Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[xoxoxoBruce]

.

[Shawnee123]

Adam haz a health care?

Who is Adam?

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

You do understand that most private insurance pays much more than Medicare rates don't you? Private insurance has contractual relationships with each provider or group or hospital.

Psst... you do understand Spexx is a doctor, right?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Psst... you do understand Spexx is a doctor, right?

I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on television. But I do work in an ophthalmologist's office, and work with insurance programs every day.

[DanaC]

One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.

Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by DanaC

One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.

Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.

I fully understand that. And to that I say tough. If you want to get it, you need to pay your portion. No one gets a pass. I am quite sure that friends of mine who make $400 a month would gladly pay $16 a month (4%) of their income if they knew that they would have health insurance.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I fully understand that. And to that I say tough. If you want to get it, you need to pay your portion. No one gets a pass. I am quite sure that friends of mine who make $400 a month would gladly pay $16 a month (4%) of their income if they knew that they would have health insurance.

So you think income tax should be 4%? Really?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by DanaC

One of the purposes of socialised medicine is to ensure that everybody gets access to healthcare regardless of their income. It equalises service, not input. A 1% tax on someone earning $20k a year, whilst it is mathematically less than a 1% tax on someone earning $200k a year, has a far greater impact on that person's finances: they're the ones on the breadline; the ones struggling to put food on their family's table and the ones with the least capacity to borrow in times of trouble. The lower the earnings, the less surplus there is to tax.

Taking larger contributions from people who are earning larger incomes goes some way to equalising the impact of the cost of healthcare. If you equalise the contributons by some kind of flat tax approach, then you are taking from the wealthy man's surplus and the poor man's food cupboard.

I love you. :p That reasoning is WHY we have a graduating tax system in this country. But people who want everyone to pay exactly the same are usually people with higher incomes. And they make that argument, even though they pay much less taxes than they used to. The tax burden has increasingly shifted over time to the middle class and upper middle class.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I'm not a doctor, and I don't play one on television. But I do work in an ophthalmologist's office, and work with insurance programs every day.

Ah, that's why you were giving out such helpful advice for free...

[ZenGum]

[Griff]

... but I don't own any people.

[Shawnee123]

You don't really "own" your critters either.

We just think of it that way.

[TheMercenary]

Charlie Rangel plays the race card as his own ethics probe heats up. What an idiot.

http://wcbstv.com/local/charles.rang...2.1162895.html

[classicman]

Trauma reimbursement is along the 80% of what the private insurers pay.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Trauma reimbursement is along the 80% of what the private insurers pay.

And among the most expensive care not covered because of lack of insurance and other issues. It is a huge issue in our state and the topic of much discussion as of late as we try to address the holes in care.

http://grady.healthstatgeorgia.org/f...aumaSystem.pdf

Deteriorating Trauma Medical Staff Support
Maintaining medical staff participation in trauma
care is increasingly difficult in both community
and academic hospitals. There are many
contributing factors:
• Reductions in resident support
• Shortage of trauma surgical specialists
• Incompatibility with private practice
• Increasing burden of uninsured patients
• Undesirable lifestyle due to trauma call
• Demise of community ED call panels
• Specialty hospital trend
• Increasing physician sub-specialization
• Malpractice market turmoil
• EMTALA changes encourage dumping
• Physician payments penalize trauma
• Managed Care does not pay its share
Inadequate Trauma Center Financing
Trauma centers collectively experience a
$1 billion loss, and with increasing costs, this
problem will worsen over time. Key factors in this
crisis:
• A disproportionate and increasing share of
patients without the means to pay.
• Cost shifting to finance Trauma Center
operations is no longer working.
• Problematic relationships with Managed Care.
• Medicare does not cover high standby costs.
• Poor reimbursement rates under state
Medicaid programs.
• Auto insurance does not pay its share.

Trauma Centers Already Under Siege
The fundamental economic threats faced by
trauma centers need to be addressed to assure
they are available in the event of a terrorist
attack. These threats are continuing and will
result in a significant portion of the nation’s
trauma centers closing unless they receive
increased support.

Without corrective action, the current rate of
closures among the nation’s 600 regional trauma
centers will increase and 10-20% will close
within 3 years. Trauma centers provide an
essential public service that affects everyone.
They treat all patients within a common system
of care, so if a trauma center closes, it closes to
all.

http://www.traumacare.com/download/N...port_May04.pdf