Healthcare (official thread)

[ekeen]

Originally Posted by Taosman

"Not to all but it could be to many. I'd rather not pay for a sure-to-be inefficient monstrosity. "

But, you already are! You are paying for all those expensive E-room visits because many can't afford preventive medicine.
The average E-room visit is 4x the average doctor visit.

"What should you know before going to the E.R.? The national average E.R. visit costs $383, while the national average doctor?s office visit is approximately $60. Unnecessary E.R. visits can delay care for those with true emergencies, and cost billions of dollars." Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas - Doctor's Office Versus E.R. Visits

An E/R visit is reserved for a catastrophic event (e.g. getting stitches in my chin 2 years ago after playing hoops ) not for a checkup. Apples versus oranges treatment.

[Taosman]

One point I'm trying to make is that we all pay for the uninsured.

2

How is uncompensated care financed?......................................... ...........................................10 Federal and state governments fund the vast majority of uncompensated care. That money is vital to the public hospitals and clinics that provide the bulk of such care, but funding levels have not kept pace with the rising number of uninsured and increasing medical costs.
Health Coverage & the Uninsured? - Research, Public Opinion, Facts & Analysis - Kaiser Family Foundation


In effect your tax dollars pay for the uninsured.

[Deety]

Originally Posted by ekeen

An E/R visit is reserved for a catastrophic event (e.g. getting stitches in my chin 2 years ago after playing hoops ) not for a checkup. Apples versus oranges treatment.

I believe Taos is pointing toward the idea that preventative care can reduce the number of high-cost incidents by fixing little issues before they become ER visits.

[Taosman]

Originally Posted by ekeen

An E/R visit is reserved for a catastrophic event (e.g. getting stitches in my chin 2 years ago after playing hoops ) not for a checkup. Apples versus oranges treatment.

What your not seeing is that people can't often tell the difference between
catastrophic and a severe cold. They don't have a doctor so when things go wrong they go to the E-room for help. I know this is true because my own sister in law used to do just that.
The doctors job is to decide how much care is needed. That acts as a expense buffer. Actually keeping costs down.
No doctor=high expense. Uninsured high expense is paid for by government.
Your tax dollars pay for expensive E-room care.
Wouldn't you rather pay for a doctor visit versus an expensive E-room visit?
I would because it just makes sense.

[Taosman]

Originally Posted by Deety

I believe Taos is pointing toward the idea that preventative care can reduce the number of high-cost incidents by fixing little issues before they become ER visits.

Exactly! You see, you are going to pay for it one way or another.
Why not take the cheaper way and pay for a doctor visit?

[Deety]

Originally Posted by Taosman

Exactly!

There's still that other question up there...

I'm sure this should be merged somewhere, but not sure where... don't be surprised if it moves later.

[Taosman]

"So given that the money for this sort of program has to come from some of us to go from others of us, are you willing to give and never take a penny back? Pay your full costs of medical care, care visits, medications, ER visits and ambulances... everything? The true costs, not co-pay or costs subsidized in any way. You planning to be one of the givers or one of the takers in that scenario?" Deety quote

I understand my tax dollars will be used either way.
I want the best bang for my tax dollars. That, I believe is in preventive care and that includes seeing a doctor versus going to the E-room.
($60 vs $380)
Hope that was an adequate answer.

[Deety]

Originally Posted by Taosman

I understand my tax dollars will be used either way.
I want the best bang for my tax dollars. That, I believe is in preventive care and that includes seeing a doctor versus going to the E-room.
($60 vs $380)
Hope that was an adequate answer.

Nope.

The question is if you don't mind having your $20 copay become $200, or rather that amount added to your taxes. Same for every health care activity you undertake, plus more than you personally might need since you sound like a pretty healthy guy.

Do you want to give much more to subsidize much more?

It's not a wash, or Clinton wouldn't be talking about 110 billion additional dollars. In a tremendously oversimplified example... divide that by the number of people producing more than they receive, and that's your additional share. Are you good with that?

[Taosman]

What are the causes of rising health care costs?
There are many.
But, one of the causes is the uninsured.
What we're doing now just isn't working.
More can't afford health care every day.
Workers get sick more often/longer costing employers millions of dollars.
Healthier workers are more cost effective and just better for the economy/country.

A "wash"? Now that's a very technical question. It is true that sick workers cost the economy millions of dollars each year. So, it is very conceivable that healthier workers will be good for business and good for the economy which in theory could offset the $100 billion costs you quote.

[Deety]

Here's what I'm getting at, more or less.

I think universal health care will work when a majority of the people in this country can say, "Thank you, but no subsidy for me, please. I'll take the bill for every cent of the regular health costs I incur, and here's a little more for those who truly can't pay theirs. Catastrophic costs are a little different... let's add an insurance premium based on my statistical chance of requiring that level of care."

See, that's how it has to work to balance money going out and coming in. But mostly what you hear is that everyone wants more health care, greater use of the system... more going out than coming in... deficits... tough decisions about who "deserves" what... and a big mess.

I think we need it; I don't think we're realistic enough to do it in a way that isn't a disaster.

[Best Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Deety

Here's what I'm getting at, more or less.

I think universal health care will work when a majority of the people in this country can say, "Thank you, but no subsidy for me, please. I'll take the bill for every cent of the regular health costs I incur, and here's a more for those who truly can't pay theirs. Catastrophic costs are a little different... let's add an insurance premium based on my statistical chance of requiring that level of care."

See, that's how it has to work to balance money going out and coming in. But mostly what you hear is that everyone wants more health care, greater use of the system... more going out than coming in... deficits... tough decisions about who "deserves" what... and a big mess.

I think we need it; I don't think we're realistic enough to do it in a way that isn't a disaster.

[Deety]

Originally Posted by Taosman

What are the causes of rising health care costs?
There are many.
But, one of the causes is the uninsured.
What we're doing now just isn't working.
More can't afford health care every day.
Workers get sick more often/longer costing employers millions of dollars.
Healthier workers are more cost effective and just better for the economy/country.

That's still not the question.

The question is if others deserve this, are you willing to pay your own way 100% plus someone else's? No more copays... ALL your prescriptions. ALL your doctor visits. ALL your costs. Someone has to pay for this - I think it should be you.

Tell me yes and I'll sign onto your plan.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'm no genius when it comes to these things... indeed, I know so little about insurance it's absurd... but.. I do know that the more people you have in a plan, the less it costs the individual. I have a hard time believing the amount of tax dollars spent on some sort of universal plan, as a percentage, will be anything but negligible.

[sandgk]

Originally Posted by Deety

Here's what I'm getting at, more or less.

I think universal health care will work when a majority of the people in this country can say, "Thank you, but no subsidy for me, please. I'll take the bill for every cent of the regular health costs I incur, and here's a little more for those who truly can't pay theirs.

I don't buy that as a prerequisite of a universal health care system.
Such a system should handle the small stuff with equal equanimity as the larger, hard health care issues.

[Best Buckeye]

Originally Posted by Buckeyeskickbuttocks

I'm no genius when it comes to these things... indeed, I know so little about insurance it's absurd... but.. I do know that the more people you have in a plan, the less it costs the individual. I have a hard time believing the amount of tax dollars spent on some sort of universal plan, as a percentage, will be anything but negligible.

Looks better this way , and all the paying ones are paying now

;]I'm no genius when it comes to these things... indeed, I know so little about insurance it's absurd... but.. I do know that the more PAYING people you have in a 100% plan, the less it costs the individual. I have a hard time believing the amount of tax dollars spent on some sort of universal plan, as a percentage, will be anything but negligible.[/