View Full Version : Dear Sarah Palin:
Eric Stoner
10-08-2008, 11:09 AM
Jester, of COURSE you can get your own school. It's called homeschool or private school. Just don't ask for a voucher for your homeschool or private school. If you did not notice, Utah, the most conservative state in the Union, rejected vouchers by a 2 to 1 margin last year.
The Federal government has made public education into a nation of multiple choice test takers with No Child Left Behind. McCain, talking to some parents in an impoverished school district, said, "Don't worry, we're going to get you a choice." Vouchers, in other words. Why is he not saying, "Don't worry, we are going to provide your schools with the resources they need to be every bit as good as the schools that are in the neighborhoods with money?"
He is not saying that, because that would COST money, and then he would have to RAISE taxes. And he knows, in his secret heart of hearts, that Federal vouchers are not going to make it through Congress, nor are they going to come out of state legislatures who are even now slashing their budgets.
One of the big problems of NCLB was the Feds giving the states unfunded mandates: We require you to do ALL THESE THINGS to get your Federal funds, but we are going to give you NO MORE Federal funds than we gave you before NCLB. Pay for the tests and the improvements yourselves. Education is a LOCAL issue. The Federal government has NO BUSINESS telling the states what to do. The states go along with it because they want the Federal funds.
So, sure, you can have your own school. Just don't ask me to pay for it. (How did a socialistic idea like school vouchers ever become a rallying point for conservatives? But conservatives are not once what they once were.)
There is a major disconnect between spending and educational performance.
It has been shown over and over again that MORE spending does NOT equal improved performance. Wash D.C. spends the most per student and still performs the worst. Other states spend far, far less and perform much better. Even more telling is the performance of private schools and charter schools like KIP. For less money they do a much better job of educating.
Public education is a monopoly and like most monopolies it gives lousy service at a high price. Public school teachers in L.A. ; Texas; Florida; Chicago ; Detroit; Newark; D.C. and New York overwhelmingly send their own children to private school. The public schools have no incentives to cut costs; improve learning and upgrade teacher performance. The ones who suffer the most are the poor who have no to little choice where to send their children. As for the argument that the Public schools have to "educate everybody", including Special Ed. and Special Needs children, the fact is that many do it by sending those children to PRIVATE schools.
The solution is obvious : Vouchers for parents and more charter schools within the public system. I understand why the NEA and teacher's union oppose these ideas. I've NEVER understood why those who represent areas with lots of poor people and lousy schools oppose them. Unless it's because they WANT to assure a steady future supply of poorly educated voters.
Aubreyyy
10-08-2008, 12:29 PM
My mom took me out of public school in the 6th grade, I stayed out the rest of my education. I didn't do well in the public school system- I slipped when I wasn't being monitored, and I needed a ton of motivation.
My sister has gone to public school all her life and is graduating this year. She is looking to go to better schools than I looked at, and she is definitely a better student.
I think there should be more options to make a choice- when it comes to education, it shouldn't be one size fits all. Learning is SO personal, and it takes different environments for different children to thrive.
VegasPrincess
10-08-2008, 01:02 PM
Are you saying that EVERYBODY is entitled to the same level of health care ?
Health care is NOT a "right" listed in the Constitution. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to give everyone the same level of health care ?
No, I'm saying that everybody is entitled to have a BASIC level of healthcare....
And by the way you enjoy many things that you consider a right that aren't listed in the constitution....
Eric Stoner
10-08-2008, 02:26 PM
No, I'm saying that everybody is entitled to have a BASIC level of healthcare....
And by the way you enjoy many things that you consider a right that aren't listed in the constitution....
Everybody GETS basic health care. Been to an E.R. lately ? We haven't seen outbreaks of polio or smallpox have we ? The children of illegals and the working poor are getting immunized somehow, aren't they ?
If they aren't listed in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, they are not "rights".
TheSexKitten
10-08-2008, 06:19 PM
If they aren't listed in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, they are not "rights".
Then neither are public education, a police force, or well-maintained roads.
flickad
10-08-2008, 09:44 PM
Australia's system isn't completely socialized. It's semi-privatized, with everyone receiving a flat 1.5% income tax to pay for the basic comprehensive care. There is an option to pay for your own, semi-private care and the government offers tax breaks (?) as an incentive.
It's actually a super legit system, better than the ones in Japan, Canada, etc
True, but most people lack private health cover and just use Medicare.
jester214
10-08-2008, 10:02 PM
Then neither are public education, a police force, or well-maintained roads.
Probably why State Government, or local in some cases, are in charge of these and not the Federal...
Eric Stoner
10-09-2008, 08:34 AM
Probably why State Government, or local in some cases, are in charge of these and not the Federal...
Bingo !
Eric Stoner
10-09-2008, 08:35 AM
Then neither are public education, a police force, or well-maintained roads.
That's right. They are not "RIGHTS". Nor are they FEDERAL obligations.
TheSexKitten
10-09-2008, 04:09 PM
So would you guys then support state-funded socialized healthcare...? /:O
miabella
10-09-2008, 04:56 PM
^^that already exists in plenty of american states...
TheSexKitten
10-09-2008, 05:00 PM
Then what's the big stretch for implementing it on a federal level?
jester214
10-09-2008, 06:42 PM
^^that already exists in plenty of american states...
Where?
VegasPrincess
10-09-2008, 11:17 PM
Everybody GETS basic health care. Been to an E.R. lately ? We haven't seen outbreaks of polio or smallpox have we ? The children of illegals and the working poor are getting immunized somehow, aren't they ?
If they aren't listed in the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, they are not "rights".
I'm not saying its a right anymore than having public schools, the police force or the fire department are.
YES, the ER has to see you and charge you up the ass for the services which if they cant pay end up being a tax payers hell hole anyway!! Fuck! I'm done with this thread...An ER visit is not healthcare, that is treating a fucking emergecny. I'm done with people who have so little compassion for their fellow human beings, honestly.
jester214
10-09-2008, 11:40 PM
I'm not saying its a right anymore than having public schools, the police force or the fire department are.
YES, the ER has to see you and charge you up the ass for the services which if they cant pay end up being a tax payers hell hole anyway!! Fuck! I'm done with this thread...An ER visit is not healthcare, that is treating a fucking emergecny. I'm done with people who have so little compassion for their fellow human beings, honestly.
Now this is ridiculous. I don't have compassion for fellow humans because I don't beleive in socialized healthcare? Come on, seriously? I don't even think Hillary Clinton would go that far.
flickad
10-10-2008, 01:31 AM
Now this is ridiculous. I don't have compassion for fellow humans because I don't beleive in socialized healthcare? Come on, seriously? I don't even think Hillary Clinton would go that far.
Your current health care system amounts to denying proper medical care to the impecunious and supporting it does look like a lack of compassion. Whether you do in fact lack compassion is, however, an open question.
UltraViolet
10-10-2008, 01:35 AM
Jesus. If this woman ever gets the chance to be prez she's the biggest regression in women's right's I've ever seen....
dangerousdiva
10-10-2008, 02:18 AM
I am more than aware of the effect it would have on doctors. You said it yourself in bold, that's the result of how badly the system mistreats doctors as it is.
They pay huge proportions of their income for malpractice insurance because juries keep awarding ridiculous sums of money in the many malpractice suits that take place each year. A general practitioner, the backbone of medicine, does nothing more than serve as a funnel to specialists, adopting an "in and out" style of service out of necessity due to how they get paid by the insurance companies. General practitioners go 50k-200k in debt and make usually only around 90k. That hardly seems fair!
If doctors do receive specialization, then they really have to watch their asses because the US is so sue-happy. And either way, medical school does not need to cost what it costs. There has been inflation in the cost of tuition.
Yes, in Canada and other places, doctors receive less pay for a larger (expected---they can only do so much) volume of work, effectively encouraging doctors to leave the country in search of better wages and discouraging new generations of doctors from cropping back up.
The key here is about compromise, balance. We all need to find a way to make sure the most important people in healthcare are taken care of somehow.
Since we're basically saying the same thing regarding the current health care system and that it's already burdened with doctor shortages. There would even be LESS doctors (20% of doctors said they would quit or retire under UHC), while the number of patients INCREASE under UHC. So, I just don't see how anyone could think that the healthcare system would be LESS burdened by providing comprehensive coverage (UHC)?
I'm not picking on you TSK, but it grinds my gears when candidates peddle UHC as a solution to health care reform. It's not. This issue has many facets that need reform before UHC can ever be viable.
So would you guys then support state-funded socialized healthcare...? /:O
NO, lowering the quality of my healthcare is unacceptable.
Then what's the big stretch for implementing it on a federal level?
Because they've already failed on the state level. Until cost are managed it's unaffordable (look at California and Massachusetts)
Where?
Massachusetts for one.
Your current health care system amounts to denying proper medical care to the impecunious and supporting it does look like a lack of compassion.
They are not denied healthcare, Medicaid is available.
I don't think healthcare should be free but everyone should have access to it. We still have to pay for basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter. We should have to pay for healthcare. I think the current system needs major reform but ultimately it should remain private with costs controlled so that it's affordable for everyone.
G-Real
10-10-2008, 02:33 AM
Massachusetts for one.
MA has had their Medicaid system copied by numerous states because of how well it work.
Pretty much there are 4 insurane companies that all work to have people join their health plan. they are paid per member per health plan. Therefore there is competition within the system, and, MA doesn't pay the doctors directly; they are paid through their MCO that can try and get better rates than the state paying directly.
This also happened with their low-income insurance program (gap coverage) that is for those who cannot afford regular healthcare insurance, but, make too much for medicaid.
And again, the country is watching MA to see if they can pull it off...
dangerousdiva
10-10-2008, 02:56 AM
MA has had their Medicaid system copied by numerous states because of how well it work.
Pretty much there are 4 insurane companies that all work to have people join their health plan. they are paid per member per health plan. Therefore there is competition within the system, and, MA doesn't pay the doctors directly; they are paid through their MCO that can try and get better rates than the state paying directly.
This also happened with their low-income insurance program (gap coverage) that is for those who cannot afford regular healthcare insurance, but, make too much for medicaid.
And again, the country is watching MA to see if they can pull it off...
You are correct and btw this system was put in place by none other republican Mitt Romney.
However, it's already having problems with affordability because the system is not restructured.
The Boston Globe
March 28, 2008
by Alice Dembner
*snip*
"Everyone understands that the eyes of the nation remain on us," added Andrew Dreyfus, executive vice president at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts.
Yet the financial pressures provide new ammunition for those who have opposed the initiative from the start.
"We've said from the beginning that the basic problem with the reform is that if you don't restructure the system, it becomes rapidly unaffordable and the commitment to cover people begins to fade," said Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a government-run health system like Canada's. "We're seeing that begin to happen."
Among those who have supported the law, there is as yet no move to change the fundamental provisions of the plan: requiring nearly everyone to obtain insurance, providing free or subsidized coverage for those with low and moderate incomes, and changing the insurance market to make private coverage more affordable.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/26/healthcare_cost_increases_dominate_mass_budget_deb ate/
Also, Massachusetts health care reform has already increased the doctor shortage, specifically primary care physicians, further burdening the healthcare industry.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/05/29/the_crisis_of_primary_care_physicians/
TheSexKitten
10-10-2008, 07:43 AM
DangerousDiva, I agree with the same things but I'm looking ahead further and more optimistically. We certainly agree that a) Doctors get it in the ass and b) the system is fundamentally flawed, meaning it must be overhauled before any progress can be made.
I'm just saying,
THEN we should move toward ensuring some kind of UHC with private options. However, we'd rather avoid year-long patient waiting lists and lack of quality medical professionals.
Eric Stoner
10-10-2008, 12:04 PM
I'm not saying its a right anymore than having public schools, the police force or the fire department are.
YES, the ER has to see you and charge you up the ass for the services which if they cant pay end up being a tax payers hell hole anyway!! Fuck! I'm done with this thread...An ER visit is not healthcare, that is treating a fucking emergecny. I'm done with people who have so little compassion for their fellow human beings, honestly.
I demonstrate my benevolence every time I send in witholding and quarterly tax payments PLUS the charities I donate to. Health care is NOT a "compassion" issue afaic.
SHOW ME a government mandated; taxpayer funded health care system that provides quality care at a reasonable cost.
As far as ILLEGAL immigrants are concerned; they are entitled to emergency care plus that care necessary to prevent epidemics. Otherwise, they should be packed up and shipped out afaic. And they and young adults are the overwhelming percentage of the uninsured. As high as 80 to even 90 %.
Eric Stoner
10-10-2008, 12:06 PM
Your current health care system amounts to denying proper medical care to the impecunious and supporting it does look like a lack of compassion. Whether you do in fact lack compassion is, however, an open question.
WRONG ! At least in NYC and most major urban areas the "poor" get plenty of health care. Most of them are ILLEGAL immigrants.
Miss_Luscious
10-10-2008, 12:39 PM
ES, I'd like to see proof that 80-90% of those without health care are illegal immigrants. I'm having a hard time believing that one.
VegasPrincess
10-10-2008, 12:56 PM
WRONG ! At least in NYC and most major urban areas the "poor" get plenty of health care. Most of them are ILLEGAL immigrants.
I'm not talking about people whoo are poor dirt poor, welfare poor....to qualify fro any kind of government stuff you basically have to be indigent!! There are TENS of MILLIONS of people with full time 10 12 dollar an hour jobs with no benefits who can't afford insurance...THATS who I'm talking about
Eric Stoner
10-10-2008, 01:59 PM
ES, I'd like to see proof that 80-90% of those without health care are illegal immigrants. I'm having a hard time believing that one.
Re-read what I posted. I NEVER said 80 to 90 % of the uninsured were illegal. Please stop with the knee-jerk, emotional reactions to what I post.
Eric Stoner
10-10-2008, 02:20 PM
I'm not talking about people whoo are poor dirt poor, welfare poor....to qualify fro any kind of government stuff you basically have to be indigent!! There are TENS of MILLIONS of people with full time 10 12 dollar an hour jobs with no benefits who can't afford insurance...THATS who I'm talking about
Health insurance and health care are two DIFFERENT things.
Let's look at the "uninsured". The highest estimate is 40 million. Almost half of that number are Illegals. Then you have as many as 10 million Americans under age 30 who don't want to pay for coverage leaving about 10 million "working poor". I agree we ought to do something for them. I've proposed a three way split- the Feds should pay 50% of the premium; the state where they live 25% and the employer 25%. Or you could leave employers out of it and have the Feds pay 75%. The states in turn could assess the health insurers within that state a proportionate share like "assigned risk" with auto insurance. The higher the proportion of total health insurance premiums; the more uninsured the carrier has to cover. That gives them a market incentive to control costs.
We could even have a sliding scale where depending on income the individual pays what they can and government picks up the rest. The money should go to PRIVATE health insurers and HMO's so SOMEBODY has a market incentive to control costs.
VegasPrincess
10-10-2008, 05:08 PM
I'd like a link to see where you're getting numbers from, because I've never heard those figures. I'm not being sarcastic or bitchy by saying that BTW I'm genuinely curious...becauseI can tell you, they're not true.
First of all, there are far more than 40 million unisured Americans. The actual stastic (from the Cenus Bureau) is:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737
47 million, or 15.9% of Americans. So, fifteen out of a hundred, or almost two out of ten Americans are without insurance. This is NOT taking into consideration people who are in the poverty level welfare, etc), because they have government funded healthcare. So that 47 million is from people ranging from the working poor to working class to Middle class.
Furthermore, these numbers don't incorporate people who are in the country illegally, check the link.
jester214
10-10-2008, 08:03 PM
I'd like a link to see where you're getting numbers from, because I've never heard those figures. I'm not being sarcastic or bitchy by saying that BTW I'm genuinely curious...becauseI can tell you, they're not true.
First of all, there are far more than 40 million unisured Americans. The actual stastic (from the Cenus Bureau) is:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737
47 million, or 15.9% of Americans. So, fifteen out of a hundred, or almost two out of ten Americans are without insurance. This is NOT taking into consideration people who are in the poverty level welfare, etc), because they have government funded healthcare. So that 47 million is from people ranging from the working poor to working class to Middle class.
Furthermore, these numbers don't incorporate people who are in the country illegally, check the link.
And how many of these 47 million choose not to have insurance? Not to mention, how many of these 47 million could get government assitance at some level, but don't enroll in programs??
This is one of my biggest issues with the debate by people in favor of socializing, they toss around a number that just isn't true.
But for the sake of argument let's say that 15% of people don't have healthcare, can't afford it, and aren't elegible for government assitance. I don't think that's a large enough number to throw many times that number of people, into the hands of the government. There has to be a better way. I WANT that 15% to have HeathCare, I just don't think socialized is the best way to provide it for them.
threlayer
10-10-2008, 08:50 PM
Dare Sarah Palin:
Please stop lying to us and abusing your public trust.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6052272.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4998X420081011
eagle2
10-10-2008, 11:48 PM
But for the sake of argument let's say that 15% of people don't have healthcare, can't afford it, and aren't elegible for government assitance. I don't think that's a large enough number to throw many times that number of people, into the hands of the government. There has to be a better way. I WANT that 15% to have HeathCare, I just don't think socialized is the best way to provide it for them.
Providing insurance for everyone doesn't mean "throwing people into the hands of the government" or socialized medicine. The only thing it means is making sure that everyone has health insurance. The insurance can just as easily come from private insurers as from the government. It doesn't mean making changes for anyone who already has health insurance.
AzBlk
10-11-2008, 01:56 AM
And how many of these 47 million choose not to have insurance? Not to mention, how many of these 47 million could get government assitance at some level, but don't enroll in programs??
This is one of my biggest issues with the debate by people in favor of socializing, they toss around a number that just isn't true.
But for the sake of argument let's say that 15% of people don't have healthcare, can't afford it, and aren't elegible for government assitance. I don't think that's a large enough number to throw many times that number of people, into the hands of the government. There has to be a better way. I WANT that 15% to have HeathCare, I just don't think socialized is the best way to provide it for them.
The funny thing is so many nations that are poorer than us and have "socialized medicine" are generally more healthy than we are, live longer than we do and are less medicated than we are even though they have to wait longer to see a doctor or get elective surgery.
SnakeBabe
10-11-2008, 03:39 PM
.... I agree we ought to do something for them. I've proposed a three way split- the Feds should pay 50% of the premium; the state where they live 25% and the employer 25%. Or you could leave employers out of it and have the Feds pay 75%. ...
I am just wondering why health care is the employer’s responsibility. Or the governments or anyone other than the person who wants it really. I just opened the phone book and got health insurance. It was easy
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
TheSexKitten
10-11-2008, 06:38 PM
I just opened the phone book and got health insurance. It was easy
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
::) ...
jester214
10-11-2008, 06:56 PM
The funny thing is so many nations that are poorer than us and have "socialized medicine" are generally more healthy than we are, live longer than we do and are less medicated than we are even though they have to wait longer to see a doctor or get elective surgery.
And what countries are these?
flickad
10-11-2008, 07:41 PM
I am just wondering why health care is the employer’s responsibility. Or the governments or anyone other than the person who wants it really. I just opened the phone book and got health insurance. It was easy
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
The point is that not everyone is in a financial position to do that. Should their health go down the gurgler on that account?
eagle2
10-11-2008, 11:06 PM
Way to go Flyers Fans!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TgDanmWkg
SnakeBabe
10-11-2008, 11:13 PM
I hate to see anyone suffer but we are not talking about handicapped or mentally ill here. I say give the less fortunate all the help they need it’s not their fault but I can only wonder why the average able bodied person can’t afford to care for them selves.
Rockell
10-11-2008, 11:27 PM
I am just wondering why health care is the employer’s responsibility. Or the governments or anyone other than the person who wants it really. I just opened the phone book and got health insurance. It was easy
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
Because it's expensive, and not everyone can afford it. I had insurance through my father's employer, and paid $100 in premiums just for MYSELF to be added to his plan. On top of that, I pay high fucking copays- like $30 for doctors visits, $50 for optomitrist, OB/GYN, dentist, etc. and like $10 for prescription. And I had very limited choices in providers. How in the hell would a normal college who doesn't make any money be able to afford that? I hate to admit it, but as soon as I got pregnant, I went on Medicare insurance.
SnakeBabe
10-11-2008, 11:37 PM
So then I should pay for people who can’t afford it? Sorry, I just don’t get it. Isn’t it fair that I pay my own way in life?
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
Rockell
10-11-2008, 11:54 PM
So then I should pay for people who can’t afford it? Sorry, I just don’t get it. Isn’t it fair that I pay my own way in life?
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
It should be reformed so that everyone CAN afford it. I don't think it's very fair that I have to pay out the ass for shitty coverage either.
SnakeBabe
10-12-2008, 12:03 AM
I agree with that, health care is awful but I guess I believe they have the right to charge what they want just like I have the right to charge what I want. I don’t want the government forcing me to work for less so why should I expect that from a doctor?
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
flickad
10-12-2008, 12:26 AM
I agree with that, health care is awful but I guess I believe they have the right to charge what they want just like I have the right to charge what I want. I don’t want the government forcing me to work for less so why should I expect that from a doctor?
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
They wouldn't work for less. They would receive a subsidy from the government so that consumers would be paying less.
eagle2
10-12-2008, 12:41 AM
So then I should pay for people who can’t afford it? Sorry, I just don’t get it. Isn’t it fair that I pay my own way in life?
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
That's what you're doing when you buy insurance. You're paying for peoples' medical procedures and treatments that can't afford it. If you ever need an expensive medical procedure or treatment, then you'll have other people paying for your procedure or treatment.
miabella
10-12-2008, 07:27 AM
They wouldn't work for less. They would receive a subsidy from the government so that consumers would be paying less.
the government's money comes from taxes (or printing it up, which doesn't really add value to the salary, but rather devalues the salary), so the *consumer* is still ultimately paying.
the (partial) exception is if the consumer lives in a small-population, resource-rich country where much of the income from those resources is owned or otherwise kept by the government. and even in that situation, tax income still pays for a lot of things, so the consumer is still paying, but in a more anonymous fashion, with additional layers of paid government officials to fund.
the whole 'america spends x on healthcare and it sucks' obscures the reality that american healthcare is a hodgepodge of socialised and private care systems, varying at the regional, state, county and city levels. that variance, along with america's exceptionally large population, means that it is simply misleading and openly deceptive to compare american health care to other nations that are only the size of an american city in terms of population.
SnakeBabe
10-12-2008, 07:36 AM
They wouldn't work for less. They would receive a subsidy from the government so that consumers would be paying less.
But then my taxes would go up to cover people who don’t work. I can’t say I like that. I work too hard to support people who don’t work.
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
SnakeBabe
10-12-2008, 07:40 AM
That's what you're doing when you buy insurance. You're paying for peoples' medical procedures and treatments that can't afford it. If you ever need an expensive medical procedure or treatment, then you'll have other people paying for your procedure or treatment.
not really, these are all people who are paying too. We are not forced to support those who don’t join the group and pay their share. Also, I don’t want to get lumped into a group of overweight smokers, my rates would skyrocket.
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
TheSexKitten
10-12-2008, 09:07 AM
You should care because it's bullshit! :no:
To quote myself:
"Hypothetically, if a surgery actually costs $1,000 to perform, but the hospital charges $10,000, a rich man can and will pay the asking price because he values his life. However, if a poor man is charged the same amount, he may only be able to pay $2,000 of the total, but the provider still makes more by overcharging than they would otherwise. In this way, hospitals are able to milk less affluent people for every dollar they have."
Nora Johnson, a medical billing advocate from Caldwell, West Virginia, recounts past mistakes she has uncovered in reviewing patients’ medical bills:
"More than 90% of the hospital bills I've audited have gross overcharges," says Johnson. Estimates on hospital overcharges run up to $10 billion a year, with an average of $1,300 per hospital stay. Other experts say overcharges make up approximately 5% of hospital bills. "I've seen $90 charged for a 70-cent I.V. How about $129 for a mucous recovery system? That's a box of Kleenex," Johnson adds. She's also seen charges for ordinary supplies, such as towels and sheets, that should be included in the room charges.
According to Yuval Lirov, PhD, author of several books about economics and medical billing, “In 2005, total national health costs rose 6.9 percent—twice the rate of inflation—reaching $2 trillion.”
Make sense why some people might be asking the government to step in?
SnakeBabe
10-12-2008, 09:28 AM
I agree the mark ups are high but isn’t that what pays for the building, insurance, unions and to cover the bills of people who do not have insurance that never pay their own way?.
Hugs and Hissessss,
Maria
bem401
10-12-2008, 09:31 AM
You should care because it's bullshit! :no:
To quote myself:
"Hypothetically, if a surgery actually costs $1,000 to perform, but the hospital charges $10,000, a rich man can and will pay the asking price because he values his life. However, if a poor man is charged the same amount, he may only be able to pay $2,000 of the total, but the provider still makes more by overcharging than they would otherwise. In this way, hospitals are able to milk less affluent people for every dollar they have."
Nora Johnson, a medical billing advocate from Caldwell, West Virginia, recounts past mistakes she has uncovered in reviewing patients’ medical bills:
"More than 90% of the hospital bills I've audited have gross overcharges," says Johnson. Estimates on hospital overcharges run up to $10 billion a year, with an average of $1,300 per hospital stay. Other experts say overcharges make up approximately 5% of hospital bills. "I've seen $90 charged for a 70-cent I.V. How about $129 for a mucous recovery system? That's a box of Kleenex," Johnson adds. She's also seen charges for ordinary supplies, such as towels and sheets, that should be included in the room charges.
According to Yuval Lirov, PhD, author of several books about economics and medical billing, “In 2005, total national health costs rose 6.9 percent—twice the rate of inflation—reaching $2 trillion.”
Make sense why some people might be asking the government to step in?
The problem, SK, is that the entity most guilty of wasteful spending is the government. i hear a lot of mention of government waste, not so much about corporate waste.