Insured 20 year old man stuck with $11,000 hospital bill

PPC is just another insurer. In MA, we already have non-profit insurers or HMOs. They are still just the payers to health care providers, really no different than any other insurer. And our non-profits had the same problem with high executive pays and big administrative overhead. Saying that they are non-profit means that they make sure to spend all the revenue, sometimes in funny accounting, so that they have no profit in the end. PPPs are the same thing.

 

Why, yes it is.

If you think being a part of the U S society is wrong, then you should not live here.

 

1. Equating it to insurance is like saying paying your mortgage is insurance you'll have a place to stay.

2. It eliminates all third parties and creates a relationship directly between patient and physician. OF COURSE there's going to be someone else handling administration......

 

WTF. Haven't you figured out what insurance is for?

And what do insurers do? You still have someone deciding what to reimburse you for your work.

 

Yes, and in the case of PPC's, you're provided physician care regardless of injury or sickness at a pre-negotiated rate that EXCLUDES ALL third parties.

It's a beautiful free market solution to cut out all the "middle men" don't you think?

Dude..... you need to read up on it a little more. It's a DIRECT relationship between the patient and the physician...... You make the decisions based on the input of your physician.

This will soon catch on at hospitals or hospitals will be coop owned by physicians. The government and insurance will be eliminated completely!

That's assuming the morons in Washington D.C. don't screw it up by getting paid off by the health insurance lobby like they did with ACA.

 

Doctors are paid by a THIRD PARTY.

 

http://www.patientphysiciancoop.com/

So you Didn't read any of the links provided......

 

You can't tell the difference between a promotional blog and the facts.

 

I wonder about that hospital's pricing. What did they do for him that was so costly? Hospitals overcharge in a big way. Let's address that.

 

That's an interesting way to admit you were wrong and have absolutely no idea what you're babbling about.

 

If you can't see that forcing people to participate in your version of society is synonymous with collectivism, you should probably not engage in this conversation.

Being part of society is not wrong. Me relying on you to provide the things I can't and vice verses is quite convenient. This is precisely why the human race has been so capable of the advances we have.

However... 2 people providing for 1 who won't and 1 who can't is your version of society, demanding that without compliance and conformance with your version of collectivism, then people are opposed to the concept of society is simply a weak strawman to avoid discussing the true problem with your opinion.

Its easy in groups for people to take advantage. Let me know when you are interested in actually having a discussion on my perspective rather than just throwing out cheap strawman arguments and dismissive childish cheap shots.

 

A very large part of the problem is that hospitals have to treat the uninsured who cannot pay, and then they have to make up all of that free treatment by over-charging those who can. Then the insurers are contractually entitled to large discounts, so the private pay, that is those who have income or money, bear all of the burden. In addition, if you have a deductible and co-insurance of, say 20%, with a $10,000.00 stop-loss, the pricing is ridiculous to make sure that you reach your stop loss in every possible case. That maximizes your out of pocket, then your insurer gets a large discount afterwards, so you may well wind up paying more than your insurer. In short, the price is very high to you, so you pay your whole $10,000.00 stop-loss, and your insurer gets a big discount. Even if your insurer pays more than you do, they have still maximized your out of pocket because you have no bargaining power and are easily victimized. Both your insurer and hospital benefit from fleecing you.

 

Oh do quote where Hill-Burton requires hospitals to provide unlimited free care to anyone.

Hospitals cannot turn away people for emergency care or vital care.

So again, why should the government provide you universal health care at taxpayer expense and out of the general budget and not carry out their primary function, national security and defense of the nation, in order to do it. Where does the Constitution even authorize such taxation and spending and place it above national security?

 

So you didn't listen to the congressional testimony nor have bothered to listen to any of the health care software experts that have spoken publicly? You are completely oblviously to the cost controversy and overruns just so far? Who do you use for your news sources?

 

You mean the Tax and Spend clause which authorized the federal government to pass taxes to pay for the general welfare of the government and assets and holdings of the United States, not the People? The Constitution then goes on to define what those expenditures can cover, where does it say universal health care for the individual citizen?

No governments are doing it as they can no longer afford unlimited on demand health care for every citizen.

Why do you believe other people should pay for your health care?

- - - Updated - - -

Do you believe national defense is a necessary expense and is it authorized by the Constitution?

 

No how on earth did you read that in my post?

Well try reading more slowly then.

Just answers you can't refute.

ROFL what do you think Obamacare and it's mandates are?

Where did I claim Limbaugh is an authority, please cite the post, even Rubio cite where I quoted him. Are you always in the habit of making these specious arguments rather than respond to a post?

 

Actually it is interpreted to mean the paying of the necessary and constitutionally authorized expenses of the UNITED STATES, which means the federal government not the PEOPLE which are spoken of uniquely and specifically in the Constitution just as are the STATES.

Of the federal government and the assets and holdings of the government and the operation of it's various functions and to pay it's debts.

 

It's called their financial statements and fiduciary responsibility to the owners, the shareholders. If the people running the company are not spending the money and accounting for it properly they will be replaced.

- - - Updated - - -

Online, your brokerage firm or write to them directly for a financial statement. Do you not have investments?

 

And where in the clause does it authorized the government to engage in universal health care?

If it were the federal government needing the health care you might have a point.

Where does it authorize government universal health care? And that is the weight and measurement clause, says nothing about providing health care. The government can set the standard for what a pint is as in a pint of blood or a gram is as in a gram of a drug. Doesn't say anything about paying for it or requiring someone pay for someone else's health care.

It shows they are moving more towards it.

 

Shall we start holding you to the same strict literal interpretations of colloquial phrases? Is that really the best you got?

 

Let's see you dismiss out of hand the Heritage Foundation and then cite Dailykos.........................

 

Where shall I start?

I am not sure where I said "unlimited", but how would you limit it? And I know I didn't say "provide YOU (meaning me?)" with free healthcare, because NO ONE provides ME free healthcare or free anything else, for that matter.

Yes, Hill-Burton requires free vital and emergency care. "Vital care"--is there any other kind? Or does that mean that you stay home until it is vital? Everyone gets treated, whether they get it when they need it or when it becomes expensive.

And I really am not sure what the rest of that means--

"at taxpayer expense"? Does that mean that you see a difference between paying $8,000.00/day for a hospital stay and paying $8,000.00/year in income tax so you don't have to pay $8,000.00/day for a hospital stay?

And since when is the government not carrying out its "primary function" of national security and defense of the nation in order to pay for "our" health care? I have not heard about that.

And the remainder of you questions are answered by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, very succinctly, except that it does not authorize anyone to place it above national security, if that is being done.

 

Oh yes, I absolutely dismiss the Heritage Foundation, mostly because I don't even have to go and read its propaganda to know what it is saying! And I recommend that you dismiss it also.

And, by the way, I only cite the Daily Kos because it cites the original on the book by Dave Berardinelli, reported on by CNN and BusinessWeek. Now, I know that you consider CNN a communist enterprise, but BusinessWeek reported the same without denouncing it.

 

Apparently, he's never hung out in accounting either.

It's their job to account for every penny as uncle Sam isn't real keen on "round a bout" or "estimated" income.

 

I believe some of it is necessary, not all, IE : the Iraq war was not necessary

.