http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/medicare … um=twitter
Does anyone really believe that government health care will be cheaper and better than what we have and without fraud waste and abuse??
Nothing is more expensive than what we have now. We pay more for less than any country in the world.
You really believe that? Really? And how old are you? How many years have you watched Democrats promise the moon and deliver cow pies? Sheez .......I will be so glad when the baby boomer's are too old to talk, what a selfish and stupid generation.
There is no "government health care" in the U.S., unless you're talking about health care provided by the Veterans Administration. Your question makes no sense.
Medicaide, Medicare, Social Security, Subsidies to the Health System, the government granted monopoly rights to the ADA.
There's quite a bit of government in the health care system right now.
The reason it could be unconstitutional is because it is not government health insurance. The constitutionality rests on whether the government can force people to buy private insurance.
Had the public option stayed in, constitutionality would have been no issue.
Hey! Lady Love, I Thank you for that link. I totally agree with Michael F.Cannon's hub. If you and I and Him believe that $48billion was stolen through fraudulent and improper claims to medi-care, who stole the money? Was it the public or private sector? If this kind of huge fraud of the goverment on the military and defense, education, finance, taxes, and all levels of federal goverment was stopped. The national's debt could be paid off before the end of obama's second term. This thread proves that the nation needs health reform, financial reforms, tax reforms and more goverment watch dogs to watch and protect the tax payer's money.
I used to work for a group of doctors - my job was to bill the insurances. One of my experiances was: I billed the office visit and received an explantion of benefits (EOB) stating the money the insurance should have paid was going toward the patient's deductible. I knew he didn't have a deductible (he had and HMO), but when I called the insurance company, I was told it went to the deductible. So I billed the patient as I do for deductibles. When the patient came in to complain, because, he didn't have a deductible, he showed me a letter from the insurance company that said the doctor's office did not file the claim on time. I pulled out MY letter and the two letters were dated the same day. We called the insurance company together. They said there must have been some kind of mistake and paid the bill. The bill was paid several months after the doctor visit and after the patient and I spent time trying to solve the issue. I wonder how many other people this happens to and they just pay the bill, thinking the insurance company is right. I do think insurance companies are greedy and immoral. No one holds them legally accountable for not payin legitimate claims.
And a government take over fixes that how? Here's another side I was billed for my deductable by my doctor... after I paid I looked at the bill to see what it was for since I hant seen that doctor in quite some time...it was for an appointment I didn't keep! So I called to get my money back and I did but my insurance company paid for tests I didn have! I wonder how much of this fraud goes on... 48 billion in medicare!
I don't think a government takeover would fix the insurance problem. It would make it worse. We do, however, need to fix our healthcare system. Other countries have come up with solutions - still not perfect - that we would be wise to study. That is why I suggested Reid's book. He explains the different models. I think we should look at them and choose a solution that would suit the US.
We don't need a goverment takeover of healthcare. We need the goverment to arrest, convict, and jail those who exploit and fraudulently steal hundreds of billions every year from tax payers.
The point (in theory) is that, in a representative democracy, the People have control over government-run services, via their representatives. By definition, the public has no control over a private entity like a corporation. Unfortunately, in practice the Congress, Senate, and President of the United States IN PRACTICE usually represent large corporations -- some of which are health insurance companies....
"government health care". Depends on who is running the government.
That's where you're wrong... no matter who's running the government, the government running health care will be disaster!
The UK provides comprehensive health care at about half the cost of GDP that the US does.
Hey, government drone.....did you notice the UK health care system is going broke. Check the news and be educated.
Erm, no, I didn't notice that the UK health service is going broke.
I did notice that we have a right wing government who are trying to destroy any vestige of socialism we have left in this country, even down to getting rid of the May Day holiday, despite them having already renamed it, but what more would you expect from them?
I suggest that you check the news, preferably not Fox, and get educated. It would be worth while, save you embarrassing your self in public.
After being a registered nurse for over 33 years, I can tell you there are many problems with our current health care system, especially in the hospital ( I did all of my career in the diagnostic and surgical areas). One of the biggest problems is redundent paper work, which costs labor, labor is expensive, and a broad catagory. Another problem is frivilous law suits which increase the cost of malpractice insurance, and increase the amount of documentation to prevent law suits. Please, don't get me wrong, legal incentive is one way to keep unethical medical practicioners in line. Sad but true. Huge salaries for executives in the hospital, cost of operations in terms of medical supplies, drugs ( enormous....thousands of dollars for patients to get medications to prolong last stage terminal illness, prolong it, including the suffering), poor, poor, poor management of quality services, which results in duplication of service, in addition to management of complications associated with the first service. Last, but certainly not least, the insurance or lack of it. Indigent patient costs result in the increase of cost to the paying patients. At least managed care would help everyone. Insurance companies are the puppeteer of health care. They will and do determine if you need the service, based on their evaluation of your need. You better hope your doctor knows how to write the most compelling documentation when he/she is asking for special service. If not, well your tests are evaluated by a physican who works for the insurance company, and they go by a yes and no chart, and they are no longer actively practicing medicine. If you ask me, it's crazy and someone besides the insurance company needs to mandate who gets cared for. Their bottom line is money. We have laws to protect all Americans, and to make it fair. Do you want your health care in the hands of people in business or medicine ?
The key is get involved in proposed changes, and be proactive advocates. Write, write, write your congress people, telephone, or email. I am an advocate in our state. I have spoken to many legislators, and they do listen, and they really do evaluate the situation when enough noise is made about the concern. On the other hand, they also evaluate the lack of interest by their constituents when nothing is said.
Please...don't let the media be your only means of information. Go to your congressperson's website for phone, email addresses and regular mailing addresses. If you don't know who your representative is, google it with the area you live in. The government is not the kingdom, it's a representation of you and for you if you will allow it to be.
Don't be surprised when your experience is shot down in flames or totally ignored.
Do you think the IRS along with the 159 new government agencies created to administer health care will help, dk?
Yeah, I'll be sure to call my Democrat Congressman who didn't read the bill. Thanks for the good laugh.
Hm, seven minutes, that must be a record.
The government is not going to 'administer health care'. For the most part, they are enforcing the rules that will REQUIRE the insurance play fair. I don't mind that you disapprove, but continually misrepresenting what the law is does become irritating. I'm sure there's a forum for fiction.
I can be shot down in flames my friend, but at least I have the right to give you my opinion, and my years of experience in the way of freedom of speech, thanks to the system we call liberty. You can get involved or you can complain, either way you get to have your say, and I wouldn't trade that for anything, since it seems people have literally spent their life fighting to save it. Once again, we need to get involved and say it to the people who make the laws. Mass communication to them works.
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse is exactly health care of today. You start off twisting how it is now, as how it will be under healthcare reform. The goverment needs to get involved in stop the fraud thats driving up healthcare.
Thank you - A voice of reason, they just upped our health care cost AGAIN. The cost MONTHLY for both my husband and I is climbing above $1300.00 a month!!!!!!!!!!
Am I the only person who thinks this is exobitant????? Do a lot of people have that kind of money???? SOMETHING has got to be done as these health insurance people keep stealing from the American public and no one is doing a damn thing about it.
My husband is diabetic and I am okay, thank god. He is 57 and I am 50. We have had the same insurance company for over 7 years. We keep trying to change, but we can't seem to find any cheaper with the same benefits. Add to that our community has grown in leaps and bounds with illegals and people with no health care and we have one hospital that isn't the greatest to begin with. Every 2 years they nearly close because they don't make money with all the illegals they take in through emergency care. There are not enough legal people out here to absorb that cost.
OKay people SOOOO against universal health care, what are your solutions to this nightmare???
The borders need to be controlled and illegal immigrants exported.
Insurance companies should have to compete nation wide.
States should not pass laws requiring every insurance policy to include specific coverages. In Colorado every insurance policy whether for man, woman or child must include pregnancy coverage. That is insane.
I'm all for tighter supervision of insurance companies and reasonable regulation of their business and consumer practices.
I am all for border control or at least give them a NUMBER and tax their wages. Most of them actually do work. They should have to pay income tax like the rest of us do. That would help. And then we can also keep track of them and they would actually have to pay their bills as well and wouldn't be able to just walk away from responsibility.
I am certain there are a great many alternatives to the way our healthcare system is now if people and the government as well, would just discuss and vote on viable alternatives.
Moon child: AnnCee is not a voice of reason in this matter of health cost. She supports your health insurancer.
AnnCee Shame on you. If you couldn't tell the truth you should not answer my phone.
I am going to hit the report button if you don't stop following me around and telling lies about me, okay?
AnnCee: I would not follow you around, the monitor can assure of that. when I accused you of answering my phone on this thread they can show you why I said that, so hit report because I don't want you to feel followed by me. I have no reason to follow you. As a matter of fact when I started writing here you were my second or third follower, you said the 1 or 2 followers I had looked lonely. After I wrote couple more hubs you stop following me. I never stop following you that's how I knew about your new hub. I will figure out how to stop following you after I submit this comment. So hit report, please, for your peace of mind.
I have heard this "I didn't read the bill" or "I didn't have time to read the bill." That is a bunch of crap. You don't think the thousands of lobbyists, on both sides, who are mainly lawyers didn't read the bill? You don't think the staff members that each Congressman/ Senator have didn't have time to read the bill? I read the bill online in about 3.5 hours - and I am not a lawmaker experienced in reading this crap.
Like it or hate it, but I think the excuse of "no one had time to read the bill" is BS.
dkroskens, I appreciate your heart-felt and real-world-based opinion - we don't often get actual practioners chiming in on the forums.
I agree with most of this except indigent care doesn't go away with government control it only spreads the costs... if you really want to lower costs you have to take both the insurance companies and government out of the care equation and keep those decisions.and transactions between the doctor and patient.
The medical decisions remain exclusively between patient and doctor. With Obamacare, that is. Under the old system that you would return to, insurance companies retained a clause in individual policies that allowed them to rescind or quit, if you had a condition so expensive that they decided they would lose money.
That just ISN'T true! I suggest you peruse the bill... the government will decide what methods of treatment are most appropriate and cost effective.
Why is that any worse then the insurers deciding what methods of treatment are most appropriate and cost effective?
Well that wasn't the issue... of course having the government decide on your care is troublesome if you ask me.
Answer the question please!
Why is it more troublesome having the government decide on your health care than the insurance companies?
For one thing you can sue the insurance company not the government also politics can be a determining factor in care...
So, your insurance company has denied you cover and as a result you died. . . but never mind, you can sue them!
I don't really see how politics can be a determining factor in care unless the republicans decide to with hold cover from the democrats, or vice versa, but what's to stop that happening with the insurance companies?
Insurance companies often deny coverage for frivolous reasons but I doubt any would for political reasons... as I said you have recourse you can sue.
By the way as you know we have state funded health care in the UK, the health authorities are quite often sued!
dkrostkins, that was a great post. I've worked in the medical field and all the paperwork is so frustrating!
There is a great book by T.R. Reid "The Healing of America". I feel like congress and the President should have had to read this before drafting any kind of health care bill. In the book, Mr Reid describes what he sees are the four models of health care around the world. He then talks about which countries have what model and how they work. Good information. Something that Switzerland does makes a lot of sense to me. Every Swiss cittizen is entitled to a basic level of health care. Most get it from their work. The private insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on this basic policy. If you can afford to buy a higher level policy, you can. The higher level policies are where the insurance companies make their profits. This system keeps the basic policy costs down where it is affordable and the insurance companies can still have their profits.
Good to hear from someone with actual experience and an open mind.
Good point, knol. How will progressives feel about
Republicans controlling their health care?
Seems to me they aren't comfortable with fascism unless it is perpetrated by liberals. Which it always is.
"That's where you're wrong... no matter who's running the government, the government running health care will be disaster!" I have VA. It is great. But what do I know?
"Good point, knol. How will progressives feel about Republicans controlling their health care? I say it again. What I call pseudo-conservatives or republicans are really progressives. They believe in the progressive accumulation of money and property. Progressives or pseudo-progressives are conservative. They may believe in non-profit, socialism and ecology. Nature is conservative. It does not make a profit.
The greedy insurance companies are still there, with some restrictions that they don't like. They can't cherry pick customers, or cancel coverage when you need it most.
The doctor patient relationship is the same. The government is not setting rates or limiting coverage.
We are providing health care for 32 million people who didn't have it and providing financial help so it's in the reach of every American. We are setting standards for what insurance companies can sell, so the insurance companies you buy WILL pay if you get sick.
The spin the whiners put on this is just sick.
If your congress person republican or democrat didn't read the bill did you ask him why they didn't ? Did you ask them to explain it to you ? It sounds like you are pretty sure they didn't.
I have stood by the bedside of many middle age people with vibrant families who want to know why their family member couldn't have the operation in a timely manner before things became exponentially worse. The answer is, " we're trying to get the insurance company to approve it " days, weeks, whatever their schedule to get back to us, it's up to them. Really ??? And you don't want laws against this type of treatment ? If congress doesn't make the law who will ?
BTW, is there any hope for just people being concerned people, even if it maybe just for themselves ? Must we have the age old tradition of partisan remarks, or can we just think first as people who want good health care ? It never seemed to matter when someone was dying which side of the aisle they were on.
In the opinion of a few in these forums, if you're not ranting along with them, then you must be a (fill in "lefty" or "righty").
Your post was enlightening and your experience gives it more weight than the usual partisan flame job. Thanks for posting.
dk, I have two questions for you.
(1) How are redundant paper work, frivolous law suits, and huge salaries for executives the fault of the "Greedy Insurance Companies"? and
(2) How does the Obamacare Bill solve the problems of redundant paper work, frivolous law suits, and huge salaries for executives?
Has anyone on here, other than DTR0005, read the entire bill?
The part I read disgusted me so much I had to stop reading it.
I'll try to answer the questions as best I can from a nurse's point of view, middle management at best . It's not all about the insurance companies, but they are a huge contributing factor. Like I said in the beginning, there are many reasons for the high cost of health care, and practically speaking, many of them need to be addressed within the system. Making it mandatory to meet guidelines of efficiency in health care is one of those things that need to be addressed, and enforced. Otherwise we are using huge amounts of money to perform things which are not in the best interest of the patient, or the public as a whole, paying the bills through taxes. It's a joke to have the joint commission accreditation of hospitals do the surveying of the standards set forth of best practice. They come in announced, and everyone knows when they will be there, and everything is just the way it should be, until they leave. That's the truth. Some things are outrageously unsafe, but because some one had a a law suit, it became a best practice standard, even though it makes no sense in the majority of cases. I could go on and on, but many costs of operating could be changed. It's all part of the big picture to trim the fat, and increase the quality of care.
But the "Greedy Insurance Companies, Really???" actually are the topic of this forum thread.
From the linked article, there's this:
"In a newly released report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimates that, in fiscal year 2010, $48 billion in taxpayer money was squandered on fraudulent or improper Medicare claims. Meanwhile, the nation’s ten largest health insurance companies made combined profits of $12.7 billion in 2010 (according to Fortune 500). In other words, for every $1 made by the nation’s ten largest insurers, Medicare lost nearly $4...
"Actually, it may have been even worse than that: The GAO writes that this $48 billion in taxpayer money that went down the drain doesn’t even represent Medicare’s full tally of lost revenue, since it “did not include improper payments in its Part D prescription drug benefit, for which the agency has not yet estimated a total amount.”"
Why does Medicare not count as government-run and government-mandated health insurance? How did it get a free pass to be exempt from scrutiny?
Great questions. Tick tock.
Progressives want universal health care because they want it.
It's about control. Control control control. It's a progressive thing.
Medicare was a deal made with the greatest generation. A paid in vested health insurance policy.
My question remains. Who expects that the government can do a better job?
I have three friends who each had a parent pass away within the past year. All three of them said that dealing with the insurance companies was a nightmare of delays and nitpicking while social security and medicare issues were dealt with quickly and with a surprisingly small amount of paperwork.
Anecdotal, but true.
Here's my anecdote. My family has NEVER had a single problem with an insurance company and I know not a single person who has. Not one.
AnnCee: You need the get out more and talk to people more, not at them to them. Get in a small gathering and ask "Has anyone here ever had a problem with an insurance company", Than you will know somebody, maybe more than one single person.
All health insurance companies perform at different levels of quality and efficiency. Medicare need reform as well. One of the biggest factors facing American healthcare today is this; we have a growing population of older Americans, the baby boomers ( I am one of them...yuck, I said it ) More and more of us are living longer, healthier lives, eating better, being treated preventively, and exercising like never before. We want to live long and healthy lives. However, it presents a numbers problem. We have more of us who are living longer, and we will have varying degrees of age related health problems, inevitiably. With that goes a place to care for us, a staff to care for us, programs, instrumentation, technical services,equipment, medications, supplies, education, etc, etc. So if anything is in our best interest to be a part of, it's medicare reform ( for those who find themselves a little over 25 ). When medicare was introduced I don't think the writers of the program had any idea medicine would grow and advance at the rate it has in preventing and promoting longevity. It's not designed to care for the sheer numbers we are facing. It's an antiquated system. It wasn't created by anyone who is in office today. The times they are a changin' and we better be part of the solution, otherwise we have no right to complain. I WILL stand behind this one statement, in every situation "You the patient are your own best advocate, ask questions, and ask again, and then tell them you want to know what is happening in your own care, always !"
I recently wrote a comment about the problems in Wisconsin. Since this hub is about '' greedy insurance companies'', I thought the comments that I made would be of some interest. Please note that the Obama Administration has granted waivers to LABOR unions to be exempt from the Healthcare Bill. Previously President Obama said that unions would not be exempt from the Healthcare Reform Bill. Just another untrue statement by President Barak Obama to appease the public?
Wisconsin public sector union jobs:
For example, the union controls the healthcare insurance payments and sends the money to the insurer. The insurer is owned by the unions, sounds like a conflict of interest?
The governor said that using the states insurer, the cost would be 25/35% lower. In plain English the employees are paying too much, problem their paying with the taxpayers money. That’s similar to the union using union dues to put Democrats in office. Again the taxpayer money indirectly being used against the taxpayer. The teachers are not losing the take home pay, the savings are in the fringe benefits coming down to the cost in the market and the savings are passed down to the cities. Doesn’t that sound fair to the taxpayers?
President Obama's comments regarding the protesting in Wisconsin favoring the unions should be of concern to the average citizen.
So Jon with your argument, if I am a public employee (state) and I receive my paycheck and purchase, say dope or beer, or spend it on a hooker, is the state "supporting" these vices because I choose to spend my money, earned from them, in that way? I mean it's an interesting argument which I have heard brought up time and again by conservatives on talk radio and in print, but it falls apart when you apply logic to it. You could say the same thing if you are an employee of Anthem Blue Cross-Blue Shield. You get paid and you spend your money on something that this private company might not approve of or that is antithetical to the company, can you accuse this private company of "subsidizing" something against its interest? No.. not really.
And in the private sector, you have a member of a union who works for company X. The union and the company may not be on the best terms with each other, but the worker works his time and gets his pay. Part of that pay goes back to the union, in dues, which is in turn possibly operating against the company's best interest. So can we say the company is subsidizing an entity agasint its own self interest? Well you could I guess, but when you go down that slippery slope, where do you stop???
The difference is in your example you are freely making a choice to spend your money on whatever... in the case of public service unions you have no choice... either to join or not or what your dues will be spent on. In the case of th WI unions the dues were deducted right from the checks! Everythin about this system is anti freedom!
You have no choice in private unions either - you can't arbitrarily opt out if you work at a union shop. And your dues are deducted out of your check automatically. But the point is this: once you have earned the money, regardless of who paid for it, it's yours - if you are a member of a public employees' union and they take dues out, that's fine - it's not the state's money once you have earned it. The only choice I know of to not join a union is with Federal Employees (not sure about the Postal Union on this one) - there is a union, but you are not required to join. And even if you don't join/pay, they are still required to represent you if requested to do so.
I am a mail carrier and you are correct - joining is voluntary and union representation is required whether the carrier is a union member or not. In a lot of cases, the local steward does not know who isn't in the union.
Participation is overwhelming. The carriers know management will balance the budget in the backs of the workers, while they feather their own nest. So for decades, voluntary participation has worked.
Why are people so terrified of improving our health care system in the US? As previously stated, we pay more here for among the worst care in the world. There is nothing EXCEPTIONAL about our health care system, that's for sure!
I am not talking here about medical research. We are great at that. And that is not the issue.
I'm talking about a country not taking care of the health needs -- and they are basic HUMAN NEEDS -- of its citizens.
It's shameful, really.
When you talk about not knowing ANYONE who has had a problem with an insurance company. Maybe you're asking the wrong question. Try asking how many people have been DENIED health insurance coverage even though they were willing to pay for it. You won't have to look far. I'll offer up two examples from my own family: my husband and my son.
Other than your personal experience there isn't a single fact in your statement!
Insurance companies exist to limit your liability they are not a pile of cash to be accessed when you lack the funds for something you need. No insurance company will issue you a fire policy after your house burns down... asking Insurance companies to cover pre existing conditions is essentially welfare.
Precisely why the insurance model, as a delivery for healthcare, is a horrible model. To handle fires, vandalism, water damage - the insurance model works great. To handle the ongoing maintenance of health, the insurance model falls flat on its face. And that is precisely why it is so expensive and out-of-reach to so many in the US. And that is precisely why the majority of the world has abandoned it as a mode to pay for healthcare delivery.
Come up with another "workable" model to deliver healthcare to 300,000,000 plus people using a private business model Lady Love and the world will beat a path to your doorstep. But it isn't insurance - even "insurance" knows it isn't insurance, but it's damn profitable so they soldier on...
Make the patients responsible for paying the provider health care costs will be cut in half over night!
Lady Love Stop what the thread is base on medi-care Fraud, problem solved. I left you an important comment 40 minutes ago on this hub.
I was hospitalized overnight last year. Testing for two days ran up a $14,000 tab, but I have HUBS from work. Under your theory, (unsupported by any scientific study) that cost could be cut in half by pay-as-you-go, but who has $7,000 laying around?
This is a reality-based example that shows how weak your critical thinking skills are. That's why I hold your posts in contempt. They aren't even intended to solve problems - just wound democrats. This country has work to do and narrow ideology which denies facts and even the existence of the problem becomes a problem in and by itself.
Why was the bill 14000 dollars... why were you hospitalized? What tests were done? Were they all necessary or was much of this done just because you had coverage and the hospital knew they would get paid for the claims? You didn't bother to ask! Why? Because you don't care ... its the insurance company's problem! Im sure if you had to pay you would have questioned EVERYTHING! Having a 3rd party responsible for payment leads to greater demand for unnecessary proceedures driving up costs. Oh and im sure if you look at your bill you'll see you were charged 20 dollars for asprin!
Lady, you bring up a very good point. Very few people do scrutinize their medical bills. When you are paying a higher percentage of medical bills on your own, you do tend to look more carefully at the bill. A prime example is with plans with high deductibles, etc.
But in order to thoroughly review your medical bills, you have to have an idea of what is being billed, etc. Medicine is not like plumbing - there is no time and material breakdown of the goods and services. Do we agree on that? And the irony of all ironies, in my opinion, is that the insurance industry "invented" this cryptic billing system - fee for service. So we are back to where we started. With the insurance model, the profit incentive dictates medical providers throw everything that might "stick" at the insurance company, everything that might fly through billing in order to get paid. And this is precisely why healthcare insurance actually drives up the cost of medical care in the US.
I have a hard time believing that anyone has never had any problems with any insurance company unless they have an " in " with one, or write policy, or possibly manage an insurane company. Maybe they have had the good fortune of never using insurance for health issues ? That is very rare.
I think it's hard to compare a burned and destroyed structure with a human life. A house can be replaced, exactly like the other one. Try duplicating your best friend, a grandparent or a parent to another living human. The inflluence of one life over another can make the difference between night and day, between a problem solver and a problem maker, between a complainer and a worker. I hope we never get to that point of devaluing life, because then we may as well be terrorists. Lives become immaterial in our pursuit of accomplishing our goal.
Health care involves life. Period. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not about spending incredible amounts of money to extend suffering, it's cruel and unsual punishment. I am however all about helping someone enjoy their life with a little repair, or education, medication, etc. You never know when you might be the one looking up out of a hospital bed, asking for help, and being told, sorry....come up with $250.000.00 and we can do it, otherwise your insuance company has denied coverage. There has to be a better way. It starts, in my opinion with our attitude.
My family certainly doesn't have an "in" with anyone. We have never had a claim disputed or denied. We have never had a policy canceled. I have had no major health problems but a member of my family has. In one hospitalization we did find some hospital billing discrepancies and we notified the insurance company which investigated and ended up paying less than originally billed.
In another case I visited the emergency room to meet a gastroenterologist for an endoscopy because it was Friday late afternoon and my doctor felt I should have the procedure ASAP. My doctor called the gastro guy to see if he could see me and it turned out he was on call at the hospital. It turned out to be nothing but the effect of a strong antibiotic and pain medication for a sinus infection had caused some stomach bleeding. The hospital billed the insurance company for level 5 care when all I was in the emergency room for was to meet the doctor. The nature of my experience there was hideous and confused, even rude and painful with a nurse digging around in my arm to insert an IV the doctor had not ordered. I waited over two hours for the doctor until I finally called my husband and he called the doctor who it turned out had been waiting for the hospital to let him know I was there. They never called him at all. I wrote a letter to protest the bill describing the circumstances. I received a very apologetic letter stating that it had been a billing error, that it was being adjusted and that a patient care policy review would take place.
In my experience it is always good to advocate for yourself and if more people did it there would be far fewer abuses and mistakes.
I didn't need the government to advocate for me, did I?
Maybe I should advocate for the government. Medicare lost $43 Billion to fraud.
Then maybe with the government there would be no need for an advocate.
And how much do the insurance companies lose to fraud?
I suspect considerably more than $43 billion if the stories on here are anything to go by.
That is why people should have a little independence of mind and stop being dumb liberals who wait around for the government to solve their problems.
Government control of health services doesn't eliminate fraud. We have cases of buyers over buying stock or buying invisible stock and doing deals with drug companies.
What we do not have is wholesale charging for services that have not been supplied.
Sure, everybody should be alert and watch out for their interests but we have the freedom not to have to do that.
Then pay your own consequences since you have the freedom to be an idiot and you choose to be an idiot.
Don't ask your alert neighbor to pay the consequences for your sleepy approach to life.
You've lost me again!
What is your point beyond you thinking that disagreeing with you qualifies me as an idiot?
You have the freedom not to have to watch out for your own interests but you want the license to have someone else pay for your freedom to fail.
That's the underbelly of liberalism. The other side is elite ideologues who want a stupid population of people who DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO REALITY. NOT EVEN THE REALITY OF THEIR OWN LIVES, THEIR OWN BILLS, THEIR OWN BUSINESS.
No, we have the freedom not to watch out for medical insurance fraud because there is no room in our system for large scale fraud.
It doesn't involve anybody else paying. It just isn't there.
It doesn't involve a loss of freedom or a passing on of the costs.
And it isn't anything to do with liberalism, it's good old fashioned socialism.
We are discussing an individual's option of looking out for his own interests and stopping medical billing "mistakes" in his own life.
You said people have the right not to do that.
I said they should not expect others to pay for their lack of oversight.
I don't know what you are talking about.
And we all should not have to pay for chiseling health insurance companies sleazy practices.
So look over your bills and contest discrepancies.
And support more competition in the marketplace.
Strangely, I don't know what you are talking about either!
You were saying how open to fraud your system is and I countered by saying how difficult our system is to defraud.
I don't know where freedom comes into it, I didn't say that people have the right not to do that, just no need because there is no possibility of fraudulently charging for services not provided!
Of course, I'm sure you will find some reason to disqualify the WHO as a source of credible information. Notwithstanding, here is their ranking.
The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems:
3 San Marino
18 United Kingdom
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
41 New Zealand
48 Czech Republic
51 Dominican Republic
58 South Korea
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
76 Sri Lanka
80 Solomon Islands
86 Antigua and Barbuda
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
107 Cook Islands
113 Cape Verde
115 El Salvador
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
137 Ivory Coast
141 Marshall Islands
148 Papua New Guinea
167 North Korea
171 Equatorial Guinea
175 South Africa
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
You only prove my point we aren't the worst!
We are 37th for Christ sake and people have the audacity to go around screaming how we are the greatest country in the world and we don't even take care of our own? 37th? seriously?
Exactly. Insurance companies DO often deny coverage for frivolous reasons!!
They are in business to make money.
Keeping our citizens alive and healthy should not be a profit-making business. That's the whole problem.
AnnCee -- where are you getting those fabulous graphics? Or is it a "personal trademark secret" (which I can understand if it is ).
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/co … 042070.htm
And WHY does the US spend so much on health care? Because of big stupid government, that's why. And progressives want to make it BIGGER.
http://blogs.forbes.com/aroy/2011/03/04 … priceless/
Are you being deliberately obtuse or does it just happen?
I'm flattered that you're once again flummoxed into reaching out with personal insults.
There are a lot of falsehoods being promoted about the health care law -- by both sides. Here's 7 false things that are promoted as facts:
Government Will Decide What Care I Get (a.k.a. they won’t give grandma a hip replacement). False.
Health care overhaul "will be paid for.” False, at least not yet.
Private Insurance Will Be Illegal. False.
The House Bill Requires Suicide Counseling. False.
Families Will Save $2,500. False - that's a maximum amount.
Medicare Benefits Will Be Slashed. False.
Illegal Immigrants Will Be Covered. False.
Most of these misleading statements are rooted in campaign attack ads.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven- … alth-care/
More whoppers? OK:
* Requires patients to be implanted with microchips. (No, it doesn’t.)
* Cuts benefits for military families and retirees. (No. The TRICARE program isn’t affected.)
* Exempts Muslims from the requirement to obtain coverage. (Not specifically. It does have a religious exemption, but that is intended for Old Order Amish.)
* Allows insurance companies to continue denying coverage to children with preexisting conditions. (Insurance companies have agreed not to exploit a loophole that might have allowed this.)
* Will require 16,500 armed IRS agents to enforce. (No. Criminal penalties are waived.)
* Gives President Obama a Nazi-like "private army." (No. It provides a reserve corps of doctors and other health workers for emergencies.)
* "Exempts" House and Senate members. (No. Their coverage may not be as good as before, in fact.)
* Covers erectile-dysfunction drugs for sex offenders. (Just as it was before the new law, those no longer in jail can buy any insurance plan they choose.)
* Provides federal funding for abortions. (Not directly. But neither side in the abortion debate is happy with the law.)
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/more-m … alth-care/
Just out of curiosity, what "generation" are you, and what positive contributions have your generation made to our country?
*observation not directly related to the OP*
It's refreshing to see the level of verbal sparring at a level befitting a WRITERS' community!
Obtuse - good word!
Flummoxed - very good!
Arrogant pettifogger - fabulous!
WHAT??? Why in the world would there be a requirement that all policies cover pregnancy? That makes no sense -- unless somehow spreading that risk across males and post-menopausal women is financially beneficial to the insurance companies...
But by the same token, think about the implications of this!
Pregnancy is a natural process and part of life.
But in insurance terms, it's a "high risk" behavior.
What's wrong with this picture??
Instead of celebrating it, we penalize people for it.
Mighty Mom, Insurance is just the wrong model for healthcare delivery/payment. I have said this since my first forum post. Working in the industry it takes about 5 minutes of "insurance 101" to see why this model doesn't work. I am not certain what will though I have my ideas.
Agree with you 110%, DTR.
I see healthcare as a basic human right.
It should be taken out of the capitalist framework.
Maybe then the USA could rank in the top 10 or even top 20 countries. Maybe even be #1!!!
i like the mentality of "greedy insurance companies"
newsflash: everyone is greedy.
Most likely you are in denial. We all are greedy, to some extent.
I've never been to Egypt!
I am seriously not greedy.
Don't you advocate forcefully taking other people money and using it for your needs? Newsflash: this is greed
I dunno, you work for profit, and then spend the profit on luxuries instead of giving it to charity.
Thats not greedy. That's needing to pay your bills to survive. A certain percentage should go to charity for sure. That is both supposedly, the Christian way and the Jewish way. States 10% in the Kabbalah. You would drop dead if you knew the amount of money I have "given away"!! But then I am just grateful that I could.
Perhaps it's the lateness of the hour but your point eludes me.
I make enough to live off and for luxuries. I also make enough to pay taxes and give to charity and no, I'm not rich.
The health care insurance companies have one goal--maximizing their profits any way they can including practices to avoid paying claims such as canceling policies when faced with a big claim because of minor discrepancies in information furnished when the policy was obtained years before, use of fine print excluding certain kinds of claims and lifetime or annual caps, and so forth. The health care reform act will correct many of this unconscionable behavior.
Several of the big health care insurers have also screwed their stockholders as well as their policy holders. E.g., United Health care whose chairman was forced to disgorge huge ill-gotten gains and should have gone to jail. Richard Scrushy of HealthSouth had sticky fingers also.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Richard_Scrushy … tten_Gains
http://hubpages.com/hub/Leeches_Contrib … Care_Costs
''The health care reform act will correct many of this unconscionable behavior''.
Try this one out ------ a Medicare patient
A 75 year old with diabetic neuropathy, drop foot having a knee replacement. Ambulance picked her up at hospital, delivered her to a nursing home for rehab. The woman was removed from hospital on a Gurnee ( unable to walk ) and delivered her on Gurnee to the nursing facility. A $1000 bill for the service, the ambulance company accepts Medicare reimbursement.
Medicare rejects claim ''they do not pay because the patient could have gone to the nursing home without the use of an ambulance. The Medicare rejection was unwarranted simply because the hospital dismissal report stated ’’ patient required a stretcher for removal ’’ Medicare ignored status of patient and simply denied payment. Right or wrong?
Obama healthcare bill will cut $500 million from Medicare. Is this how Medicare intends to make cuts?
The above is not Medicare fraud, just simply as to how the government intends to cut costs at the expense of Medicare members.
To be continued.
by Susan Reid3 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by Georgiakevin8 years ago
I simply do not understand why people are fighting health care reform. I have heard the arguments against it and I keep saying how is that worse than being held hostage by the insurance companies? My insurance cost...
by fishskinfreak20087 years ago
Web-site/URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_ … h_overhaul"President Barack Obama accused insurance companies of placing profits over people and said Republicans ignored long-festering problems when...
by qwark6 years ago
what a waste of time!It will never be "repealed."Read it damnit! All 2000+ pages and make, in bi-partisan manner, the necessary changes that will improve it!Qwark
by theirishobserver.7 years ago
Good morning,Democrats and Republicans agree -- the health care status quo isn't working for the American people.Health insurance is growing more and more expensive by the day. Too many of us can't afford it -- not...
by rhamson8 years ago
The latest vote to pass health care reform in congress has failed. Do we need to drop the issue or negotiate a new one?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.