Posted on 02/18/2010 4:41:37 AM PST by rbg81
>>What would Jefferson do?
Construct a form of governance that secures the inalienable rights of the governed from those mercantilists who would reduce everything, and everyone, to a commodity for sale and profit?
The specified purpose of American Governance is what it has always been: “TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men”.
To bad LEO’s being kept busy securing the Afghan Opium fields instead of enforcing RICO violations on Wall Street...
Verity C. Coyote - Suuuuuper genius.
Well, super genius - do ya s’pose institutional “investors” who were looking for a high rate of return; a high rate of return on instruments like Sub-prime A$$-PAPER and Derivatives... INSTITUTIONAL INVESTOR’S LIKE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Do Ya s’pose those manufactured losses MIGHT have anything to do with the rate hikes being dumped upon the sheeple-slaves?
Duhhhhhh.
A Republic, being a system of governance characterized by the Rule of Law - is only as effective as its enforcement of the law allows.
Where’s LEO?
The system is so gridlocked that no one has the balls to initiate any corrective action. What is so difficult to understand?
Do you mind telling me a little more? Do you know for instance how much more revenue your local hospitals are taking in in 2010 than they did in 2007?
Can you answer the question as to why a Radiologist is worth 5x a PCP?
I do know that the “nonprofit” hospital I worked at in until 2007 had record revenue (which would normally be profit) for the 2 years preceding. Depends on the Radiologist. Those that do interventional radiology do a lot of procedures which are difficult and risky. A good radiologist can read a LOT of films so that means a lot of money. also radiology is the FIRST medical specialty to be at risk of outsourcing. With digitized radiology the reading can come from down the block, or Down Under.
I’m sick of MY specialty being forced to give away our services. According to the feds the value of my services is exactly zero. But we’re the ones there 24/7 weekends night and holidays. And we get dumped on by the local PCP’s all the time.
We may be aiming at the same target, that of having competition be the market force that drives price and service advantages to consumers. At my company, possibly by virtue of our footprint, we have insurance providers competing for our business. For 2010 we dumped our insurer for another firm with slightly less rates, equivalent coverage, and better service. I want that same availability of providers available as a consumer anywhere in the country. Should I choose to move, I want to be able to take an insurance policy with me.
Comparatively, I seem to have a large number of insurance providers willing to compete for my automobile coverage - why not have the same for my family health insurance?
Maybe my car analogy is flawed, but let me run with it and apply it to how much a particular Dr. is paid: I fender-bender my Lincoln, I can go to any provider I choose. My insurance provider will pay a standard rate. If I choose to pay more, it's likely coming out of my pocket immediately or though increased rates. If the collision shop is not willing to take a standard rate, they can refuse to provide service. They can choose to evaluate their value proposition including the competitiveness of their rates. As opposed to a Gov't regulated rate for a medical service, I'd rather see a market force dictate it.
Understood. Just urge you to consider that the consolidation of provider groups under hospital ownership is eliminating competition at the same time Medicare is cutting. All the losses are being transferred to private insurance. The system will soon fall of its own weight unless competition in the local provider market is restored. And it won’t be because we’ve all decided who the bad guys are and it aint the provider.
I’m not saying all providers are getting rich just that competition is disappearing. The folks at the top of the local provider conglomerates are doing quite well.
The complication I see is that a provider will give an insurer who brings large volume their way a significant discount. They won’t offer that discount to you as an individual or to an insurer with low volume in their area.
So if a surgery charges are $7k and a local health plan can get the service for $4k and your health coverage from out of area gives you $4k, you are stuck with the $3k balance while if you were with the local coverage you’d not be balanced billed the difference. In fact the provider would probably want the $7k in advance and let you keep the insurance check when it comes in. Kind of a pain compared to flashing a card.
But maybe I’m missing something because a lot of people seem to think this makes sense.
Appreciate your comments, I’m still trying to sort this out much of this issue. I lean towards models that deregulate, drive competition, and make medical services just another professional commodity.
I’m cynical about a local provider acting in our best interests any moreso than a out of state firm. Perhaps a local provider will have a better grasp on what pricing is appropriate. A provider on the other side of the country may not care, possibly apply a blanket rate vs. a local market rate. It would be like saying the appropriate salary for a worker in NYC is equal to that of someone in a rural Alabama area.
I would rather have a local provider. To talk to someone that could be a neighbor, understands our community, is accessible in person, etc. While it’s my preference, if the service provided by another firm out of state is acceptable and cost is attractive... sign me up.
>>The system is so gridlocked
Well then somebody better un-gridlock it - starting with rounding up all the fraudsters who packaged and dumped A$$-PAPER into global economic pond.
How ‘bout some “corrective action” via the Department of Corrections.
LOL.
Where’s LEO?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.