Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Carragher who wrote (15124)	11/4/2003 9:29:58 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793640

What if you pay for medical coverage and then you need it but the insurance company says no.... so you leave the hospital at risk.. hemorrhage at home and then have to go back for another few days or a week because someone said according to statistics you were ready to go home... Presumably, the insurance company would base its standard on cost. It would determine that, with, say, a one day stay, there would be complications causing a week's readmission for a certain percent of patients and that with a two day stay, that would occur less often. With a three day stay, there may be no difference. So they would set the standard at a one day stay if that were most cost effective. If the numbers were close, they might go with a two day stay and have less risk. They would determine which would be more cost effective. Your hemorrhage is built into the cost equation. There is also a question of what the difference in premiums would be. Some might opt for more liberal standards and a higher premium, others might choose the opposite. In either case, there will always be some patients who hemorrhage at home. I imagine you would agree that it would make no sense for everyone to stay for five days to eliminate all risk. I suppose we could have policies that let you stay as long as you want, but then only the rich could afford the insurance and they don't need health insurance in the first place. Ideally, the decision of release date would be up to the doctor. But we know what would happen with that. Everyone would end up staying five days just as everybody now gets a prescription for whatever pills they request. I just don't know an alternative. As long as people have choice, I don't think it's a problem. We started this discussion with Bill and Kaiser. He chose Kaiser. It was in that framework that I asked the question. I would agree with you that it becomes more problematic when the patient has no practical choice of carriers. Where do lower income people who pay for medical coverage come up with cash for an extra day in a hospital.. It seems to me that it's like the commercial for Fram oil filters--pay me now or pay me later. You either pay extra every month in premiums or you pay for the extra day if you need it. The reality is that the total cost is higher for generous plans. Yes, the day's stay is a big hit all at once, but still cheaper than paying higher premiums every month. One can at least budget for that and hope it never happens. If you ante up the premium every month, you're stuck. We have a serious shortage of nurses in this country.. last number i heard was 80,000. so even if you had insurance you still get kicked out... Now, that's a problem, but it's a different problem. We don't pay nurses enough. I'd rather pay nurses enough to assure an adequate supply than keep everyone in the hospital for five days so no one ever hemorrhages at home. [Just for the record, in case I'm sounding terribly cavalier, I have hemorrhaged at home after being released from the hospital.] What is the charge for a one day stay in a hospital on average.. $2000 or more? I just did some searching and didn't come up with a figure. That lack of information is a problem, too. What i like is when my kid was told to leave the hospital in pain after donating a kidney IMO and FWIW, it's horrible to diss a kidney donor like that.