Nov
10
Is universal health care just a quicker way to pay hospitals for unpaid bills?
By
Question: Since the government is constantly bailing out hospitals loss of funds due to unpaid bills. Seems that universal health care would just get right to the point and get the hospital paid.
You never heard of hospital bailouts.
Google Hospital Bailouts.
3 Comments
November 10th, 2009 at 7:14 am
They’ll handle it like they do Medicare — never pay or settle for 1/2 of what they owe. Doctors can’t stand Medicare…b/c they don’t get paid.
_________________________________________________
Edit:
As per quiz’s response, Canada just received a multi-billion dollar bailout as hospitals are closing their doors now faster than they’re being built.
UHC is great on paper — but when people don’t exercise restraint (going for scrapes/bruises/small cuts etc.) and the government paying less than what it costs to treat patients, hospitals can’t stay in business. It’s happening in Europe as well — they just keep throwing more money at the system rather than taking a step back and realizing costs are only going to increase.
In addition, there is a huge concern that the government offered insurance will be treated like Medicare where the government gets special pricing/billing treatment, essentially undercutting the hospital expense. In order to compensate, the hospital is forced to shuffle that expense to someone willing to pay it — private industry — pushing up their premiums and eventually requiring them to close shop. When all is said and done, the only option will be Government provided health care and we’ll be on the gravy train to bankruptcy. Medicare is 40 billion in debt and will be 20 trillion (with a T) in debt in approximately 50 years if we don’t:
1. Raise taxes to pay for it (Medicare was included in Obama’s Stimulus…won’t be the last time)
2. Reduce User benefits – which they’re openly talking about.
Some thought should go into finding other ways to reduce costs to the user…that includes slimming the billing departments and other bureaucracies portrayed in your answer.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:13 am
A few years ago, a TV news show (perhaps 60 minutes, it was a real news show, not Fox) did a bit about comparing Canada and US health care. One of their segments was on billing. Comparing a hospital in Detroit with a similar sized facility in Vancouver. The US hospital had a large multi story complex devoted to billing. Compiling bills, sorting, sending out letters, collecting incoming payments, the whole shebang. In contrast, the Canadian hospital had three clerks in one small office.
So yeah, getting bills paid through a universal system is much easier, cheaper, and more efficient. Think about, health care costs included that building and all the people working away inside.
That said, I don’t really think the government is ‘constantly bailing out’ hospitals. Hospitals in the US do very well, thanks, and don’t need much in the way of bailouts.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:38 am
I’m not aware of the government bailing out any hospitals.
So, since they aren’t doing that, universal health care will not solve that problem, because it doesn’t exist.
Quizzard is more on point, but I ask him this: if we deregulated health care providers and forced them to compete across state lines, don’t you think they’d find ways to cut costs, especially administrative? Universal health care is not the one and only solution.