USA’s ‘Royal Pains’ Commits Economics Malpractice
by John Lott
USA’s new series “Royal Pains” is about Dr. Hank Lawson (Mark Feuerstein), who serves as a “concierge doctor” to the rich and semi-famous residents of the Hamptons. In the course of the show, there are some unfortunate public policy claims made. In the second episode, entitled “There will be food,” Dr. Hank is trying to provide health care to a not particularly well-to-do fisherman. Hank gives a short lecture on price gouging and hospitals “screwing” people. A heavily discussed theme in this episode involves the need for a free clinic for the regular people who make the Hamptons run and the selfishness of the person who would have been the biggest donor to the clinic who is instead spent his money on a retirement party for a ballerina. In any case, the dialogue for this segment that I would like to focus on is as follows:
Dr. Hank Lawson: I’m back.
Fisherman: I’ll get my harpoon.
Hank: As inviting as that sounds, I won’t stay long.
Fisherman: The doctor’s mantra.
Hank: But you know for what it is worth, I am not a big fan of hospitals myself. In fact, I just got fired by one a few weeks ago.
Fisherman: Well, that is reassuring.
Hank: Naw, not for medical reasons. Look, hospitals are bureaucracies, right? Bureaucracies screw people, they overcharge you if you are insured, and they really do it if you are not, just because they can. You get zero leverage and no alternatives, so you get screwed. It is like out here with the gas docks when they price gauge after a hurricane. The system sucks. But you are sick and you are going to get sicker if you don’t get treatment. I would like to help you.
Fisherman: That is what they all say. Then the bill comes.
Hank: there is no bill. No, I am going to be here for you week in, week out. No red tape, no forms, no harpoon, just me.
Fisherman: So, what is the catch?
Hank: You are the fisherman, you tell me.
It seems like you can’t watch a doctor show without it constantly making digs about medical insurance and the uninsured.
Here is the problem that is faced after a hurricane — people want more gas than is available. Higher prices allocate gas purchases to those who value the gas the most. When prices aren’t allowed to rise, gas stations in many states resort to “putting up signs asking drivers to buy as little gas as possible.” Drivers aren’t apparently too thrilled by that idea. One news story quoted one driver as calling the signs “ridiculous.” Another asked why shouldn’t he buy more, why should he risk running out of gas?
It is quite common for consumers and politicians to complain about prices before a storm even hits. But higher prices before the storm reduce consumption and increase inventories and thus reduce how much prices will rise after the storm hits. The overall increase in price will actually be less.
The possibility of higher prices when disasters strike also gives oil companies an incentive to put aside more gas to cover those emergencies. Storing gas is costly, and if you want them to bear those costs, you had better compensate them. The irony is that letting the companies charge higher prices actually reduces customers’ total costs when you include such things as having to wait in long lines, because there will be more gas available when the disaster strikes.
Memories have apparently faded too much after the 1970s gas shortages. Price controls didn’t stop the cost of gasoline from rising. They just changed how we paid for them. Instead of prices rising until the amount people wanted equaled the amount available, chronic shortages of gasoline had Americans waiting in lines for hours. Yet, the supposedly permanent shortages disappeared instantly as soon as price controls were removed in 1981.
Everyone would like to have lower prices. The problem is that when people want more gasoline than is available, you either let prices rise or you have shortages.
The second issue in this short segment from “Royal Pains” is the claim that everyone, especially the uninsured, are dissatisfied with how the medical system works. In fact, a 2006 survey found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, while only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. Yet, even 70 percent of the uninsured were also satisfied with the quality of the medical care that they received. To put it differently, only 2.3 percent of people are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of their medical care and a mere 3.9 percent are both uninsured and dissatisfied in anyway with their medical care.
As to the fisherman’s concern that doctors don’t spend enough time with patients, Americans spend much more time with their doctors than do patients in other countries such as Canada, Australia, and Britain. While 30 percent of Americans spend more than 20 minutes with their doctors, only five percent of Brits spend more than 20 minutes.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
69 Comments
Oh, bravo, Mr. Lott! Excellent flensing of ridiculous claims made about hurricaines and price gouging.
The funny thing about Royal Pains is that they accidentally make the case for old-fashioned medical care. In this show the excellent doctor gets paid very well for his care to the rich, and thus has time and expertise to give for free to lower income residents. That's how it used to work before the government got involved.
Hank's brother, at the end of the show, is fixing a fish dinner because the poor fisherman is paying Hank back the way he can, with his catch. When Obamacare takes over I suspect there will be a thriving black market in medicine, and lots of doctors who will mysteriously have supplies of eggs, chicken, and free computer repair service.
I was in three hurricanes in 2004. There is not enough notice to get the stations stocked up (if the 'cane hits on Fridays – and they usually do – and the truck is scheduled for Monday, well, sorry…), plus after the storm passes, half the gas stations don't have power so are unable to pump the gas. For myself, I fill up BEFORE the storm comes so I don't have to deal with that mess.
I've gotten to the point where I don't watch episodic television. Come to think of it, the only shows I watch are House MD and Fringe. I might hit the occasional episode of In Plain Sight or Burn Notice or Psych, but I don't spend that much time on them.
Screenwriters/directors/producers are human beings with their own prejudices and ideology and I suppose that's going to come out in their writing. Since the majority of them appear to be liberals, I guess dialog that you pointed out is what we can expect. It's their right. We don't have to watch it. If enough people turn the stuff off then maybe they'll rethink their propensity for putting their politics into their shows. I'm not holding my breath.
All parts of the media will coordinate the campaign for universal health care. You'll read it in the paper, subliminal programming will be whispering it in your ear as you sleep. More and more stories will appear about the poor, the uninsured, and the rich hospitals sucking the blood out of the communities.
There will be no mention of the health benefits of the union leaderships, the freebies being passed out to illegal immigrants, trial lawyers uncorking medical malpractice rewards caps imposed by certain states.
And guess what ? Your health will be in danger, ask any Canadian,Brit, or Cuban.
One of these days, perhaps after a massive attack or after suffering under a High Misery Index, Americans are going understand that Hollywood is screwing America royally like their AIDS brigade did in Africa.
Just a joke.
If hospitals are gouging people so bad, why aren't they making money? There are a lot of hospitals out there that are hurting (a lot through their own fault, to be sure). But hospitals also perform a lot of services for people even though they know they won't get paid. The healthcare issue is pretty complicated but "greedy" hospitals really isn't the issue.
In my job I work for a Federal Government managed private health insurance company (MA-PD Plans) but have spent the last 12 years in healthcare and consulted over 300 hospitals across the US. In this 12 years I have worked primarily on the hospital side but the last 4 have been working for the insurance carrier and let me tell you this unequivocally. Number one, they aren't even close to the solution and in fact are not even looking at the right problem they are simply preparing to create a much larger problem. Number two, they're blaming the wrong people. The hospitals, for the most part, are the victim in this with over 80% operating in the red. It's the health insurance carriers who are the villain. I would love to explain this more but you know, 1000 characters.
Seriously Big Hollywood if you ever want to discuss this issue I have been tapped by several politicians as a consultant on this issue (Harold Ford, Ruth Ann Minner, Marsha Blackburn, etc) and would gladly do a write up on the issue for you if you like.
The best show I ever saw showing both sides of running a hospital was Scrubs, believe it or not. The show always put a lot of time how Dr Kelso would only show up and kiss the butt of a rich patient who has good insurance, can pay the bill then donate a lot of money. This started out pretty one sided, but it opened itself up a lot more.
Such as one episode where two patients (one rich and one poor) were hoping to get the last spot in a clinical trial. Kelso (who earlier in the episode shut down the free pregnancy clinic) gave it to the rich guy. When pressed for a reason why his life is worth more, Kelso explains that the patient will make a big fat donation, with which he can reopen the free pregnancy clinic helping a lot more people and saving a lot more lives than just one.
The whole premise of Royal Pains I find greasy, slimy and full of sucker punches waiting to happen. I will stick with Lost, Psyche and Burn Notice (just started watching it).
Haven't had TV for years. Was wondering what I have been missing. Obviously not much.
I just can't get my arms around the liberal conundrum: They believe that only government can deliver fair services, but in reality, everything government does is lousy. They believe that companies are evil and exploit, but those that deliver, prosper, those that don't, fail. Then, Libs go to much trouble to tell us not to believe our own eyes, but to trust their vision. and so many do. Tis a mystery.
I have a friend who was a VP of Finance for a private hospital that was just starting up. It was an eye opener. She thought she could strike a blow for reforming healthcare costs by having the hospital just charge a "fair" price to begin with, i.e. cost plus a reasonable markup for profit. Then she learned that if the hospital did that no insurance company would do business with them. They could have the best prices in town and it wouldn't matter. Health insurance companies are rated not on the actual prices they pay but how deep a discount the hospitals give them. Thus they have an incentive to pressure hospitals to charge ridiculous prices, the higher the price the deeper the discount the insurance company can negotiate, and since hospitals can't survive without insurance companies sending them patients, the hospitals have no choice but to go along.
ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE
Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET
On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care — a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!
Highlights on the agenda:
ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.
The network plans a primetime special — 'Prescription for America' — originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.
BTW that was posted on Drudge.
Thanks ever so much TV People living in fakesville, you have now reach way beyond the Creepy Factor.
This is not a joke.
So If I understand the logic, the prices are so high partially because the health insurance companies demand high prices so they can demand deep discounts and thereby raise their ratings. Totally surreal.
This whole insurance issue would go away if the hospitals would charge 'insurance prices' to uninsured people. IOW, the insurers set the rate for 65% of the users and the other 35% get to ride along on that price but on their own dime. The 'health care community' has in a way forced this 'health care reform' on itself (which will hurt) through its short sighted approach to profits. If I have a heart attack and have no insurance I'm looking at bankrupcy. But, if I have insurance the copays and uncovered amounts may be difficult but not impossible to pay.
Focusing on the gas-after-hurricanes comment was useless.
The real dig–at bureacracies–was the truth. Hospital bureacracies eat your money–and they have to to do business with insurance bureacracies.
And the government solution? More, bigger bureacracies.
Why does no one point out that things'd be a whole lot cheaper if multitudes weren't living off the inflated prices that were created to feed them.
Get rid of all insurance except hospitalization. Have that include hospital based tests and procedures and operations.
Make all malpractice suits 'loser pays all costs'(court costs, all lost wages, etc)
Pay everything else out of pocket.
Watch prices drop.
The ratings are the excuse but let's face it, high prices benefit the insurance companies because it forces consumers to buy health insurance since they can't afford healthcare without it. Hospitals can't charge uninsured the same rate they give insurance companies because then the insurance companies will kick them out of their networks and without the networks, the hospitals won't have enough patients to survive.
The ratings are the excuse but let's face it, high prices benefit the insurance companies because it forces consumers to buy health insurance since they can't afford healthcare without it. Hospitals can't charge uninsured the same rate they give insurance companies because then the insurance companies will kick them out of their networks and without the networks, the hospitals won't have enough patients to survive.
Man I can't wait for my socialized, gov't-mandated health care. I haven't been able to afford medical insurance my entire working life, so my health care "plan" has basically been:
-Resist going to doctor for as long as possible because I don't have the cash
-End up in the emergency room
-End up deep, deep in medical debt that I will probably never have the ability to fully pay off.
Fun! It's great how cons pretend there's an either/or when it comes to healthcare: either we provide great care to those who can afford it, or bad care to the majority of the unwashed masses. As a member of the working poor, I can say with great conviction that I'd rather have access to affordable preventative care than just trips to the emergency room and the crippling debt that results from them. The argument that socialized medicine will drag down the overall quality of care isn't a very convincing one for someone who isn't getting care to begin with.
High gas prices cause stress. Stress causes pressure. So, High gas prices cause high pressure. Conversely, low gas prices result in low pressure. Now, from meteorology, we know that low pressure zones produce storms. Very low pressure should therefore produce big storms.
From this, we can theorize that low gas prices cause hurricanes; once the hurricane passes, the prices return to their normal highs.
QED.
This show sounds like another liberals attempt to push Health Care "Reform" down our collective American throats. This is par for the course with the libs I am afraid. "Hey mom, it's on T.V. so it MUST be true. Let's get behind THE ONE and promote Universal Health Care! i don't mind paying extra taxes when I grow up. Heck, I might not even have to worry about it. Besides if they are going to charge the businesses to have health care themselves in an effort to force people to get government health care then that's for the 'greater good' right?"
…. Protect our Youth… Choose Private or Home school!
I have to hand it to the creators of "Royal Pains." They manage to have their (rather smarmy) characters engage in Steinbeckian speechifying on the needs of the poor within a setting rife with hot wealthy women living la dolce vita in Hamptonian splendor. Talk about having it both ways. As for Obamacare, forget it – It's a done deal. Anyone who opposes any part of the program will be pulverized as "selfish", "greedy" and (drum roll) a "victimizer of the poor." If you thougth the media and the administration were one before this, well you ain't seen nothing yet. The British Health Service is currently the biggest employer in Europe. We can only wonder what the reach of the coming American plan will be.
You're all in the area. What insurance carriers pay is based on what is deemed "Reasonable and Customary" standards and those are set by the Federal Government and what they have Medicare pay for identical services. This is what is referred to as a "Fee Schedule". Basically if you get an MRI the average market cost is $1,700 but Medicare typically only pays around $650 on this and request the rest be written off, so private insurance carriers use this rate that Medicare has set and pay the same. With this being the case most of the times hospitals actually lose money on MRI's since what they are paid does not meet the cost of performing the test. This is why the argument that hospitals are doing test to simply run up the meter is entirely bogus, in most cases they are losing money by performing additional test as insurance companies will either deny their payment completely or will consider it a "Bundled Service" and reduce the payout by 50%.
*Continues below*
*Continued*
Again using the example of the MRI, if you were called back pre-surgery for a second MRI with contrast rather than being paid $650 as they were on the first they would only receive an addtional $325 as this was a bundled service.
I'm happy to answer any questions you guys have about how this all works and why what they are proposing now will not work.
Emergency care is already provided to everyone. No doubt the system is broken. When you get a monthly insurance statement, and see how much is charged to how much is paid – this angers me. The schlub without it must pay these ridiculous charges? IMO, there should only be one charge period – that would even the field. Malpractice reform would allow doctors and hospitals to operate more efficiently. But the proposed bamstercare, would keep the status quo, and have we the people will pay and pay and pay? Bottom line: your local hospital will be run like the Post Office. Got a foot fungus? I suggest last rites be given upon entry.
I like how he calls the hospital a bureaucracy and rants about how inefficient it is. Socialized medicine is adding an even bigger and more inefficient bureaucracy on top of the hospital's. Liberals tend to contradict themselves.
This is true, surreal as it may sound. It is also illegal for a physician to charge an uninsured patient the discounted rate, because then the insurance company would use that as their new base rate, and demand a discount from the new, lower rate.
What I have been told is we must send three bills before I can tell the billing office to accept what has been paid and write off the rest. Then I must keep track of what the discounted rate would have been, and tell the patient to just pay that amount. I cannot adjust what the hospital bills. This is just about impossible to keep up with.
Thanks, truly Orwellian. I can see their point although it contributes to them being attacked. IMO, health care insurers have warped the supply/demand paradigm. __An interesting article on today's Heritage Foundation website entitled__ "Reality Begins Bursting Health Care Hype". According to Drudge ABC is going to broadcast Obama's Health Care Reformation proposal–without giving time to alternate proposals. This rush to execute a health care reform is unwise and unwarranted.
There are a ton of factors affecting pricing in healthcare but if you wanted to attack one area and see a significant dip it would be allowing insurance carriers to properly categorize risk. Insurance carriers make money based off of risk and set their prices based off of what would allow them to make profit off of the assumed risk, currently insurance carriers are prohibted from using risk factors to set pricing due to our nation's discrimination laws.
Example. I am a 33 year old life long athlete and bodybuilder, doesn't smoke, and doesn't drink. I am almost zero risk to an insurance carrier. However since groups are done by who pays the premiums (your employer) rather than being grouped by risk factor I am on a group policy with a lady we will call Jane who is a 45+ year old diabetic who ways well over 300 pounds. Her risk to an insurance carrier is massive and drives up my premiums. If insurance carriers were allowed to group her and I differently based on risk she would have a high premium I would have a low one, this would provide incentive to unhealthy people to try to reduce their risk factors and lower their rates and overall make health insurance more affordable.
Bonnie – I haven't seen the show, but I can see you absolutely ARE one of the sharpest knives in the tool shed and a lot of fun to read as well..
Miles, you will be far poorer once it goes through. Think about this, Medicare insures roughly 10% of the known US population (around 39.5 million) and had a 2009 budget outlay of $420 billion. Now using the numbers the administration uses of there being roughly 50 million uninsured lets say a conservative estimate of 35 million of those 50 million take universal coverage. Our research shows that people receiving Medicaid (this is essentially what they are looking to expand universally) average 3.2 medical visits monthly as opposed to private insured who average .46 visits per month and this information has been used by the CBO as well to determine that the average annual cost per insured on universal coverage is $62,000 a year. Now using our earlier figures we will say we have 74 million people under this universal coverage at 62K a year, that is an estimated cost of $4,588,000,000,000 a year and that's not taking in to account the baby boomers retiring. Where do you think this money will come from?
My parents lived in Italy for many years and I can tell that they have "universal" health care and a thriving black market in medical services. Being Italians they practice it pretty much out in the open. Absolutely everyone does it because the system would grind to a halt if they had to go through the government approved process.
BTW I love this line: "Bureaucracies screw people,…" What the hell do these writers think the government is?
WeaponX, thank you. After having read all this I need to glue my head back together. I almost get the sense this is a gordian knot type unsolvable problem.
"The argument that socialized medicine will drag down the overall quality of care isn't a very convincing one for someone who isn't getting care to begin with. "
You are absolutely right, you benefit when someone else pays for your medical care. This has been a selling point for leftists for a long time now. Get free stuff from someone else!
Unfortunately, now the overall quality of healthcare in this country will go down, and I'll still pay high prices for it.
The uncreative way that television just mimics current hot-button political issues can be really tiresome. How many shows are starting up about 'hero' doctors and nurses, all spouting some left-wing nonsense about how cruel the system is and how we need socialism?
At least House would rightfully complain that when you have a free clinic, people come in for stupid things like colds, indigestion, and the like. But then Kumar became an Obamaphile and the show went off the rails …
they overcharge you if you are insured, and they really do it if you are not, just because they can.
Baloney. The overcharging occurs when insurance is involved. Anyone who's dealt with car/home repairs knows this. The estimate goes up if it's insurance, either because it's easier to fool/screw over a corporation than a private payer or because it's necessary to cover the extra hassle of getting reimbursed by the insurance corp. One of my church members opted out of medical insurance for her family and found that not only are doctors' offices thrilled not to deal with insurance reimbursements, but they gave her a discount rate.
You get zero leverage and no alternatives, so you get screwed.
This is such a whopper, I can't believe the writers and actors didn't get zapped with lightning. He's not describing the current American system, he's precisely describing socialized medicine. I grew up in Canada, and my husband grew up in Finland, so we experienced socialized medicine first-hand. There is NO choice. In Canada, it's due to a lack of alternatives, because there is no money and no innovation. In Finland, if you use state care, the doctor decides what care you will receive, and you have absolutely no say over it.
Of course these TV Doctors disn't have to pay for Medical School. Nor did they take their turn as Interns where they work 72hr shifts for next to nothing! There's an interesting thing that happens to REAL people when they have to WORK HARD for their money. They don't appreciate those who don't work and want everything you earn for themselves! Obamacare is the same as No Care!
Great post. I watched this show the other night and thought, I wonder if anyone will notice this on Big Hollywood. I kind of felt dirty after the show, (which, for the most part was entertaining and had, I thought, some interesting characters) since I had just been mentally prep'd for the hard sell on "Free" medical care. I haven't decided if I want to continue watching yet. I don't want to support such an obvious mis-characterization in a show that is otherwise pretty good.
You had to mentioned Ruth Ann Minner…..
Your statement basically says, "I really like it when other people bear my costs! It's really great for me to get the government to steal what other people have so that I can benefit."
Which says that you are a leech. I have great care because a) I decided as a teenager to work hard in school, b) I decided to actually evaluate the things I could do with my life and chose the things that would pay well.
You apparently did not do that. And you wish for me to pay for your lack of foresight. Sorry, Charlie. Just because there are a lot of freeloaders like you doesn't make it right. Stealing is stealing. And you just declared that you are okay with it.
And ditto.
Weapon X, I sure hope you get a chance to really explain this all. What you said makes total sense.
But what Jack said makes sense as well – before, people didn't go to the doctor for every little sniffle. They went when it was NECESSARY, i.e. they couldn't take care of it themselves with home remedies and rest.
Plus, like you say, Weapon X, the EMPLOYERs are paying for things. Whenever a THIRD PARTY starts to pay, prices go up, especially as you pointed out above about MRIs, etc.
I like Jack's idea because I've thought of that as well, it used to be insurance was for MAJOR CATASTROPHEs not for every little sniffle. So we go back to paying doctors directly for the little things and save insurance for the big stuff.
I've heard anecdotal evidence that many doctors are starting to do this – not take any insurance and just see people on a cash basis. One woman claimed that she got Lyme's disease and over a 9 month period paid her doctor directly – no insurance – for treatment and it cost her less than a thousand dollars total.
As soon as i saw the shows premise I knew it was going to be a royal pain to watch. zing.
Actually, the $650 you cite is more than the marginal cost of providing the MRI, so the more MRIs they run, the more they can cover their fixed costs.
I cringed at the price gouging comments but I still think it's a great show so far.
After watching the episode I concluded that they *needed* for the free clinic to fall through, for story reasons. It gives the hospital administrator lady the need for never-ending elbow-rubbing with the rich as she starts over again to get her funding and it gives Hank broader scope in who he takes care of each episode. So long as we don't get *continued* preaching that misunderstands economics, it's all good.
You can watch the pilot and first episode on hulu.com.
Depending on what they do with the show, the characters seem like a lot of fun.
Definitely watch the pilot first.
Yes I was called in to help her on some issues but in the interest of fair disclosure she is family (cousin). Don't worry though I didn't agree with 80% of what she did either.
This depends on which MRI machines they are using. One of the largest problems in healthcare right now is the prohibitive cost of technology and MRI machines are one of the most expensive pieces of equipment available. The open MRI machines in particular are tremendously expensive. Now with that in mind many of the facilities now lease their equipment but that is also tremendously expensive. However you are correct that the $650 does pay for the tech's time (averaging 30 to 45 minutes, an hour with contrast) and the physicians reading but most MRI machine will never recover what they cost let alone make profit.
JRG3, it can be fixed but we aren't going to like it. See I'm a Friedman free market capitalist but traditional free market principles do not apply to healthcare and I will explain why. Physicians and insurance carriers are interdependent businesses that need each other but unlike traditional interdependent businesses they have opposing goals. Using Friedman's example of a pencil people who make the wood, people who make the graphite, and people who make the rubber for the eraser all work in harmony to a common goal however in healthcare the physician's goal is to treat the patient and receive compensation for services rendered conversely the insurance carrier's goal is to have their member receive treatment but then avoid paying at all cost or at least pay as little as possible since it eats into their profits. As much as we don't like it a massive amount of regulations need to be put in place to assure predictable treatment (to reduce cost and risk to the isnurance carrier) and predictable and reasonable payment structure (to protect to physicians), anything else is a waste of time.
Thank you for mentioning this show's sham info. It really put a damper on my viewing and I doubt I will watch it again.
The risk to a self-pay system is any radiology test and obviously medications have a cost far higher than most could afford. Dentist function very much on a self pay system and as such not many people go.
Basing insurance cost off of risk categories rather than payer will help. Think of the way auto insurance works. When you were 16 insurance cost an arm and a leg because you fall in a high risk category but over time as you exhibited good driving habits your cost fell. This is similar to what needs to happen in healthcare. Here is how I see it:
*Continued Below*
*Continued*
* A physical should be required prior to any insurance coverage to determine your risk category.
* A category 1 would be low risk and have the lowest premium but would be required to take a once a year preventitive screening in order to stay a category one. Otherwise the risk rating and premium would rise.
* A category 5 would be the highest risk and higest premium they would be required to receive 3 yearly preventitive screenings to maintain coverage and would by default be given a $5,000 deductible. This deductible could be lowered by meeting certain requirements; maintaining a gym membership and attending at least 5 times monthly etc.
The basic goal of this is to reward the people who are healthier and taking better care of themselves while providing incentive to those who are not taking good care of themselves.
Let's not forget tv is still LCD and wants credulous viewers who will buy the products advertised without much thought. So of course they'll buy nonsense dialogue.
One more reason I don't watch network TV.
I'm unemployed yet pay only $158 for Blue Cross health insurance. Not sure where the outrage and lack of justice is. My policy has a decent deductible but it will pay for excellent care for me if injured in car accident caused by Liberal trying to find Air America on their dial. My mother had quite major surgery a few years back and between private insurance and Medicare, the cost was very reasonable for the amount of excellent care and treatment she received. Again, where is the injustice?
Remember that government officials will now interface with insurers ( graft opportunity anyone?) to set the rates and benefit schedules. Sure, I trust our Obamination to work to protect and defend what I worked my whole life for-NOT. How about giveaway and more of-"it's over whitey". You're too______ ( fill in the blank) to be allowed that procedure.
Hollyweird is so predictable like the turning of the Earth and the sun rising in the East. They have a template no correction it is in their DNA to be anti corporate, anti capatilist etc etc.
I am an ER doc and this society is going down the crapper. I am on the front row of the devolution of society.
Suggestion to Breitbart let's quit complaining about Hollywood. Let us sane right-of-center /libertarian types get together and start our own film industry say in a right to work state like North Carolina. Start a USA version of Vancouver. Breitbart should get some of his rich friends and start an "anti-Hollywood"…
I totally agree. Health Care is an odd duck given the high costs of new technology and diverse players having competing goals as you mention. Plus, unlike other industries, lives and suffering are at stake. I doubt we'll see unemotional approaches to addressing this issue. To accomplish the progressive goal I don't see how they'll succeed without a completely new paradigm.
I lived in Taiwan for two years with seriously socialist medical care. Doctors literally saw 30 patients an hour. Everyone with more or less similar complaints were crowded into the room with the doc, sometimes 6 at a time, and he dispensed advice and prescriptions en masse. Then you shuffled out. If you had to stay overnight in the hospital, you were expected to feed yourself, unless you could get someone you knew to bring you something to eat. Obama should shut up about "poor quality health care" until he knows what he is talking about.
I enjoy the show. The Doc seems to chart mainly a middle ground, compared to his Bolshevik girl friend. It only has a pretense of political/social outlook, nothing to be taken seriously. The big deal is how these Jersey-Brooklyn guys landed in the middle of the rich, smart, talented, and super ostentatious life style of the Hamptons millionaires. Let's put down the rich while we trip on their cool stuff and hot babes. This fantasy has Hillbilly cousins named Jed, Ellie Mae, Jethro and Granny.
The show had a very promising pilot. Fast paced, and clever enough to make you ignore all the coincidences and leaps of logic. And just downright fun. The second episode–where this quote appeared–not so much. I didn't really see the quote as a dig. At least on anything more than beaurocracies in general. Still, just a boring episode.
You can watch the pilot and first episode on hulu.com.
I agree with ArchiCrash that the pilot was much better than the second episode, but I'm definitely going to give it a few more episodes to see what happens.
There's technical reasons (I believe) that we (the show) needed to have the free-clinic in the pilot (at least as an almost done deal) and lose it in the first episode. The biggest reason is that with the free clinic in place Hank won't have an excuse to be called on emergencies for the very poor people which would mean an unnecessary limitation of only super rich clients… which is fun, but would probably get sort of boring sort of quickly.
Give it a few more episodes and see what happens. So far I'm very hopeful that this will be a hit.
(Without the free clinic almost done deal in the pilot there's no reason for Hank to meet and get involved with "the girl".)
Further proof of the enormous cultural divide between the way culture portrays and the real world exists
-The second issue in this short segment from “Royal Pains” is the claim that everyone, especially the uninsured, are dissatisfied with how the medical system works. In fact, a 2006 survey found that 89 percent of Americans were satisfied with their own personal medical care, while only 44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system. Yet, even 70 percent of the uninsured were also satisfied with the quality of the medical care that they received. To put it differently, only 2.3 percent of people are both uninsured and very dissatisfied with the quality of their medical care and a mere 3.9 percent are both uninsured and dissatisfied in anyway with their medical care.-
If you just watched TV & movies you would think that the doctors were hoarding food in a post-apocalyptic war zone and only feeding people in exchange for selling there souls so that the Dr's could live for another two weeks.
Health care should not be a prize to be meted out for living your life according to a set of arbitrary rules. I could join a gym, go twenty times a month and sit on a stationary bike and eat until I fall off…but I'd get a discount under your plan.
See, here's the thing, if insurance is for hospitalization–in the manner I mentioned above, a healthy athletic person WILL save money–because they won't have to go for regular doctor visits as much–a 'reward' that isn't paid by penalizing someone else. Their poor health is enough penalty–why show they have to pay for you too?
Cash should be the thing. Cash. High volume, lower prices.
Look at Wal-Mart and Walgreens–they're stepping into the healthcare area–and they're pricing things like they price everything. And while I moan occasionally about Wal Mart catering to the lowest common denominator, a brand name flat screen TV is no better if I buy it at an electronics store for a higher price.
(con't)
(con't)
And one of the ways Walmart combats idiot bureacracies is with their massive size. 'Want this gigantic, lucrative contract? Then you'll do as we say….'
It's absurd that medical care shouldn't be subject to market forces–look at cosmetic surgery and eyesight correction–it keeps getting cheaper and better. Why? Because it has to respond to the customer directly–rather than through layer upon layer of bureacracy.
And quite a few 'prices' we hear about with regard to medical costs aren't real–they're adjusted to deal with the multitudes that must be paid. When you pay cash in hand you get a whole different scale.
These things all sound fine Jack but the fact is that healthcare does not function under traditional market rules because of the competing goals of the two principle players. Also you would have difficulty getting the average middle income person to do preventitive checkups if they knew the entire thing was going to be out of pocket.
Also what you are viewing as punishing people who are in poor health is not punishment, it's realism. We have to allow insurance carriers to realistically grade and charge their members based on their health, this will dramatically lower the cost of healthcare for the vast majority of people and provide incentive to those with poor health habits to do better. Currently part of the issue with our lack of preventitive care is there is no reason for anyone to have healthy habits since there is no immediate penalty and no requirements that force people to receive regular checkups.
I started to watch the episode in question but stopped after the first 15 minutes as I soon tired of all the leftie talking points – read lies – on the health care system. Since when is taking the Democratic playbook on health care and building a narrative on untruths considered good writing. The episode was just an infomercial for health care reform and I have better things to do with my time.
I consider the USA series Burn Notice to be one of the best but my fear is that they will soon mess it up by trying to be politically correct. In the last show, Michael's line about torture never producing valuable intel is a left wing talking point that has now become conventional wisdom. They have never offered proof to support it. Ask McCain if torture is not effective.
Also you would have difficulty getting the average middle income person to do preventitive checkups if they knew the entire thing was going to be out of pocket. Would I? If checkups were $25? Absolutley. But why? The price? Or the simple fact that people don't like going to the doctor?
WeaponX, if it's not punishment, why do you say that it is?– "since there is no immediate penalty and no requirements that force people to receive regular checkups"
People don't go to the doctor because they don't like it–even people who need to will avoid it.
Americans spend much more time with their doctors than do patients in other countries such as Canada, Australia, and Britain. While 30 percent of Americans spend more than 20 minutes with their doctors, only five percent of Brits spend more than 20 minutes.
Am I one of fewer Americans who don't get to spend time with a doctor or two? I take care of myself well, getting closer to 40.
I find this show hilarious – not exactly in the way they intended. All the subtle (and not so subtle) liberal opinions the show expresses directly defy the concept of what Dr. Lawson does! People pay him lots of cash and he gives them more attention and better, more personal care than they can get anywhere else. Not only that, he can afford to work pro bono for less fortunate people because he gets paid well! Do you think a real life Dr. Lawson would be able to do what he does for the pittances a government controlled healthcare system would pay him? I don't think so.
I recently joined a concierge practice similar to the one portrayed in Royal Pains, but different. Mine has a limited membership, while Dr. Lawson goes to whoever calls him and can pay his fee. In a way, I get more service from my doctor than Dr. Lawson's patients get from him! My doctor's website is http://www.mymd.us
Not sure why my comment was deleted… going to repost.
I find this show hilarious – not exactly in the way they intended. All the subtle (and not so subtle) liberal opinions the show expresses directly defy the concept of what Dr. Lawson does! People pay him lots of cash and he gives them more attention and better, more personal care than they can get anywhere else. Not only that, he can afford to work pro bono for less fortunate people because he gets paid well! Do you think a real life Dr. Lawson would be able to do what he does for the pittances a government controlled healthcare system would pay him? I don't think so.
We live in America, and over here you get what you pay for
.
You must be logged in to post a comment.