Caution, Socialism at Work

Universal health care is a wonderful consideration, but the political dogma doesn't match up with results.  

We were told the U.S. was the only civilized nation that did not have free health care. 

So?

Is free better?

Half of nurses are working through breaks or beyond their shift, revealing a health service under severe strain

Three out of five of those questioned felt that staff numbers led to lower standards of care, while almost half said they were looking after eight or more patients.

Guardian

And this is good in what way?

"Despite all the government rhetoric, despite the Francis, Keogh and Cavendish reports, the spectre of another Mid Staffs still looms large over theNHS. Progress on safe staffing levels has been glacial and that means poorer care and patients still at risk.

"It's clear that despite nurses working through breaks and beyond their hours, they simply do not have enough time to give patients the care and attention they need. That is distressing for patients and for the staff trying to care for them.

Government rhetoric.

Has a familiar ring . . .

"The government needs to face up to the damage it is inflicting on patients and staff, by not introducing legally enforceable nurse-to-patient ratios, and take urgent action."

So a problem created by the government needs a government fix?

Egad. It's worse than I thought. Does Britain have low information voters too?

Stupid is as stupid does.

Goodbye Shecantbeserious, Hello Burntwell

While I realize that it's not a "done deal," the latest from DC tells us that the ObamaTax is in the very best of hands:

"[Burntwell] testified “in laborious detail about what she had found in Mr. Foster’s garbage on the night he died.”

Dumpster-diving Diva Burntwell seems to be eminently qualified to continue the ObamaTax.

Split Personality

The creators of Obamacare envisioned a massive overhaul of the U.S. health care system that

would insure millions. Noble idea, long on grand intentions, short on effectiveness.

Liz Linton feels stuck in health insurance limbo. She has policies protecting herself and her husband, but no coverage for her two children. "They pretty much told me I'm out of luck," said Linton. "If something happens, you're responsible for the bill." On December 16th, the Goreville mother met with an enrollment counselor. She discovered her children qualified for the All Kids state program.  "I signed up," said Linton. "She told me it would probably be a month or two before we hear anything." However, two months have now stretched into more than four. Her youngest child also came down with a case of bronchitis.

WSLITV

The Medicaid angle isn't working so well. Too many people want free health insurance.

But Mrs. Linton should share some of the blame. Open enrollment started October 1, but she waited until December 16 to start the process.

She rolled the dice and lost.

Cavalcade of Risk #206: Call for submissions

Dennis Wall hosts next week's Cav. Entries are due by Monday (the 14th).

To submit your risk-related post, just click here to email it.

Dennis would specifically like to see posts about residential mortgages, force-placed insurance, the participants in the mortgage process, the participants in securitization of mortgages.
You'll need to provide:

■ Your post's url and title
■ Your blog's url and name
■ Your name and email
■ A (brief) summary of the post

PLEASE remember: ONLY posts that relate to risk (not personal finance tips and the like). And please only submit if you are willing to link back to the carnival if your submission is accepted.

Patrick's in The Federalist (Again)!

For the second time in as many months, co-blogger Patrick has penned a post for The Federalist. This time, he discusses O'Care's impact on Employer-based (ie group) health insurance plans:

"Now that there is a tax for not having it many have simply added on to their employer’s plan. As shown in the Kaiser Employer Sponsored Benefits Survey from 2013, small employers foot a significant portion of the premium."

Definitely read the whole thing.

Is your healthcare different today than it was yesterday?

The Center for Medicare services has released how much it paid doctors in the year 2012. The big news is that one doctor in Florida made a lot of money:

“Medicare paid a tinygroup of doctors $3 million or more apiece in 2012. One got nearly $21 million.”

Let’s take a look at these doctors based on CMS own data: “a small sliver of the more than 825,000 individual physicians in Medicare's claims data base — just 344 physicians — took in top dollar, at least $3 million apiece for a total of nearly $1.5 billion.”

So if only 344 physicians earn the top dollar out of 825,000 physicians how much did the other 824,656 physicians make?

“The median payment — the point at which half the amounts are higher and half are lower — was $30,265.”

While we don’t know what the other physicians made, we do know that the median amount paid to all physicians was $30,265. Medicare makes up about 30% of the payer mix for an average physician’s office. So what we can concur from this information, from the most transparent administration in the history of America, is that 30% of a physician’s revenue was approximately $30,000. Does this information in any way change how you choose a doctor?

“Employers, insurers, consumer groups and media organizations pressed for release. Together with other sources of information, they argued that the data could help guide patients to doctors who provide quality, cost-effective care”

An argument for releasing this information is so consumers can be better educated on choosing their doctors based on how much Medicare pays the doctor for the service provided. One piece of insight already data mined from all this information is that Medicare pays for cataracts and cancer treatment.

“In the $3 million-plus club, 151 ophthalmologists — eye specialists — accounted for nearly $658 million in Medicare payments, leading other disciplines. Cancer doctors rounded out the top four specialty groups, accounting for a combined total of more than $477 million in payments.”

So using the rationale that this data will allow consumers better decision-making on choosing physicians, are we shocked that Medicare -  insurance for the elderly - pays out a significant amount of money for cataracts and cancer treatment, both illnesses of the elderly?

Having been both a provider and an administrator in the medical field for close to 15 years, what this information tells me is that doctors are for the most part underpaid by Medicare. If the median amount is $30,000 that any one physician makes in treating Medicare patients and the Medicare population is rising, then it is obvious that the reimbursement rates are lowering. This is exactly what is been happening since the year 2003 with a Medicare fee schedule that, while it does not cut, it does not give raises. As a medical administrator, all this information has done is prove to me that Medicare is not adequately paying for the work performed by physicians.

When failure is achievement

To remind us how little they really know about health insurance the Obama Admin decided to brag about a failure thinking they did well;

"White House officials were quick to point out the many successes during Ms. Sebelius’s tenure: the end to pre-existing conditions as a bar to insurance"

In the dark ages prior to ACA an individual could buy an insurance policy any time they like. No matter the month if you wanted insurance you could buy it. If you waited till you were sick you might pay more. A very small group of people were denied or had to enroll in high risk pools. But 85 to 90% of the population could buy any time they liked.

Now that ACA is in place and open enrollment closed unless you have a qualifying event you can't buy insurance no matter what, and that applies to 100% of the population.

That is progress under the Obama Administration.