Health insurance

[Karl F]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

How come in the US we pay 6000-10000 for a stent, but in other countries it is like 1000-2000? There is something wrong with that. There is something wrong wrong with the health care system, when in the us an MRI cost 1200, but in Japan it is only 98 bucks. We are subsidizing everyone.


FRONTLINE: sick around the world: interviews: naoki ikegami | PBS

Interesting read on that link, thanks for posting it.

[Cool Beans]

I think one of the huge reasons for that is in Japan, it is almost impossible to sue a doctor or medical facility. A doctor may get charged with negligent homicide on cases where his intentions were to cause harm, but otherwise it isn't going to happen.

They believe doctors are trying to help you, not hurt you, so if an occasional accident does happen it is not held against them,, kind of like a Good Samaritan's law.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Karl F

Interesting read on that link, thanks for posting it.

good read. Some things we could incorporate in our system.
I like the fact that while their government pays 1/4 of insurance premiums based on income, employers and employees pay the rest with the max $6000/yr.

However, workers have a 30% co-pay for treatment and drugs which is the highest in the world.

From reading other articles i saw where Doctors see about 100-150 patients a day and spend about 3 Min's per patient and make
$100-$150,000/year depending on wether they work in a hospital or clinic I can't see why anyone would want to put in the extra 6 years in time and $$$
to become a doctor to make make $150,000 a year.
Then pay all kinds of overhead and insurance.
I read here that one of the guy's wife's pays $600,000 for OB/GYN coverage.

The best thing about Japan is Malpractice insurance is very low as there are few lawyers.

Hospitals are tight on help and there are few nurses at night.

The Prime Minister determines the price increases every 2 years.
Too much power, IMHO.

While they go to the doctor something like 4x more than we do, it's mostly minor stuff that a general practitioner can treat. They are a much healthier people
with 3% obese vs 30% in USA.

I remember when CAT scanners first came out here. The state limited them to 6
hospitals in the state because of cost. Same with the MRI's. Talk about waiting lists.
Anytime you get the government involved things get backed up, and messed up.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

From reading other articles i saw where Doctors see about 100-150 patients a day and spend about 3 Min's per patient and make
$100-$150,000/year depending on wether they work in a hospital or clinic I can't see why anyone would want to put in the extra 6 years in time and $$$
to become a doctor to make make $150,000 a year.
Then pay all kinds of overhead and insurance.
I read here that one of the guy's wife's pays $600,000 for OB/GYN coverage.

My girlfriend is in school to become a Physician's Assistant. The "Assistant" term is misleading, in that a PA can do almost as much as an M.D., and significantly more than a Nurse Practitioner. Graduates from her college last year had a *minimum* pay of $88,000 - one person who moved to work a Montana ER started at $110,000.

Their malpractice insurance is also significantly less that an Doc's. It will get to the point where people will say "Why am I going to go to school for 9 years, when I can be come a PA in 5 1/2 to make a similar amount?"

With regards to the OB/GYN malpractice being so high, an ob/gyn doctor is on the hook to be sued for an incident until that child becomes 18. All other doctors, cases must be filed within 3 or 4 years (not sure the exact number), but if a parent has even the slightest proof that their child *might* have suffered brain damage during birth, they can sue the doctor even if the child is 17 years old. Tell me that's not a joke.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

but if a parent has even the slightest proof that their child *might* have suffered brain damage during birth, they can sue the doctor even if the child is 17 years old. Tell me that's not a joke.

That's because most 12-16 year olds "Appear" to be brain-damaged....it takes to the age of 18 before you can actually verify medical proof of the condition (and that's still debatable)

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

With regards to the OB/GYN malpractice being so high, an ob/gyn doctor is on the hook to be sued for an incident until that child becomes 18. All other doctors, cases must be filed within 3 or 4 years (not sure the exact number), but if a parent has even the slightest proof that their child *might* have suffered brain damage during birth, they can sue the doctor even if the child is 17 years old. Tell me that's not a joke.

It's a joke for sure JD, and the fact that a person can sue on a contingency basis
without putting out their own $$$ is another joke.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by justplugit

It's a joke for sure JD, and the fact that a person can sue on a contingency basis
without putting out their own $$$ is another joke.

I know a story of doctor being sued (and lost) because he referred a patient to a brain surgeon and the person decided not to go. The patient had a brain tumor as shown with an MRI, and a biopsy needed to be done so that they could evaluate the next step. Patient didn't go, doc referred again, patient didn't go. Two or three months later the person dies and the family sued the doctor for negligence. Received millions.