WWTBAM Bored

Millionaire auditions are not MAWGs' biggest problem.

Princeton economists Anne Case and Nobel laureate Sir Angus Deaton have won a prestigious award for their work, which includes the 2015 paper "Rising morbidity and mortality in midlife among white non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st century." Their research shows that mortality has increased for middle-aged white non-Hispanic Americans, while it continues to decline for other demographic groups.

Case and Deaton Named Recipients of 2017 Franklin Founder Award

It's interesting that they blame drugs, alcohol, and suicides for the increase.

That doesn't bode well for Donald Trump's re-election chances.

silverscreenselect wrote:That doesn't bode well for Donald Trump's re-election chances.

Yes, considering that most of them will have their health insurance taken away after Republicans replace the Affordable Care Act with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Pastor Fireball wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:That doesn't bode well for Donald Trump's re-election chances.

Yes, considering that most of them will have their health insurance taken away after Republicans replace the Affordable Care Act with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Most of us had it before, and will have better and less expensive healthcare once it is repealed.

Won't be an issue.

BackInTex wrote: Most of us had it before, and will have better and less expensive healthcare once it is repealed.

That's what the proponents of "tort reform" always say, that if they only get their way then people will have lower insurance and healthcare costs.

Except it never does happen that way. The savings go straight into the insurance company and medical industry's wallets.

Bob Juch wrote:It's interesting that they blame drugs, alcohol, and suicides for the increase.

Hard to ignore the fact that 64.7% were wearing blue shirts at the time of death.

BackInTex wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:That doesn't bode well for Donald Trump's re-election chances.

Yes, considering that most of them will have their health insurance taken away after Republicans replace the Affordable Care Act with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Most of us had it before, and will have better and less expensive healthcare once it is repealed.

Won't be an issue.

I think the 20 million people who lose health insurance may see things differently. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:
Yes, considering that most of them will have their health insurance taken away after Republicans replace the Affordable Care Act with ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Most of us had it before, and will have better and less expensive healthcare once it is repealed.

Won't be an issue.

I think the 20 million people who lose health insurance may see things differently. --Bob

You're wrong.

First, you use "insurance" and "care" interchangeably. They are two different things, with "care" being what folks want and need. 20 million people won't lose health care. They will lose the requirement to pay into a plan they may are may not wabt to offset the cost of their care, but for most, it increases their total cost so the few benefit.

Second, many, if not most, of those 20 million don't need or want the insurance. They are fine with paying as they go, as many won't need to pay anything.

BackInTex wrote: Second, many, if not most, of those 20 million don't need or want the insurance. They are fine with paying as they go, as many won't need to pay anything.

Most people don't want or need insurance ... until they need it. It's the same as with homeowner's insurance. We could have saved thousands of dollars over the past 30 years without insurance on the property.

When they do need it, they go to emergency rooms or simply suffer and in some cases die.

A healthcare system that's based on the hope that you won't get very sick isn't much of a system.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Second, many, if not most, of those 20 million don't need or want the insurance. They are fine with paying as they go, as many won't need to pay anything.

Most people don't want or need insurance ... until they need it. It's the same as with homeowner's insurance. We could have saved thousands of dollars over the past 30 years without insurance on the property.

When they do need it, they go to emergency rooms or simply suffer and in some cases die.

A healthcare system that's based on the hope that you won't get very sick isn't much of a system.

You still don't get it. No one goes to the emergency room if they need insurance. The go to the emergency room if they need health care. And they get it. Obamacare or not.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote: Second, many, if not most, of those 20 million don't need or want the insurance. They are fine with paying as they go, as many won't need to pay anything.

Most people don't want or need insurance ... until they need it. It's the same as with homeowner's insurance. We could have saved thousands of dollars over the past 30 years without insurance on the property.

When they do need it, they go to emergency rooms or simply suffer and in some cases die.

A healthcare system that's based on the hope that you won't get very sick isn't much of a system.

You still don't get it. No one goes to the emergency room if they need insurance. The go to the emergency room if they need health care. And they get it. Obamacare or not.

And then they get a $20,000 bill they can't pay so the hospitals and doctors raise their rates to make up for it.

Bob Juch wrote: And then they get a $20,000 bill they can't pay so the hospitals and doctors raise their rates to make up for it.

As opposed to the insurance companies getting the bills and raising their rates?

From a macro economic position, I'll take option 1. Less cost added to the system for me to pay.

And DO NOT make the argument it is more costly to treat someone in the ER than at a Dr. office.

It is not. It is just priced higher.

BackInTex wrote:And DO NOT make the argument it is more costly to treat someone in the ER than at a Dr. office.

It is not. It is just priced higher.

Not if the treatments are exactly the same but ERs have far better diagnostic options.

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:And DO NOT make the argument it is more costly to treat someone in the ER than at a Dr. office.

It is not. It is just priced higher.

Not if the treatments are exactly the same but ERs have far better diagnostic options.

But the cost of the options are relatively fixed. So that cost doesn't go up when someone walks in. The marginal costs are minimal.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:And DO NOT make the argument it is more costly to treat someone in the ER than at a Dr. office.

It is not. It is just priced higher.

Not if the treatments are exactly the same but ERs have far better diagnostic options.

But the cost of the options are relatively fixed. So that cost doesn't go up when someone walks in. The marginal costs are minimal.

But a hospital doesn't factor the charge for buying an MRI scanner into every patient's bill, just those who use it.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: And then they get a $20,000 bill they can't pay so the hospitals and doctors raise their rates to make up for it.

As opposed to the insurance companies getting the bills and raising their rates?

From a macro economic position, I'll take option 1. Less cost added to the system for me to pay.

And how many of those $20,000 bills might have been $200 bills if the patient had regular checkups and took medications?

It's like me refusing to get oil changes because I can't afford the $30 and then wind up with a $2000 bill to replace an engine.

And let's not forget those for whom $20,000 can't fix their problems because they're dead (or permanently disabled) of a treatable illness.

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

BackInTex wrote:And DO NOT make the argument it is more costly to treat someone in the ER than at a Dr. office.

It is not. It is just priced higher.

Not if the treatments are exactly the same but ERs have far better diagnostic options.

But the cost of the options are relatively fixed. So that cost doesn't go up when someone walks in. The marginal costs are minimal.

Actually if you look at the compilations of medical prices, they generally allow less for a procedure in a Facility than at a doctors office.

My specific source is the South Carolina Workers Compensation Medical Services Providers Manual. For example the code 99245 Office Consultation for new or established patient allows $247.00 or a Non Facility provider and $209.00 for a Facility provider

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: Not if the treatments are exactly the same but ERs have far better diagnostic options.

But the cost of the options are relatively fixed. So that cost doesn't go up when someone walks in. The marginal costs are minimal.

Actually if you look at the compilations of medical prices, they generally allow less for a procedure in a Facility than at a doctors office.

My specific source is the South Carolina Workers Compensation Medical Services Providers Manual. For example the code 99245 Office Consultation for new or established patient allows $247.00 or a Non Facility provider and $209.00 for a Facility provider

What someone will reimburse, what someone is willing to pay, has nothing to do with what something costs, other than to influence the provider to manage those costs.

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: And then they get a $20,000 bill they can't pay so the hospitals and doctors raise their rates to make up for it.

As opposed to the insurance companies getting the bills and raising their rates?

From a macro economic position, I'll take option 1. Less cost added to the system for me to pay.

And how many of those $20,000 bills might have been $200 bills if the patient had regular checkups and took medications?

It's like me refusing to get oil changes because I can't afford the $30 and then wind up with a $2000 bill to replace an engine.

And let's not forget those for whom $20,000 can't fix their problems because they're dead (or permanently disabled) of a treatable illness.

You can get your regular checkups and medications for less than the full cost of the insurance. The fact that people don't because they don't want to pay for it (a la they want others to pay for it) doesn't change my facts.

BackInTex wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
But the cost of the options are relatively fixed. So that cost doesn't go up when someone walks in. The marginal costs are minimal.

Actually if you look at the compilations of medical prices, they generally allow less for a procedure in a Facility than at a doctors office.

My specific source is the South Carolina Workers Compensation Medical Services Providers Manual. For example the code 99245 Office Consultation for new or established patient allows $247.00 or a Non Facility provider and $209.00 for a Facility provider

What someone will reimburse, what someone is willing to pay, has nothing to do with what something costs, other than to influence the provider to manage those costs.

The Maximum Allowable Payment number is supposed to be the prevailing charge in the community

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote: The Maximum Allowable Payment number is supposed to be the prevailing charge in the community

Yes, but that is the "charge" side. Nothing says it is required to cost 1/2 or 3 times that rate.

It's like auto repair. They'll charge you the 3 hours it says in the "standards" manual even if it only took them 2 hours, or 4 hours.

BackInTex wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

As opposed to the insurance companies getting the bills and raising their rates?

From a macro economic position, I'll take option 1. Less cost added to the system for me to pay.

And how many of those $20,000 bills might have been $200 bills if the patient had regular checkups and took medications?

It's like me refusing to get oil changes because I can't afford the $30 and then wind up with a $2000 bill to replace an engine.

And let's not forget those for whom $20,000 can't fix their problems because they're dead (or permanently disabled) of a treatable illness.

You can get your regular checkups and medications for less than the full cost of the insurance. The fact that people don't because they don't want to pay for it (a la they want others to pay for it) doesn't change my facts.

How much would your gall bladder removal have cost you if you had no insurance?

BackInTex wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote: The Maximum Allowable Payment number is supposed to be the prevailing charge in the community

Yes, but that is the "charge" side. Nothing says it is required to cost 1/2 or 3 times that rate.

It's like auto repair. They'll charge you the 3 hours it says in the "standards" manual even if it only took them 2 hours, or 4 hours.

About a million years ago in my Human Resources life, we had an employee who was about 50 years old take a very hard fall on a sheet of ice over concrete, breaking his hip in the process. Because of his relative youth, he spent less than half the time in the hospital that 80-somethings with broken hips usually do. The hospital was reimbursed the UCR (Usual, Customary, and Reasonable, or BiT's standard) rate for a broken hip by the insurance company. This was noticed by a non-disinterested employee of a local billing/receivables company, the injured employee's wife. She brought this to the attention of someone on the City Council, who asked the City Manager why our insurance was paying double what a procedure actually cost (she knew very well about UCRs and such, but she had some old grudge against the hospital). I explained the UCR process to the City Manager, but he contacted the hospital anyway, and the VP of community liaison, or whatever the heck her title was, said that they were refunding the difference between the UCR rate and what it actually cost. I thought she was crazy, but I wasn't taking into consideration things like how things like this can land on Page One of the local paper, good will with the City Manager, etc. etc. Mostly it's great to live in a small town, but sometimes you shake your head.