Jim Dudley

Jim Dudley 1 month, 1 week ago on Jim Dudley: Rearranging the deck chairs

I think Scott says it best and most concisely -- everyone is covered ( everyone has health insurance) and younger and healthier do have to pay more than their share (for that time of life).
Health premiums have been going up by double digits for most of the 30 years I have been purchasing insurance for our practice. ACA did not "fix" that but it also did not "cause" it. The only solution is for both sides to get serious, quit playing to their more radical bases and figure out a way to cover everyone (and I'm sorry but that will require some mandates). At the same time begin to truly look at why costs are so high, what we can do to decrease them and how to place some limits.

0

Jim Dudley 1 month, 1 week ago on Jim Dudley: Rearranging the deck chairs

Ken, I have a serious doubt that our current system is ecomically sustainable. There do need to be limits to costs. We currently set those by a persons economic situation. Can limits be set in a single payer system? I believe so and think it can be done in a much more fair manner.
Eric, there is already a significant amount of charity that is helping. But understand the incredible stress and anxiety that occur with the discovery of a major medical problem. Not just the major medical issue, but the concern and worry about payment, bankruptcy, etc. Charity can NOT fill the void when there is a major injury and months and years are spent in the hospital.
Fred I did not say "free" medical care. It has to be paid for somehow. There are many models that are working in other developed societies. Co pays, etc are a very reasonable part of those systems. The big question is do we as a society want to help those less fortunate or just say "tough luck"

0

Jim Dudley 1 month, 1 week ago on Jim Dudley: Rearranging the deck chairs

and I don't prescribe narcotics or antibiotics -- just an example of how a "competitive, free market provider" might increase his market share.

0

Jim Dudley 1 month, 1 week ago on Jim Dudley: Rearranging the deck chairs

I do have a differnt take on the economics of health care. Most things we buy we have significant time to research, we understand what we are buying, there are very clear cut parameters on what we are looking for.
When you become ill, have an accident the time line is incredibly shortened. You generally do not have a good understanding or knowledge of the product (medical service) you are buying. Shopping around is quite difficult and often impossible.
I agree that the cost of many services (lasik for example) have come down due to competition. But understand it is a very technologically driven procedure (computer cost, instrument cost) and there is ample time to decide where to go. A free market means some go without. As a citizen and caring person I can not in good faith allow a 3 year with cancer to go without treatment because the parents did not get insurance, and I can list examples for pages. Sure, eventually she will end up in the ER (multiple times) amd guess who pays for that. You and I in our insurance. Why not simple agree she needs care, provide a method for payment that is assured and people do not spend their lives in fear of an impending medical disaster that will ruin their lives and family.

0

Jim Dudley 1 month, 1 week ago on Jim Dudley: Rearranging the deck chairs

Hi Matt, That was the point I was trying to make. People have a very difficult time actually knowing what is appropriate medical care for even a simple thing like a sprain ankle. You would be surprised how many people ask for and are angry when they are not prescribed narcotics or antibiotics. But if I "please" them then I have won the competitive battle for a patient. NOT to the benefit of society. Now increase the complexity to heart surgery, knee surgery, etc and you begin to understand why "competition" is not a significant way to decrease medical costs.

0

Jim Dudley 1 month, 1 week ago on Jim Dudley: Rearranging the deck chairs

Hi Lock, I'm in Hawaii working at a rural federally funded clinic. I'll talk to some people at Steamboat medical and see if I can get that. I'll also check out here to see (but doubtful) In reality it is almost like industrial espionage to actually find out what is actually paid for a procedure. When I was still at SMG we hired people to do our negotiating with insurance companies and I really never knew what got paid for a procedure. It was an incredibly complex system. Again, without a single payer system I'm not sure you could get a true cost (what is actually paid) for a procedure as EVERY practice and EVERY insurance company may have a different amount paid for EVERY procedure. Incredible number of permutations

0

Jim Dudley 3 years, 6 months ago on Joe Meglen: Antithesis of freedom

I always enjoy reading the comments but I finally need to chime in. The health care debate is often vociferously debated by people who do not have a lot of experience in the field, or experience as a patient or caregiver. I will be the first to admit that the health care system is broken. An attempt has been made to correct some of the more onerous problems but the ACA is certainly not perfect. But statements to the effect “health care system that provides incentives for individuals to transfer the burden of their individual health care onto everyone else” is simply inflammatory and certainly shows no compassion for the MANY people in our society who have illnesses that have nothing to do with life style. It amazes me how many people who demonize the ACA can find nothing positive in the law. Can you really argue that a 24 y/o college student can now get on parents insurance. Is it against “freedom” to allow someone with a preexisting condition to get insurance like everyone else. Both are provisions in the ACA. How can you rail against an attempt to rectify a system that bankrupts people who develop illness and injury that are not life style related? The law is NOT perfect but it is an attempt and needs compromise and thoughtful discussion. I know people who would be headed toward bankruptcy in the old system in spite of being living a very healthy life style, having health insurance, funding kids college funds, buying a house they could afford -basically model American citizens. They would never be able to get insurance again – now they can. They may have hit a lifetime maximum – now that is one less worry. All because of some changes in health care laws. Trashing the current law and starting over is not the answer (although I would agree that starting over with a whole new congress might be beneficial) .

0