called a PPO and the rates have jumped to over $700 per month for a family of three. Me and my wife both have a Life/Health ins lic. but we do not sell any health ins. I have been bugging my wife for the past 2 years to switch over to a health savings plan and after taking a course (she had to take something for continued education requirments) she took a course on HSP and has now agreed to switch. We all have appointments to have everything checked out before we switch over so we will know we are all in good health. Besides having a higher ded. is there anything we should look for in a HSP that we may or may not want? I'd also like your opinion on these plans. My figures show we will save almost $400 a month which we can put into the savings sides which I no are tax defered if used for med. bills. I read something that we may want to work out something with our doctor on billing so we don't pay top dollar for every visit and get billed closer to what they bill ins. co's.[/quote]

Health saving plans, and other plans with higher deductibles, give you the nice benefit of charging you much less on a weekly/biweekly premium basis than a PPO or HMO program. The catch of course is you have the higher deductible.

Generally, the healthier you are the more a HSP (or any plan with a deductible) will financially benefit you. The sicker you are, the more a HSP will hurt you.

The nice thing with the HSP is any money you don't use on healthcare that year gets socked away to personal savings for you.

I have a PPO plan through my employer which contains a higher deductible & higher copays than traditional PPO/HMO plans. It costs me $61 per paycheck to cover my family, compared to $169 per paycheck under the traditional PPO plan. On my plan, inpatient hospital admissions come with a $2000 copay. That's separate from my deductible, which is $500 per person and $1500 for the family. So if I get admitted to the hospital, first I drop $2000 out of pocket and then up to $500 to cover the admission.

26 paychecks times $61 = $1586 per year for my plan.

26 paychecks times $169 = $4394 per year for the traditional PPO.

The difference between those plans is $2808 deducted from the paycheck on an annual basis. So if one person gets admitted to the hospital, plus we have the typical complement of doctor's visits, they would both work out to about the same total cost after paycheck deductions & out of pocket costs.

Where we'd get crushed is if the whole family got in a car accident or something, and I had to drop the $2000 copay for each family member. So there's more risk there, but I'm an odds guy, and I play the odds that I think are in my favor.

So, key things to look for in your HSP plan:

- Are the hospitals and doctors you anticipate using "in network". If they're not in the plan's network, it could make the plan a bad deal.

- Understand what the annual out of pocket max is for your family. You want to know what is the max you could pay in the disaster scenario I mentioned where the whole family gets in a car accident.

- Going into it, know that you have a cash management issue to deal with. Whatever your deductible is, you need to make sure you have that amount of cash laying around in order to cover deductibles and copays. In my situation, I need to have at least $3000 laying around at all times in order to cover out of pocket costs for a hospital admission & typical doctor visits.

A lot of people forget this, and end up unable to pay out of pocket costs because they failed to manage their weekly budget and wound up in debt.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;566553]This is actually very helpful for illustrating a point, thanks for posting.

You'll see on slide 2 of saden's link, it shows that 19% of healthcare spending was paid for through Medicare, and 15% through state Medicaid programs. Combined, that's 34% of the nation's healthcare spending from government programs.

Government budgets are suffering right now, [B]and Obama's budget includes minimal increases in reimbursement from Medicare[/B]. State budgets are even worse off, and most aren't increasing reimbursement at all.

Overall, healthcare expenses are growing 7% per year. But, as noted, no increases are expected to come from the government. This means the rest of the payers need to fund the entire nation's 7% increase in expenses.

So for those of us not covered by government programs, the increase will feel like a 10.6% increase. We have to carry the government's share of the increase (7% / [1-.34] ) = 10.6%.[/quote]

The 2009 budget allocated 262 billion for Medicaid and 425 billion Medicare. [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf"]The 2010 Obama budget requests[/URL] 290 billion for Medicaid (+11% from previous year) and 452 billion for Medicare (+6% from previous year) be allocated.

BTW Bush's original 2009 budget for Medicaid and Medicare had to be supplemented. My 2009 Death and Taxes poster says he originally budgeted 215 billion for Medicaid and 409 billion for Medicare.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;566566]The 2009 budget allocated 262 billion for Medicaid and 425 billion Medicare. [URL="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/summary.pdf"]The 2010 Obama budget requests[/URL] 290 billion for Medicaid (+11% from previous year) and 452 billion for Medicare (+6% from previous year) be allocated.

BTW Bush's original 2009 budget for Medicaid and Medicare had to be supplemented. My 2009 Death and Taxes poster says he originally budgeted 215 billion for Medicaid and 409 billion for Medicare.[/quote]

You're right and I misspoke. He's proposing an increase for 2010, but the budget in place now (calendar year 2009) includes no increase.

Healthcare's fiscal year (including Medicare and Medicaid) runs July - June. As we just now enter FY 2010, there is no increase for either Medicare or Medicaid. But I suppose that stems from Bush's final budget, not Obama's.

There may be increases in FY 2011 thanks to Obama's 2010 budget. Of course to pay for it, an income tax increase will be required. And it's not that reimbursement will go up, it's more likely that more people will covered, resulting in the expected increase.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

I have no health care currently and don't want any. If Universal Health Care passes will I be forced to buy something I will never use?

Also, will I be forced to pay for some skank to have her 17th abortion in as many weeks, or will she have to pay for it herself?

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

Drunk posting again?

:doh:

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=70Chip;566592]I have no health care currently and don't want any. If Universal Health Care passes will I be forced to buy something I will never use?

Also, will I be forced to pay for some skank to have her 17th abortion in as many weeks, or will she have to pay for it herself?[/quote]
Your all ready paying for skank abortions.LOL

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

^^ ... and for stuff you don't use

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;566905]^^ ... and for stuff you don't use[/quote]

Never know, maybe he uses skank abortions.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;566905]^^ ... and for stuff you don't use[/quote]
The only reason we pay for coverages we don't need is because they are mandated by the federal goverment and drive up our cost.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

bb +1
fd -1

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=BleedBurgundy;566924]Never know, maybe he uses skank abortions.[/quote]
I heard you go there to find a date.LOL

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;567013]I heard you go there to find a date.LOL[/quote]

???...really?

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=firstdown;567013]I heard you go there to find a date.LOL[/quote]When I was single I was hitting the bars.....what was I thinking?

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;567018]When I was single I was hitting the bars.....what was I thinking?[/quote]
You Va beach boys were probably to snobby to hang out infront of one of those places and hit on the chicks as they leave. LOL

This thread has gotton a little off topic.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

Today at work we started looking into the effects the current health care bill, as written, will have on our hospitals. This was a narrow view of course, our job is to look out for ourselves. But hospitals in similar situations to us (in poor neighborhoods with high concentrations of underinsured) all throughout the country would feel the same effects.

As discussed in the opening post in this thread, reimbursement from state medicaid programs on behalf of Medicaid patients is terrible. We lose 25 cents on the dollar on this reimbursement alone. Currently, the healthcare system is set up such that hospitals with higher concentrations of Medicaid patients receive an extra lump sum payment from the government to help assuage the massive losses felt on Medicaid patients. This payment is referred to Disproportionate Share.

The current plan being discussed in congress would establish a universal healthcare program, allowing nearly everyone in the country to acquire affordable coverage. This of course is costly and to fund this the bill proposes to increase taxes on the wealthy. But that wouldn't even be enough. Also to help fund it, the bill proposes pulling the Disproportionate Share payments and reallocating the funds to Universal Healthcare. This is a detail overlooked by the media.

This will effectively rob my health system of approximately $80 million per year, that's how much we get in Disproportionate Share currently. Given that last year we lost $40 million on operations, [U]even with[/U] receiving the $80 million from the government, this puts one of the biggest Medicaid hospital providers in the nation at risk of going out of business.

See, Universal Healthcare helps the working class. It does not help the poor. The poor don't have 2 cents to rub together. The working class could actually afford healthcare coverage of $150-$400 per month. But those currently on Medicaid will not suddenly be covered by a government plan, those currently on Medicaid can't afford ANY plan because frankly they can barely afford to eat.

Our hospitals will still have tons of Medicaid patients. Some of our working class patients will now get covered by Universal Healthcare, and we'll get reimbursed for them instead of writing the cost of their care off to charity. But the improvement in revenues from working class patients will nowhere near offset the losses in Disproportionate Share payments.

So the result:

- Money gets taken away from hospitals with the highest concentration of Medicaid patients.

- Those hospitals won't recoup those losses because they don't see enough working class patients who will gain coverage under the government plan.

- Hospitals in the poorest communities will be forced to shut down, creating a political nightmare. Meanwhile those patients will have to go somewhere, and nearby hospitals will be overcrowded thanks to shifting patient populations.

It's a horrible solution, and it's as if the bill's creators have absolutely no understanding of the current healthcare system. The bill's creators seem to have good intentions, to help make healthcare more affordable. However they have no idea how to do it, and left to their own devices they would leave the poorest and most vulnerable in the country without care at all. Lobbyists are fighting hard to get the hospitals in poorest areas carved out of the current proposal so they can continue to operate with Disproportionate Share payments.

I suspect we'll succeed in convincing Washington that they're morons.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

Great post Schneed. I sincerely hope your last line is correct. Obama Care is a train wreck. My father is Cheif Legal Officer and Executive VP of Children's National Medical Center here in DC, and he's beside himself with the idiocy of this plan. I wasn't aware of the Disproportionate Share aspect. I'm having dinner with him on Sunday- I'll find out if his hospital has a lot of Medicaid patients and how this wrinkle will affect them. These individual case studies are a great way to look at the impact on the ground level.

And the fact that Obama wants to force this thing through before the August recess is pretty shortsighted IMO.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

LOL...I find it super hilarious the same people against universal healthcare are against it because it would mess with government payments to hospitals. I wonder Mr. S10, how many of your hospital's Medicaid patients are emergency care patients.

I say do it right, raise taxes, insure everyone and keep rural hospitals open but weak-ass Obama isn't going to do that. What kind of a public plan is it anyways if there aren't even government hospitals? Perhaps it's time to let those rural hospitals be taken over by the government? If they can't survive on their on to begin with why not turn them into government hospitals? Alternatively we can let them people go ahead and just die.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;568371][B]LOL...I find is super hilarious the same people against universal healthcare are against it because it would mess with government payments to hospitals. [/B]I wonder Mr. S10, how many of your hospital's Medicaid patients are emergency care patients.

I say do it right, raise taxes, insure everyone and keep rural hospitals open but weak-ass Obama isn't going to do that. What kind of a public plan is it if there aren't even government hospitals anyways? Perhaps it's time to let those rural hospitals be taken over by the government? If they can't survive on their on to begin with why not turn them into government hospitals? Alternatively we can let them people go ahead and just die.[/quote]

Kind of like the way you scoff at American history and advocate gigantic government in the same breath??

We've got a big enough shortage of healthcare professionals as it is. Where are we going to find the bureaucracy (qualified) to create and staff government hospitals?

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=GMScud;568373]Kind of like the way you scoff at American history and advocate gigantic government in same breath??

We've got a big enough shortage of healthcare professionals as it is. Where are we going to find the bureaucracy (qualified) to create and staff government hospitals?[/quote]

I'm flexible and acrobatic enough to point out the hypocrisy of American's history, adore America, and advocate for spending more money caring for our people instead of some of our people all in the same breath. I pray I do not offend your sensibility with my views good sir for I have put quite a bit of effort in formulating my thoughts.

As articulated in my previous post the government can buyout these fledgling private hospitals if they can not stand on their own...and I am sure the current hospitals have somewhat enough staff to care for their current patients.

No one said this is was all going to be a cakewalk. One can not possibly expect to enact universal heathcare without some serious ramification to the current system. Unfortunately we have people wanting the balancing act to go on when the elephant needs to be shot before his handlers gets trampled.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;568390]I'm flexible and acrobatic enough to point out the hypocrisy of American's history, adore America, and advocate for spending more money caring for our people instead of some of our people all in the same breath. [B]I pray I do not offend your sensibility with my views good sir for I have put quite a bit of effort in formulating my thoughts.
[/B]
As articulated in my previous post the government can buyout these fledgling private hospitals if they can not stand on their own...and I am sure the current hospitals have somewhat enough staff to care for their current patients.

No one said this is was all going to be a cakewalk. One can not possibly expect to enact universal heathcare without some serious ramification to the current system. Unfortunately we have people wanting the balancing act to go on when the elephant needs to be shot before his handlers gets trampled.[/quote]

I'm not too easily offended, especially on a site where we're all basically anonymous.

I know you put plenty of thought into your opinions, and I respect how well developed they are, no matter how much I may disagree.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;568371]LOL...I find it super hilarious the same people against universal healthcare are against it because it would mess with government payments to hospitals. I wonder Mr. S10, how many of your hospital's Medicaid patients are emergency care patients.

I say do it right, raise taxes, insure everyone and keep rural hospitals open but weak-ass Obama isn't going to do that. What kind of a public plan is it anyways if there aren't even government hospitals? Perhaps it's time to let those rural hospitals be taken over by the government? If they can't survive on their on to begin with why not turn them into government hospitals? Alternatively we can let them people go ahead and just die.[/quote]

I'm not sure why you're talking about rural hospitals? Ours are inner city Philadelphia, in the poorest section of town.

To answer your question, about 55% of our Medicaid patients are emergency, 30% are maternity, and the rest elective.

The point isn't that we shouldn't have to take care of them. The point is without the Disproportionate Share payments, [U]there won't be a hospital anymore[/U]. Our University can't afford to subsidize losses as massive as this would generate.

Based on your response, which was pretty confusing, I'm not sure you fully understand. My point is we're already a government hospital in a lot of respects. We get an $80 million lump sum payment annually from the government just to keep us in business. We need to keep getting that government payment or we'll go out of business.

Being run by the government won't solve anything. Believe me, our management has us running lean and mean, our staffing levels are low. A takeover by government management would not yield any expense reductions. We don't need to be run by the government, we just need to be propped up by the government.

That is if you want poor people to have any healthcare at all. That's reality.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;568390]I'm flexible and acrobatic enough to point out the hypocrisy of American's history, adore America, and advocate for spending more money caring for our people instead of some of our people all in the same breath. I pray I do not offend your sensibility with my views good sir for I have put quite a bit of effort in formulating my thoughts.

As articulated in my previous post the government can buyout these fledgling private hospitals if they can not stand on their own...and I am sure the current hospitals have somewhat enough staff to care for their current patients.

No one said this is was all going to be a cakewalk. One can not possibly expect to enact universal heathcare without some serious ramification to the current system. Unfortunately we have people wanting the balancing act to go on when the elephant needs to be shot before his handlers gets trampled.[/quote]

Why not your and all that support Obama care fork up the money and go for it. I'm sure with the cost savings you guys will actually save money.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

schneed, what happens at your hospital right now, if and uninsured person comes in that desperately needs help?

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=Schneed10;568415]I'm not sure why you're talking about rural hospitals? Ours are inner city Philadelphia, in the poorest section of town.

To answer your question, about 55% of our Medicaid patients are emergency, 30% are maternity, and the rest elective.

The point isn't that we shouldn't have to take care of them. The point is without the Disproportionate Share payments, [U]there won't be a hospital anymore[/U]. Our University can't afford to subsidize losses as massive as this would generate.

Based on your response, which was pretty confusing, I'm not sure you fully understand. My point is we're already a government hospital in a lot of respects. We get an $80 million lump sum payment annually from the government just to keep us in business. We need to keep getting that government payment or we'll go out of business.

Being run by the government won't solve anything. Believe me, our management has us running lean and mean, our staffing levels are low. A takeover by government management would not yield any expense reductions. We don't need to be run by the government, we just need to be propped up by the government.

That is if you want poor people to have any healthcare at all. That's reality.[/quote]


My sentiments also applies to urban hospitals. I understand the problem fully, we have this bastardized hybrid system where hospitals are "basically government hospitals" when they aught to be "fully taxpayer funded government hospitals."


Let me ask you this, are there any type of savings having universal healthcare would yield? I know the AHA was all for saving taxpayers [URL="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/15005"]155 billion[/URL] no too long ago if 95% of Americans were coverage.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;568429]My sentiments also applies to urban hospitals. I understand the problem fully, we have this bastardized hybrid system where hospitals are "basically government hospitals" when they aught to be "fully taxpayer funded government hospitals."


Let me ask you this, are there any type of savings having universal healthcare would yield? I know the AHA was all for saving taxpayers [URL="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/15005"]155 billion[/URL] no too long ago if 95% of Americans were coverage.[/quote]

I can answer that. NO, there has never been a goverment programe that has reduced cost.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;568429]I understand the problem fully, we have this bastardized hybrid system where hospitals are "basically government hospitals" [B]when they aught to be "fully taxpayer funded government hospitals."[/B] [/quote]You have gone over the cliff my friend.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;568473]You have gone over the cliff my friend.[/quote]

Why? We already have government hospitals for vets, why not for citizens? I haven't gone over the cliff though I'm sure there are plenty of folks here who would be more than happy to push me over and watch me fall with glee.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=dmek25;568425]schneed, what happens at your hospital right now, if and uninsured person comes in that desperately needs help?[/quote]

When you say "desperately needs help", I assume you mean emergency care. Like if they're shot, or having a heart attack.

We treat them. We have to by law. It is illegal to turn a patient away from an emergency care setting.

If they're uninsured, we try to collect from them directly. We usually fail because people can't pay. We lose nearly $75 million each year on these patients.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;568429]My sentiments also applies to urban hospitals. I understand the problem fully, we have this bastardized hybrid system where hospitals are "basically government hospitals" when they aught to be [B]"fully taxpayer funded government hospitals."[/B]


Let me ask you this, are there any type of savings having universal healthcare would yield? I know the AHA was all for saving taxpayers [URL="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/15005"]155 billion[/URL] no too long ago if 95% of Americans were coverage.[/quote]

That is definitely an extreme view, out of touch with reality, and doomed to failure. Trust me, we can run our hospital a lot more efficiently than the government can.

We answer to the University, who will have our ass if we lose more money than they expect us to lose. They're willing to fund us to a certain extent, and if we lose more than we told them, they'll send us packing in a heartbeat. Our CEO and COO were pushed out the door last year, in fact. We just had a round of layoffs, too.

If the government runs us, then we ultimately get backed by the giant pit of money collected from the American taxpayer. Answering to the government would be a nice respite from the pressure we currently feel to meet targets. The University is up our ass because we are the only hospitals they have. Imagine a management team that has to manage every hospital in the country, or at least lots and lots of hospitals. Pretty easy to have your failures fly under their radar.

Sounds like Tenet, a large hospital operator. No wonder they had to close so many in the last few years.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

[quote=saden1;568477]Why? We already have government hospitals for vets, why not for citizens? I haven't gone over the cliff though I'm sure there are plenty of folks here who would be more than happy to push me over and watch me fall with glee.[/quote]
And as someone who has been served by "government run hospitals", and provided IT products/services to a couple of the top "government run hospitals" in the nation, I can tell you if I'm sick or in an emergency situation I'm going to a private hospital every time. Take off the partisan blinders and ask any military member or vet how their health care experiences have been and you will see the fault in your statement.

The stark reality is, there are folks who don't have health insurance coverage. Their reasons are mostly financial. Most families spend/sacrifice a great deal to make sure they have coverage. There are programs to help the very poor (Medicaid). Those that don't/won't make the sacrifice to take care of their families or themselves should not burden the 95% of the U.S. who are doing what is needed to have health insurance. The Obama Care program solves nothing, but is simply a power grab, period.

I mentioned in the Obama Care thread about vouchers and their cost being significantly less that the current proposed program, you either missed it or chose to ignore that argument.

P.S. I'd reach out to pull you back, there's room for all in the conservative tent. A few books/documentaries on Reagan and a proper re-reading of Levin's stuff and you'll be fine.

Re: Healthcare Education and Q&A Thread
 

In the Obama Care thread a question came up, and I want to bring it here for clarification, keeping in mind this thread's original goal of information

Specifically, I asked for a model that was based not on a homogeneous population. It seemed clear to me that a diverse population would have more stresses on the healthcare system than a uniform nation like Japan or Norway.

In [URL="http://www.thewarpath.net/parking-lot/30288-obama-care-30.html#post568943"]Saden's response [/URL]he stated
[quote]Honest, I can't quite comprehend what difference diversity makes in the field of health care? Care to elaborate with something more than "it has, don't you think," specifically why you think it does. Also, France is very good example of a diverse country with a successful universal health care and relatively low poverty rate.
[/quote]

So, I am asking this question:

Does the diversity of a nation make a difference in the field of health care?

Thanks in advance.