|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Regal cuts employee hours to stay out of Obamacare
|
Chris Slycord
Film God
Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007
|
posted 04-24-2013 03:02 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Going to a theater is optional. You know what the cost is going to be up front and you can decide if you want to buy the snacks or not. In a hospital, you're probably there against your will and there is no "price list" posted for what you're going to pay. And in a theater there is no insurance company, Medicare or whatever that will pay for the inflated costs of things.
To an extent, it's actually the insurance co's and medicare that can increase costs for everything. Those companies will often either reimburse for much lower than what the going rate actually is (thus making people increase costs elsewhere to cover) or take a longer period to pay, thus making it so the insurance gets billed for more than the going rate (since a facility's bills don't wait for the insurance co to reimburse, thus making the wait time itself a cost). And as a ridiculous example of insurance co's increasing costs, if you were to pay for a blood panel to look at food allergies (or the antibodies associated with them), you'd pay roughly $200-300 but because of the way insurance co's want this type of test coded, you end up with a bill to them that's close to 3-4x that going rate. I won't bore you all with the details of why; shoot me an email or something if you want to know it though.
But you're right that in emergency situations, the hospitals don't usually give you their fee schedule and there isn't time to shop around. And I'll add that insurance co's do whatever they can, legal or not, to not pay.
quote: Lyle Romer
1) A "losing party pays" system where the losing party has to pay all Attorneys fees for the defendant and the Plaintiff's Attorney is responsible to pay. That way, a Plaintiff can't get out of paying due to income or assets.
2) Create a special court system for Medical Malpractice where the "Jury" is made up of a committee of Doctors. A Jury does not understand the difference between a mistake and negligence. Sure, a patient should get some compensation for a mistake (to pay to fix it and pay if they can't work because of it). But, mistakes shouldn't lead to ridiculous punitive damage. Now, if a provider is "negligent" then they should pay more and be sanctioned.
One problem with a "losing party pays everything" system is that it assumes that because the suing party lost, the case was entirely without merit. Many cases are arguably legitimate but still result in the person losing. And a vengeful person might know their case is a slam-dunk and purposely hire the most expensive expert they could find just so the other party gets stuck with it. Then, as mentioned earlier, it becomes even more of a "the rich win" situation since now the poor guy who lost also has to pay the rich party's bills.
And I'm with Steve that having a panel of doctors could be problematic, since to an extent you have a "good ole boy" situation. Now, one change to that jury could be to have it be Lawyers who are medical doctors; that way, you avoid having that same atmosphere since these guys are more or less separate from the rest of the regular doctors and it's not entirely unfeasible since medically-trained lawyers are actually fairly common. Then again, medical lawyers get paid a lot more than juries normally get so that could be a big problem to say the least. lol
| IP: Logged
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-24-2013 03:42 PM
So, everybody, pretty much, agrees that the insurance system is broken.
Why, then, does our government propose an even bigger insurance system in hopes of fixing it?
Wouldn't you say that LESS insurance is more logical? Don't you agree that it would be better to have a system where people who can afford it pay reasonable costs for health care then, people who, for no fault of their own, can't afford it get assistance?
As the old saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.
How is the currently proposed solution not considered insanity?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jack Ondracek
Film God
Posts: 2348
From: Port Orchard, WA, USA
Registered: Oct 2002
|
posted 04-24-2013 07:51 PM
This is all very interesting. However, I think the point is being lost.
Regal is being pilloried for having a well-paid CEO, a profitable business and a hard-nosed outlook toward providing health care.
In a previous post, someone pointed out that, given a representative cost of $5,000 per employee, Regal could not offer healthcare to those, now considered full-timers and remain a profitable company.
So, since eveyone here seems to have an opinion on the matter, how much of Regal's $337 million profit should be given over to health care and kept out of the greedy paws of their investors? How many employees could be covered? Who would those employees be? What about the rest of the workforce?
What is an appropriate profit level for a company that grosses just under 3 billion dollars, and exactly what qualifies any of us to pass judgment regarding what those guys should be doing?
The employees who don't like what Regal is offering are doing exactly what they should do... walk. If they can find a better deal somewhere else, then more power to them. If it hurts Regal, then the exodus will motivate them to reconsider their position. If not... then that's business, guys.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 04-25-2013 02:59 AM
quote: Mike Blakesley
You get the idea. There are lots of scenarios but none I've ever heard of that doesn't cost a lot of people money somehow, directly or indirectly.
There is one, but doing it and being honest about it would be about as popular as hiring Gary Glitter to be the principal of a junior school.
That is to admit, and be honest about the fact that not everyone is going to have access to the newest, most state of the art, most expensive healthcare 'products'.
The way this tends to play out in the European government run healthcare systems is that big pharma will come out with a new drug, piece of hardware or procedure that shows promising results but which is eye-wateringly expensive. It is then evaluated by government medical officers, who conclude that the cost-benefit analysis doesn't add up (for example, that treating 50 people for diabetes for a year delivers better value to society and the economy than spending the same money on a new drug that'll keep one terminal cancer patient alive for an extra year), in response to which patients' lobby groups (many of which are backed by big pharma) make a big fuss about it. But ultimately, most people grudgingly accept that there is a finite amount of money in the system to pay for healthcare and that its use has to be prioritised somehow.
This seems a callous analogy, but the brutal truth is that we can't all afford to drive Ferraris, and most people accept that. But we do expect to be able to afford to drive something like a Ford Focus, and when that starts to get difficult (e.g. the price of gas or insurance shoots up to ridiculous levels) that is bad news for society and the economy in a hundred different ways, and very few would deny that it's a problem.
However, healthcare is such an emotional and personal issue that were a politician to say out loud, 'I'm OK letting the cancer patient not live as long, because those 50 diabetes sufferers will probably pay back the cost of their treatment through the tax system as the result of being maintained in better health, whereas the cancer patient won't', he or she would be looking at a career change pretty quickly.
Whether you're looking at a European-style government run system or an American-style one based on commerical insurance products, it seems to me that the only viable way to keep costs down is to take a cold, dispassionate look at what it's possible to provide for what the average citizen is realistically able to pay (be that through taxes or insurance), and cut the cloth accordingly.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 04-25-2013 05:21 AM
quote: Randy Stankey
Wouldn't you say that LESS insurance is more logical? Don't you agree that it would be better to have a system where people who can afford it pay reasonable costs for health care then, people who, for no fault of their own, can't afford it get assistance?
This is exactly what should be done. The problem is that there is no market for healthcare. I don't have dental insurance. When I choose a dentist, I weigh the price and the service and pick the one that meets my cost/benefit analysis the best.
When going to a Doctor I don't do this because it costs the same copay wherever I go. Same with prescriptions. The copay is different based on the "tier" of medication but I can't shop around and price cialis vs. viagara.
The best system would be for "normal" healthcare (like sore throats, caughs, high blood pressure) to be paid out of pocket using some sort of tax free health savings account option. People below a certain income level would get money put into this account based upon the average "normal" cost for a person of their age group. To encourage them to also look for economical care allow them to get a percentage of the balance refunded to them as cash at the end of the year.
Now, for situations like Joe's, everybody should have a catestrophic insurance policy paid out of pocket, throuh their employer or subsidized for those that can't afford it. These policies are MUCH cheaper than the "insurance" we have now.
To make this work, companies must be forbidden from providing the health care "benefits" that they do now (or are required to under Obamacare). The problem is that we talk about health insurance but somewhere along the line "insurance" (which is supposed to protect against unplanned, high cost expenses) turned into "benefits" where everything is paid for by the "insurance" company except for copay/deductibles.
Imagine if food worked the same way and no matter what grocery store you went to you just paid a copay. Do you think the cost of food would go down? I think not!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 04-25-2013 09:19 AM
quote: Lyle Romer
While I agree with you on the size and cost of health care, the key is to figure out where the money is going.
Wall Street. That's where a bunch of the health care dollars are going. Drug companies, biotech companies, hospital corporations and companies who supply various gadgets and consumables to hospitals all fall in that group. And Insurance companies too. These companies are spread around the world -some of them based in countries with so-called socialized medicine. Many of these outfits are publicly traded companies with stock prices that are angrily expected by investors to improve and yield big fat dividends. These investors are found all over the United States and around the rest of the world. Our bloated, cash gouging health care is propping up investors everywhere. Just like our Ponzi scheme housing industry was doing this past decade.
quote: Chris Slycord
To an extent, it's actually the insurance co's and medicare that can increase costs for everything.
I agree with that. But the hospitals themselves do all the price gouging they can regardless if the patient has insurance or not. Often if a patient has no insurance he'll be charged two, three or more times the cost that would be officially billed to the insurance company. And the insurance company pays only a fraction of that official billed cost.
quote: Chris Slycord
One problem with a "losing party pays everything" system is that it assumes that because the suing party lost, the case was entirely without merit.
The biggest problem with a "losing party pays everything" system is the fact it costs a shit-ton of money to even go to court in the first place. It costs a fuck-ton of money to fight a case. Our legal system is a disgraceful joke -especially on the civil end of things. The person or company with the biggest "war chest" of cash can bleed his opponent dry by way of procedural continuances, delays, etc. There is no "day in court" anymore with these types of matters. You'll have more like a year or ten years in court to see something through to a verdict.
Even in criminal law those with money can get away with murder and innocent people who can't afford a good attorney may get railroaded. Add to this the fact too many positions in our legal system are politically elected and thus politically biased.
We do need tort reform, but we need it in a far more fundamental way than what's being talked about now.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The problem is that there IS no solution.
Oh, there are solutions. But none that are going to be universally liked by anyone. The health care situation in the United States is a giant shit sandwich and we're all going to have to take a bite of it. For the past few decades everybody has been pulling various tricks to put off the eventually eating of the foot long turd hot dog.
Costs absolutely must be brought under control. The current situation, even with "Obamacare" passed into law, is not sustainable. This entire nation, not just the government, will go broke eventually if this situation does not change. The math is very crystal clear on this.
Hard choices will have to be made, perhaps even ones that seem immoral.
End of life care is one of the most costly areas of our health care system. It might be the most controversial area. Still, it needs serious re-thinking and overhaul.
Like it or not, the general public absolutely must make it their job to improve and maintain good health and thus reduce risk. Cost reductions in health care are impossible without the public meeting the health care industry halfway by reducing their risks. This notion of Americans just doing whatever the hell they want to do and eating whatever the hell they want to eat and then expecting affordable health care is insane fantasy.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 04-26-2013 09:06 AM
So, why do we need a health care "system?"
We don't have an auto repair system.
If your car breaks down, you take it to a mechanic and he charges you to fix it. If you are in an accident you can use insurance. If somebody crashes into your car, the legal system provides for remedies. If you want to paint your car a different color, if you want to put in a car stereo or soup up your engine there is no authority telling you whether you can or can not do that, provided your car meets the standard for being "street legal." (You can still soup up your car any way you want if you only drive it on a race track or other private property.)
We don't have a home repair system.
If you want to fix up your house, we don't have government authorities telling you whether you can put siding on your house or whether you can build an addition. As long as you meet current building codes, you pay a contractor or go to the home improvement store and buy what you need. If you have a catastrophe, there is insurance and, if there is a natural disaster over a wide area, government backed disaster recovery funds are available.
We all take responsibility for our own houses and cars and we don't need the government to do it for us. Why is health care any more important or any less important than homes or autos? Why does the government need to step in and manage one or not the others?
Why doesn't the government have a "housing system" where homes are built and cared for by government authorities? I guess it's because that would be Communism and Communism is bad. Right?
So, why is having the government taking care of one thing bad but taking care of the other is good? Shouldn't it be good or bad in both cases?
Why shouldn't the government provide me with a car, too?
What needs to be done is to dismantle the system. Do away with comprehensive health insurance. Bring health care costs down to market rates. Make people who can afford it pay for their own reasonable health care costs as the need arises. Help people who can not pay or who are victims of crimes or disasters get the care they need, as they need it.
To start, get rid of comprehensive health insurance. At least, the way we have it now. Let's go back to the way it was when we had hospitalization and accident insurance and use that as a starting point. Then, if we need any kind of a "system" we make it so that it just fills in the gaps where people need it.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic