Sports Injuries and Health Care Politics
Injuries happen even to the best trained athletes. One day you too may need to see a specialist or have a surgery. . . . So you want to buy medical insurance . . . and here begin politics. . . .
Medical insurance is too expensive and going without it is too expensive—because of politicians. Not because of the actual cost of the medical treatments, or insurance cost based on your risks. See for yourself. . . .
First, how politicians have increased the insurance cost beyond reach of many Americans.
Downsize DC shows how on the example of the state of New York, where politicians mandated the medical insurance covers:
* Maternity (even if you are a single male)
* Infertility treatments (even if you don’t want a family)
* Alcoholism therapy (even you don’t drink)
In New York state, if you buy insurance, the law forces you to pay for such things.
Other states are worse.
More at downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/113
and at
downsizedc.org/blog/you’ll+regret+it+for+the+rest+of+your+shortened+life
Second, a story on the actual medical costs.
I had a big surgery on my shoulder. The surgery was covered by my insurance, but I got a copy of the hospital bill for my records. Total charges for the surgery, hospital stay, and so on, came up to $18,335.00. On the bill there are five columns, and the last three deal with charges, payments and adjustments, and patient balance (what I am still due).
In those three columns the bottom line amounts are:
Total Charges 18,335.00
Total Payments 7,134.70
Total Adjustments 11,200.30 (this is the discount the hospital gives to the insurance company)
Amount Due 0.00
All that means that the hospital is perfectly satisfied with the $7,134.70—it covers the expenses of the whole surgery and the hospital’s profit. But if I didn’t have the insurance I would have to pay $18,335.00. Now, imagine what if the hospital charged everybody the same low price. . . . I would not buy insurance coverage for orthopedic or sports injuries, because I could save up enough to cover such accidents, instead of paying several times that much in insurance premiums every year. I would like to buy insurance for truly catastrophic emergencies (a serious illness, a massive injury). Many others would likely do the same, and so insurance companies would have to lower their premiums to make their offer attractive and the health insurance crisis would be solved (assuming no government interference).
Why do you think we don’t hear about such solution from U.S Congress and U.S. President?
Read more, scratch your head, and you will see why. Here is the “more”:
money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama. . . .
downsizedc.org/blog/will+you+be+nationalized
www.independent.org/blog/?cat=11
Request for help:
One of our authors and my friend, Piotr Drabik, has disappeared in September of 2006 after he landed on the island of Kaua’i, Hawaii, where he was seen on airport security cameras. He arrived there from Edmonton, Alberta (Canada), through Salt Lake City, Utah, and Honolulu, Hawaii. We (his friends at Stadion Publishing) were assisting in the investigation of his disappearance. The investigation was ineffective and eventually the case was dropped by all involved authorities.
If you have seen him on or after September of 2006, or know anything about his whereabouts, please e-mail us at infoATstadionDOTcom.
More about Piotr Drabik and his disappearance is at http://www.stadion.com/author_drabikp.html
Filed under: Health Maintenance, Sports Injuries | 7 Comments
Tags: health care reform, medical insurance, sports injuries
(1) All members of society are entitled to some medical treatments;
(2) All members of society will, at some point in their life, need one or more of those medical treatments;
(3) Not all members of society will be able to pay for the cost of their treatment.
To which medical treatments are all members of society entitled?
What is the monetary value of those medical treatments?
Who in society should bear the burden of the unpaid costs?
Is it likely that a majority of voters in the U.S. would agree on answers to those questions?
I don’t think my representatives in Congress or the Ohio General Assembly are the problem. The problem is the problem.
>All members of society are entitled to some medical treatments;
That’s an interesting statement. Why would they be “entitled”? I think a lot of problems we are facing now is because someone somewhere in US thinks they are entitled to something. And there are a lot of those “someones”.
You’re of the opinion that not all people are entitled to CPR from an emergency medical technician if they suffer a heart attack?
So, CSta, you are saying the provision of medical care is basically a human rights issue. The problem of adequate food, shelter and clothing is felt by the poor, as well. Should we socialize the provision of these?
Second question: Yes, and we already do.
Food: food stamps
Shelter: Section 8 housing
Clothing: welfare payments and unemployment compensation.
First question: I think the vast majority of American’s would agree that there are some circumstances under which medical services should be provided to someone who cannot afford them. For example, I think a majority would agree with my statement regarding the following factual fact pattern: A stray bullet from a nearby shooting rips through the chest of a woman pushing her child on a swing. The woman is entitled to whatever medical care is necessary to save her life even if it is known by all involved that she cannot possibly pay for those services.
Determining what other medical treatments a person is entitled to is an enormous question as are the other two questions that have to be resolved: what is the value of those services and what does society apportion the unpaid costs. My point is, these questions are so difficult to answer–they involve issues that go to the heart of society, like basic human rights, the proper function of government, capitalism, socialism, and the value of human life and health–that any solution selected by our legislative representatives will have significant benefits and detriments. Because detriments are inevitable, to blame our representatives for them, to me, ignores the significance of the issues we asked them to resolve.
Second question: I believe the vast majority of Americans would agree that there are some circumstances under which medical care should be provided to a person who cannot afford them. For example, I think a majority would agree with my conclusion regarding the following fact pattern: A stray bullet from a nearby shooting rips through the chest of a woman pushing her child on a swing. The woman is entitled to whatever medical care is necessary to save her life even if it is known by everyone involved that she cannot possibly pay for those services. Determining what other medical services persons are entitled to is an enormous question, as are the two other issues that must be resolved: what is the value of those services and how does society apportion their cost. Resolving those issues is so difficult–they go to the heart of society, like basic human rights, the proper function of government, capitalism, socialism, the value of human life and health–that any resolution will have significant benefits and detriments. Because detriments are inevitable, to fault our legislative representatives for them, to me, ignores the significance of the questions we asked them to resolve.
Second question: Yes, and we already do. Food: food stamps. Shelter: Section 8 housing. Clothing: welfare and unemployment compensation.
thanks for explaining what ” total adjustments” mean. I couldn’t understand at all and googled it for my pops medical bill.