I didn't realize you were religious, DEMOCRAT. It seems like that chart is your Bible or something.
Attacking the source is a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.
Loser.
Healthcare System Needs a Prescription of Competition - Privatize Medicare & Medicaid
- Thread starter hvilleherb
- Start date
I didn't realize you were religious, DEMOCRAT. It seems like that chart is your Bible or something.
Attacking the source is a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.
Loser.
Unless you have evidence that they did, no. I'm not in the habit of "thinking" something unless I see proof that it's so.
Try researching the subject before you let your feminized emotions take over.
Or others charged more for their services to offset the loss.
My annual out of pocket max went up 33% after Obamacare was passed. If an argument in favor of Obamacare was that costs could be reduced if all those going to the ER for basic care had coverage and the rest of us no longer offset the loss of them not paying, why didn't it go down 33% or remain the same?
If those of us with coverage were funding the losses of those without coverage that used the ER or we're funding the subsidies that now allow them to have coverage, what's the difference? One group is still funding the other. It's like the employee vs. independent contractor example with Papa John's pizza. The end result is still the same.
You left out a third option. If someone can't pay, send YOU and the rest of the bleeding hearts the bill since you claim to care so much about them. That way they get what you believe they deserve and you prove to the rest of us your claims about caring are genuine and not just feel good words.
Would the word of a spouse that has worked in that environment for 25 years be enough?
Since laws won't allow specifics about individuals to be released, you'll either have to take the word of someone that is on the inside or refuse to accept the truth.
For the bills that go unpaid, hospitals can try to compensate by charging other patients more. But that doesn’t happen as much as many people – including policymakers -- think.
The authors of the ACA believed that increasing insurance coverage through Medicaid and subsidies for private insurance would lessen the cost-shifting that leads to higher insurance premiums. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts also mentioned that benefit in the 2011 decision he authored upholding the law’s constitutionality. But researchers haven’t been able to document much of a cost shift.
Studying the effects of expanding Medicaid in Michigan – where more than 600,000 gained coverage – researchers at the University of Michigan have found no evidence that the expansion affected insurance premiums. They did, however, document that hospitals’ uncompensated care costs dropped dramatically – by nearly 50%.
Conversely, when Tennessee and Missouri had large-scale Medicaid cuts in 2005, the amount of care hospitals provided for free suddenly increased. A 2015 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated every uninsured person costs local hospitals $900 in uncompensated care costs each year.
This is not a trivial thing for a hospital to deal with. While hospitals average 7% profit margins, uncompensated care costs can be more than 5% of revenue.
Hospitals do get help with the unpaid bills – from taxpayers.
The majority of hospitals are non-profits and are exempt from federal, state and local taxes if they provide a community benefit, such as charitable care. Hospitals also receive federal funding to offset some of the costs of treating the poor.
The ACA scaled back those payments in anticipation that hospitals' uncompensated care costs would go down. The GOP proposals to overhaul the ACA would reinstate the payments.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/03/who-pays-when-someone-without-insurance-shows-up-er/445756001/
The authors of the ACA believed that increasing insurance coverage through Medicaid and subsidies for private insurance would lessen the cost-shifting that leads to higher insurance premiums. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts also mentioned that benefit in the 2011 decision he authored upholding the law’s constitutionality. But researchers haven’t been able to document much of a cost shift.
Studying the effects of expanding Medicaid in Michigan – where more than 600,000 gained coverage – researchers at the University of Michigan have found no evidence that the expansion affected insurance premiums. They did, however, document that hospitals’ uncompensated care costs dropped dramatically – by nearly 50%.
Conversely, when Tennessee and Missouri had large-scale Medicaid cuts in 2005, the amount of care hospitals provided for free suddenly increased. A 2015 study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research estimated every uninsured person costs local hospitals $900 in uncompensated care costs each year.
This is not a trivial thing for a hospital to deal with. While hospitals average 7% profit margins, uncompensated care costs can be more than 5% of revenue.
Hospitals do get help with the unpaid bills – from taxpayers.
The majority of hospitals are non-profits and are exempt from federal, state and local taxes if they provide a community benefit, such as charitable care. Hospitals also receive federal funding to offset some of the costs of treating the poor.
The ACA scaled back those payments in anticipation that hospitals' uncompensated care costs would go down. The GOP proposals to overhaul the ACA would reinstate the payments.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/03/who-pays-when-someone-without-insurance-shows-up-er/445756001/
It's not one of the options they offer.
When laws don't allow the type evidence you must have to be shown, guess you have to continue to do as you do.
It doesn't change the truth. Even you acknowledged that it occurs.
I did, because research indicates that it occurs, not because an anonymous person told me so in an online forum. See the difference?
BTW, as far as I'm aware, unless patient privacy is violated, HIPPA doesn't preclude anyone from proving that hospitals habitually charge paying patients additionally to recoup losses for non-paying patients treated in the ER and then discharged. Is that what you meant?
A study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, found a “minimum and unavoidable” demand for hospital care among the uninsured at an annual cost to hospitals of $900 a patient. Using nearly three decades of data reported to the American Hospital Association, the lead author concluded, “There is a certain amount of care that people have to get, and that appears to be what hospitals are providing in uncompensated care."
“The government is directly saving money, but the hospitals in the state have to pick up the slack,” said Tal Gross, an assistant professor of health policy at Columbia University in New York and a co-author of the study.
An increase in hospitals' uncompensated cost to care for the uninsured does not mean that the hospital is not seeking payment. That's because the study included more than hospitals' cost for patients who receive free or discounted care under hospital financial aid policies. The American Hospital Association data also includes all other unpaid medical bills, known generally as “bad debt.” Hospitals seek to collect those bills, sometimes through collection agencies or legal action.
In separate research using data reported by tax-exempt hospitals to the Internal Revenue Service, the study's authors estimated that 60% of uncompensated care is bad debt.
The remaining 40% is free care under financial aid policies.
http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150623/NEWS/150629964
When the research says the same thing that what you consider an anonymous person says as not reliable, there is no difference. Who do you think provided the data for the research? It's much like it doesn't matter whether Micawber was an employee or Papa John's or an independent contractor. The end result is the same.
HIPPA does prevent the names of the people involved from being provided. Since names can't be provided, wouldn't that mean anything related to them as anonymous and not reliable?
All good questions.
I presume the study and subsequent reports are factual based upon the fact the sources' identities are public. Attribution is important.
Here's why: If there was an issue with their methodology, findings, inferences, or conclusions, the authors of the study would be rebutted. When this happens, researchers' professional reputations are often damaged, sometimes irreparably. That hasn't happened in this case, as far as I know.
On the other hand, relying on anecdotal accounts proceeding form anonymous sources seems to be fraught with occasions for doubt, since an anonymous source has no accountability for the things they supposedly said. That does not mean they didn't say them, or that there is no truth to the story being relayed. It does mean that attribution is absent, and therefore, a sound inference cannot be drawn. In short, anecdotal evidence must be heavily discounted.
The accuracy of research into hospital costs does not depend upon illegally revealing the names of individual patients, does it?
In other words, two sources can say exactly the same thing yet only one is believed while the other is ignored. Doesn't make logical sense.
Unless all the details are given, including names, attribution is absent, and therefore, a sound inference cannot be drawn.
What's wrong with it, DEMOCRAT?
I'll understand if you don't know.
Loser.
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/bois...cca-over-violence-understaffing-go-trial-dec/
I didn't realize you were religious, DEMOCRAT. It seems like that chart is your Bible or something.
Attacking the source is a logical fallacy, but don't let that stop you.
Loser.
^Lower right quadrant
Carmine
Loose Cannon
I have never met a UK citizen, and I've met many, both here and there, who would trade their system for ours.
I, on the other hand, would trade our system for theirs in a minute.
Last edited:
The same with all the Canadians I know.