Brain Surgery | Live Conversation With a Brain Surgeon

coalbear_1, #9;

My, you have an active imagination. You need another dreamcatcher. That comment was all invented nightmare to scare people who didn't read the facts. Social Security was never planned to be privatized. The facts were: the "OPTION" to use a small portion of the employee FICA withholding tax to use for personal investment like an IRA. There was no deduction allowed for the 100% employer matching tax which together funds SSA.

And it's not the republicans who want to create socialized healthcare by dissolving Medicare to worthless care which has already begone before the republicans took the majority in the House.

Sorry Abbey! I wished it was but, there is a group, assembles in DC, of appointees who has been charged with determining what proceedures, Diagnostics, and treatments will be cut. I can't remember the name, off hand, but it'snot called a "death panel" of course. They have been charged with cutting costs to Medicareless from health providers. They say they are not judging individual patients files like HMOs.

BUT, If you're an elder in an auto accident and have a severe head injury? facial reconstruction is considered Plastic surgery and an elective, not covered. If you"re an elder and have a stroke? speech therapy is considered not necessary to relearn to talk and not effective enough, not covered. If you fall down and break a hip physical therapy to recover, not covered. The cost of a wheel chair was reduced 28% in Sept. 2010 and soon to be reduced a further 15%, which increases your cost to get one. If you become ill many diagnostics have been cut which help doctors determine cause and treatment including some blood tests and cancer tests.

This is the same as going back 60 yrs. when science was just begining to accept penicillin for some treatments. Doctors didn't even have names let alone treatments for common diseases curable today.

A large part of health care is "Malpractice insurance" with juries awarding huge amounts for a human mistake even when trivial. Of course, some are not trivial and have caused death by lack of experience or a nurse not keeping up but people have become sue happy for the money and lawyers want a bigger boat. But that's another story.

coalbear_1, #14;

i'm not pisssed at anyone. I've been involved with Medicare since before 2000.

What you are refering to where proposals because everyone in the media was swearing Social Security was going broke (in 50 yrs.)

Nothing was ever passed in the Congress to limit medicare or Social security. It was, as you say kicked down the road, but for another session to do something. Which of course no one did. In the mean time the congress was borrowing from the S.S. fund using Federal reserve notes (IOUs) in replacement for all the pork barrel spending to get re-elected back home.

I or any one else, can prove a non-existant happening. Is there something you have that shows something was passed? A reference in the Congressional records? A bill number that was submitted? Anything? I'd be interested in reading it to find what was written.

Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act.

Go the Library of Congress and see all the amendments (over 7,000) that were passed since the establishment of Medicare. They were usually attached to other bills that has nothing to do with Medicare, hid from the public view.

If you are an economic whiz or a lawyer you can understand it. But a layman can get the jest of it and how it can be easily manipulated.

PAYMENT FOR PHYSICIANS’ SERVICES^[306]

Sec. 1848. [42 U.S.C. 1395w–4] (a) Payment Based on Fee Schedule.—

coalbear_1, #14.2;

Thank you muchly! I'll read it in tne morning when I'm a little more bright eyed and not bushy tailed. I'm neither a whiz or a lawyer but, I've read them a lot and can sorta understand them. After learning some of the terms used. Like the difference between "shall" and "may."

I feel like I've been rode hard and put away wet this time a night.

Goodnight!

coalbear_1, #14.2;

Sec. 1848. [42 U.S.C. 1395w–4] (a) Payment Based on Fee Schedule.—

I’ve read about half so far and must get a brain rest.

However, in the first sec. regarding 1992-94 the schedule of payments was 85% of the “historical fees.” At that same time Medicare was growing rapidly as was medical fees for new diagnostics. While some “scheduled” payments were reduced up to 15% of the 85% paid in 1989, others were raised up to 15% for specialists, and some exclusion was given on case by case for one year.

This may seem like a reduction but it is not. The medical fees being charged were rising much more and the 85% was increasing with it. The limit was 115% of the “historical fees” of 1989, just one year earlier.

Also, during the early ‘90s previously non-covered treatments were added for drug addiction and alcohol treatment and illnesses lasting more than a year compared to two years previously.

So, in fact, medicare was expanding and put a limit on the expansion of Doctors fees to 15% until '94. This was at the same time we had a minor recession in '90-91.

Medicare merged with Social Security in the mid ‘80s. My Fiancée in ’83 was a GS10-7 in Social Security and was bringing stacks of transmittals [information packets] home every week in prep for the transition.

I look at what the medical field charges. I just got a bill for $227 for a 15 minute office visit. That's $7264 for a days work. This is in a office with one doctor, one nurse, and one secretary. Nice! His salary as a thoracic surgeon is $760,000 plus stock options. It's listed by the hospital because they take federal money. Do you think the hospital could have made money at $182?

All this debate boils down to one thing, the medical industry via the insurance companies are ripping off a group of people that are at their mercy, the sick and old. Quality medical care is given to the highest bidder. Need has nothing to do with the bottom line. Sure, doctors ect. should make a good wage but the cost of care is not inline with services. It's sad what greed in the United States has done to people.

coalbear_1, #14.5;

Need has nothing to do with the bottom line.

If you can't meet the bottom line you can't treat people either. And the bottom line here is the cost of keeping the office open. One medical provider I know pays $9,000/mo just for rent plus lights and other utilities. Wages for staff and higher expenses for equipment and supplies. Besides ever increasing Malpratice insurance to pay all the lawyers who want to sue to get a bigger boat.

That bill wasn't just going into the doctors pocket. And maybe you only saw him for 15 minutes but what about the prep to review your case file before? and the post visit report in your records? or the time the nurse spends with you- was that free? I think she gets paid to be there.

Everything in that office supported other workers and all have been paid a portion by the Doctor who has to have them to treat you.

It takes up to 17 people to put a tongue depressor in your mouth. From the logger to the delivery to his office. And everyone one of them wants more money. Which ones should take a cut in pay so you can pay $182 instead of $227.

That is just one item as an example. Do the calculation for everything, supplies and equipment, already there in his office to meet your needs for that 15 minutes. That is the bottom line.

Very valid points Anthony. I would agree if not for what I seen that day. They were remodling the hospital lobby that day. Marble with granite inlay for the floors and 72" TV screens is a bit much for a hospital lobby; so, in my opinion the hospital was wasting a lot of money for PR instead of buying needed equipment.

I'm not saying Dr. Havens was not a good man or not very skilled. He's ranked in the top surgeons of the nation. He will see me next time at 1/2 price. But as he told me he has to answer to the owners. It's the greed and wastefullness of medical alliances that take advantage of a system that was developed to actually help people in need that has driven costs to the moon.

So if we are to cater to the hospital and insurance companies and support their charges we will have to double taxes just to keep up. If we keep paying they will keep raising charges. So please tell me how we can afford to keep feeding the beast? And that beast is not Uncle Sam. I would go with Norway's model or something similar.

How much of an effect would reforming insurance waste and petty litigation have? I believe the ambulance chasers and wasteful insurance billing practices create much of the overhead.

coalbear_1, #14.7;

so, in my opinion the hospital was wasting a lot of money for PR instead of buying needed equipment.

I don't know where you live? But in the State of Washington, State law mandates 1-10% of a Public construction project be spent on Art projects, depending on the size of the construction. All hospitals receive Federal and State funds to partially pay for patient care so it could have been forced to pay for the upgrade in art stuff like pricey floors for "the Public appreciation of Art," AKA! artist welfare.

The State doesn't fund it so the money comes from the fees charged for services.

I would go with Norway's model or something similar.

I go beyond the American media and Listen to the BBC and CBC, read internet English publications from other Countries.

Fact; Every Country currently with Socialized healthcare is experiencing cut backs and increases in taxes to pay for it.

• Norway has a 50% income tax and has been rationing elective surgery, and other services,
• Canada is limiting services and instituted an added premium for 'first in line' care, doctors have left the Country to practice in the US for more income than Canada pays them. Patients on waiting lists for 6 months to a year for surgery come to the States for treatment.
• France has a 46% income tax and an added value tax while still making cuts to healthcare.
• England, Poland, Romania, etc. are all in the same boat.
• I won't even go into the situation in Russia and China, you haven't the time for that info.