Health insurance

[spence]

Originally Posted by Cool Beans

Many doctor visits and hospital visits are up to 40% cheaper if you pay cash, with these accounts they could pay up front for additional saving..

This simple plan would work and cost way less than the public option.

So you want to give poor people 5000 cash?

-spence

[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.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...s/ikegami.html

[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.

[detbuch]

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

I find it interesting that the Japanese make HC "more affordable" by having a government version of "out of pocket" payment (Charge what payer can afford or go out of business). The gov. is a proxy representative of all the individual payers and insurance companies (of which there are many) and states this is what we can afford to pay. Accept it, or go out of business. What a concept!

As for Japan's best-in-world macro health indicators (infant mortality and longevity), it is demonstrably because of their lifestyle, homegeneous culture and lack of immigration problems, etc., NOT because of health care. Their need of health care is less pressing than U.S. citizens who are rather careless, in general, about their health, and who are a far more diverse, uncontrolled population. But survival rates of those undergoing U.S. medical procedures is tops.

Ikegami favors socialistic over market approach to HC only because, in his opinion, HC is a life and death situation. Actually, most HC is not, and what is could be covered by various private ins. cos.--catastrophic, health savings, etc.

Amazing that only 70% of Japanese favor the universal package--80% of US are happy with what they have.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ikegami favors socialistic over market approach to HC only because, in his opinion, HC is a life and death situation. Actually, most HC is not, and what is could be covered by various private ins. cos.--catastrophic, health savings, etc.

An afterthought re socialistic solutions to "life and death" situations instead of free market solutions. Food, clothing, shelter, among others, are as much "life and death" situations as health care. Should we not, then, have universal food care, universal clothing care, universal shelter care, etc.?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Should we not, then, have universal food care, universal clothing care, universal shelter care, etc.?

Let's see, we got car companies, banks, insurance companies, govt taking over of
all student loans, proposed health care.
Ya need to give them at least another 8 months till we get the food,another cheese hand out,
clothing, shelter and they blow your nose for you.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

An afterthought re socialistic solutions to "life and death" situations instead of free market solutions. Food, clothing, shelter, among others, are as much "life and death" situations as health care. Should we not, then, have universal food care, universal clothing care, universal shelter care, etc.?

Everything is on a spectrum. We already do have some level of aid for many of these situations, food stamps, tax exemptions for clothing in some states, low income housing subsidies etc...

Your argument is akin to the one that says if two gay people can legally marry, then why can't you marry 5 people or a goat or even 5 goats?

History has proven that when society sets reasonable limits the results can indeed be effective even when pulled at from both sides.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Everything is on a spectrum. We already do have some level of aid for many of these situations, food stamps, tax exemptions for clothing in some states, low income housing subsidies etc...

I realize that we have levels of aid for these situations. The spectrum I was on was Ikegami's preference for socialized UNIVERSAL type health care BECAUSE HC is a "life and death" situation. So, if, we agree that leaving "life and death" solutions to the free market is too harsh and unfair, and our solution to the problem of health care is to mandate that insurance coverage be universal, would it not follow that we should mandate universal coverage for other, even more "life and death" situations?

Your argument is akin to the one that says if two gay people can legally marry, then why can't you marry 5 people or a goat or even 5 goats?

I am not sure if your example is a "life and death" situation, but if it is, by all means, let's mandate some universal coverage for it.

History has proven that when society sets reasonable limits the results can indeed be effective even when pulled at from both sides.
-spence

Cool.

[Cool Beans]

Originally Posted by spence

So you want to give poor people 5000 cash?

-spence

$5,000 instead of earned income credit, deposited directly into their Health Saving Account, that can be accessed only via an ATM like card that is valid only at medical facilities.