Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: The Hard Decade Ahead for Hospitals

  1. #21
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    9,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Highly regressive VAT, Social Security and Payroll Taxes on top of higher income tax rates, along with stiff co-payments and deductibles.
    My Scottish relative was unfortunately involved in an accident that made him a paraplegic. The UK gave him an income and even a disability-friendly HOUSE.

    I just did research in Japan on gene therapy. I had a whole section on affordability and access and the local market research director told me those questions aren't relevant because Japan provides 100% healthcare.

    I don't see the UK and Japanese economies crumbling.

    Would I up my taxes for peace of mind against unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances? You bet.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  2. #22
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,371
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    I don't see the UK and Japanese economies crumbling.
    I don't think anyone suggested economies would crumble, only that those promises of free healthcare actually carry hefty individual costs.

    Would I up my taxes for peace of mind against unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances? You bet.
    Good, because that's exactly what it takes to achieve the goal, not just for you but for everyone, especially that 45 to 50% of citizens who currently pay little or none.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  3. #23
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    9,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    I don't think anyone suggested economies would crumble, only that those promises of free healthcare actually carry hefty individual costs.
    And what's the individual cost of not being able to afford healthcare? Or the cost of being a slave to the "golden handcuffs" of employer-based insurance programs. That doesn't sound free to me; nor does it sound like a Republican value. If Republicans truly wanted to encourage entrepreneurship, high insurance premiums is certainly not the way to do it.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  4. #24
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,371
    Quote Originally Posted by catherine View Post
    And what's the individual cost of not being able to afford healthcare? Or the cost of being a slave to the "golden handcuffs" of employer-based insurance programs. That doesn't sound free to me; nor does it sound like a Republican value. If Republicans truly wanted to encourage entrepreneurship, high insurance premiums is certainly not the way to do it.
    I think Republican values are neutral regarding healthcare. They're more about limiting government control so I guess in that sense high insurance premiums would be preferable to high taxation as the cost to the consumer would almost certainly remain the same for most.
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Price County, WI
    Posts
    1,044
    @ Gardnr

    I appreciate your skeptical comment about "70%" reimbursement by Medicaid. I don't have the article in front of me any more, but that is what it stated. I wonder if 70% was specific to Pennsylvania, or was a pure inaccuracy carried in the story?

    Clearly, the level of reimbursement was a major factor in both hospitals reaching a point of insolvency. I have no doubt that both hospitals were administered by well-educated, ethical managers. (There was a forensic audit of the Springfield hospital, and it found no malfeasance on the part of the former CEO and CFO.)

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,938
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    Typically by highly regressive VAT, Social Security and Payroll Taxes on top of higher income tax rates, along with stiff co-payments and deductibles at every income level.
    I have lived in Canada and have many relatives there. The deductibles and copayments are miniscule, not stiff.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Rogar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,911
    I suppose the boomers will put a strain on the mortuary businesses.

    Public radio features outrageous medical bills once a month. Today they had a feature today about a couple in Montana. She worked at a hospital they were insured through the employer's private insurance. Husband in his early 50's was diagnosed with kidney failure requiring either dialysis or transplant if possible. He began dialysis, but there were apparently no treatment centers near-by in the insurance network. They were charged over $10,000 per treatment. Had he been on medicare, they would only allow a couple hundred dollars for each treatment. Although they negotiated down parts of their total bill, it still came to over $200,000. They anticipated declaring bankruptcy. A difference in private insurance vs. government provided medicare? I think that's a fair summary although there were other relevant details.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...l-for-dialysis

  8. #28
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vermont
    Posts
    9,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogar View Post
    I suppose the boomers will put a strain on the mortuary businesses.

    Public radio features outrageous medical bills once a month. Today they had a feature today about a couple in Montana. She worked at a hospital they were insured through the employer's private insurance. Husband in his early 50's was diagnosed with kidney failure requiring either dialysis or transplant if possible. He began dialysis, but there were apparently no treatment centers near-by in the insurance network. They were charged over $10,000 per treatment. Had he been on medicare, they would only allow a couple hundred dollars for each treatment. Although they negotiated down parts of their total bill, it still came to over $200,000. They anticipated declaring bankruptcy. A difference in private insurance vs. government provided medicare? I think that's a fair summary although there were other relevant details.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...l-for-dialysis
    That's not likely to sway the conservatives, because they feel, like Scrooge, that if they are to die,"they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population" (The unborn is the exception, whether or not the mother has the means for health insurance, which, of course, is not the conservative's problem). Social Darwinism is the name of the game. If you wind up between employers, or if you have the wrong insurance, you deserve to die or become impoverished. The conservatives don't realize that "There but for the grace of God go I." So, the difference between living and dying is picking the right employer and the right insurance plan. Seems like a really existential rationale.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    9,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogar View Post
    Public radio features outrageous medical bills once a month. Today they had a feature today about a couple in Montana. She worked at a hospital they were insured through the employer's private insurance. Husband in his early 50's was diagnosed with kidney failure requiring either dialysis or transplant if possible. He began dialysis, but there were apparently no treatment centers near-by in the insurance network. They were charged over $10,000 per treatment. Had he been on medicare, they would only allow a couple hundred dollars for each treatment. Although they negotiated down parts of their total bill, it still came to over $200,000. They anticipated declaring bankruptcy. A difference in private insurance vs. government provided medicare? I think that's a fair summary although there were other relevant details.

    https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...l-for-dialysis
    A small price to pay for freedom, right Alan and LDAHL?!

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    9,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Yppej View Post
    I have lived in Canada and have many relatives there. The deductibles and copayments are miniscule, not stiff.
    They won't believe you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •