- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is the healthcare system in America bloated?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:43 am to Rankest
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:43 am to Rankest
This only goes to 2014, but is descriptive enough since it isn't getting any better. There are people on this board that will tout that the extra we pay leads to innovation, but it really just leads to more administrators making more money.
Being a part of it firsthand, the bloat is unreal. If you are interested, look up how many vice presidents your local non-profit health system has. That's generally a good sign of them making too much money to keep their non-profit status so the money gets pushed to expansion and more administrators.
1
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:45 am to WaydownSouth
quote:
No, but if we incorporated more screenings/scans than just here is your yearly BMP/CBC/Lipid panel blood draw, they absolutely would.
quote:
Link to stats?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:47 am to WaydownSouth
quote:We found the hot nurse.
If you are talking about folks on the insurance or management side, sure. If you are talking about front line workers, GTF. They should be paid double for having to deal with the people they see on a daily basis
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:50 am to Wiener
How do you want me to produce stats for something we don't do?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:51 am to WaydownSouth
quote:
if we incorporated more screenings/scans than just here is your yearly BMP/CBC/Lipid panel blood draw, they absolutely would.
You're just making shite up. But again...stop pretending that low-dose CT scans aren't covered. They ARE covered for preventative screenings, they just need to be ordered by a provider who thinks it's appropriate. Not just because you want one.
Immunizations are covered, colonoscopies are covered, mammograms are covered, labs are covered, tobacco, alcohol, and drug misuse and nutritional screenings are covered, social determinants of health screenings are covered. HPV testing and Paps are covered for women. Depression screenings. Health risk assessments are covered. Hep B and Hep C screenings are covered. I mean, the list goes on an on.
For every 1 true-positive finding of diseases like lung cancer from a low-dose CT for high-risk individuals there can be up to 10 false-positive outcomes. Anywhere from 5% to 20% of lung cancer screening CTs may show significant, actionable findings unrelated to lung cancer (e.g., kidney or thyroid masses), although many of these turn out to be harmless. And you havent even begun to mention the amount of cancers unneeded CT scans can cause.
quote:
Using this risk model, they uncovered that in 2023, approximately 62 million people in the US had 93 million CT scans, which could result in approximately 103,000 future cancers over the course of the lifetime of exposed patients.
The findings suggest that if radiation dose levels and utilization practices continue as they are, CT-associated cancers could eventually account for 5% of all new cancer diagnoses annually in the USA, the same percentage as those caused by alcohol.
“While CT scans are immensely beneficial in diagnosing and detecting many conditions, including cancer, they do involve exposure to ionising radiation that has been shown to increase the risk of developing cancer.”
“It’s important to note that for the individual patient, this increased risk is small, and the benefits far outweigh the risks if the scan is clinically justified.
LINK
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:53 am to WaydownSouth
quote:I just figured you had some numbers lying around to back up your claim of it absolutely decreasing healthcare costs.
How do you want me to produce stats for something we don't do?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:56 am to Wiener
I guess logic should have told me catching and treating disease states earlier would drive up costs
Posted on 2/11/26 at 5:58 am to Rankest
A month ago there was a professor from University of Texas that talked about how bloated our healthcare system is. The culprit? Yep, the US government. Every “fix” ends up costing us money. Too many companies involved, too many layers of billing and red tape. Inflation runs through every layer of every company involved between consumer and doctor.
To drive his point honestly he talked about plastic surgery and lasik type eye surgery. Neither covered by insurance. Prices have plummeted over the last 25 years because they are cash based, no insurance so none of those billing and bloated insurance costs.
To drive his point honestly he talked about plastic surgery and lasik type eye surgery. Neither covered by insurance. Prices have plummeted over the last 25 years because they are cash based, no insurance so none of those billing and bloated insurance costs.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:08 am to Tridentds
quote:
Prices have plummeted over the last 25 years because they are cash based, no insurance so none of those billing and bloated insurance costs.
Yeah, plastic surgery is a good example. While prices have increased, they have not nearly increased at the same rate when regarding inflation and market increase rates. But, if you can figure out a way to convince the American people and more importantly, the hospital systems, Ortho's, outpatient surgery centers, dermatologists, pain management physicians and general surgeons, etc. that the key to lowering healthcare costs is to provide LESS healthcare coverage, I am all ears.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:11 am to WaydownSouth
quote:
I guess logic should have told me catching and treating disease states earlier would drive up costs
Obviously catching disease states earlier is cheaper. What you're claiming to be absolute is entirely different.
You're claiming that healthcare costs will be lower by screening earlier at a population level without knowing incidence of disease in those age groups and costs of screening.
For instance, we could screen as early as age 10 for colon cancer because catching it early is better. However, if nobody at age 10 has colon cancer it's all cost without benefit. What test did you use to screen everybody and what is the total cost there? You don't know the age where the inflection point occurs, so making absolute claims (and calling it logic) like that is kind of silly.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 6:44 am to Rankest
Just a reminder that healthcare is not health insurance like how car care is not car insurance.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:00 am to Eurocat
Where does he live? The outskirts of Syria?
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:17 am to Rankest
No, Americans are.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:26 am to Rankest
The major systems are LOADED with VPs. There's no way it's sustainable to have that many administrators.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:26 am to ronricks
quote:
Healthcare systems in America are awful because of two groups of people:
Illegal Immigrants who use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care provider and Obese diabetics who clog up the system with an absurd amount of visits, testing, and medications they consume. Remove those two groups and healthcare costs in America would plummet.
Yeah the healthcare system in this country is fricked because of illegal immigrants. Holy shite what an idiotic take. Obese you’d have a point but illegal immigrants?! Boomers getting access to Facebook was a huge mistake. Zuckerberg has burned a hole in your brain brother.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:26 am to Rankest
I work in healthcare. Population health amongst the lower socio economic populous is by far the biggest cost in healthcare and it gets passed on to everyone else.
If uninsured werent fat and filling their bodies with crap it would be very different.
Subsidizing their insurance would just be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Costs would be moved from healthcare to taxes.
If uninsured werent fat and filling their bodies with crap it would be very different.
Subsidizing their insurance would just be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Costs would be moved from healthcare to taxes.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:28 am to Eurocat
quote:
Tell that to my friend on workmans comp who can't get an MRI until April.
Either you’re lying or he is. Or he lives in Canada or Europe.
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:29 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
It’s hoenstly the opposite. The issues and inefficiencies you see are from a lack of bodies able to run the system properly.
We need MORE people in healthcare, but the top people hoard the salary and don’t make that possible
We need MORE people in healthcare, but the top people hoard the salary and don’t make that possible
This post was edited on 2/11/26 at 7:31 am
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:30 am to ronricks
quote:
Illegal Immigrants who use hospital emergency rooms as their primary care provider
Don’t forget our own welfare leeches who do the same damn thing even though they have Medicaid and can go to a regular doctor. They still go to the ER for EVERYTHING
Posted on 2/11/26 at 7:31 am to WaydownSouth
quote:
Try to get a colonoscopy covered before age 40.
I had several before I was 40, all covered 100%.
I've also had several EKGs.
And CTs.
What the frick are you talking about?
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News