Why is America spending more on healthcare per capita than Denmark?

[Hawkeye10]

Because Americans are greedy, stupid and lazy, thats the answer.

Well that at we have believed in experts, in part because we are lazy, experts who these days tend to suck, because they are greedy, stupid and lazy.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Lets see..

1. no and no.

Costs won't drop because the cost of care is based on what insurance companies pay. Not on any one decrease in malpractice insurance. Lets say my malpractice insurance triples. So what? What the insurance company pays doesn't change one dang bit.

2. No because if medical providers are overutilizing services to prevent lawsuits.. and its perceived that its working.. they aren't going to stop because lawsuits are down. they are going to continue whats perceived to be working.

3. Well you just pointed out that the risk had declined.. that lawsuits were almost zero.

4. Nope.. but you keep telling yourself that.

Oh....doctors do not include their own costs when determining charges to patients (because, after all, when you see a doc, the ONLY thing you are charged are insurance costs, you never pay any sort of out of pocket costs!) and the payouts to doctors do not factor in doctor malpractice costs!

Good to know, thank you for clearing that up! (and notice, I'm not saying you said any of that, I SAID IT, I"M SAYING YOU WON"T SAY IT).

 

[Gimmesometruth]

thanks... see.. I guess I did know texas. Since this is exactly what I had said happened in other states that had tort reform.

thanks for supporting what I said Gimme.

because many other countries have public systems that handle malpractice it doesn't get factored into their "cost of healthcare"

...is not supported, the cost of malpractice when eliminated does not change health care cost increases. When you argue "the utilization workz", it falls apart because the reason for utilization was to guard against the risk of malpractice costs....which have been decreased substantially, ergo, the need for malpractice coverage should have caused lower Doctor costs AND the need for the CYA utilization. Your argument is not supported by the studies, just the opposite. Yer just not able to comprehend either the argument or the documentation provided, it was the same with tax rates, yer incapable of understanding basic math.

 

[jaeger19]

Oh....doctors do not include their own costs when determining charges to patients (because, after all, when you see a doc, the ONLY thing you are charged are insurance costs, you never pay any sort of out of pocket costs!) and the payouts to doctors do not factor in doctor malpractice costs!

Good to know, thank you for clearing that up! (and notice, I'm not saying you said any of that, I SAID IT, I"M SAYING YOU WON"T SAY IT).

No..not individually they can't. Not with insurance.

Heck.. go call your insurance company... find out how they determine rates and find out if a doctor that has higher malpractice can get reimbursed more from them over other physicians that don;t have that malpractice bill.

See what you find out. It will be a good education for you. I am pretty sure (positive actually) that you will find that they set the rates and anyone accepting their insurance must accept their rates.

And also do a little research on what are out of pocket costs. What you will find.. is that if the physician has agreed to accept an insurance.. he has agreed to their rate... and he is not allowed to get any more from you... and your out of pocket costs are for things like copays, deductibles and other things the insurance has agreed with your employer or you.

 

[jaeger19]

because many other countries have public systems that handle malpractice it doesn't get factored into their "cost of healthcare"

...is not supported, the cost of malpractice when eliminated does not change health care cost increases. When you argue "the utilization workz", it falls apart because the reason for utilization was to guard against the risk of malpractice costs....which have been decreased substantially, ergo, the need for malpractice coverage should have caused lower Doctor costs AND the need for the CYA utilization. Your argument is not supported by the studies, just the opposite. Yer just not able to comprehend either the argument or the documentation provided, it was the same with tax rates, yer incapable of understanding basic math.

Yeah... you don't get it.

There is a cost to malpractice... I do PAY for malpractice insurance... so do other medical providers And in the aggregate.. that cost does get passed on to the insurance company and thus to you. I can't work at a loss.

So yes.. malpractice insurance has a cost.

now other countries.. don't have separate malpractice insurance. They have a government program that handles it. Which means the costs are not handled passed to the public through medical charges.. or even the cost of their government healthcare insurance.

that cost is handled through general taxes to the public.. which means it is not probably calculated in the "cost of healthcare".

JUST as there is a cost to my education. And that cost of education does get passed on to insurance.. and thus to you in a premium. Again.. I can't operate at a loss.

So that cost of education ends up in Americans.. "cost of healthcare"... because its reflected in what we are reimbursed.

however... on other countries.. that pay for their public education, all the way to medical education... the public foots the bill. But its not counted as "cost of medical care"... its falls under "cost of public education".

Which skews the numbers.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

No..not individually they can't. Not with insuranceHeck.. go call your insurance company... find out how they determine rates and find out if a doctor that has higher malpractice can get reimbursed more from them over other physicians that don;t have that malpractice bill.See what you find out. It will be a good education for you. I am pretty sure (positive actually) that you will find that they set the rates and anyone accepting their insurance must accept their rates.

There you go creating straw, it is not what I said. I'm not even going to say how you are wrong because it will make no difference to you.

And also do a little research on what are out of pocket costs. What you will find.. is that if the physician has agreed to accept an insurance.. he has agreed to their rate... and he is not allowed to get any more from you... and your out of pocket costs are for things like copays, deductibles and other things the insurance has agreed with your employer or you.

Complete BS, I have been taking care of of my parents health care/insurance paper work over the last 2 years, often the care provided by their Medicare policy does not cover all of the costs, especially for out patient care (cornea surgery center, nuke cardio, gastro scope....) which would be out of pocket save for a legacy HSA. Yer completely wrong, out of pocket is very common and this again shows that yer supposed involvement in this field is very shallow.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yeah... you don't get it.

There is a cost to malpractice... I do PAY for malpractice insurance... so do other medical providers And in the aggregate.. that cost does get passed on to the insurance company and thus to you. I can't work at a loss.

So yes.. malpractice insurance has a cost.

Well there you are, you just proved my point.

 

[jaeger19]

There you go creating straw, it is not what I said. I'm not even going to say how you are wrong because it will make no difference to you..

Dude.. you are so all over the place.. you have no clue what you are talking about.

Complete BS, I have been taking care of of my parents health care/insurance paper work over the last 2 years, often the care provided by their Medicare policy does not cover all of the costs, especially for out patient care (cornea surgery center, nuke cardio, gastro scope....) which would be out of pocket save for a legacy HSA. Yer completely wrong, out of pocket is very common and this again shows that yer supposed involvement in this field is very shallow.

no.. you just don't know what you are talking about.

Read my quote.

What you will find.. is that if the physician has agreed to accept an insurance.. he has agreed to their rate... and he is not allowed to get any more from you... and your out of pocket costs are for things like copays, deductibles and other things the insurance has agreed with your employer or you.

What this means... is that if your mother goes in for an outpatient procedure. If the physician has agreed to medicare assignment... then he has agreed to THEIR RATE. So if the medicare rate is 3000 dollars. then the physician must accept that as the rate. Now.. since Part B medicare is reimbursed at 80% of the contracted rate.. this means that your parents would have to pay that copay.. of 20%. THATS their out of pocket cost.

The physician.. if they accept medicare assignment.. CANNOT.. go "gee my malpractice went up so I will now get 5,000 for that procedure" and charge your mother the difference between the medicare 3000 and his charge of 5000.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Dude.. you are so all over the place.. you have no clue what you are talking about.

right back atcha...

no.. you just don't know what you are talking about.

Read my quote.



What this means... is that if your mother goes in for an outpatient procedure. If the physician has agreed to medicare assignment... then he has agreed to THEIR RATE. So if the medicare rate is 3000 dollars. then the physician must accept that as the rate. Now.. since Part B medicare is reimbursed at 80% of the contracted rate.. this means that your parents would have to pay that copay.. of 20%. THATS their out of pocket cost.

The physician.. if they accept medicare assignment.. CANNOT.. go "gee my malpractice went up so I will now get 5,000 for that procedure" and charge your mother the difference between the medicare 3000 and his charge of 5000.

First off, yer just nutty if you do not believe that part of formula for compensation to doctors does not include their own insurance costs, reimbursement costs include all costs a doctor has, including your already admitted "malpractice costs". If a doctor has costs above the norm, that include higher malpractice costs, those ARE included in whatever charges are applied to the patient in out of pocket costs.

But this is all a distraction from the point, the point remains that if tort reform was needed because tort was what was driving up costs, then Texas should have seen lower levels of medical cost gains. They did not. Tort was not the driver.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

"and he is not allowed to get any more from you"


Utter BS.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The formula for calculating the payment schedule

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (OBRA 89) geographic adjustment provision requires all three components of the relative value for a service—physician work relative value units (RVUs), practice expense RVUs, and professional liability insurance (PLI) RVUs—to be adjusted by the corresponding GPCI for the locality.

The Medicare Physician Payment Schedule

 

[jaeger19]

First off, yer just nutty if you do not believe that part of formula for compensation to doctors does not include their own insurance costs, reimbursement costs include all costs a doctor has, including your already admitted "malpractice costs". If a doctor has costs above the norm, that include higher malpractice costs, those ARE included in whatever charges are applied to the patient in out of pocket costs.

But this is all a distraction from the point, the point remains that if tort reform was needed because tort was what was driving up costs, then Texas should have seen lower levels of medical cost gains. They did not. Tort was not the driver.

Obviously.. you simply cannot understand.

Whatever....

Yeahhhhhh Gimmmmeeee...

 

[jaeger19]

"and he is not allowed to get any more from you"


Utter BS.

Well.. you certainly never tire of being wrong. Do you gimmee.

Assignment means that your doctor, provider, or supplier agrees (or is required by law) to accept the Medicare-approved amount as full payment for covered services.Most doctors, providers, and suppliers accept assignment, but you should always check to make sure. Participating providers have signed an agreement to accept assignment for all Medicare-covered services.

Here's what happens if your doctor, provider, or supplier accepts assignment:
Your out-of-pocket costs may be less.
They agree to charge you only the Medicare deductible and coinsurance amount and usually wait for Medicare to pay its share before asking you to pay your share.
They have to submit your claim directly to Medicare and can't charge you for submitting the claim.

https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/assignment/costs-and-assignment.html

 

[Gimmesometruth]

and usually wait for Medicare to pay its share before asking you to pay your share.

and he is not allowed to get any more from you

frigging derp

 

[jaeger19]

and he is not allowed to get any more from you

frigging derp

Assignment means that your doctor, provider, or supplier agrees (or is required by law) to accept the Medicare-approved amount as full payment for covered services.

Having trouble with reading comprehension I see there Gimmee..

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Having trouble with reading comprehension I see there Gimmee..

and usually wait for Medicare to pay its share before asking you to pay your share.

is the opposite of:

and he is not allowed to get any more from you

 

[jaeger19]

and usually wait for Medicare to pay its share before asking you to pay your share.

is the opposite of:

and he is not allowed to get any more from you

no its not Gimme. he is not allowed to get any more from you than the medicare rate he agreed to.

As has been posted over and over.

Which contradicts the idea that if his individual costs go up.. he can simply tack on more than the contracted rate.

 

[Aberration]

and usually wait for Medicare to pay its share before asking you to pay your share.

is the opposite of:

and he is not allowed to get any more from you

Paying your share is part of the agreed to cost as jaeger already pointed out. So if the procedure is $3000 and your Medicare is 80/20, then Medicare is paying $2400, and you pay $600. They are not allowed to ask you for $800 because their costs went up.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gimmesometruth]

no its not Gimme. he is not allowed to get any more from you than the medicare rate he agreed to.

As has been posted over and over.

Which contradicts the idea that if his individual costs go up.. he can simply tack on more than the contracted rate.

"more than the contracted rate"....are out of pocket costs, those not covered by insurance. Yer falling back to yer previous argument that out of pocket costs do not exist. This is a condition that only exists in yer brain.

 

[jaeger19]

"more than the contracted rate"....are out of pocket costs, those not covered by insurance. Yer falling back to yer previous argument that out of pocket costs do not exist. This is a condition that only exists in yer brain.

You are just being obtuse now.

See aberrations post.. since you can NEVER agree with me.. no matter how correct I am.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

You are just being obtuse now.

See aberrations post.. since you can NEVER agree with me.. no matter how correct I am.

I'll never agree with the claim that doctors cannot charge out of pocket costs above what insurance covers.....and this is all a diversion from the point at hand, the lack of cost declines from tort reform.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Paying your share is part of the agreed to cost as jaeger already pointed out. So if the procedure is $3000 and your Medicare is 80/20, then Medicare is paying $2400, and you pay $600. They are not allowed to ask you for $800 because their costs went up.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Um, there are "non-participating providers".

Now since yer a self appointed ref, anytime you care to make a call on the tort debate, feel free to chime in.

 

[Aberration]

Um, there are "non-participating providers".

Now since yer a self appointed ref, anytime you care to make a call on the tort debate, feel free to chime in.

There are. It's irrelevant to how the payments work. You're simply wrong. And I guess it hurts?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Tejretics]

The poor. AKA the uninsured.

You cannot have both a welfare state and open borders.

The US doesn't have "open borders."

 

[joG]

The US doesn't have "open borders."

It doesn't. You are right. But it doesn't enforce the rules of entry and repatriation very well either. It has been this illegal behavior by government that is a good part of the Trump victory.