Healthcare Hypocricy?

[Maggie]

On a recent visit to the ER, I had an abdominal CT scan, a pelvic CT scan, an IV, and lab work. The hospital charged my insurance company nearly $9,000!!!!! Ya, there is no problem with healthcare in America! :roll:

Who are you arguing with? Maybe I am alone on this one, but your statements strike me as self-serving moral preening set against the backdrop of strawman b.s.

Your tendency to make strawman arguments is another reason why few people take you seriously.

[ShockerGorilla]

On a recent visit to the ER, I had an abdominal CT scan, a pelvic CT scan, an IV, and lab work. The hospital charged my insurance company nearly $9,000!!!!! Ya, there is no problem with healthcare in America! :roll:

Does that $9000 include the foreign body removed from your rectum? :)

[RoyalShock]

On a recent visit to the ER, I had an abdominal CT scan, a pelvic CT scan, an IV, and lab work. The hospital charged my insurance company nearly $9,000!!!!! Ya, there is no problem with healthcare in America! :roll:

I'm in the mood to be educated.

I would like to know how the plan passed by Congress proposes to address those costs without:

1. Telling the hospital "you can't charge that".
2. Giving you or the hospital money taken from me or anyone else via taxation.

Also, was that $9k before or after the write-offs?

[WuDrWu]

I'm in the mood to be educated.

I'm always in the mood to be educated. I want to learn more.

Is it fair (or more fair) to say that the biggest problem with health care is that pricing is not set by the fair market but by negotiations between doctors (and their agents) and the insurance companies?

[ISASO]

So, dear liberal friend, you would be happy to pay $9,100 more in taxes each year in exchange for a 40% reduction in the cost of that procedure?

Oh, and you get to wait 7 months before you can have the procedure.

Oh, and if you're 82 years old, you can't have it all because your life is only worth a $1200 procedure. You may choose one of those procedures from the 2012 Kathy Sebilius Catalog.

[RoyalShock]

You may choose one of those procedures from the 2012 Kathy Sebilius Catalog.

Ok, that made me laugh!

[SB Shock]

On a recent visit to the ER, I had an abdominal CT scan, a pelvic CT scan, an IV, and lab work. The hospital charged my insurance company nearly $9,000!!!!! Ya, there is no problem with healthcare in America!

Couple questions.

1. So you had health insurance - do you like it?

2. do you think the cost will go down under the Government plan?

3. Are you a hypochondriac? If it was only $9,000 then there must not have been anything wrong with you.

[ShockCity]

I knew this would get you Rush clones going!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

[SB Shock]

I knew this would get you Rush clones going!!

I think more liberals listen to rush than conservatives (we are working). Now please answer the questions.

[Maggie]

I knew this would get you Rush clones going!!

I think more liberals listen to rush than conservatives (we are working). Now please answer the questions.

Why do you even bother? One cannot argue with someone who believes the moon to be made of green cheese.

[ShockCity]

Keep em' coming guys. I love it. I need some comic relief.

[WuDrWu]

Keep em' coming guys. I love it. I need some comic relief.

Medicaid running out for you?

[1979Shocker]

Does anybody know what some of the pros and cons are for having a government-run healthcare system?

Also, what are some of the pros and cons of the current private insurance-run healthcare system?

[wu_shizzle]

Health Insurers are Evil Segregationists, not Methodical Risk Assessors.

[ISASO]

ShockCity, here's something for you. I'm posting this as a favor to MoValleyJohn from VT.
***************************
ShockCity presented an interesting example. An example that to anyone that has any knowledge of the workings of a medical environment, knows does not actually bolster his cause for healthcare reform in the way presented by the Democratic Party. My wife has been an emergency room lead nurse for the better part of 20 years. While I couldn’t triage or diagnose anything, I have learned how and why procedures are prescribed. I have met the doctors, I have had in depth conversations about the problem and I have actually seen firsthand, these doctors driving up healthcare costs. The culprit: defensive medicine.
The reason for ShockCity’s $9,000 medical bill has everything to do with the fear of being sued and nothing to do with the actual practice of medicine. Over the course of the last 30 plus years, suing the medical profession has become an easy way for lawyers to get rich. And unlike many other professions, doctors cannot insulate themselves from damages by hiding under the umbrella protection of a corporation. What a doctor does in his practice, he is liable for, personally, completely. There is no hiding behind a corporation. Totally naked. Not partially naked, unlike an attorney, who can have their malpractice limited to bankrupting the firm, you can take the doctor’s house, car, dog and first born. You can take everything, it’s the law. The doctor’s only protection against losing everything is to own lots and lots of malpractice insurance, enough to cover you taking everything. Malpractice insurance isn’t cheap. In fact, it is very, very expensive.
With that, the practice of medicine has changed from most effectively treating patient to most effectively treating the patient, at the same time, making sure that there is no way to get sued. Therefore, people pay too much for healthcare simply because a doctor cannot allow lawsuits, frivolous or not. In the example Shock City provided, there simply was overkill with regards to diagnostic imaging. I am positive that the doctor had a good idea of what was wrong before the CAT scan and MRI, but by ordering the diagnostic images, the doctor proved that he didn’t fail to treat properly. The scans were paid for by insurance and the cost was passed on to consumers. The attending physician doesn’t get rich ordering CAT scans and MRI’s (the radiologist that reads the scans, does) the doctor simply didn’t get sued.
Without going more into detail, here are some links explaining defensive medicine, a few links with editorials and links showing the estimated costs of defensive medicine on the healthcare system.

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=33262

Defensive medicine is one of the least desirable effects of the rise in medical litigation

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/162985.php

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']"Calculating how much defensive medicine actually costs is extremely difficult, because medical professionals often have many motivations for ordering tests and other procedures. The U.S. spends a higher percentage of its gross domestic product on health care than any other nation in the industrialized world. Legal expenses contribute to the bill."[/font]

http://advance.uconn.edu/2009/090223/09022302.htm

[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons. [/font]
[FONT='Arial','sans-serif']Such practices were estimated to cost a minimum of $1.4 billion per year in Massachusetts.[/font]

http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/nov08/managing7.asp

[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']The current medical liability system neither effectively compensates persons injured from medical negligence nor encourages the addressing of system errors to improve patient safety. The medical liability crisis has had many unintended consequences, most notably a decrease in access to care in a growing number of states and an increase in healthcare costs. [/font]
[FONT='Verdana','sans-serif']Access is affected as physicians move their practices to states with lower liability rates and change their practice patterns to reduce or eliminate high-risk services. When one considers that half of all neurosurgeons—as well as one third of all orthopaedic surgeons, one third of all emergency physicians, and one third of all trauma surgeons—are sued each year, is it any wonder that 70 percent of emergency departments are at risk because they lack available on-call specialist coverage?[/font]

The bottom line is this, the Democrats are completely ignoring the evil that is defensive medicine; they have their hands too deep in the pockets of the Trial Lawyers Association. And the Republicans are doing nothing, either. The dirty little Republican secret is that there are plenty of Republicans making a living as trial lawyers and lawyers in general. Any true tort reform hurts Republican layers, too. So, in the end, we get Democrats pretending there isn’t a problem, and possibly worse, Republicans feigning the acknowledgement of a problem, yet doing nothing to fix it.
The $9,000 bill Shock City received had little to do with treating Shock City, had nothing to do with true healthcare costs, but included costs incurred to keep Shock City from having a reasonable chance at suing the doctor.
Republican or Democrat, pro healthcare reform or anti-healthcare reform, before Congress addresses anything else, defensive medicine needs to be addressed or no healthcare bill will curb the escalating costs. In the end, if defensive medicine is curbed, there may be no need for congressional reform of healthcare.