Health care
One aspect of the health care debate which doesn’t receive much ink is the fact that many uninsured people wait until they are very sick and must be admitted to hospital, or they use the E.R. as a doctor’s office for colds and flu knowing they can’t be turned away. Both scenarios cost the community a great deal.
If a non-profit single-payer system were adopted with co-pays for E.R. visits but not for Dr’s. office visits, a significant benefit would occur. The hospital staffs would be better utilized, people could be assessed and treated in the appropriate setting, and many serious illnesses could be averted or ameliorated. Individuals could stay healthier and have fewer lost work days; a plus for themselves and the community. It might even encourage more doctors to enter general practice. Maybe they’d only need one, not three office staff to deal with the paperwork. They could actually spend time with their patients rather than writing justifications to some non-medical insurance clerk for all their decisions.
I also take issue with the editorial stance regarding “rationed” and “state of the art” health care. The insurance companies already ration health care benefits, and expensive medical technology often benefits them, the lawyers and the manufacturers more than the patients. Many high-cost tests are performed routinely, not because physicians deem them necessary but because they are covering themselves and their facilities against legal repercussions. Litigation and the concept of health care as a business keep costs in the stratosphere. Our lifestyles and attitudes already restrict access to the high-tech medicine we brag about. If our “state of the art” medicine is so wonderful, why are we so far down on the list of developed countries in morbidity and mortality? I have been in health care for over forty years in Canada and the U.S. The situation is very complex and no system is perfect, but the need for reform is urgent. The only ones who believe in “every man for himself” are those who haven’t needed us yet.
This letter has not been edited.
Just one simple question. Who will prioritse all the illegals who use the E.R. room for thier regular free doctor visits?
Posted by on September 25, 2007 02:36 PMIt's good to read from someone who actually works in the health care system. Too often, all we hear is the excuses from the health insurance industry, who think making a profit from the misery and suffering of others trump basic health care.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 25, 2007 03:09 PMStan Boyles:-- :...who think making a profit from the misery and suffering of others trump basic health care."
You've been reading too much Ayn Rand crap pontificated by johnnie 2 boy...
We'll find a balance once we eliminate the nonsense found at the extreme wings of the debate (i.e., Old Croch, Un Truth, Grog on the left; and John II, Hank, Un American on the right).
Posted by on September 25, 2007 03:16 PMStan the Man,
How do insurance companies profit from suffering and misery?
Posted by John II on September 25, 2007 03:28 PMAnonymous Coward,
Do you ever state your position on anything? Or do you just snipe at folks you disagree with. I don't care what you think of me or my views. But, why don't you at least try to argue against my positions instead of standing on the sidelines and offering no positions or arguments of your own.
Posted by John II on September 25, 2007 03:33 PMjohnnie 2 boy, two words for you to stew on. I, along with most in this country reject your take on them so stuff it:
GENERAL WELFARE
Posted by on September 25, 2007 04:17 PMBrilliant...
Posted by John II on September 25, 2007 04:25 PMjohnnie 2 boy..we believe so...
Posted by on September 25, 2007 04:29 PMOf course you do. Better yet, you don't even have to back up your assertions with any logical reasoning. All you need to do is call out "general welfare", or "racist", "bigot" or "misogynist"; No need to expand on those concepts or further explain your reasoning. How utterly brilliant!
Posted by John II on September 25, 2007 04:36 PMNever mind, John II. I know you support the health insurance industry. We've already had this discussion.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 25, 2007 05:01 PMSo, Mr. Broyles, because I support the health insurance industry, you won't back up your own assertions? I don't get that reasoning. Explain to me how the insurance industry profits from suffering and misery. Perhaps the brilliant Anonymous Coward can help you explain it.
Posted by John II on September 25, 2007 05:27 PMStan,
The insurance industry does not profit form suffering and misery. In fact, because that is when they have to pay out benefits, they lose money from them.
The people who profit from suffering and misery are those in the medical profession, including the letter writer. Because treating them is how they make their living.
And there's nothing wrong with profiting from it. Just like there's nothing wrong with restaurants, grocery stores and farmers profiting from people's hunger. Home builders and landlords profiting from people who need a place to live. Etc.
Seems there should be some way for hospitals to set up minor emergency clinics next door to the real ER. Ear infections, sniffles and such could be diverted to one side, possibly staffed with nurse practitioners, while the real emergencies are treated promptly.
I think that if someone is unable to pay for their minor emergency services, they should be required to provide payment-in-kind. They could sign up for shifts shoveling snow, mopping floors, painting walls, etc. until their debt is satisfied.
Posted by Michael R on September 25, 2007 07:46 PMMichael R.,
We have plenty of Urgent Care facilities for the purposes you listed.
Posted by John II on September 25, 2007 08:08 PMJohn II - People cannot use Urgent Care facitlities without payment. That's why people go to the ER, they don't have to have money or insurance to get treatment.
Posted by Michael R on September 25, 2007 08:40 PMOfcourse you have to pay for Urgent Care!
Posted by John II on September 25, 2007 09:31 PMjohnnie 2 boy, "Ofcourse you have to pay for Urgent Care!"
That's why the illegals go to ER and burn your tax dollars getting care for such devastating things as the sniffles.
Posted by on September 25, 2007 09:54 PMMr. Bush said 'go to the E.R. if you don't have ins.' That statement was taken serious.
Posted by jl on September 25, 2007 10:45 PMTherefore, what? Because illegals are wasting our tax dollars, we should build free minor emergency clinics for them? Explain the logic in that.
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 08:07 AMJohn II, you've finally revealed yourself. Congratulations!
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 26, 2007 09:21 AMWhat do you mean finally, Mr. Broyles? I reveal my thoughts in all my posts. What is it in my last post that has been revealed to you? Have you given up on your bold assertions about the health insurance industry?
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 09:32 AMThere are already 2 clinics in the area that cater to mexicans without insurance. The clinics are non-profit and funded by donations ,volunteers and are low cost or no cost . They also give out free samples of medicine.
Now we have Target and Walmart offering
4$ prescriptions and lowcost clinics in Walmart.
Their is no reason to use the ER. There are options out there for the uninsured,underinsured,and the insured.
I use the Walmart clinic,called Smart Care when my Dr's office is closed nights and weekends. I have insurance and they charge my insurance less than the Dr's office.
I have taken my daughters there 3 times for care and recieved great care. It was colds and sinus infections. They gave me samples and a I filled a prescrition for 4$,even though I have prescription coverage.
There are options out there , you just have to look.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 26, 2007 09:34 AMI think John II asked how some one profits on the pain and suffering of others. Right?
When insurance companies refuse to cover treatments they keep more money. Workers comp insurance companies are famous for this.
We definitely need more little clinics all over.
Last year I had three medical emergencies that happened around eleven to one at night. Had the doctor been open, I could have saved a lot of money.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 10:36 AMSharon B., revealed:
"When insurance companies refuse to cover treatments they keep more money."
They refuse to pay for treatments that are not specified in the original explanation of benefits. They do not profit from pain or suffering. Their entire business model is built around the hopes that people won't have pain or suffering. If I break my leg playing hockey, my insurance company will lose money.
Insurance companies profit from healthy people, not sick people.
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 10:51 AMJohn II tell that to Bill O who had a trip to the ER and found out his insurance would not pay for some part of it. That was a couple of years ago but he was almost incandescent about it on his show.
You didn`t mention workers comp insurance where they make bigger profits by denying treatment, medicine and doctor visits.
Insurance companies have many, many lawyers to draw up all that lovely print, that may someday even trip you up.
You are like the man who falls out a thirty story window and on the way down, people keep yelling to him "how are you" and he replies "so far, so good".
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 12:15 PMSharon B.,
You are simply using the exception to prove the rule. If you feel insurance companies will not pay for agreed upon medical expenses, why do you pay $800 a month for health insurance? You'd do a lot better to put that $800 into a savings account each month and earn 4.5% interest.
The same goes for you, Mr. Broyles. You mentioned that you also have health insurance. Cancel it. Save your money. Why give your money over to a health insurance policy that won't pay and only profits from pain and suffering?
That was AARP and I dumped them after they pre-authorized surgery and then paid only the surgeon.
I would have have the operation in the parking lot with a bottle of whiskey, had I know they would renege.
But remember John II that people get my kind of attitude one person at a time.
My husband has that lovely VA treatment, everyone should have that. I envy him.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 01:13 PMHm, it's funny how your story changes, Sharon B. Just the other day, you were wondering if tax increases would equal the $800 per month you pay on health insurance. Now, for the purposes of this argument, you say you don't pay $800. Are you overdosing on Benadryl again or shall I, as that dried up, shrill demagogue, Hillary, would say: suspend my disbelief?
Do you or do you have health insurance?
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 01:32 PMYou see John II it is a very very bad thing these Corporate junkies making money off of all us customers.
Never mind the facts that keep getting flip-flopped as the subject changes.
For instance it is ok for 1 company to make a profit because of capitalism but it is not ok for others. Sharon expertly gives us this wisdom. although I do agree with some of Sharon's ideas on a regular occassion.
Mr Broyles gives us no facts at all. Thinking a cookie cutter should work for all. Everyone else is doing it why shouldnt we? One positive reason for National Healthcare would be the fact that the rest of the world would not profit off of the US in such a manner as we seem to subsidize other countries pharm and HC through our spending and marketing. What will their costs be if we go to National healthcare?
Denial of Benefits........... If one were to look at the reasons for this and fixing those issues that are not usually a direct cause of the Ins industry but govt meddling we could move forward. But it is much more fun beating up the Corps as they are evil.
Posted by on September 26, 2007 01:33 PMJohn II I don`t pay it any more. I Cancelled it. I think I said I used to pay 800.
I do not have health insurance. That was AARP that charged so much.
Of course as that mentally impaired used up old coke head in the White House says, I can, and do, go to the ER.
Nice chatting with you again John II.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 02:02 PMWell, at least you're living by your words, Sharon B. Although, I would strongly you advise to get yourself some health insurance.
You are a living example of how dangerous liberalism is. Your liberal philosophy is literally going to kill you. Good luck with that.
Oh, one more thing: when you go to the ER, do you pay your bill?
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 02:39 PMJohn II going on medicare in two months. Now I can hear you screaming, Noooooo.....that is my money.
Of course I pay the bill.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 02:50 PMSharon B,
In case you haven't figured it out, John II has a vested interest in the health insurance industry. Maybe he even sells the stuff, since he has never answered my question about what his compelling motives are for being so vociferously in the pockets of the health insurance industry. Of course, you have to remember, they don't make any profit from their benevolence.
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 26, 2007 02:56 PMStan the Man,
Stop looking to a woman for validation and answer at least one of my questions to you. How about this one: Why do you pay for health insurance if all it does is profit from pain and suffering.
Sharon B.,
It pains me to know that not only am I paying for Truth's comfy retirement, but soon I'll be paying for your medical care. You can thank good 'ole capitalism for allowing me to make enough money to pay for both of you moochers.
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 03:04 PMJohn II, Stan is not going to bite on your jibes, they are so transparent.
I thank all my years of work for this. Of course I still sell antiques, bit of a little side line you know.
Stan, I think you are right, he sells or works for someone who sells insurance.
And all this time I thought he lived off his wife. My mistake.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 03:11 PMEven if I did work for the insurance industry, why does that mean Mr. Broyles can't answer my questions? I don't get that logic.
Well, that's a bit of a lie; I do know why he won't answer my questions: He's afraid of the answers. If he honestly attempts to answer my questions, he'll realize (if he hasn't already) how foolish and sophomoric his comments were.
Be a man, Stan. Answer my questions.
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 03:22 PMSharon is right when she says that some insurance companies profit off of people's pain and suffering. The large insurance companies have "health care managers" whose sole job is to evaluate a person's claim and decide if it is serious enough to warrant treatment and therefore payment of the claim. They routinely deny someone care (I wonder how they can do this being many miles away from the sick person) whom they deem as having a condition that is not serious. Many of these managers are actual MDs. A prime example is forcing someone to have medication to treat, but not cure, a certain condition that could be alleviated or cured with surgery. Treating with meds is cheaper for them in the short term, when in all reality, the surgery is what cures the illness and prevents further pain, suffering, and expense. Talk to any former "Health Care Manager" and they will tell you that they were told by the higher-ups at their company that their job is to maximize profits for the insurance company. My brother's ex worked for Aetna for 13 years. She left because of what her job became. The bottom line is that health insurance companies will commonly take the route that protects their profits and is not necessarily the best for the patient, who also happens to be their customer.
Posted by Keith and Hank, Sittin' In A Tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G on September 26, 2007 03:22 PM3:22,
Of course a insurance company is going to review each claim to see if it falls under the agreed upon terms and conditions. Do you think they should blindly pay all claims, no matter what? Just because a company denies a claim does not mean it "profits from pain and suffering". It is hoping you won't file a claim, not that you will file one.
Again, if you truly feel that having health insurance is not worth the cost, don't buy it.
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 03:30 PMAlso, if having health insurance is so bad, why do you folks constantly worry that 47 million people (or whatever number you're using these days) do not have it?
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 03:34 PMWe want health care, not health insurance. John II, sorry, but maybe you can retrain for a job in another part of the service industry. (Joke).
I know you are really a mortician. Never a lack of business.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 26, 2007 04:01 PMFine, Sharon B., so you should never complain that 47 million people (supposedly) do not have health insurance. In fact, you should be glad that they're not wasting their money on it.
Posted by John II on September 26, 2007 04:07 PMI find it curious that all those in favor of socialized medicine scream that the insurance companies make money by denying care then claim their plan, government model, will reduce costs by providing preventive care. If insurance companies are so greedy why do they deny coverage for conditions on one hand then have to cover the consequences later?
Sharon B
Good luck on Medicare. I'm on the road to my disability submission. Hate it. Keep thinking some job will come up where I can only work three days a week for three or four hours a day. Less than the disability but I'd be working.
Also thanks for the heads up on AARP. Just e-mailed for information. You may have saved me membership costs. As soon as I get the disability my husband can retire. He should have done it last May but I wouldn't have insurance. Told him I'd take the chance but he's from the old school too and you work if you can when you have responsibilities.
Posted by momma y on September 27, 2007 02:35 AMmommy, it makes my day to help. Thank you. I am old honey, old enough for medicare.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 27, 2007 01:13 PM