Universal Healthcare
#61
Posted 25 June 2009 - 10:37 AM
#63
Posted 25 June 2009 - 11:45 AM
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Without quoting the entire article, there are a few things I'd point out. First, "satisfied with care" is vastly different than satisfied with the system or with the costs. I wouldn't argue that we have bad doctors or anything like that...indeed, just the opposite is true.
But let's take a run of the mill, curable cancer patient. Now, start with an "easy" surgery ($20,000 for doc fees, surgery room rental, the anesthesiologist, etc.) and follow that up with a couple cycles of chemo ($10,000 for fees, loads of drug costs, etc.) and a few follow up CT scans and XRays (another $10,000). Ok...so we're talking $40,000, without getting into five years of checkups, which also include things like CT, Xray, MRI, more doc fees, etc. Now, let's say that person has a good experience. S/he heals well, survives, recovers, and was well treated by the staff and doctors. That person would be very satisfied with the care s/he received. But that satisfaction is completely independent of the costs.
Now, those pesky costs. If that person has an 80/20 plan with no copay, then the portion of the bill is about $8K. But wait!...there's more. Because insurance can usually negotiate a price around 50% of what is originally charged, they knock it down to $20K, with the patients portion being $4K.
Four thousand dollars is a lot of money for most people, and that's for the person lucky enough to have decent insurance (that doesn't fuck around with paying and shit like that!). Now, that other poor shmo has a $40,000 bill, that cannot possibly be paid. S/he survived and got excellent care. But it comes with bankruptcy, sadly, and many of those costs will be passed along to everyone else in the form of higher fees and higher insurance rates.
Add to that the willingness of insurance to fuck people over to boost their own bottom lines (and Lord knows how many of those stories are out there), and you have a system that, in terms of the money, is NOT serving the uninsured and often not serving those who ARE insured.
The average healthcare debt of those who file for bankruptcy is $12,000, and health costs were responsible or partly responsible for 50% of bankruptcies in this country.
I realize of course that I'm not going to sway you from your position. You seem fairly libertarian, so you likely believe gov't has no role here...fair enough. But that article is trying to dispel the myths of bad American healthcare, with a big bait and switch. It's not the quality of the doctors, nurses, and hospitals that most people have a problem with. It's insurance, those who don't have it, the fact that when you don't have it you put off a doc visit until it's far MORE expensive, and then those costs get passed along.
#64
Posted 25 June 2009 - 11:51 AM
#65
Posted 25 June 2009 - 12:02 PM
#67
Posted 31 July 2009 - 03:35 PM
#68
Posted 02 August 2009 - 02:27 PM
#69
Posted 02 August 2009 - 03:01 PM
#71
Posted 02 August 2009 - 03:15 PM
#72
Posted 05 August 2009 - 09:14 AM
#74
Posted 06 August 2009 - 10:31 AM
#75
Posted 06 August 2009 - 11:04 AM
Do they really investigate it? I doubt it. It just goes into the medicaid spending package page 8,000, subsection 12,000, footnote X. They just factor it in, sort of like organized crime it all get's factored in to the price of items people need and buy.
And passed along to everyone else, unfortunately. But if you insure them, so that they don't wait until it's serious and get uber-expensive emergency care, that cost will be much less.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users