Affordable Care Act Supreme Court Hearings this week

[striperman36]

Should be interesting to see if they actually reach a decision.

My thought is they will punt it down the track until 2015 when individuals can file suit.

[Jim in CT]

My guess is they don't punt. I also predict that the vote will be 5-4. The deciding vote will be cast by Justice Kennedy, whose opinion is the only one no one can predict with any certainty. Thus I won't say which way the majority decides.

[TheSpecialist]

I seriously hope they demolish it.

Jim I have a question for you, if the government can regulate say utility costs and such why don't they come up with a blueprint for medical costs. I saw that when I had surgery what was billed out by the hospital and doctors, and what was paid by the insurance was a big discrepancy. It also shows just how much the medical industry over charges if they can settle for the rates they agreed to with the insurance companies. Why not have a blue book of rates for everything across the board. They could divide the country into regions and have different prices for different regions. I think that would be a prudent step in controlling healthcare costs. when their costs go up let them have a hearing and ask for a rate increase?

Could this work?

[striperman36]

All the Op-Ed's are saying 5-4. the 4 arguments are very well defined for constitutional discussion.

Regardless, of the outcome I don't think this will be the last word for ObamaCare.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

I seriously hope they demolish it.

Jim I have a question for you, if the government can regulate say utility costs and such why don't they come up with a blueprint for medical costs. I saw that when I had surgery what was billed out by the hospital and doctors, and what was paid by the insurance was a big discrepancy. It also shows just how much the medical industry over charges if they can settle for the rates they agreed to with the insurance companies. Why not have a blue book of rates for everything across the board. They could divide the country into regions and have different prices for different regions. I think that would be a prudent step in controlling healthcare costs. when their costs go up let them have a hearing and ask for a rate increase?

Could this work?

Specialist, I'm no expert on healthcare, it is a very complicated issue, and I know very little...

States currently DO regulate the costs of health insurance. Health insurance companies need to get their rates approves by state insurance departments.

That aside, I just don't know how we control these costs. The cost of providing quality care are so high, I just don't see how you contain it. People want the best care, and that cutting-edge technoogy is very expensive.

Today, most doctors will tell you that they lose money when they treat Medicare/Medicaid patients, because the pathetic reimibursements provided by the gov't simply doesn't cover the costs of the care provided. How do you solve that problem? Beats the heck out of me.

I also know that Medicare is in the red by tens and tens of trillions of dollars (that's trillions with a "t"). And the baby boomers will make that much, much, much worse. What's the answer to that problem? Beats me. Should we bankrupt our kids and grandkids so that all the baby boomers can live an extra 6 months? But what's the alternative? To pull the plug on all these people? How do you begin to solve these problems?

"Why not have a blue book of rates for everything across the board."

I think that's how medicare works. And the rates are not sufficient to cover the costs of the care. Here's part of the problem. If you have one politician who wants to set the rates at a level that covers the costs of the care, plus a reasonable profit for the doctor. You then have another politician who promises to cut those rates in half...he knows that's stupid, but he wants to get elected. That crap works, those promises get people elected, which is why cops get to retire at age 45 with insane pensions. You simply cannot leave these decisions to politicians who care more about getting re-elected than they care about doing the right thing.

Specialist, the Baby Boomers will VERY SOON force the rest of us to figure this out. Do we literally bankrupt ourselves to extend their lives by every day possible?

Beats me.

Starting January 1, 2011, TEN THOUSAND BOOMERS A DAY started turning 65. 10,000 a day. That will continue for 15 years.

I don't pretent to know the answer. But I do know for a certainty that we are in serious, serious trouble. This could literally bankrupt us. Medicare is tens of trillions in the red, and the boomers have barely begun to turn 65. I read that today, 50% of a person's healthcare costs are incurred in the last 6 months of one's life. Think of what that means when the baby boobers really start getting old and sick by the tens of millions. We can't possibly cover that expense, but I don't even like to consider the alternative.

All I know is this. I have 3 boys. I sure as hell don't want them to have to sell their houses to keep me alive for 6 more months when I'm 80 years old.

Where do we get, say, $50 trillion more to pay for the care that the baby boomers will need? Do the math. It's not possible, it just isn't. And that's exactly what we are facing.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

I saw that when I had surgery what was billed out by the hospital and doctors, and what was paid by the insurance was a big discrepancy. It also shows just how much the medical industry over charges if they can settle for the rates they agreed to with the insurance companies.

Insurance companies and hospitals agree to pricing terms before an insurance company say "yeah, we'll allow our customers to use your doctors." The insurance companies leverage the wide availability of doctors to strong-arm hospitals into agreeing on cheaper terms. In turn, the hospitals utilize the volume increase to justify taking tighter margins.

Essentially, large insurance companies are provided wholesale pricing because of the leverage they hold in their larger customer base.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Essentially, large insurance companies are provided wholesale pricing because of the leverage they hold in their larger customer base.

What he said...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What he said...

Exactly now if the Federal Government did the same thing healthcare would be significantly lower. If they can take what the insurance companies are giving and still be profitable, then they should start by using those rates.

[PaulS]

As Jim said, it is very complicated and anyone who tells you they know how to fix it is crazy. There are some obvious areas (high RX costs, tort reform, unneeded tests, etc.) but how about lowering the cost of medical school? Anyone think of that? I never thought of that until someone mentioned it recently. We need more primary care Drs. But b/c PCPs earn so much less and they leave med. school w/so much debt, most medical school grads specialize b/c they can earn more $. Maybe a 2 tier system, subsidize the cost of a PCP educ. but if you want to spec., your last year or 2??? cost you much, much more. There is prob. a 1,000 things most of haven't heard of that that would need to change to really lower the cost.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Exactly now if the Federal Government did the same thing healthcare would be significantly lower. If they can take what the insurance companies are giving and still be profitable, then they should start by using those rates.

Are you saying that government would act as a healthcare provider (like a doctor), or are you saying the government would act as a health insurance company (taking people's money and paying doctors with that money)...

If you are talking about the government actually providing healthcare, well, I don't see that the government does many things nearly as well or efficiently as what's done in the private scetor. The government has no incentive to save money, because they are spending other people's money.

If you're talking about the government acting as an insurance company, that's how Medicare works, and (1) it doesn't pay doctors enough for services provided, and (2) it's nearly bankrupt, and will be completely bankrupt when the baby boomers are all old and sick.

I don't pretend to have any answers...

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Are you saying that government would act as a healthcare provider (like a doctor), or are you saying the government would act as a health insurance company (taking people's money and paying doctors with that money)...

If you are talking about the government actually providing healthcare, well, I don't see that the government does many things nearly as well or efficiently as what's done in the private scetor. The government has no incentive to save money, because they are spending other people's money.

If you're talking about the government acting as an insurance company, that's how Medicare works, and (1) it doesn't pay doctors enough for services provided, and (2) it's nearly bankrupt, and will be completely bankrupt when the baby boomers are all old and sick.

I don't pretend to have any answers...

I am saying the government would act like a public utility commission would. They would set the rate that each procedure should be payed. The insurance companies already do this , but if you have no insurance you pay almost double for the same procedure. This way there is a flat rate across the board for any and all procedures, it could be fine tuned by geographical area based on cost of living say. If hospitals want that rate to go up they would go in front of a board, and present evidence as to why the rate they get from anyone for a particular procedure should go up, then the board would decide on the increase.

as an example I go in for surgery and the anesthesiologist charges 2900.00 for general, 350 for a nerve block, and 400 to use an ultra sound machine for 3 minutes for a total of 3650. Now the insurance company agreement allows for 989 for general, 124 for nerve block, and 89 for the ultra sound. for a total of 2003.

Now if you have to pay cash you pay full price. Obviously the doctor and hospital are not going to be bankrupt charging the lower fees to the insurance companies, because those that pay cash probably offset it a little. Why not have the government regulate the amount the can charge and set the rate at:

1200 for general
147 for the nerve block
110 for the ultra sound

Now every individual pays that amount if the pay cash, or if they have insurance the insurance company pays the same.

That is the extent of the Government involvement, they just set the price for a procedure across the board.


I think this would significantly lower health care cost, or at least control any rise in cost.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Exactly now if the Federal Government did the same thing healthcare would be significantly lower. If they can take what the insurance companies are giving and still be profitable, then they should start by using those rates.

There's a reason many private practice doctors don't accept Medicaid (some won't event accept Medicare). The government sets pricing and then pays 60-75% of that actual price, if they pay at all. Also, medical offices that accept Medicare patients are subjected to significant increases in the amount of BS they have to deal with, including how they bill, manage records, operate their office and a ton of other things that increase overhead.

It is exactly the above reason that in some states Walgreens has stopped accepting Medicaid.

Again, it comes down to matter of leverage due to volume. The government has the leverage over many providers because of the volume of elderly patients on Medicare.

Some of the most successful private practice doctors that I know of have enough patients that they do not need to accept patients with Medicare/Medicaid. Not to mention they don't get stuck dealing with nearly as many people begging for pain pills, people that play the system to get disability checks and the other dregs of society.


Personally, I'd prefer the government to stay the hell out of setting prices. Make no mistake, government regulation is a major contributor to why health care costs are so high.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

There's a reason many private practice doctors don't accept Medicaid (some won't event accept Medicare). The government sets pricing and then pays 60-75% of that actual price, if they pay at all. Also, medical offices that accept Medicare patients are subjected to significant increases in the amount of BS they have to deal with, including how they bill, manage records, operate their office and a ton of other things that increase overhead.

It is exactly the above reason that in some states Walgreens has stopped accepting Medicaid.

Again, it comes down to matter of leverage due to volume. The government has the leverage over many providers because of the volume of elderly patients on Medicare.

Some of the most successful private practice doctors that I know of have enough patients that they do not need to accept patients with Medicare/Medicaid. Not to mention they don't get stuck dealing with nearly as many people begging for pain pills, people that play the system to get disability checks and the other dregs of society.


Personally, I'd prefer the government to stay the hell out of setting prices. Make no mistake, government regulation is a major contributor to why health care costs are so high.

Good points but not what I am saying.

We would not use medicare rates, and the paperwork would go to the health insurance company. Rather than 100 different insurers haggling over rates you could average the rates and that would be the max that any hospital or doctor could charge for that procedure whether the person has health insurance or pays cash. This way everyone is paying the same.

Right now if I have insurance and you do not we pay different amounts for the same quality of care:

My insurance might pay 200 for a checkup, and I pay my 10 copay

You might see the same doctor, get the same care but with no insurance and paying cash you pay 395.

That is not a good way to control or keep health care costs down.

The fed could say to the doctor you can charge 265 for the check up no matter what insurance someone has or doesn't have, because that is the average rate the 10 best insurers would pay you.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Good points but not what I am saying.

We would not use medicare rates, and the paperwork would go to the health insurance company. Rather than 100 different insurers haggling over rates you could average the rates and that would be the max that any hospital or doctor could charge for that procedure whether the person has health insurance or pays cash. This way everyone is paying the same.

Right now if I have insurance and you do not we pay different amounts for the same quality of care:

My insurance might pay 200 for a checkup, and I pay my 10 copay

You might see the same doctor, get the same care but with no insurance and paying cash you pay 395.

That is not a good way to control or keep health care costs down.

The fed could say to the doctor you can charge 265 for the check up no matter what insurance someone has or doesn't have, because that is the average rate the 10 best insurers would pay you.

I get what you're saying, but what you're suggesting is not sustainable.

Is it a matter of fairness or keeping down costs? From your description, it seems like you want Uncle Scam to further regulate things because "it's just not fair".

The strict regulation of charges that you suggesting is one baby step away from completely socialized medicine. Why not just completely nationalize health care?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Good points but not what I am saying.

We would not use medicare rates, and the paperwork would go to the health insurance company. Rather than 100 different insurers haggling over rates you could average the rates and that would be the max that any hospital or doctor could charge for that procedure whether the person has health insurance or pays cash. This way everyone is paying the same.

Right now if I have insurance and you do not we pay different amounts for the same quality of care:

My insurance might pay 200 for a checkup, and I pay my 10 copay

You might see the same doctor, get the same care but with no insurance and paying cash you pay 395.

That is not a good way to control or keep health care costs down.

The fed could say to the doctor you can charge 265 for the check up no matter what insurance someone has or doesn't have, because that is the average rate the 10 best insurers would pay you.

First, if everyone is paying the average of what we all pay today, I don't see how that lowers the cost, except for people who currently pay as they go without insurance. Second, while your idea controls the amount that doctors get paid for services, it doesn't address the costs of the care that the doctors provide.

We need to somehow address the underlying cost of the healthcare that docs provide. One way to do that is tort reform. Unfortunately, the American Trial Lawyers lobby gives big $$ to democrats, who consequently won't allow that reform.

That's just a very small piece. I don't know that there is a solution. It's a staggering problem even in a simple environment, but when you throw on top of it the looming tsunami of the baby boomers, and we are in for a real reckoning. A real reckoning.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We need to somehow address the underlying cost of the healthcare that docs provide. One way to do that is tort reform. Unfortunately, the American Trial Lawyers lobby gives big $$ to democrats, who consequently won't allow that reform.

That's just a very small piece. I don't know that there is a solution. It's a staggering problem even in a simple environment, but when you throw on top of it the looming tsunami of the baby boomers, and we are in for a real reckoning. A real reckoning.

As you said, a small piece - but a piece.

The NE journal of medicine says about 7.4% of Drs. are sued each year and by age 65, even Drs. in low risk specialties (like pediatrics and dermatology) face a 75% chance they will have been sued. In 2009, the Congressional budget office said that going to a 250K cap on noneconomic damages and 500K on punitive damages and a 1 year statute of limitation would save about 11B/year - 40% of from reduced malpractice prem. and the rest from fewer tests/procedures.

Total cost/year are about 2.6Trillion. Thus 11B, is not even 1/2 of 1% of total costs. Cost are incr. about 100B/year.



In 2010, the 5 largest medical insur. had about 11.7B in profit.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

First, if everyone is paying the average of what we all pay today, I don't see how that lowers the cost, except for people who currently pay as they go without insurance. Second, while your idea controls the amount that doctors get paid for services, it doesn't address the costs of the care that the doctors provide.

We need to somehow address the underlying cost of the healthcare that docs provide. One way to do that is tort reform. Unfortunately, the American Trial Lawyers lobby gives big $$ to democrats, who consequently won't allow that reform.

That's just a very small piece. I don't know that there is a solution. It's a staggering problem even in a simple environment, but when you throw on top of it the looming tsunami of the baby boomers, and we are in for a real reckoning. A real reckoning.

Well just in time, a bill came from our Orthopedist for my wife's shoulder surgery:

$11,800.00 billed for the ortho part not including anesthesia.

Anyone care to venture a guess how much Bluecross Blue Shield payed?

[justplugit]

$3700 ?

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by justplugit

$3700 ?

nope...

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

Well just in time, a bill came from our Orthopedist for my wife's shoulder surgery:

$11,800.00 billed for the ortho part not including anesthesia.

Anyone care to venture a guess how much Bluecross Blue Shield payed?

Probably about 65-75%, so about $8500. In the end, why does it matter? It still doesn't change the whole bit about leverage I discussed above.

Even with BCBS paying a reduced rate, health care costs are still increasing. With that in mind, even enacting your "government regulated pricing", how would it decrease costs? Like I said above, it seems like you want the government to regulate pricing because you don't think it's fair.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

? Like I said above, it seems like you want the government to regulate pricing because you don't think it's fair.

Bingo!...wants the govt to make it fair(er) regardless of whether or not it is the proper role of the federal government....

interesting comparisons...

Why The Supreme Court Should Uphold the Health Care Law 9-0 | TIME Ideas | TIME.com

RealClearPolitics - Back to the Future?

also interesting that I've read proffered cause for all but Thomas* of "the 5" as having reason or potential to uphold Obamacare but on the other side there is absolutely no question apparently, that "the 4" will ignore the Constitution and vote in lock step to uphold it........

*despite his obvious distaste for Justice Thomas’s views, Jeffrey Toobin takes him seriously as a judicial thinker and pathfinder.
“In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court,” Toobin writes. “Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.”

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Probably about 65-75%, so about $8500. In the end, why does it matter? It still doesn't change the whole bit about leverage I discussed above.

Even with BCBS paying a reduced rate, health care costs are still increasing. With that in mind, even enacting your "government regulated pricing", how would it decrease costs? Like I said above, it seems like you want the government to regulate pricing because you don't think it's fair.

nope

[TheSpecialist]

It would decrease costs because the American public is being price gouged.

BCBS payed a grand total of 2159.14 The rest was written off, and they still had room for a profit.


So tell me they are not price gouging, and if there was a commission that set rates at this point healthcare cost would be no cheaper across the board?
It's not about fairness as much as about being price gouged.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

It would decrease costs because the American public is being price gouged.

BCBS payed a grand total of 2159.14 The rest was written off, and they still had room for a profit.


So tell me they are not price gouging, and if there was a commission that set rates at this point healthcare cost would be no cheaper across the board?
It's not about fairness as much as about being price gouged.

The above post re-emphasizes that your position is about fairness. You keep saying "if the government set prices, health care would be cheaper". When asked How? health care would be cheaper, your reply is "because the government would be setting the prices."

If it's that easy, maybe the government should tell gas stations how much they can charge for a gallon of gas. How about having them regulate the price of a fishing reel? I'm sure Van Staal would still have room for profit if they sold their reels for half the price.

As I have said above, how about the government stay out of telling businesses what they can and cannot do and take action in the areas the government actual should have a roll in.
For instance:
- It is ridiculous that I cannot purchase medical (or vehicle) insurance from a company outside of Massachusetts. Nothing is more effective on creating competitive pricing than competition. Yet the government requires me to purchase through a company registered in Massachusetts.
- How about developing tort reform? Did you know an Obstetrician is potentially on the hook for every child they deliver until the kid turns 18? That's why many OBs have malpractice insurance rates far exceeding 6 figures. Maybe that has some effect on the cost of medical care.
- Drug companies and medical supply companies are allowed to distort the spirit of trademark laws in order to keep drug costs astronomically high. Yes, they need to earn back money and profit from their R&D but the exploitation is ridiculous.

Let's not allow for the further unnecessary expansion of the government's power and will over corporations and the people. The government holds enough power already to effect change without further regulating the free market.

[RIJIMMY]

Jeffrey Toobin says questioning by Supreme Court justices leads him to believe the health care reform law is in peril. He called today's session "a train wreck" for the White House

[PaulS]

It would be interesting to hear Thomas' questions.

[TheSpecialist]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The above post re-emphasizes that your position is about fairness. You keep saying "if the government set prices, health care would be cheaper". When asked How? health care would be cheaper, your reply is "because the government would be setting the prices."

If it's that easy, maybe the government should tell gas stations how much they can charge for a gallon of gas. How about having them regulate the price of a fishing reel? I'm sure Van Staal would still have room for profit if they sold their reels for half the price.

As I have said above, how about the government stay out of telling businesses what they can and cannot do and take action in the areas the government actual should have a roll in.
For instance:
- It is ridiculous that I cannot purchase medical (or vehicle) insurance from a company outside of Massachusetts. Nothing is more effective on creating competitive pricing than competition. Yet the government requires me to purchase through a company registered in Massachusetts.
- How about developing tort reform? Did you know an Obstetrician is potentially on the hook for every child they deliver until the kid turns 18? That's why many OBs have malpractice insurance rates far exceeding 6 figures. Maybe that has some effect on the cost of medical care.
- Drug companies and medical supply companies are allowed to distort the spirit of trademark laws in order to keep drug costs astronomically high. Yes, they need to earn back money and profit from their R&D but the exploitation is ridiculous.

Let's not allow for the further unnecessary expansion of the government's power and will over corporations and the people. The government holds enough power already to effect change without further regulating the free market.

The government regulates Electric, telephone, and natural rates. IN Mass they regulate car insurance cost, so what difference does it make if they regulate HealthCare cost nationally.


Do you think Obamacare is going to reign in the cost of healthcare?


There were 3 specialties that were over 100,000 for average cost
of premium. Orthopedist was around 89,000 and the other 21 specialties were less than 60,000 in 2010. But Massachusetts has one of the highest in the nation rates There are other states where every specialty is under 100,000, and according to Mass Div of insurance rates seem to have stabilized.

I definitely think that tort reform is needed, drug companies need to be regulated better, but bottom line is if you are charging X dollars 20% of X dollars as payment, and making your nut, then there is something wrong with your prices.

That is price gouging at it's finest.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

The government regulates Electric, telephone, and natural rates. IN Mass they regulate car insurance cost, so what difference does it make if they regulate HealthCare cost nationally.

Considering that electric, telephone and natural gas companies have government-sanctioned monopolies issued by towns, they should be regulated. My preference is to not have the government-sanctioned monopolies and allow the free market to do its thing.

Do you think Obamacare is going to reign in the cost of healthcare?

Not even a little bit - and that's not because I think it's going to be created impotent by the Supreme Court. ObamaCare, if allowed to completely materialize, will have no effect on prices while further contributing to long waiting times to see a specialist.

There were 3 specialties that were over 100,000 for average cost
of premium. Orthopedist was around 89,000 and the other 21 specialties were less than 60,000 in 2010. But Massachusetts has one of the highest in the nation rates There are other states where every specialty is under 100,000, and according to Mass Div of insurance rates seem to have stabilized.

Do these seem reasonable to you? I've read that approximately 10% of medical costs are due to malpractice insurance. According to the wikipedia (take the source for what it is) entry on "Medical Malpractice", 60% of claims against doctors are dropped (still costing an average $22k per dropped claim) and 90% of the time cases go to trial, the doctor is found to be not negligent (yet costing an average $100,000/case).

How about a situation like in the UK where the loser in these frivolous suits are held liable for all or a % of the legal expenses? How about creating a limitation of 1-year from the incident to bring up a claim? How about not allowing families to sue every time someone that needs a high-risk surgery dies?

This country has turned into such a litigious society that someone that gets injured breaking into my house could sue me for medical damages. A little bit of tort reform would do this country some good and could have a real beneficial impact, not only on medical costs, but on society as a whole. This is an area that the government actually has direct control over.

I definitely think that tort reform is needed, drug companies need to be regulated better, but bottom line is if you are charging X dollars 20% of X dollars as payment, and making your nut, then there is something wrong with your prices.

That is price gouging at it's finest.

And when Uncle Scam starts telling medical institutions how much they can charge, you know what's going to happen? Smaller practices will close down because their overhead is too high and the tight margins created by the government won't be sustainable. Also, medical institutions will be forced to cut corners and reduce the quality of care in order to be sustainable.

Name me one market that has every benefited by being over-regulated by the government. Typically, more governmental regulation results in significantly more red-tape while having little to no benefit for the consumer.

Like I said above, maybe the government should regulate the price of a gallon of gas and the price of bread. Those prices are too high too.

[TheSpecialist]

[QUOTE]Considering that electric, telephone and natural gas companies have government-sanctioned monopolies issued by towns, they should be regulated. My preference is to not have the government-sanctioned monopolies and allow the free market to do its thing./[QUOTE]

Technically telephone companies are no longer monopolies since cell phone, cable tv, and Clec carriers. You can also puchase your electricity from someone other than Ngrid or Nstar, and they just transport it to the end user so again not a monopoly. Not sure about the gas company though, but you could heat your house with alternative fuels like oil, propane, wood, coal or pellets.


[QUOTE]Do these seem reasonable to you? I've read that approximately 10% of medical costs are due to malpractice insurance. According to the wikipedia (take the source for what it is) entry on "Medical Malpractice", 60% of claims against doctors are dropped (still costing an average $22k per dropped claim) and 90% of the time cases go to trial, the doctor is found to be not negligent (yet costing an average $100,000/case)./[QUOTE]

Yeah considering my Ortho guy does surgery two days a week, the day of my surgery he was doing 7 or 8 surgeries that day, which the nurses say was average. So he is averaging say 14 surgeries a week or close to 700 a year which at 10000 a pop is 7 million dollars. So that 100,000 is about 1.5 percent of his operating costs. not 10 percent.



[QUOTE]Not even a little bit - and that's not because I think it's going to be created impotent by the Supreme Court. ObamaCare, if allowed to completely materialize, will have no effect on prices while further contributing to long waiting times to see a specialist./[QUOTE]


At least we finally agree on something..

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by TheSpecialist

At least we finally agree on something..