The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > Other Discussions > Open Mic

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #31  
Old 11-19-2017, 09:32 AM
KevWind KevWind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Out West
Posts: 8,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelvefret View Post

I always try to balance medical bashing with a question, would you prefer to not have the hospital and staff in place? Would you prefer to have the pharmaceuticals available from the Civil War? Most people want the latest, greatest, most talented and competent provisions for their loved ones. Also, have you checked into the expenses of these institutions? Are you aware if not one walks through the door the expenses remain? Do you know the cost of the diagnostic equipment? Are you aware of the cost the build these facilities?
Except of course the question is specious because it presumes that the only alternative to absurdly expensive medical treatment is no treatment and Civil War era pharma.... And ignores the vast area of totally viable alternatives in between.
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...



http://soundcloud.com/kevwind
  #32  
Old 11-19-2017, 09:34 AM
buddyhu buddyhu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,518
Default

It isn’t that “hospitals” are ripping people off. It is that one hospital ripped you off (and oerhaps a few others who will chime in). Join an HMO, and you will not face the specter of unnecessary care. Recognize that while some hospitals may Do things like tgisebyou have described, others do not. I have gone to emergency rooms a few times, admitted only once (after being sent home and then returning the next day with worsening symptoms), and being admitted and treated probably saved my life.

Sorry that you felt so disempowered and betrayed.

And always remember: you can refuse treatment and:or request more information about the treatment being provided.

None of the above is meant to imply that the current state of healthcare provision in the US is without serious problems. But I do want to say that nearly every doctor I have known, and I think every doctor who has provided treatment to me have operated in pretty honorable ways.
__________________
Rich H.

"You can cut all the flowers, but you cannot keep Spring from coming."
PABLO NERUDA
  #33  
Old 11-19-2017, 09:39 AM
Pitar Pitar is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nyghthawk View Post
Neither. It should be a right. If not, we are portioning out life.
No. Not at all. No right for healthcare simply because you walk upright.

In that scenario doctors won't get the training they need because compensation in a government run system won't be attractive enough to enter the profession. Malpractice insurance will be largely non-existent because trying to sue the government is a joke. So, poorly trained medical staff giving error-frequent care would be the resulting system, after the older doctors and medical pros retire, leaving no recourse to increasing the quality of healthcare in a gov't run system. As it is, the past and current 2-party lunacy can't govern its way out of a wet paper sack. Then, we'd have ambulance chasing attorneys, with their strong big pharma influences lobbying against it and wining in the political arena to save their cash cows. That's their chief source of victim-mongering and that lobby would sue the government as the new outlaw knowing that the right to a trial, much less a speedy one or even arbitration, would be good as gone for system-victimized patients with real or even attorney-fabricated conditions. Finally, the shortage of good doctors and staff would be faced with patients lined up outside the doors for their share of the freebies for every little thing mama panics over.

The system, once matured as such, would impose policies where life-threatening issues get immediate care and the rest of the ailments go back to the 2-aspirin days. This would be the new "right" to free healthcare. Come to think of it, perhaps this is where we need to go. It would certainly get the blood thirsty litigation burden on insurance coverage pushed way back.

Okay, I talked myself into the "right" to free medical care.
__________________
https://www.fisherhouse.org/

-----------------
"Think as a winner and act as a winner. You’ll be quite likely to achieve your goal."

Enzo Ferrari
  #34  
Old 11-19-2017, 09:43 AM
KevWind KevWind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Out West
Posts: 8,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HHP View Post
The economics work out the same either way. Its just that "business" rely on your voluntary participation and cannot mandate the conditions and cost of your use.
Huh? (Unless I misunderstand what you are inferring) No they do not "work out the same " SEE post below
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...



http://soundcloud.com/kevwind

Last edited by KevWind; 11-19-2017 at 09:54 AM.
  #35  
Old 11-19-2017, 09:52 AM
KevWind KevWind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Out West
Posts: 8,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitar View Post
No. Not at all. No right for healthcare simply because you walk upright.

In that scenario doctors won't get the training they need because compensation in a government run system won't be attractive enough to enter the profession. Malpractice insurance will be largely non-existent because trying to sue the government is a joke. So, poorly trained medical staff giving error-frequent care would be the resulting system, after the older doctors and medical pros retire, leaving no recourse to increasing the quality of healthcare in a gov't run system. As it is, the past and current 2-party lunacy can't govern its way out of a wet paper sack. Then, we'd have ambulance chasing attorneys, with their strong big pharma influences lobbying against it and wining in the political arena to save their cash cows. That's their chief source of victim-mongering and that lobby would sue the government as the new outlaw knowing that the right to a trial, much less a speedy one or even arbitration, would be good as gone for system-victimized patients with real or even attorney-fabricated conditions. Finally, the shortage of good doctors and staff would be faced with patients lined up outside the doors for their share of the freebies for every little thing mama panics over.

The system, once matured as such, would impose policies where life-threatening issues get immediate care and the rest of the ailments go back to the 2-aspirin days. This would be the new "right" to free healthcare. Come to think of it, perhaps this is where we need to go. It would certainly get the blood thirsty litigation burden on insurance coverage pushed way back.

Okay, I talked myself into the "right" to free medical care.
Fundamentally mistaken and flawed premise

this 2014 report categorically disproves most if not all of your statement.
The US system in fact costs more for less overall quality of care than other systems

__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...



http://soundcloud.com/kevwind
  #36  
Old 11-19-2017, 09:55 AM
Wengr Wengr is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Northeast Penna.
Posts: 1,763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderTrap999 View Post
Emerg Room Drs have monthly Quotas to ADMIT .so many a month or risk being fired . I have Very good insurance . Ambulance took wife to Emerg Room for Bad Nausea . ,, Seemed OK when I got there Hosp was about 40 miles away . She'd got sick at a Bingo . Dr Said they wanted to keep her overnight for Obs, THATS WHEN RED Flags shoulda raised and I shoulda took her home .
They Kept her there 2 Days and ran $32000 in TESTS Insurance wont pay . ITS A SCAM WHEN YOU HERE THE WORDS "ADMIT" , you better RUN the other way unless it is drastic , but NAUSEA PLAHEEEEZ .... Spoke to a DR friend and he said all hospitals are doing it . he took his wife in for minor bladder surg and was billed $95,000
If you have health insurance, that won't pay because you went to the emergency room and followed their advice, then maybe your thread title should be "Insurance company ripping me off".
Or possibly you just failed to read your policy terms.

Also, let's not forget the effect on treatment that has occurred due to the level and nature of litigation in recent decades. Sadly, we have shifted from compensating for bad practice, to compensating for bad outcomes, to the point where cya testing effects cost.
__________________
Sobell Model 1 ----- Martin D41
Sobell six string archtop ---- Lowden O25
Gibson ES-165 Herb Ellis
Eastman John Pisano ---- Franklin Prairie State
  #37  
Old 11-19-2017, 10:02 AM
Twelvefret Twelvefret is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 4,801
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Except of course the question is specious because it presumes that the only alternative to absurdly expensive medical treatment is no treatment and Civil War era pharma.... And ignores the vast area of totally viable alternatives in between.
Okay, valid point.

What are the alternatives you have in mind and what makes them viable?

Consider then OP when you provide your response. What is the cost of the OP not utilizing medical services? Do you make medical decisions based on how much you think it might cost? Medicine can be split into three parts, treatment, maintenance, and comfort. Which is absurd in your opinion? Don't you think first that you want whatever it takes to treat, maintain, or provide comfort?

What makes a medical expense absurd? What makes other services or products absurd? For some spending $30K on a vintage Martin is absurd. If you contrast spending $30K for an operation and $30K for a pre war Martin, which is absurd? Which has more value to you personally?

Personally, I think American medical services are amazing. I appreciate the facilities and those that work to provide us with their services.
  #38  
Old 11-19-2017, 10:17 AM
fazool's Avatar
fazool fazool is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 12,347
Default

There is one gigantic historical foundation that most people are not aware of.

Comparing US costs is not helpful without this background information.


A long time ago, victims of accidents had to hire and pay a lawyer to represent them. Lawyers could not divert from their stable income-earning efforts to take on risky cases. Conversely, rich people could afford massive legal teams and often out-spend their opponents.

The result was that poor victims were not represented properly against liabilities and rich victims always were. There was a massive unfairness to the victims. If you hit a poor pedestrian on the street, don't worry they can't afford a lawyer.

So, the USA enacted regulations that allowed lawyers to keep 1/3rd of any liability judgement. The idea was to incentivize lawyers to take on those clients who couldn't otherwise pay.

This system was massively abused by greed and this is the reason you see hourly accident lawyer commercials. You can track on a graph the gigantic spike in liability settlements to when this occurred. This is what directly led to gigantic lawsuits. Lawyers had massive incentives to push for absurdly large judgments.

So,......this abused system resulted in gigantic lawsuits which, in turn, led to massive insurance and malpractice costs.

This, is what drove the USA healthcare costs to be the worst ratio of quality-to-cost in the developed world.

And you will never change this situation until you "undo" or reign in what caused it.

We have the most amazing doctors and scientists and provide fantastic healthcare. But the cost is driven by the lawyers and accountants.
__________________
Fazool "The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter"
Taylor GC7
| Taylor GA3-12 | Aria SW-8 | Ibanez AC-240 | Gibson Sonex 180 Custom
  #39  
Old 11-19-2017, 10:25 AM
Wozer Wozer is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Otterhound View Post
The only flaw that I can see in this is that you failed to negotiate before the procedure .
In the end , you were treated fairly . It's just that you needed to do what insurance companies do .
If I may be so bold , the lesson here is that far too many appear to be fearful when it comes to negotiating with doctors and hospitals or believe that they should not need to .
I guess you failed to note I was told that the price would be about what the x-rays I had would cost (~$500)...I had budgeted 2x that amount just in case...

so what was to negotiate???????????????????

I got a "quote", thought it was acceptable, and then was charged 10x what I was quoted...

what has that to do with self reliance?

I relied upon myself to refuse to pay the bill, hung up on the collections department repeatedly after I simply informed them they had lied, and eventually they reduced the bill

again, I really FAIL to see just what you are implying.

Last edited by Kerbie; 11-19-2017 at 03:54 PM. Reason: Rule #1, Edited quote
  #40  
Old 11-19-2017, 10:51 AM
KevWind KevWind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Out West
Posts: 8,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Twelvefret View Post
Okay, valid point.

What are the alternatives you have in mind and what makes them viable?
My post with graph shows 10 possible ones for starters.

Quote:
Consider then OP when you provide your response. What is the cost of the OP not utilizing medical services? Do you make medical decisions based on how much you think it might cost? Medicine can be split into three parts, treatment, maintenance, and comfort. Which is absurd in your opinion? Don't you think first that you want whatever it takes to treat, maintain, or provide comfort?
IMO not the right right questions. And Medicine can be split into two parts, the quality and the cost. We (US) have the ability to provide as good or better care than any country in the world. There is no reason to believe that we can not also do so at a much more reasonable cost ratio ( unless you are willing to believe that we cannot do what other countries are able to do) . The question is why don't we do it. The answer is relatively simple and arguably has a significant amount to do with systemic entrenched profiteering coupled with successful disinformation .

Quote:
What makes a medical expense absurd?
Personal example: my atorvastatin script. Cost $180 for 90 at the local King Supper or Walgreens
I get it online from from a US pharmacy (same exact drug mfg) for $23 pretty absurd don't ya think?

Quote:
What makes other services or products absurd?
I was talking specifically about costs being absurd, not services or products.
Quote:
For some spending $30K on a vintage Martin is absurd. If you contrast spending $30K for an operation and $30K for a pre war Martin, which is absurd? Which has more value to you personally?
Ahummm ! "consider the OP when you make your responce " the OP did get an operation they got two night stay for 30K YES absurd totally absurd. Personally I would not spend 1k for a Martin juss kiddin' sorta .

Quote:
Personally, I think American medical services are amazing. I appreciate the facilities and those that work to provide us with their services.
Could not agree more, but has nothing to do with finding much much more reasonable cost associated with access to it.
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...



http://soundcloud.com/kevwind

Last edited by KevWind; 11-19-2017 at 11:22 AM.
  #41  
Old 11-19-2017, 11:03 AM
KevWind KevWind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Out West
Posts: 8,568
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fazool View Post
There is one gigantic historical foundation that most people are not aware of.

Comparing US costs is not helpful without this background information.


A long time ago, victims of accidents had to hire and pay a lawyer to represent them. Lawyers could not divert from their stable income-earning efforts to take on risky cases. Conversely, rich people could afford massive legal teams and often out-spend their opponents.

The result was that poor victims were not represented properly against liabilities and rich victims always were. There was a massive unfairness to the victims. If you hit a poor pedestrian on the street, don't worry they can't afford a lawyer.

So, the USA enacted regulations that allowed lawyers to keep 1/3rd of any liability judgement. The idea was to incentivize lawyers to take on those clients who couldn't otherwise pay.

This system was massively abused by greed and this is the reason you see hourly accident lawyer commercials. You can track on a graph the gigantic spike in liability settlements to when this occurred. This is what directly led to gigantic lawsuits. Lawyers had massive incentives to push for absurdly large judgments.

So,......this abused system resulted in gigantic lawsuits which, in turn, led to massive insurance and malpractice costs.

This, is what drove the USA healthcare costs to be the worst ratio of quality-to-cost in the developed world.

And you will never change this situation until you "undo" or reign in what caused it.

We have the most amazing doctors and scientists and provide fantastic healthcare. But the cost is driven by the lawyers and accountants.
Well Yes and NO... Yes we have some amazing people ..... But tort reform ? probably not so much as one might think.

While those are certainly factors but, they are not the only causes . One study on defensive costs concludes defensive medical costs represent 2.9 % of total Health Care spending. While those are arguably low numbers being based on direct defensive tests run at hospitals , even if you were to increase it to say 5% or even 10% that is a factor BUt There are many other factors as well and much more that would need to be addressed, beside just "tort" reform. Not the least of which is the fundamental conflict between the notion of "for profit business" and driving down consumer costs at the risk of
not continuing an exponential profit rise.
__________________
" Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." Albert Einstein
Enjoy the Journey.... Kev...



http://soundcloud.com/kevwind

Last edited by KevWind; 11-19-2017 at 11:24 AM.
  #42  
Old 11-19-2017, 11:03 AM
Napman41 Napman41 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,219
Default

Going to the emergency room via an ambulance for a stomach ache seems a bit extreme, though I’m sure it seemed like an emergency. What does your policy say about ER visits ?
  #43  
Old 11-19-2017, 11:29 AM
HHP HHP is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 28,139
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevWind View Post
Huh? (Unless I misunderstand what you are inferring) No they do not "work out the same " SEE post below
If you spend more than you take in, profit based or otherwise, they work exactly the same. Costs have to go up, services have to go down, or you have to cease operations. Even in Gov't paid for services, you sooner or later will run out of other people's money.
  #44  
Old 11-19-2017, 11:43 AM
jpd's Avatar
jpd jpd is offline
Livin' in 4/4 time
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SF Bay Area, CA.
Posts: 8,544
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by AX17609 View Post
I live in the US, and the OP's post is absolutely true in my experience. I had to go to the emergency room recently to take care of a household accident. They ran up the bill so fast it made my head spin. I had no control over what was being done to me and what the costs were. All I saw was the final bill. At this point, I would rather die than enter a hospital again.
Au contrare......I've walked out of hospital rooms when those red flags started to fly!!!!!
__________________
"Heavy is the head that wears the crown, many are called, few are chosen"
  #45  
Old 11-19-2017, 11:56 AM
cmd612 cmd612 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,701
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fazool View Post
A long time ago, victims of accidents had to hire and pay a lawyer to represent them. Lawyers could not divert from their stable income-earning efforts to take on risky cases. Conversely, rich people could afford massive legal teams and often out-spend their opponents.

The result was that poor victims were not represented properly against liabilities and rich victims always were. There was a massive unfairness to the victims. If you hit a poor pedestrian on the street, don't worry they can't afford a lawyer.

So, the USA enacted regulations that allowed lawyers to keep 1/3rd of any liability judgement. The idea was to incentivize lawyers to take on those clients who couldn't otherwise pay.

This system was massively abused by greed and this is the reason you see hourly accident lawyer commercials. You can track on a graph the gigantic spike in liability settlements to when this occurred. This is what directly led to gigantic lawsuits. Lawyers had massive incentives to push for absurdly large judgments.

So,......this abused system resulted in gigantic lawsuits which, in turn, led to massive insurance and malpractice costs.

This, is what drove the USA healthcare costs to be the worst ratio of quality-to-cost in the developed world.

And you will never change this situation until you "undo" or reign in what caused it.

We have the most amazing doctors and scientists and provide fantastic healthcare. But the cost is driven by the lawyers and accountants.
This is just plan not true, though it's been repeated so often by the lobbyists for medical administrators, medical device manufacturers, pharmacies, and medical insurance providers pushing for "tort reform" that many people assume it's based on facts.

The "hourly accident lawyer commercials" have nothing to do with it. The accident lawyers ("in a wreck? Call today!") advertising on TV and billboards typically only work car wreck case (and in many cases they don't even file lawsuits - if they don't get a quick settlement with an auto insurance company, they pass the case off to someone else). They have nothing to do with medical malpractice lawsuits, med mal insurance, or health care costs.

Finally, juries tend to have more sense than most people like to think. Those enormous verdicts people like to talk about generally happen in cases where plaintiffs actually need enormous sums to pay for the care they're going to need for the rest of their lives as a result of horrific injuries caused by someone screwing up.
Closed Thread

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > Other Discussions > Open Mic

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=