Senators:Healthcare costs too much because you go to the doctor too much

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obama healthcare reform: if no one ever went to the doctor, healthcare would be free!

In a document released yesterday, committee Chairman Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, and Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa, the panel’s top Republican, said taxing

health benefits would address so-called “Cadillac plans” they said promote overuse of health-care services and boost the cost of care.

...

The idea already encountered opposition.

“That just makes health care more expensive for Americans when the key point of health-care reform is to make health care more affordable,” said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care for America Now, a Washington coalition of organizations that seeks affordable health care for all.

Kirsch criticized the Senate committee’s description of “Cadillac plans” and disputed “the idea that by providing better health-care benefits, you’re providing over-use of benefits.” A health-care plan shouldn’t create “barriers for consumers,” he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20090519...rg/akmzhkjisw_s

Edited May 19, 2009 by Randomizer

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Health care providers can minimize doctor visits by having a telephone nurse who could help patients decide if they really need to see the doctor or not. People shouldn't hesitate to rely on the doctor for health concerns, but not every concern needs to result in a visit, IMO.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What is really happening here is healthcare benefits redistribution.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

From http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Senate_E...xxxx36867.html:

Under current law, employer-provided health insurance is not counted as income for tax purposes and the amount of health care benefits that are counted as tax free is unlimited. This tax-free status encourages employers to offer “Cadillac plans,” or overly generous health care plans that promote the overuse of health care services and drive up healthcare costs.

The agenda here is to take away the 'overly generous health care plan' I have, whittle it down to third world standards, and use the savings to give the uninsured third-world coverage. It's a race to the bottom in the name of universal coverage.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Overconsumption is an issue, but the problem with the current system is that it encourages underconsumption - that people would rather not go (or delay going) because they're put off by the expense.

If you have to visit the doctor for any reason (even to get test results) you have to pay the bloody co-pay. That's not fair value for money imo.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... the problem with the current system is that it encourages underconsumption - that people would rather not go (or delay going) because they're put off by the expense.

Bingo. Instead, what these Obama-backed Senators want to do is ask you to not go. If no one went to the doctor or the ER, costs would drop! Voila!

Fvckin retards.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From http://www.tax-news.com/asp/story/Senate_E...xxxx36867.html:

Under current law, employer-provided health insurance is not counted as income for tax purposes and the amount of health care benefits that are counted as tax free is unlimited. This tax-free status encourages employers to offer “Cadillac plans,” or overly generous health care plans that promote the overuse of health care services and drive up healthcare costs.

The agenda here is to take away the 'overly generous health care plan' I have, whittle it down to third world standards, and use the savings to give the uninsured third-world coverage. It's a race to the bottom in the name of universal coverage.

Something a friend sent me - a fair opinion imo.

Once you treat healthcare as a business it behaves like a business. Where healthcare is treated, like policing, say, as a public service, it behaves like a service. In most parts of Northern Europe healthcare is a service and understood to be a service. In those countries it is neither cruel nor greedy, as it is in the US. Even those doctors in the US who do their best to practise a vocation are now in constant conflict with authorities who insist on them behaving like business people. I have experienced the healthcare systems of a number of countries. Not all are as sophisticated as the US healthcare business, but they are not cruel nor are they greedy. Greedy health practitioners are usually a discredited minority rather than the norm, as here. Here they employ PR staff to tell us how much they 'care' just as they have automated phones which tell you how 'important' you are as a customer. The greater the expression of sentimentality, the greater the underlying cruelty or cynicism in the system. Sadly, though not as far gone as the American system, the British appear to be going down the American road. That will be an outrage if it happens. At the moment my grandchildren can still get free dental care along with regular healthcare as can I. It is still possible for badly ill patients to get doctors' visits (as any seriously ill person can at night and weekends). Here, general practitioners neither visit nor are in their surgeries for, in my experience, more than a maximum of four days a week. It is time Americans began to protest and show righteous outrage.

[Danno 1,228]

Is this some "just discovered secret".... the less you pay for something the more you waste it?

I have have lived with Insurance and without and my doctor visits increase 2 maybe 3 fold when I only pay $20 per visit.

Not only that but when I use say a dentist which I have never had coverage on, I shop around and have even been known to haggle (if it's a small office).

I needed a cleaning a few months ago and I was amazed at the range in prices I got when I called around.

If I had insurance.... who cares about price, just go.

This in essence is why healthcare is so expensive (lots of insured people with no regard for price) and dental care is not (lots fewer insured people paying attention to price).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

... the problem with the current system is that it encourages underconsumption - that people would rather not go (or delay going) because they're put off by the expense.

Bingo. Instead, what these Obama-backed Senators want to do is ask you to not go. If no one went to the doctor or the ER, costs would drop! Voila!

Fvckin retards.

yeah someone whacks you around the head with a bottle and knocks your ear half off.

"Nah its not too bad, bit of sticky tape and you'll be fine. No need to see a doctor".

The experience I had in Newark ER a few months back is not one I'd like to see repeated - a 6 1/2 hour wait to be seen and some people with quite appalling injuries.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I'll say this.. I thought the ER at St Peters in New Brunswick was awesome. JFK in Edison's ER, I am told, is a death sentence, however.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

Once you treat healthcare as a business it behaves like a business. Where healthcare is treated, like policing, say, as a public service, it behaves like a service. In most parts of Northern Europe healthcare is a service and understood to be a service. In those countries it is neither cruel nor greedy, as it is in the US. Even those doctors in the US who do their best to practise a vocation are now in constant conflict with authorities who insist on them behaving like business people. I have experienced the healthcare systems of a number of countries. Not all are as sophisticated as the US healthcare business, but they are not cruel nor are they greedy. Greedy health practitioners are usually a discredited minority rather than the norm, as here. Here they employ PR staff to tell us how much they 'care' just as they have automated phones which tell you how 'important' you are as a customer. The greater the expression of sentimentality, the greater the underlying cruelty or cynicism in the system. Sadly, though not as far gone as the American system, the British appear to be going down the American road. That will be an outrage if it happens. At the moment my grandchildren can still get free dental care along with regular healthcare as can I. It is still possible for badly ill patients to get doctors' visits (as any seriously ill person can at night and weekends). Here, general practitioners neither visit nor are in their surgeries for, in my experience, more than a maximum of four days a week. It is time Americans began to protest and show Once you treat healthcare as a business it behaves like a business. Where healthcare is treated, like policing, say, as a public service, it behaves like a service. In most parts of Northern Europe healthcare is a service and understood to be a service. In those countries it is neither cruel nor greedy, as it is in the US. Even those doctors in the US who do their best to practise a vocation are now in constant conflict with authorities who insist on them behaving like business people. I have experienced the healthcare systems of a number of countries. Not all are as sophisticated as the US healthcare business, but they are not cruel nor are they greedy. Greedy health practitioners are usually a discredited minority rather than the norm, as here. Here they employ PR staff to tell us how much they 'care' just as they have automated phones which tell you how 'important' you are as a customer. The greater the expression of sentimentality, the greater the underlying cruelty or cynicism in the system. Sadly, though not as far gone as the American system, the British appear to be going down the American road. That will be an outrage if it happens. At the moment my grandchildren can still get free dental care along with regular healthcare as can I. It is still possible for badly ill patients to get doctors' visits (as any seriously ill person can at night and weekends). Here, general practitioners neither visit nor are in their surgeries for, in my experience, more than a maximum of four days a week. It is time Americans began to protest and show righteous outrage.righteous outrage.

I'd go along with all of that, health care costs too much because it is a profit driven industry in the USA. Take away the need for insurance companies to make a load of money for their shareholders, costs will be driven down.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'll say this.. I thought the ER at St Peters in New Brunswick was awesome. JFK in Edison's ER, I am told, is a death sentence, however.

Yeah you have to shop around for the best ER.

On the plus side I'd imagine that Newark probably has a decent ER, the amount of trauma cases that must go through there.

[JimandChristy 1,689]

... the problem with the current system is that it encourages underconsumption - that people would rather not go (or delay going) because they're put off by the expense.

Bingo. Instead, what these Obama-backed Senators want to do is ask you to not go. If no one went to the doctor or the ER, costs would drop! Voila!

Fvckin retards.

yeah someone whacks you around the head with a bottle and knocks your ear half off.

"Nah its not too bad, bit of sticky tape and you'll be fine. No need to see a doctor".

The experience I had in Newark ER a few months back is not one I'd like to see repeated - a 6 1/2 hour wait to be seen and some people with quite appalling injuries.

I had to wait for 2hrs just to see a doctor in a normal practice when I was in Alabama....back in the UK I would have been waiting for no longer than 15mins.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well at home in UK there were some long ER waits too - but at least you didn't have to pay $150 into the bargain.

[Danno 1,228]

I'd go along with all of that, health care costs too much because it is a profit driven industry in the USA. Take away the need for insurance companies to make a load of money for their shareholders, costs will be driven down.

How does one do that?