quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
Once a doctor is absolutely sure what the problem is then it should be no problem to quote you

quote:

ORIGINAL: davelinde

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
Once a doctor is absolutely sure what the problem is then it should be no problem to quote you

I guess we don't see these services and issues the same then.

I've been sent by a doctor to see a specialist for a specific test. There was never a question about what the test was supposed to be or why I needed it. The specialist would not even schedule the test until I did the initial consult during which he basically said - the other doctor is right, you should have this test, $25 please (plus whatever my insurance paid him...)

quote:

After the test bills came in from all over the place, trickling in FOR SIX MONTHS. I investigated a little on line and found out that this test has a price of between $3,000 and $12,000 depending on what part of the country it's done (I was charged $9,000 of which I had to pay $900).

quote:

My feeling is that the doctors are oriented towards getting the max out of what insurance will pay them and that the pricing is capricious.

quote:

The current system does not seem oriented towards cost containment in any way and since the consumer costs are spread out all over in both fees we pay (co-pay for services or for insurance) and fees paid by other (eg employer to insurance co and insurance co to service providers) the consumer is not easily able to evaluate what things really cost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: _jjp_
it is not that the consumer can not easily evaluate what things cost it is that they DON"T evaluate the costs anymore because all they see is a co-pay so they don't care. They will ask for more medical care, visit the doctor for every sniffle and they could care less because it always costs them 20 dollars. That is not the fault of the medical industy, that is the fault of we the lazy.

quote:

I knew the doctor's part of the procedure (for 20 minutes work) was $300 so I figured I was fine no matter. What I did not count on was the other $8700 was from a bunch of tacked on fees I should have known to ask about - I know now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady

quote:

I knew the doctor's part of the procedure (for 20 minutes work) was $300 so I figured I was fine no matter. What I did not count on was the other $8700 was from a bunch of tacked on fees I should have known to ask about - I know now.

THIS IS exactly why I and others are against Obama's/Congress's Healthcare Reform for 'Preventive - Wellness Care'; under 'Sick-Care', as we have always had in this Country, that $8700 would not have been tacked on, nor would you have had to ask; it would not have been done without your upfront knowledge of the reason for it and your permission, nor your knowledge of the cost to you. I'll take 'Sick-Care and/or 'Emergency-Care' thank you. In fact, I think we should have a choice in which type Care we personally want.

Edit to add:

Of course, I’ve had well-over $10,000.00 worth of Tests; I got my ‘Death Sentence’, 8 years or so ago. “For what you have, there is no medicine, no therapy, nothing --- there is NO-Cure!!” So all I personally have a need for is general over-all ‘sick-care [strep-throat or such things] and/or emergency-care [a broken bone or such things].’

Yet when one stops and thinks about it, we all get a 'death-sentence' the day we are born --- no-one lives in a human body, of blood, flesh, and bones, forever.

quote:

This is preventive/wellness care and most insurance companies promote it as a way of keeping costs lower.

quote:

From the way davelinde described the test, that also sounds like preventive/wellness care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady

quote:

This is preventive/wellness care and most insurance companies promote it as a way of keeping costs lower.

And you believe it does? I don't!!

quote:

From the way davelinde described the test, that also sounds like preventive/wellness care.

Yes, it did to me too, that's why I said "under 'Sick-Care', that $8700 would not have been tacked on, nor would you have had to ask; it would not have been done without your upfront knowledge of the reason for it and your permission, nor your knowledge of the cost to you."

quote:

Diagnosing cholesterol problems and following a treatment plan is much cheaper than suffering heart attack, having intensive care treatment and subsequently following a cholesterol and heart treatment plan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady

quote:

Diagnosing cholesterol problems and following a treatment plan is much cheaper than suffering heart attack, having intensive care treatment and subsequently following a cholesterol and heart treatment plan.

I would love for you to tell me about all the people that I knew who did the entire preventive and wellness care thingy; from eating right, to regular exercise fitness programs, to regular check-ups, who did everything in their power that was accordingly humanly possible to stay in good health --- that were with-in days of their check-up, which all were ‘Good” --- yet without any warning each one keeled over dead from a massive heart-attack; if it’s so blasted good what happened to these people? They did everything Right!! One being my best girlfriend, another the Top cardiologist at C.C. Hospital, and others (I can count 18 in the last 3 years)--- all ranging in ages from 43 to 60, male and female, all but one were white.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pat-rebel_lady

quote:

This is preventive/wellness care and most insurance companies promote it as a way of keeping costs lower.

And you believe it does? I don't!!

quote:

From the way davelinde described the test, that also sounds like preventive/wellness care.

Yes, it did to me too, that's why I said "under 'Sick-Care', that $8700 would not have been tacked on, nor would you have had to ask; it would not have been done without your upfront knowledge of the reason for it and your permission, nor your knowledge of the cost to you."

quote:

ORIGINAL: RosieCotton

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/33217642#33217642

Very wonderful in this whole debate!

quote:

...after lawmakers eased up on the requirement that all Americans get coverage.

quote:

The industry has worked for months behind the scenes to help shape health care reform. Unlike the 1990s, when it contributed to the failure of President Bill Clinton's health overhaul, the insurance industry has been attracted by the promise of millions of more people getting coverage. Translation: millions of new consumers buying policies.

quote:

The chief reason, said the report, is a decision by lawmakers to weaken proposed penalties for failing to get health insurance. The bill would require insurers to take all applicants, doing away with denials for pre-existing health problems. In return, all Americans would be required to carry coverage, either through an employer or a government program, or by buying it themselves.

But the CBO estimated that even with new federal subsidies, some 17 million Americans would still be unable to afford health insurance. Faced with that affordability problem, senators opted to ease the fines for going without coverage from the levels Baucus originally proposed. The industry says that will only let people postpone getting coverage until they get sick.

quote:

The bill would require insurers to take all applicants, doing away with denials for pre-existing health problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time

Why can't anyone buy insurance across state lines? Simple question. Doubt if there's a simple answer, since the feds have something to do with it.

How will this help the USA with jobs? Hasn't helped all the other countries with "free" healthcare

quote:

For the millions of Americans who get insurance on their own rather than at work, their state of residence plays a central role.

That's because individual health insurance plans are state-regulated. What one person can buy in Pennsylvania is different than what's available in other states.

The law dates to 1945. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled insurance could be regulated by the federal government, Congress voted to allow states to regulate insurance. Insurance of all kinds -- car insurance, homeowners insurance, life insurance and health insurance -- fall under the act.

Now one aspect of the ongoing debate over how to reform the country's health care system is whether to allow individuals to buy insurance across state lines.

Competition, supporters of the idea argue, would increase. Prices would fall.

So too would quality, opponents counter. State regulations vary, with each state imposing its own rules about what insurance must cover. .........

quote:

ORIGINAL: its_GO_time
How will this help the USA with jobs? Hasn't helped all the other countries with "free" healthcare

quote:

ORIGINAL: stampinlady

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_hl951

Don't know if this has been psoted already, but .....

quote:

ORIGINAL: tacitus
Such a thing would be unthinkable in the country I come from -- the UK -- you know, where we have that eeeeeeeeeevil National Health Service. And don't forget the baby who was denied cover because he was too large. I guess being born is now a pre-existing condition.

quote:

For Congress and the administration to keep the promise of comprehensive health care reform, they will have to find the political will to pay for universal coverage and other investments that are needed right away but will not produce quick savings. The cost could reach $1.5 trillion over the next decade. President Obama, who had already proposed some $634 billion in new taxes and spending cuts, endorsed additional ideas last week. But Congressional Democrats will almost certainly need to come up with a lot more money — and that is likely to mean new taxes.

There are at least two easy ways to duck the problem should Congress choose to be imprudent. One way out would be to abandon the goal of universal coverage until after costs have been controlled. That would be unfair to the 46 million uninsured Americans, who often suffer health damage because they are reluctant to seek treatment until their plight becomes desperate. ......

Last week, Mr. Obama said he would work with the Senate to find $200 billion to $300 billion more in Medicare and Medicaid savings. He endorsed one way to ensure that cuts would actually be made — saying he was open to giving an obscure panel, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, enormous power to set Medicare payment rates. That would insulate Congress from lobbying by every group whose income might be reduced.

Mr. Obama said he was receptive to proposals that would require most Americans to take out health insurance and most employers, except for small businesses, to share the cost. Both would pump money into the system and help defray the costs of reform. ........

quote:

ORIGINAL: solo_soprano23

Ah, Tac, we get denied because we have babies that are too large, kids who are too skinny, happened to get raped and contract an illness (from the attacker), have acne... You have to play a game to get insurance and keep it. It seems like most of the time, the game is to not be born to begin with. IMO, they have too much power, and the business end has taken over. I can't blame a business for covering their behinds, but that means that people die and don't have healthcare-- so they can cover their behinds.

quote:

IMO, they have too much power, and the business end has taken over.