Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Health Plans Much Costlier for Docs in U.S. Than Canada: Study


DRSmith

Recommended Posts

The cost of dealing with health insurers and payers is nearly four times higher for U.S. physicians than for Canadian physicians, a new study finds.

The extra time and labor required to deal with health plans annually is $82,975 for U.S. physicians and $22,205 for physicians in the Canadian province of Ontario, according to Dante Morra of the University of Toronto and colleagues.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/managing-your-healthcare/insurance/articles/2011/08/04/health-plans-much-costlier-for-docs-in-us-than-canada-study

Seems to me now is the time to overhaul the US healthcare system, cut costs to solve budget problems lower the cost and doing business and the Pubs can do to say they are killing Obama care, that will show him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Open up the state border limits and you solve much of that

And usurp the powers of the states granted to them by the Constitution (all powers not specfically given to the federal government are not the federal governments)?

How unRepublican of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And usurp the powers of the states granted to them by the Constitution (all powers not specfically given to the federal government are not the federal governments)?

How unRepublican of you.

Lincoln killed the Republic....didn't ya get the memo?:silly:

Powers voluntarily surrendered cannot be usurped(see Congress delegating war powers to POTUS)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lincoln killed the Republic....didn't ya get the memo?:silly:

Powers voluntarily surrendered cannot be usurped(see Congress delegating war powers to POTUS)

Yeah, I got it. I wasn't sure you guys down in TX had gotten it yet (or thought maybe it just got dropped from the history books there). :)

I'm not sure of the analogy between health care and the war powers act. Maybe I missed something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And usurp the powers of the states granted to them by the Constitution (all powers not specfically given to the federal government are not the federal governments)?

How unRepublican of you.

How exactly would this not fall under the commerce clause, since that is exactly what state laws are impeding - interstate commerce? (I assume you are being sarcastic, but I want to be certain.)

The best reform the US could and should put forward is a uniform set of insurance laws that ends individual state regulations, and as part of that, require a transition over to universal forms. It's no secret that Drs have to hire all kinds of help to deal with all the variety of hoops thrown up by different insurance agencies, and big business and trade unions lose a lot of their bargaining position when they have to split their employees/members into separate health care plans dependent upon state of residence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure of the analogy between health care and the war powers act. Maybe I missed something.

Have the states vote to allow it....if you can show them benefiting it should be no problem.

The healthcare reform already is planned to usurp that power(one of the many reasons so many states are opposed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely--those people need to learn English. After all, most folks in the tailgate already speak Farce-y. :pfft:

:silly:

It would cost a hell of a lot less than bombing and occupying them. What would we do with all of that money?

it was more snarky commentary on the state of the GOP and Tea Party and their whining and fit-throwing at any mention of domestic spending, while meanwhile we leveled and then rebuilt two countries under their Dear Leader with narry a peep from any of them.

Actually, I bet if Iraq had universal healthcare with the US footing the bill, the Tea Party would be fine with it. As long as there was a white republican in office.

As for the OP- Economies of Scale is a basic economic concept, and one that every western nation seems to grasp with one exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How exactly would this not fall under the commerce clause, since that is exactly what state laws are impeding - interstate commerce? (I assume you are being sarcastic, but I want to be certain.)

The best reform the US could and should put forward is a uniform set of insurance laws that ends individual state regulations, and as part of that, require a transition over to universal forms. It's no secret that Drs have to hire all kinds of help to deal with all the variety of hoops thrown up by different insurance agencies, and big business and trade unions lose a lot of their bargaining position when they have to split their employees/members into separate health care plans dependent upon state of residence.

I guess I'm not actually convinced that state regulations are really that much of a problem based on a few things:

1. There are small countries out there, smaller than some US states, that seem to offer healthcare w/o as much of an issue as we have.

2. If this was true, than healthcare costs in many larger states should be much lower than in other states. That might be true, but from my moving around, it doesn't seem to be the case, and it would be easy evidence that this argument was true, and I've never seen anybody present it as such.

3. There are lot's of things where states have independent regulations that don't nationally have the same issues as healthcare insurance. Car insurance might be expensive in certain states, but is isn't going up faster than inflation nationally.

I guess I don't doubt that state regulations add some costs. I just don't think they are really the real driver of the problem.

---------- Post added August-5th-2011 at 01:15 PM ----------

Have the states vote to allow it....if you can show them benefiting it should be no problem.

And states can't do that now? MD and VA can't get together now and pass laws so that they co-recognize insurance policies, companies, and laws?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And states can't do that now? MD and VA can't get together now and pass laws so that they co-recognize insurance policies, companies, and laws?

of course they can...kinda makes ya wonder why they don't.

oh wait, they would lose control and rewards reaped from exclusivity(ya might look close at states that severely limit competition for answers there)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

of course they can...kinda makes ya wonder why they don't.

oh wait, they would lose control and rewards reaped from exclusivity(ya might look close at states that severely limit competition for answers there)

This is one of those things that don't make sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Republicans are claiming the same solution to what seem to be opposite problems.

We need fewer state regulations, which will mean less exclusivity and more competition.

But more competition means more companies and more healthcare plans, which means more overhead, yes?

You seem to be arguing that the same action will relieve two different problems, which are essentially opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those things that don't make sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Republicans are claiming the same solution to what seem to be opposite problems.

We need fewer state regulations, which will mean less exclusivity and more competition.

But more competition means more companies and more healthcare plans, which means more overhead, yes?

You seem to be arguing that the same action will relieve two different problems, which are essentially opposite.

You make a good point. Deregulation fixes most things, but might have to throw in a few tax cuts to fix everything right up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I don't doubt that state regulations add some costs. I just don't think they are really the real driver of the problem.

It is not the real driver of the problem.

But it is the only solution that conservative pundits are willing to discuss, (well, along with restricting tort lawsuits), so in some people's minds multiple state regulation must be the real problem.

The real problem is fee-for-service billing, and the ridiculous private insurance industry bureaucracy it creates and supports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of those things that don't make sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that Republicans are claiming the same solution to what seem to be opposite problems.

We need fewer state regulations, which will mean less exclusivity and more competition.

But more competition means more companies and more healthcare plans, which means more overhead, yes?

You seem to be arguing that the same action will relieve two different problems, which are essentially opposite.

Competition reduces costs to the consumer,making standardized billing a condition is a fair trade and a cost saving to providers....needing fewer foolish regulations is not the same as no regulation.

Predicto...I'm always willing to discuss socialistic basic healthcare for the masses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...