Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Market-Based Health Care
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:30 pm    Post subject: Market-Based Health Care Reply with quote

Quote:
"If you are insured, under-insured, or uninsured, we can see you for any medical issue. Lack of insurance should not be a barrier to quality care. Our fees are reasonable and we ask for payment at the time of service with a valid credit or debit card (Visa, MasterCard or Discover). We do not work with insurance companies, since their cost structure, rules and mandates can sometimes get in the way of a caring physician-patient relationship. Our overhead costs are kept low by not filing and tracking insurance claims, and we pass those savings on to you. You will receive a copy of the day�s note and a receipt which you may send to your insurance company to apply the charges toward your deductible."


Quote:
Service Price
One Problem $36.00
Two Problems $54.00
Three Problems Why don�t you schedule a physical?
Complete Physical $110.00 (lab extra)
Incise and Drain Abscess $70.00
Joint Injection $70.00
Forms filled out $16.00
Email $10.00
After Hours Phone Calls $10.00
Nebulizer Treatment $35.00
Biopsy Lesion $70.00 (pathology extra)
Skin Scraping $15.00
Urinalysis $15.00
Strep Test $15.00
Influenza Test $25.00
EKGs $25.00
Lacerations Negotiable
Trim Toenails $25.00
Trim Corn $25.00
Wart Treatment $25.00
House Calls starting at $90.00
Pap smears $25.00 (pathology reading extra)
Counseling $90.00 / 50 minutes

http://www.timewisemedical.com/prices
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/01/market-based-health-care-reform-cash.html


That is what private health care looks like. An affordable price list. A cash (or credit/debit) transaction. No middle man. The insurance firms are the problem. Why should you give insurance to see a Dr about a cold? Can't you just pay 30bucks?

Quote:
MP: This approach sounds a lot more promising than 2,000 pages of government healthcare "reform," doesn't it?



And then you add insurance for catastrophic events.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think there's a lot of strength to the case of simply paying for all minor to moderate treatments with cash up front. I still prefer the catastrophic ones to be covered under a government plan than a private one; insurance is one of those businesses where a large portion of potential customers are liabilities rather than assets. It's only natural to expect a company to try their best to dump liabilities, and as such, they can't be trusted on this matter. Universal health care for major issues coupled with paying in cash for minor and moderate ones -- combined with reducing general practicioner to a bachelor's degree -- would do a lot of good I think.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
conrad2



Joined: 05 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Insurance companies suck out about 30% of total US expenditures for health care. And for what? They treat no patients, they dont perform surgeries, they dont find cures. They skim a lot of money and thats it. This is complete madness. I believe in capatalism, but you should at least be required to perform some service or function to earn a profit. Health care is far to important. Every single doctor in the US should refuse to treat anyone until health insurance companies are outlawed. This will help thier bottom line as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ontheway



Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:06 am    Post subject: Re: Market-Based Health Care Reply with quote

mises wrote:
Quote:
"If you are insured, under-insured, or uninsured, we can see you for any medical issue. Lack of insurance should not be a barrier to quality care. Our fees are reasonable and we ask for payment at the time of service with a valid credit or debit card (Visa, MasterCard or Discover). We do not work with insurance companies, since their cost structure, rules and mandates can sometimes get in the way of a caring physician-patient relationship. Our overhead costs are kept low by not filing and tracking insurance claims, and we pass those savings on to you. You will receive a copy of the day�s note and a receipt which you may send to your insurance company to apply the charges toward your deductible."


Quote:
Service Price
One Problem $36.00
Two Problems $54.00
Three Problems Why don�t you schedule a physical?
Complete Physical $110.00 (lab extra)
Incise and Drain Abscess $70.00
Joint Injection $70.00
Forms filled out $16.00
Email $10.00
After Hours Phone Calls $10.00
Nebulizer Treatment $35.00
Biopsy Lesion $70.00 (pathology extra)
Skin Scraping $15.00
Urinalysis $15.00
Strep Test $15.00
Influenza Test $25.00
EKGs $25.00
Lacerations Negotiable
Trim Toenails $25.00
Trim Corn $25.00
Wart Treatment $25.00
House Calls starting at $90.00
Pap smears $25.00 (pathology reading extra)
Counseling $90.00 / 50 minutes

http://www.timewisemedical.com/prices
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2010/01/market-based-health-care-reform-cash.html


That is what private health care looks like. An affordable price list. A cash (or credit/debit) transaction. No middle man. The insurance firms are the problem. Why should you give insurance to see a Dr about a cold? Can't you just pay 30bucks?

Quote:
MP: This approach sounds a lot more promising than 2,000 pages of government healthcare "reform," doesn't it?



And then you add insurance for catastrophic events.



Exactly correct.

Ordinary health events are just expenditures, just like buying food. We don't buy insurance for being hungry, we go to the store. Same for health care.

Major medical is enough.

It was government regulation of insurance companies, mandating coverage of non-insurable items, state restrictions on competition across state lines, plus the income tax - all socialist interventions - that got us into the current mess.

Solution: deregulate health care providers, open the industry so that more medical schools can open and more providers can offer services - doctors, nurses, med techs, medical specialists should all be able to do more without restrictions, repeal the income tax, deregulate insurance companies to allow coverages desired by the consumer and not mandated by the govt, allow insurers to sell policies nationwide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ron Paul earned 6$/hr in the late 60's as an OBGYN in Dallas at a private hospital. Since then, something has gone haywire.

The interesting thing about the company I listed above is that it exists without competition. So 40bucks to see a Dr is without market competition to drive down costs. It is also without a reform (as Fox mentioned) on who is able to provide medical services. You don't need 8 years to learn how to deal with a broken toe. 4 would suffice (more than suffice). Open it all up and prices will come right down. Catastrophic insurance will be affordable too. I have catastrophic insurance on my car and spend 130$ a month (and that covers other people I might harm up to a few million bucks).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mises wrote:
You don't need 8 years to learn how to deal with a broken toe. 4 would suffice (more than suffice).

Really? What if that toe becomes infected? Or gangrenous? Or the patient is diabetic? Or any of a hundred other possible complications?

Do you really want to go to McDoc's for that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In 4 years, that can be covered. And with hyper-specialization, the students would learn 1) the trade (broken toes) and 2) how to spot potential complications that must be referred to infection specialists etc. Would it be impossible to learn signs/symptoms of larger problems in 4 years?

Anyways, typical GP's don't have specialized knowledge about anything. Jack of all trades, master of none. To take an example, how many know about Vitamin D? Are they up on the research? How about low-carb diets? Do they know? Or do they know enough about everything to pass exams but not enough about one thing to be of any use. Really, aren't they just drug dealers anyways?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sergio Stefanuto



Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I remain firmly convinced that a freer, competitive marketplace is the solution to America's government-created healthcare farce.

I strongly discourage a massive government system, particularly in the belief that doing so will bring down costs. There is a fundamental difference between bringing down costs and not paying costs. In the UK and Canada, there's a considerably greater chance than in the US that you might be dead by the time they find out what's wrong with you, and that will "bring down the cost" of medical care because you won't need any.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
mises wrote:
You don't need 8 years to learn how to deal with a broken toe. 4 would suffice (more than suffice).

Really? What if that toe becomes infected? Or gangrenous? Or the patient is diabetic? Or any of a hundred other possible complications?

Do you really want to go to McDoc's for that?


This are all pretty basic things that are easily preventable, though. Infection and gangrene are fairly easy to prevent via common sense measures. The patient being diabetic is ultimately just a matter of information; it doesn't matter if you went to college for 4 years or 40 years, you won't become psychic. Either the patient will tell you they're diabetic or they won't. The list goes on.

The important thing to remember is that this proposed reform won't eliminate highly educated doctors, it just delegates them universally to specialist status, which is where they should be. If your general practicioner runs into a complication with your toe that he just can't handle, then you can still see a specialist. The difference is, the 90% of the time when said specialist isn't required, his expertise isn't being wasted handling your totally mundane broken toe.

One of the biggest problems in medicine right now is general practice. General practicioners require comparable educations to other doctors, but make less money, which keeps their numbers down comparatively. Getting a referral from a general practicioner is also often required to see a specialist, which turns general practicioner into a kind of bottleneck; it doesn't matter how many specialists you have if you have very few general practicioner. It's hard for people to really appreciate just how much this screws up our medical system.

Making general practicioner a 4 year degree will increase their numbers, increase the number of availible specialists at the same time, and resolve the issue of general practicioners expecting pay at least remotely comparable to specialists. All of this will increase availibility and reduce costs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pluto



Joined: 19 Dec 2006

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem isn't health insurance specifically, the problem is the third-payer model more generally. This is a problem for patients, this a problem for doctors, this is a problem for health care providers and this is a problem for the government and taxpayers. The reason is that nobody knows what anything costs. If the patient would begin by asking, "How much does this cost?" then that would exact a lot more cost discipline throughout the health care industry. However, nobody thinks about it because they just assume thier insurance or Medicare will pay for everything. The same applies to drugs, medicines and prescriptions as well. There are a lot of generics on the market that perform the same function for less than, literally, 4% of the cost.

If you have an hour or so to kill, John Stossel gives a brilliant overview on health care in America.

20/20 Special, Sick in America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Senior



Joined: 31 Jan 2010

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pluto wrote:
The problem isn't health insurance specifically, the problem is the third-payer model more generally. This is a problem for patients, this a problem for doctors, this is a problem for health care providers and this is a problem for the government and taxpayers. The reason is that nobody knows what anything costs. If the patient would begin by asking, "How much does this cost?" then that would exact a lot more cost discipline throughout the health care industry. However, nobody thinks about it because they just assume thier insurance or Medicare will pay for everything. The same applies to drugs, medicines and prescriptions as well. There are a lot of generics on the market that perform the same function for less than, literally, 4% of the cost.

If you have an hour or so to kill, John Stossel gives a brilliant overview on health care in America.

20/20 Special, Sick in America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEXFUbSbg1I


Stossel is probably the most reasonable man on television right now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mises wrote:
In 4 years, that can be covered. And with hyper-specialization, the students would learn 1) the trade (broken toes) and 2) how to spot potential complications that must be referred to infection specialists etc. Would it be impossible to learn signs/symptoms of larger problems in 4 years?

From when are you counting these 4 years, the beginning of med school? College? Kindergarten?

Most students would not begin med school knowing they want to be broken toe specialists. Even if they did, they really need to become proficient in all of orthopedics since a practice consisting only of broken toe repairs would not be economically viable.

The first two years of medical school generally cover the basic sciences, and last two, clinical sciences. Students experience a wide range of specialties in those last two years, and generally it is during this time that they decide on a specialty. Upon graduation, they must then enter a residency of 3-4 years in order to thoroughly learn that specialty. I am not sure how much of a shortcut can be taken through this whole process. (There are a handful of 6-year combined college/med school programs, however.)

Quote:
Anyways, typical GP's don't have specialized knowledge about anything. Jack of all trades, master of none. To take an example, how many know about Vitamin D? Are they up on the research? How about low-carb diets? Do they know? Or do they know enough about everything to pass exams but not enough about one thing to be of any use. Really, aren't they just drug dealers anyways?

At least GPs (should) know when they need to refer to a specialist. They are perfectly adequate at treating the common, uncomplicated conditions.

I totally agree with you that they lack any training in alternative or wellness medicine, my biggest criticism of mainstream medicine, but that really is a whole other debate, as the specialists are just as guilty of this.


Last edited by bacasper on Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
bacasper wrote:
mises wrote:
You don't need 8 years to learn how to deal with a broken toe. 4 would suffice (more than suffice).

Really? What if that toe becomes infected? Or gangrenous? Or the patient is diabetic? Or any of a hundred other possible complications?

Do you really want to go to McDoc's for that?


This are all pretty basic things that are easily preventable, though. Infection and gangrene are fairly easy to prevent via common sense measures. The patient being diabetic is ultimately just a matter of information;

Without knowing the cause of the infection or gangrene, it may not be easy or preventable. And when your diabetic patient's infection is throwing his blood sugar out of whack, it is not simply "a matter of information" that is going to cure him.
Quote:
it doesn't matter if you went to college for 4 years or 40 years, you won't become psychic. Either the patient will tell you they're diabetic or they won't. The list goes on.

You may have that backwards. It is the doctor's job to make the diagnosis. The patient may not even know he is diabetic when he comes to see you.

Yes, the list goes on and on, and can become quite complicated and lengthy which is exactly why you want someone who has been through rigorous training treating you.

Quote:
Making general practicioner a 4 year degree will increase their numbers, increase the number of availible specialists at the same time, and resolve the issue of general practicioners expecting pay at least remotely comparable to specialists. All of this will increase availibility and reduce costs.

In some countries (e.g. Mexico), students enter medical school right after high school, so in four years, you have your GP (although they must first work for one year before going out on their own). They seem to be OK.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bacasper wrote:
Without knowing the cause of the infection or gangrene, it may not be easy or preventable.


A 4 year practicioner could easily be trained in handling this.

bacasper wrote:
And when your diabetic patient's infection is throwing his blood sugar out of whack, it is not simply "a matter of information" that is going to cure him.


I agree, but any sign that a current general practice doctor could catch, a 4 year practicioner could be trained to catch too. This is especially true given that cases handled by general practicioners generally allow for sufficient time to do on-the-spot research as needed. If a patient has symptoms, and you don't immediately know what those symptoms are, you can look them up. Current doctors do this all the time. Hell, it's happened to me.

bacasper wrote:
You may have that backwards. It is the doctor's job to make the diagnosis. The patient may not even know he is diabetic when he comes to see you.


Right but if he shows no signs of being diabetic, and doesn't tell you he's diabetic, it's impossible to know. If on the other hand he does show symptoms, then a 4 year practicioner can be trained to catch them. And if he's really at a loss, well, fully trained doctors will still be around as specialists, so they can still be consulted in truly necessary cases.

bacasper wrote:
Yes, the list goes on and on, and can become quite complicated and lengthy which is exactly why you want someone who has been through rigorous training treating you.


I don't mind a doctor having to do a bit of research on the spot with regards to my symptoms, or occasionally have to consult with a specialist, if it means cheaper, more widely accessible health care.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While I'd love to destroy the insurance companies, yada, yada, yada,...

Does anyone else think that people who put all their faith in invisible, ineffable, mysterious 'free markets' are no different in any way from people who put all their faith in invisible friends who live in the sky? Same, same.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International