I don't need to be a physician to understand that a Gynocologist that pays 1 million a year in malpractice insurance would benefit from paying less then that. They would have lower operating costs and therefore could charge less. You can post all the fake studies you want. It doesn't change economics. I am less concerned about testing costs and more concerned about the insurance costs these businesses have to pay.
Another thing that would drive down the cost of healthcare is a system by which doctors can share tests results with one another. I have observed that doctors in different specialties often order the same tests over and over for the same patients. There should be much more cooperation between PCP's and the specialists that work together when treating an ill patient.
They certainly have a greater % of Govt. paid for coverage, and higher taxation to cover it. No doubt there.
But for a specific individual, the claim of "better" treatment is not so solid.
Depends on the individual. Poor person, yes, much better. Anyone else....perhaps not so much.
Something overall system stats fail to account for, as such things are lost in the masses of numbers and averages.
For my Mom, for example, the UK is a lifesaver. No doubt about it.
For me, no, I get better service and treatement here than I would in the UK. Of that, having been in both systems, I have no doubt.
Failing to lower healthcare costs, increased premiums, and more tests ordered somehow does not seem like tort reform doing wonders for health care.
As for the bold, i had to be helped off of the floor from my residents after laughing so hard. I then showed them your response and had to help them off the floor from laughing.
You really live in a fantasy world.
Ah yes, electronic medical records. Something that certainly has cut down in costs. Also something pioneered by the Federal Government through the VA decades ago. The VA's electronic medical records is still considered the gold standard, head and shoulders above the more costly privately funded EMRs.
Are the services you get here better in terms of medically superior or better in terms of what you as a layman perceive as better? Some of the services may create the perception you are getting better care but from a medical standpoint make no difference and just adds to the costs.
Why would GWB have access to these records? Is he now pretending to be a physician?
Ever hear of HIPPA?
While not perfect, there are checks in place to prevent stealing of medical info by hackers. These systems sometimes do not work perfectly in both the Federal (VA) system and private system (see North Shore/LIJ's problems last year).
I have. It's pretty commonplace.
Better than the ones the for-profit companies use, and keep getting beat by those Hackers on?While not perfect, there are checks in place to prevent stealing of medical info by hackers.
I'm not against it per se, I can certainly see the benefits involved, I just think the dichotomy and hypocricy of the VERY selective party-based trust in the state is a funny and enlightening thing.
The fact that you laugh when you hear that if Doctors expenses were lower they could afford to charge less tells me you are not in private practice and clearly don't understand the principles of economics. Not surprising considering your extreme left wing political opinions. Therefore you clearly lack the understanding of what drives the costs for medical businesses. I'll trust the opinion of the Doctor I play poker with every week that runs the Oncology wing at the local hospital and owns cancer centers all around the world.
I have direct personal experince in my U.S. Insurance including professional experience (administration), and a comparison vs. my Mother and family with similar conditions in the U.K. system. Of course, I speak only of my and my loved one/friends experiences in the the two systems (which is about equal, half here, half UK).
My comparison of the factors above rates the private U.S. System vastly better in all aspects of service and treatment. I rank the UK system vastly better if you are poor, and otherwise couldn't aquire the kind of insurance I have here.
Tell me Ken, what is your personal experience in private U.S. healthcare, such as one of the larger HMO's or in private practice as your primary income stream? How many years have you worked for/in such a business or in p.p.? What is your private sector healthcare resume, without specific comapny names of course, in brief? Just curious what actual experience you have to speak from in regards to private sector healthcare adminsitration and treatment.
The tort system is supposed to protect the patient from bad care because penalties for bad care will have an impact on quality. Effectively that risk is spread to good doctors and bad through insurance and passed on to the consumer in fees. The other problem with the current tort system it doesn't give equal treatment for patients who have been equally injured by the system. It doesn't seem like it protects us from bad doctors if the risk is spread to good doctors through premiums and it doesn't protect patients if the outcome in court isn't equal for similiar damages.
No doubt that Hospitals and doctors will continue to do un-necessary procedures as long as Insurance companies and the Government reimburse for those procedures and the high cost of testing that has little to do with diagnosis and treatment will continue to drain resources and make both doctors and hospitals income.
Tort reform is necessary particularly if we are going to go to statistical based screening to lower costs in the future. The fact that it isn’t lowering costs now is because insurance and government payments are locked in and the system will bill to the maximum of reimbursement even if their actual cost goes down. If payment is set by the Government why would the system lower their fee if their cost went down?
Last edited by Winstonbiggs; 07-16-2012 at 04:16 PM.