From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,talk.politics.misc,ba.politics
Subject: Re: Medical costs for various groups (was 'tolerance')
Date: 30 Sep 92 00:06:24 GMT
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Phil Ronzone) writes:
|> Michael Polen) writes:
|>     >So there are very few uninsured (see recent posts correcting
|>     >me) but these people are responsible for 99.02% of the cost
|>     >of medicine in hospitals.
|>     >
|>     >It would seem apparent from this information that if we all
|>     >chipped in and paid the health insurance for the 10 million
|>     >uninsured, we could cut hospital bills by 99%. Somehow I
|>     >think Phil's post demonstrates that having facts may protect
|>     >one from ignorance but don't guarantee the ability to process
|>     >the data usefully. -- These opinions are usually my own,
|>     >sometimes my dog's, occasionaly my (grown) children's, never
|>     >my employer's.
|> 
|> Where do you get this bizarre data?
|> 
|> First, insurance is normally on a per family basis, in which case,
|> if we use your figures of 10,000,000 uninsured we have more like
|> 12% uninsured.
|> 
The numbers posted were that there were approximately 40,000,000
persons (not families) without medical insurance, and that only
10,000,000 of them were unable to get medical insurance.  The
remaining 30,000,000 were able to afford medical insurance but
decided not to -- it was stated that these were mostly young
adults (I assume with the ususal dose of feelings of immortality
common at that age).

Medical insurance coverage included all of the medicaid programs that
the poor have access to.

So, for the record, I am assuming that most of the 30 million are not
a major factor in health costs.  This says that 10,000,000 are the
uninsured that are running our medical system costs through the roof.
This < 4% of the population is supposedly responsible for 99.02% of
the cost of the an asprin given in a hospital.

Frankly, this sounds a little far-fetched to me, but that is what
the anti-national-health-insurance folks are telling me.

In reality, there are other factors at work.  First of all, many of
those covered by medicaid can't even afford the co-payment, and 
are therefor unable to get the medical care they are supposedly 
covered for.  Next, hospitals have a lot more reasons that raise
health care costs, with lawyers, expensive equipment for competitive
reasons, the health insurance company profit, and the best paid
doctors in the world all contributing.

I am only trying to help one individual learn how to use data
properly.  I think that most of our readers new how ridiculous
is was to blame $75.25 of a $77.00 pill to treatment of the
uninsured.  Hell.  Some hospitals don't treat any uninsured,
and I'll bet their costs for an asprin are the same or higher.

|> 
|> However, I do not know how many people are uninsured. I do know
|> that the people trying to control hospital costs blame the
|> various Federal, State, and local laws that require them to
|> provide treatment to the uninsured as the biggest growth multiplier
|> in hospital increasing costs.
|> 

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky ca.politics:8315 ba.politics:5751