PDA

View Full Version : Health care has changed



tpaschal30
07-16-2009, 11:02 AM
Third-party payment has required the bureaucratization of medical care and, in the process, has changed the character of the relation between physicians (or other caregivers) and patients. A medical transaction is not simply between a caregiver and a patient; it has to be approved as "covered" by a bureaucrat and the appropriate payment authorized. The patient—the recipient of the medical care—has little or no incentive to be concerned about the cost since it’s somebody else’s money. The caregiver has become, in effect, an employee of the insurance company or, in the case of Medicare and Medicaid, of the government. The patient is no longer the one, and the only one, the caregiver has to serve. An inescapable result is that the interest of the patient is often in direct conflict with the interest of the caregiver’s ultimate employer.

badbullgator
07-16-2009, 11:53 AM
I have said similar in numerous post on the topic. Heatlhcare is not broken, how it is paid for is. Insurance dictates what and when most doctors can do and how much they can get paid for it. I have had 7 opperations on my knee, yet since I have been released form my doctors care if I have a problem with my knee I have to fist go to a GP and be refered to my knee doctor. How does that save anyone money? Insurance reform and torte reform would do more for affordable healthcare then government run healthcare

tpaschal30
07-16-2009, 12:03 PM
I have said similar in numerous post on the topic. Heatlhcare is not broken, how it is paid for is. Insurance dictates what and when most doctors can do and how much they can get paid for it. I have had 7 opperations on my knee, yet since I have been released form my doctors care if I have a problem with my knee I have to fist go to a GP and be refered to my knee doctor. How does that save anyone money? Insurance reform and torte reform would do more for affordable healthcare then government run healthcare

I've had three on my knee, including one replacement. I look good in my speedo!!!

Leave tort reform alone. Just intoducing market forces would help tremendously!

Radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

Terry Britton
07-16-2009, 12:16 PM
Has anyone looked at the package that Dr. Tom Coburn is introducing that allows for choices, and probably is a better system than socialist medicine or what we have now?

I haven't looked at it.

I can tell you that my second knee surgery was a nightmare on an HMO because it took over a year to get a referal to the surgeon. Good thing I didn't need something that was life threatening like cancer treatment.

tpaschal30
07-16-2009, 12:26 PM
Has anyone looked at the package that Dr. Tom Coburn is introducing that allows for choices, and probably is a better system than socialist medicine or what we have now?

I haven't looked at it.

I can tell you that my second knee surgery was a nightmare on an HMO because it took over a year to get a referal to the surgeon. Good thing I didn't need something that was life threatening like cancer treatment.

We are over half socialist now. Pricing and outcome information along woth more personal responsibility for payment gives more choices and makes the caregiver responsible to the patient.
We are on a PPO. Referal for my knee replacement was instant from my GP. Waited a week for the appt. Two weeks later it was done. Very expensive. I would rather have medical care available rather than cheaper and rationed(or unavailable). kind of like gas. When they had price controls, demand stayed high and rationing was implemented.

dnf777
07-16-2009, 12:56 PM
I've had three on my knee, including one replacement. I look good in my speedo!!!

Leave tort reform alone. Just intoducing market forces would help tremendously!

Radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

Tort system MUST change. It costs a doctor who has done NOTHING wrong, an average of $50,000 to prove it, and defend a frivilous lawsuit. It costs plaintiff's and their attorneys NOTHING to file a suit. It's like free tickets to the power ball lotto, who would't play??

The cost of defensive medicine is staggering. Most of it is not even included in the estimates that trial lawyer groups will tout.

Around where I live, general surgeons pay approx. $80,000 per year in malpractice premiums...if they've DONE NOTHING WRONG. That's not including excise tax called MCARE that runs around 30% of premium. That's a little more than twice the median household income for this area. that money could be much better spent.

Oh, and if you hear that it's all to "protect" patients, keep in mind that on average, it takes 8 years for any money to hit a patients wallet in cases of malpractice, and only 29 cents on the settlement dollar get there. Too little, too late. Most physicians and groups will recognize true errors, and offer to settle out of court, to everyone's benefit, except the lawyers, so this practice is heavily stifled by state laws in most cases.

Terry Britton
07-16-2009, 01:39 PM
Tort system MUST change. It costs a doctor who has done NOTHING wrong, an average of $50,000 to prove it, and defend a frivilous lawsuit. It costs plaintiff's and their attorneys NOTHING to file a suit. It's like free tickets to the power ball lotto, who would't play??

The cost of defensive medicine is staggering. Most of it is not even included in the estimates that trial lawyer groups will tout.

Around where I live, general surgeons pay approx. $80,000 per year in malpractice premiums...if they've DONE NOTHING WRONG. That's not including excise tax called MCARE that runs around 30% of premium. That's a little more than twice the median household income for this area. that money could be much better spent.

Oh, and if you hear that it's all to "protect" patients, keep in mind that on average, it takes 8 years for any money to hit a patients wallet in cases of malpractice, and only 29 cents on the settlement dollar get there. Too little, too late. Most physicians and groups will recognize true errors, and offer to settle out of court, to everyone's benefit, except the lawyers, so this practice is heavily stifled by state laws in most cases.

I am for a loser pays system. The losing attorney in a lawsuit pays the legal fees of the defense attorney for the doctor. The same should hold true for DA's that go after innocent people just to add a notch on their belt. There seems to be no professional liability in the legal profession when one side goes after somone that has done no wrong. Maybe if the legal professionals had to carry professional liability insurance like doctors do, and when they lose their insurance pays up, there would be less problems do to unethical lawsuits and criminal prosecutions?

It may cause many in that profession to move to areas that build businesses, and improving our economy.

badbullgator
07-16-2009, 01:39 PM
One of my friends had a botched boob job, She had an infection and they had to remove and eventually replace them. She did suffer some dammage and pain....................SHE GOT 80 MILLION! in the first settelment. It was later reduced to just 10 million. The first settelment had it held would be 40 million a boob! I can tell you even the 5 million a boob she got was crazy and she even thinks so (of course not giving it back). Heck for 5 million I will have a boob job and they can even screw it up. Some things you deserve money for and in this case she did, but the amount is way out of line with the dammage.
Another buddy of mine is an eye doctor. He was recently sued and lost 8 million becasue a kid was born with a genetic eye disease that caused it to be born blind. The only way to avoid this would have been if the mother had an abortion, yet somehow he is at fault (I cannot remember all the details, butit had something to do with him not giving her the right advice as to what to do)

Franco
07-16-2009, 01:41 PM
Tort system MUST change. It costs a doctor who has done NOTHING wrong, an average of $50,000 to prove it, and defend a frivilous lawsuit. It costs plaintiff's and their attorneys NOTHING to file a suit. It's like free tickets to the power ball lotto, who would't play??

The cost of defensive medicine is staggering. Most of it is not even included in the estimates that trial lawyer groups will tout.

Around where I live, general surgeons pay approx. $80,000 per year in malpractice premiums...if they've DONE NOTHING WRONG. That's not including excise tax called MCARE that runs around 30% of premium. That's a little more than twice the median household income for this area. that money could be much better spent.

Oh, and if you hear that it's all to "protect" patients, keep in mind that on average, it takes 8 years for any money to hit a patients wallet in cases of malpractice, and only 29 cents on the settlement dollar get there. Too little, too late. Most physicians and groups will recognize true errors, and offer to settle out of court, to everyone's benefit, except the lawyers, so this practice is heavily stifled by state laws in most cases.

No doubt about it! The only person that gets any real money are the bloodsucking attorneys. Medical Malpractice is a scam and both the doctor and patient suffer.

I know doctors that have quit practicing because they feel they are working just to pay their insurance premiums.

We need serious Tort Refrom!

tpaschal30
07-16-2009, 03:41 PM
Medical malpractice only accounts for about 2% of all health care costs. Much less than the cost of the uninsured by about half. If one can show damages, recourse is a key component of our system. We hear some big settlements, but in the whole scheme of things it is a drop in the bucket.

badbullgator
07-16-2009, 03:49 PM
Medical malpractice only accounts for about 2% of all health care costs. Much less than the cost of the uninsured by about half. If one can show damages, recourse is a key component of our system. We hear some big settlements, but in the whole scheme of things it is a drop in the bucket.

Not to us it isn't. OB/GYN's are dropping like flys becasue of the rates. Ours are crazy and we have never had a claim against us in 18 years.

tpaschal30
07-16-2009, 03:52 PM
Not to us it isn't. OB/GYN's are dropping like flys becasue of the rates. Ours are crazy and we have never had a claim against us in 18 years.

What percent of the gross?

tpaschal30
07-16-2009, 04:18 PM
Not to us it isn't. OB/GYN's are dropping like flys becasue of the rates. Ours are crazy and we have never had a claim against us in 18 years.

Plus if we get to resolve this "The patient is no longer the one, and the only one, the caregiver has to serve. An inescapable result is that the interest of the patient is often in direct conflict with the interest of the caregiver’s ultimate employer." I would think suits would decrease.

achiro
07-16-2009, 06:43 PM
1. Issue some sort of a card with a passport. LEGAL visitors get emergency care if needed. No card, no care. Die in the damn parking lot or go back to your own country and get the care you need, I really don't care. If you shouldn't be here in the first place...
Huge issue solved.
2. Stop giving gov money to the drug companies for "research" Also, stop all advertising of drugs in anything but trade(medical) magazines. No tv, no good housekeeping, no billboards, no ink pens, art pads, etc. Then they can afford their own damn research.

3. Medical bills no longer able to be added to bankruptcies. I don't care if you pay $20 a month for the rest of your life, you don't get to go buy a new house or a new car when you write off that you owed Dr. Smith $5000.

Money saved could be used to cover catastrophic coverage for lower income folks and keep the cost down for those that can afford it.

There are lots of other common sense things that could be done to keep a free market type health care program running more efficiently than ever, cheaper than ever and include more than ever.

BUT taking away health care savings accounts and the like are NOT the answer here.

BonMallari
07-16-2009, 08:01 PM
Not to us it isn't. OB/GYN's are dropping like flys becasue of the rates. Ours are crazy and we have never had a claim against us in 18 years.

You are correct, its the main reason my brother switched his practice, I could live quite well off what he pays in malpractice insurance and like you he had never had a claim either. My ex's OB/GYN doesnt even take on new patients and is considering changing practices since the insurance is so high

dnf777
07-16-2009, 08:09 PM
Medical malpractice only accounts for about 2% of all health care costs. Much less than the cost of the uninsured by about half. If one can show damages, recourse is a key component of our system. We hear some big settlements, but in the whole scheme of things it is a drop in the bucket.


With all due respect, that is total crap. By actually laying caring hands on a patient, and using history and physical exam skills, I can diagnose 90% of what I see. But because of the current climate, I and every doctor I know still orders CTs, XRs, labs....most of which contribute nothing to the diagnosis or treatment plan. So a $400 ER visit now becomes a $7500. I don't get paid, the poor patient gets bankrupt, and nobody benefits.

Last week, our hospital CEO, VP-nursing, and two docs and 4 lawyers spent 2 hours in deposition on a case that is totally frivilous. If I may assume that the hospital execs and doctors time is worth at least what the lawyers time is, then that's $250 x 8 x 2 hours == $4000! That's not counted in your 2%, but guess who pays it? Every American who pays health insurance premiums, because somebody's insurance pays those legal fees, and they're passed on to YOU.

Every piece of medical equipment from pacers to artificial joints must carry manufacture's liability, equating to ~25% of the final cost. THAT's not counted in the "2%".

If we could eliminate frivolous lawsuits and their attendant costs, we could EASILY compete with other countries on dollars per person spent on healthcare.

tpaschal30
07-16-2009, 09:50 PM
With all due respect, that is total crap. By actually laying caring hands on a patient, and using history and physical exam skills, I can diagnose 90% of what I see. But because of the current climate, I and every doctor I know still orders CTs, XRs, labs....most of which contribute nothing to the diagnosis or treatment plan. So a $400 ER visit now becomes a $7500. I don't get paid, the poor patient gets bankrupt, and nobody benefits.

Last week, our hospital CEO, VP-nursing, and two docs and 4 lawyers spent 2 hours in deposition on a case that is totally frivilous. If I may assume that the hospital execs and doctors time is worth at least what the lawyers time is, then that's $250 x 8 x 2 hours == $4000! That's not counted in your 2%, but guess who pays it? Every American who pays health insurance premiums, because somebody's insurance pays those legal fees, and they're passed on to YOU.

Every piece of medical equipment from pacers to artificial joints must carry manufacture's liability, equating to ~25% of the final cost. THAT's not counted in the "2%".

If we could eliminate frivolous lawsuits and their attendant costs, we could EASILY compete with other countries on dollars per person spent on healthcare.

I see your point, but it is still a drop in the bucket compared to the lack of market forces. The cost of production of any good or service has little to do in the long run with selling price with market forces. If a good or service prices itself out of the market to cover cost, either it will be sold at a loss(and not for long) or not sold. In health care the AMA and government control the supply and government and insurance companies control the demand (by paying the price). Even if malpractice was 10% (including defensive medicine) it is a drop in the bucket.
In boob jobs and other elective surgeries, do the doctors, nurses, and equipment makers pay malpractice insurance? Yep! Their prices are going down! Out of pocket payment(market forces).

badbullgator
07-17-2009, 09:37 AM
Here is another great example of how good insurance is for us. Tomorrow (Saturday) I have to come in to do a procedure for one patient that will take about 2 hours of my time and an hour of the physicians time. The insurance will reimburse $100.67 for this. Cost of materials and reagents alone for this procedure is right around $45, leaving about $55 to cover 2 hours of my time and hour of the doc’s time. The doc is the one getting screwed because that is not even enough to cover me for 2 hours in salary alone not to mention benefits, insurance, and general operating expenses.

Oh yeah, there is the $15 co-pay

dnf777
07-17-2009, 11:39 AM
I see your point, but it is still a drop in the bucket compared to the lack of market forces. The cost of production of any good or service has little to do in the long run with selling price with market forces. If a good or service prices itself out of the market to cover cost, either it will be sold at a loss(and not for long) or not sold. In health care the AMA and government control the supply and government and insurance companies control the demand (by paying the price). Even if malpractice was 10% (including defensive medicine) it is a drop in the bucket.
In boob jobs and other elective surgeries, do the doctors, nurses, and equipment makers pay malpractice insurance? Yep! Their prices are going down! Out of pocket payment(market forces).

Prices are going down because they're fixed by the gov't and insurance companies, that are allowed to collectively set prices. Not a very free market. Try walking into a tire shop and telling the man, "I'm going to pay 28% of what you're asking for the first tire, then 14% of the second, and 5% for the last two. Then tell him he HAS to perform the work, accept what you're telling him you're gonna pay, or find another job.

Well, most docs don't quit (although many are) becasue they still make a good living, and went into this to help people, not get rich. Unfortunately, its not the current docs who are doing anything about it, it's our nations best and brightest students who USED to go into medicine, but now figure it's not worth the hassle, and risk of incurring MASSIVE educational debt, and ending up with a gov't job. Next time you go to the doctor, and can't understand a word he or she says, or the business manager at the office seems to have more on the ball than the doc....you'll know why. Its gonna get worse, as more and more of the old-time docs hang it up.

off the soapbox regards,
dave

tpaschal30
07-17-2009, 12:16 PM
Prices are going down because they're fixed by the gov't and insurance companies, that are allowed to collectively set prices. Not a very free market. Try walking into a tire shop and telling the man, "I'm going to pay 28% of what you're asking for the first tire, then 14% of the second, and 5% for the last two. Then tell him he HAS to perform the work, accept what you're telling him you're gonna pay, or find another job.

Well, most docs don't quit (although many are) becasue they still make a good living, and went into this to help people, not get rich. Unfortunately, its not the current docs who are doing anything about it, it's our nations best and brightest students who USED to go into medicine, but now figure it's not worth the hassle, and risk of incurring MASSIVE educational debt, and ending up with a gov't job. Next time you go to the doctor, and can't understand a word he or she says, or the business manager at the office seems to have more on the ball than the doc....you'll know why. Its gonna get worse, as more and more of the old-time docs hang it up.

off the soapbox regards,
dave

Elective boob jobs and plastic surgery are generally not covered by insurance. It is out of pocket. It is the only sector of medicine costs are going down. Name another industry where technological advances have increased costs?

mjh345
07-17-2009, 01:18 PM
Elective boob jobs and plastic surgery are generally not covered by insurance. It is out of pocket. It is the only sector of medicine costs are going down. Name another industry where technological advances have increased costs?

Good point. I would add that Lasik also is usually paid for out of pocket, and its costs have also dropped dramatically, while its effectiveness has gotten better as technological advances have been made.

We basically have had hybrid socialized medicine in this country for years in most areas other than the elective out of pocket procedures mentioned. More govt intrusion in health care will exaberate the problem, not solve it

The examples cited show that unfetterd competition and free market principles work well to give us the best delivery of goods and services in health care as well as most other segments of our economy

dnf777
07-17-2009, 01:45 PM
Elective boob jobs and plastic surgery are generally not covered by insurance. It is out of pocket. It is the only sector of medicine costs are going down. Name another industry where technological advances have increased costs?

You're right. Elective or lifestyle procedures are not covered. they're out of pocket. Thats why most plastic surgeons pay more in taxes than I make in salary. They fly high, and fall hard with the economy. If you want to get rich, give people what the WANT, not what they NEED. I see people on a daily basis with packs of Marlboros in their purses, telling me they can't afford a $4 prescription at WalMart, and feel that I should pay for it!?

HuntsmanTollers
07-17-2009, 11:41 PM
As a Nurse I am concerned about what is happening with the Health Care Bill. I will be the first to admit that I have not been a supporter of Global Health Care. However, I do support health care reform and universal preventative care. Yes, I believe there is a difference. The bipartisan CBO office is telling us that the costs are going to greatly exceed those projected by Congress. Congress is saying that the CBO is not looking at the savings for preventative Health Care. It is my understanding that cost savings for preventative Health Care is a needle in the haystack, it just doesn't happen. Additionally, I don't understand how Congress can discuss Health Care reform without discussing Tort Reform for medical malpractice. Rushing these bills through by August is not reasonable. I want my Senators and Congressmen to take the time and have a Public Debate on this important issue. Public debate helps to ensure that the best ideas come forward. I encourage everyone to write their Representatives and encourage them to slow down and get this right because if it is done wrong are we going to be able to live with the results?

Respectfully,

Matthew Martin

Gerry Clinchy
07-18-2009, 12:41 AM
Interesting note in the NY Times. Massachusetts has a near-universal health care program which has succeeded in getting 97% of the state's population covered with health insurance.

Small problem. They now compute that in a few years the state's annual cost for this will double. Surprise, surprise. So, they are considering paying doctors and hospitals "flat fees" per patient, rather than paying for each service rendered.

Seems incredible that none of our sage Congresspeople have bothered to take a look at what's happening in Massachusetts ... before they try to go national.

HuntsmanTollers
07-18-2009, 04:45 AM
Seems incredible that none of our sage Congresspeople have bothered to take a look at what's happening in Massachusetts ... before they try to go national.

If I am not mistaken one of the main sponsors of the current health care bill is from Massachusetts. Guess he is trying to help his state out by redistributing who pays.

Hew
07-18-2009, 06:51 AM
Additionally, I don't understand how Congress can discuss Health Care reform without discussing Tort Reform for medical malpractice.
On the off chance that that is not just a rhetorical question:

Whereas medical malpractice is a cash cow for trial lawyers,
and trial lawyers are a cash cow for Democrats in Congress,
and Democrats control Congress,
be it resolved that tort reform ain't happenin'.

YardleyLabs
07-18-2009, 07:18 AM
On the off chance that that is not just a rhetorical question:

Whereas medical malpractice is a cash cow for trial lawyers,
and trial lawyers are a cash cow for Democrats in Congress,
and Democrats control Congress,
be it resolved that tort reform ain't happenin'.
To paraphrase:

Whereas the current system is a cash cow for insurance and pharmaceutical companies,
and insurance and pharmaceutical companies are a cash cow for Republicans in Congress,
and Republicans want to control Congress again as they have for 12 of the last 16 years,
be it resolved that health care reform ain't happenin' except over the loud and persistent objections of Republicans.

Unfortunately, when it comes to fund raising, no one has very clean hands.

dnf777
07-18-2009, 08:41 AM
On the off chance that that is not just a rhetorical question:

Whereas medical malpractice is a cash cow for trial lawyers,
and trial lawyers are a cash cow for Democrats in Congress,
and Democrats control Congress,
be it resolved that tort reform ain't happenin'.

Couldn't agree more, Hew.
Unfortunately, even Republicans aren't the answer. I was thrilled to see when Bill Frist was named majority leader, thinking he would help our cause...but NOTHING about tort reform came, and his health insurance company became one of the nation's largest by having one hand in doctor's pockets, and the other in patients! We saw the practices of bundling, down-coding, and denial of claims rise to a new level with his company and a few others.

So basically, we're screwed!

Hew
07-18-2009, 10:00 AM
To paraphrase:

Whereas the current system is a cash cow for insurance and pharmaceutical companies,
and insurance and pharmaceutical companies are a cash cow for Republicans in Congress,
and Republicans want to control Congress again as they have for 12 of the last 16 years,
be it resolved that health care reform ain't happenin' except over the loud and persistent objections of Republicans.

Unfortunately, when it comes to fund raising, no one has very clean hands.

Oh no, I've been pulled over by the moral equivilency police. But alas, you're wrong. Here's the insurance companies giving more to Dems than Reps:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09 (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09) and here's the pharms giving more to the Dems than Reps: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04++&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=5 (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04++&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=5)

YardleyLabs
07-18-2009, 11:05 AM
Oh no, I've been pulled over by the moral equivilency police. But alas, you're wrong. Here's the insurance companies giving more to Dems than Reps:
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09 (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F09) and here's the pharms giving more to the Dems than Reps: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04++&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=5 (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=H04++&goButt2.x=9&goButt2.y=5)
Check out those numbers. A $27 million to $14 million advantage of Republican donations over Democrat donations since 2000.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-19-2009, 12:28 AM
Check out those numbers. A $27 million to $14 million advantage of Republican donations over Democrat donations since 2000.

Your use of the word "since" is inaccurate....sorry bud, but it is.

To have stated the Fact(s) correctly, you would have had to say..."IN" the year 2000, 27 million went to Repubs and 14 million went to Dems.

But your point, I assume was to be that "since" the year 2000, Repbulicans have had 54 million dollars more contrubuted to their party. (rounded off to the million)

And likewise to defend Hew equally...he, I would assume was refering to CURRENT contributions and there he is accurate that in the year 2009 Democrates have had the larger amount of contributions...

Typical, really it is...for the current pulse of the nation to want to look at the past...when it is more prudent to watch the HERE AND NOW!!!!!

NCA

FoggMoore
07-19-2009, 03:04 AM
I am disappointed but not surprised of the effectiveness of the insurance and medical industries' campaign that tort reform is the panacea for increasing health care cost. For those of you who support that position, don't worry, in ten years it will probably be impractical to sue a health care provider.

In regard to medical malpractice cases, as of 2005, there were at least twenty-nine states that limited non-economic damages; numerous states that banned or limited punitive damages; numerous states that limited attorney fees; and numerous states that imposed significant procedural hurdles before a case can be filed. Since 2005, I imagine additional states have passed legislation limiting damages or imposing other procedural hurdles in malpractice cases. (I apologize, but after I counted the states limiting non-economic damages, I got tired.)

As a general rule med mal cases are very expensive to try and very difficult to win. Mal practice cases are very vigorously defended and health care providers enjoy a great advantage in this type of litigation. As a consequence and as a general rule, attorneys don't take med mal cases unless they think that the damages are substantial and that the deviation from the standard of care can be clearly proven. You generally can't get to trial in a malpractice case unless you first show by competent medical proof prior to trial that a deviation has occurred which has damaged your client.

Yes, I am certain that there are some "frivolous" cases filed, but probably not that many. They would be just too much trouble. However, there are many cases that are filed that are subsequently dismissed for numerous valid reasons. Suits are often filed to protect a statute of limitations. In a lot of states the statute of limitations is only a year. Suits are also filed to enable you to investigate your case. Since people won't talk to you without a subpoena, suits are filed so that depositions and other discovery can be taken to ascertain whether you have a case which merits investing a lot your own money in it. (People who have sustained serious damages very rarely can finance the expense of a malpractice suit.)

I find particularly interesting the claim that the practice of "defensive medicine" drives up health care costs. A recurring complaint of my doctor friends is having insurance clerks question the necessity of their orders for procedures or tests. I guess this just occurs in non-mal practice cases.

Insurance companies are who raise insurance premiums and they may do so for reasons that may entirely unrelated to mal practice costs or health care loss i.e. to diminish losses in other areas of coverage, to offset loss of investment income, etc.

For the proponents of tort refore, be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Lanier Fogg

dnf777
07-19-2009, 09:50 AM
I am disappointed but not surprised of the effectiveness of the insurance and medical industries' campaign that tort reform is the panacea for increasing health care cost. For those of you who support that position, don't worry, in ten years it will probably be impractical to sue a health care provider.

In regard to medical malpractice cases, as of 2005, there were at least twenty-nine states that limited non-economic damages; numerous states that banned or limited punitive damages; numerous states that limited attorney fees; and numerous states that imposed significant procedural hurdles before a case can be filed. Since 2005, I imagine additional states have passed legislation limiting damages or imposing other procedural hurdles in malpractice cases. (I apologize, but after I counted the states limiting non-economic damages, I got tired.)

As a general rule med mal cases are very expensive to try and very difficult to win. Mal practice cases are very vigorously defended and health care providers enjoy a great advantage in this type of litigation. As a consequence and as a general rule, attorneys don't take med mal cases unless they think that the damages are substantial and that the deviation from the standard of care can be clearly proven. You generally can't get to trial in a malpractice case unless you first show by competent medical proof prior to trial that a deviation has occurred which has damaged your client.

Yes, I am certain that there are some "frivolous" cases filed, but probably not that many. They would be just too much trouble. However, there are many cases that are filed that are subsequently dismissed for numerous valid reasons. Suits are often filed to protect a statute of limitations. In a lot of states the statute of limitations is only a year. Suits are also filed to enable you to investigate your case. Since people won't talk to you without a subpoena, suits are filed so that depositions and other discovery can be taken to ascertain whether you have a case which merits investing a lot your own money in it. (People who have sustained serious damages very rarely can finance the expense of a malpractice suit.)

I find particularly interesting the claim that the practice of "defensive medicine" drives up health care costs. A recurring complaint of my doctor friends is having insurance clerks question the necessity of their orders for procedures or tests. I guess this just occurs in non-mal practice cases.

Insurance companies are who raise insurance premiums and they may do so for reasons that may entirely unrelated to mal practice costs or health care loss i.e. to diminish losses in other areas of coverage, to offset loss of investment income, etc.

For the proponents of tort refore, be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Lanier Fogg

Good lawyers, like good doctors, realize when they've made a mistake. Good lawyers don't even take the "mistake" frivilous cases, only the ones where true damage occured. Let me point out, not all bad outcomes and damage are results of "malpractice". Our system has its own risk management, legal team, and when there is truly harm done, whether malpractice or not, our system offers settlements to patients that they actually get in their hands when they need it....not 10 years later after money-grubbing ambulance chasers leave them with only 28 cents on the dollar!

It is the all too numerous dime-a-dozen ambulance-chasers who clog our courts with junk cases, that cost $50,000 on average to defend. In Pennsylvania, over 90% of cases that go to a jury are found in favor of the Doctor! Tell me, would you continue to license and support a medical practice who was WRONG over 90% of the time???

Maybe we need a much smaller cadre of legitimate lawyers for when they are truly needed, and scrap the other 90% who do nothing but make false promises, and drive up health care costs for all Americans.

No, tort-reform is not a panacea, but it's one helluva big mess that needs fixed!

As for the cost of defensive medicine, see posts #6 and #16.

Hew
07-20-2009, 08:43 AM
No, tort-reform is not a panacea, but it's one helluva big mess that needs fixed!
Exactamundo.

Hew
07-20-2009, 10:10 AM
Check out those numbers. A $27 million to $14 million advantage of Republican donations over Democrat donations since 2000.
You can go back to 2006 or 1946 and it doesn't matter. Health care reform is being debated now. And in this election cycle the Dems are raking in more money than the GOP from lawyers, pharms and insurance companies.

dnf777
07-20-2009, 10:58 AM
You can go back to 2006 or 1946 and it doesn't matter. Health care reform is being debated now. And in this election cycle the Dems are raking in more money than the GOP from lawyers, pharms and insurance companies.

Well of course. With dems controlling both houses of congress and the white house, it wouldn't make much sense to throw good money at a super-minority party. Who's gonna effect change?? It ain't the republicans right now.

The dollar comparisons are more valid when there's a balance of power. Then you can gauge who's most susceptible to lobbyist influence. (and that's just accounting for the dollars we actually see, not counting the rest)

Hew
07-20-2009, 11:07 AM
Well of course. With dems controlling both houses of congress and the white house, it wouldn't make much sense to throw good money at a super-minority party. Who's gonna effect change?? It ain't the republicans right now.
Captain Obvious to the rescue! :-P;) j/k

Yeah, I know all that. I was just pointing out that Yardley's moral equivilency from before (to paraphrase: "Yes, I know you're talking about tort reform at the moment but I can't help myself and must interject that the Republicans are more corrupt on a different issue so therefore it's jim dandy that the Democrats are in the trial lawyers' pockets.") was unfounded.

road kill
07-20-2009, 11:09 AM
Every where that has gone to nationalized health care laments it's failure.

What makes all you progressive liberals think it will work here now??

It's a power grab!!

Raymond Little
07-20-2009, 12:10 PM
Every where that has gone to nationalized health care laments it's failure.

What makes all you progressive liberals think it will work here now??

It's a power grab!!

Same reason they think a 787 BILLION $ STIMLAS PACKAGE WILL WORK!
Ya Think?:rolleyes:

road kill
07-20-2009, 12:57 PM
Same reason they think a 787 BILLION $ STIMLAS PACKAGE WILL WORK!
Ya Think?:rolleyes:

Yeah, let's "spend our way out of debt!!"
Joe Biden addressing the AARP!!

dnf777
07-20-2009, 02:09 PM
Every where that has gone to nationalized health care laments it's failure.

What makes all you progressive liberals think it will work here now??

It's a power grab!!

Road Kill,
I don't want to see nationalized health care, believe me. But unfortunately the argument you described does not hold water. I would love to be able to make that argument, b/c it's a good one....if it were true.

In Denmark, they have nat'l care, NO tort mess, and reasonalbe care for everyone. Reasonable, not perfect. Many of the things we hear long wait lists for, don't truly require immediate attention. We're just accustomed to that in America. (I"m no exception) but the true urgencies are treated in justa timely fashion.

If I were one of the people with the choice of forgoing needed care, or going bankrupt, you bet I'd settle for reasonable care, even if I had to wait a little longer than I"m used to.

I don't suspect a common sense approach or solution is in our near future. Too many of the players have their own agenda, which is not necessarily the best agenda for our country. As long as we have K-street in DC, don't look for honest answers.

tpaschal30
07-21-2009, 06:30 AM
"The system has generally remained unchanged since the 1970’s, however its growing inability to meet the demands of the changing lifestyles of Danes and its inefficient allocation of resources has led to falling satisfaction levels from 4.3 in 1993 to 3.4 in 2000 on scale 1-5.1 This created the necessity to introduce reforms to improve the quality of the health system, increase consumer choice and improve both allocative and technical efficiency since waiting lists were considered to be too long."

Which have not worked BTW.

source
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:WDAtu9OgBWEJ:www.econ.qmul.ac.uk/NHS_reforms.com/student_file/Denmark_Reforms_Mazhar.doc+waiting+lists+%22denmar k+health+care%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

dnf777
07-21-2009, 08:53 AM
"The system has generally remained unchanged since the 1970’s, however its growing inability to meet the demands of the changing lifestyles of Danes and its inefficient allocation of resources has led to falling satisfaction levels from 4.3 in 1993 to 3.4 in 2000 on scale 1-5.1 This created the necessity to introduce reforms to improve the quality of the health system, increase consumer choice and improve both allocative and technical efficiency since waiting lists were considered to be too long."

Which have not worked BTW.

source
http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:WDAtu9OgBWEJ:www.econ.qmul.ac.uk/NHS_reforms.com/student_file/Denmark_Reforms_Mazhar.doc+waiting+lists+%22denmar k+health+care%22&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

It shouldn't be surprising to learn that they are constantly striving to improve quality and deliverance of care. That's what a good system does. It should also not be surprising that in a subjective "satisfaction" poll, numbers are down. We're in a global recession, and people in general, just ain't happy.

Let them come here, and have to declare bankruptcy due to a flu bug that requires a 3-day $10,000 bill, and see how we compare on their satisfaction poll.

Also, they do not have a tort system as we do, and therefore have billions more to spend on actual caring for patients, rather than caring for lawyers.

also, I'll paste the final line from the conclusion of the study you referenced:

Finally, we can conclude that the reforms made limited impact but were generally a step in the right direction. Furthermore, Denmark has learnt from the lessons of other countries such as the USA but it is Denmark that has the potential to teach other countries lessons on managing a successful healthcare system.

Let me re-emphasize, I am not for natioanal health care. I think eventually a two-teired system will evolve. Everyone can get a ford, but not everyone can afford a cadillac.

road kill
07-21-2009, 08:56 AM
Road Kill,
I don't want to see nationalized health care, believe me. But unfortunately the argument you described does not hold water. I would love to be able to make that argument, b/c it's a good one....if it were true.

In Denmark, they have nat'l care, NO tort mess, and reasonalbe care for everyone. Reasonable, not perfect. Many of the things we hear long wait lists for, don't truly require immediate attention. We're just accustomed to that in America. (I"m no exception) but the true urgencies are treated in justa timely fashion.
If I were one of the people with the choice of forgoing needed care, or going bankrupt, you bet I'd settle for reasonable care, even if I had to wait a little longer than I"m used to.

I don't suspect a common sense approach or solution is in our near future. Too many of the players have their own agenda, which is not necessarily the best agenda for our country. As long as we have K-street in DC, don't look for honest answers.
Cite one source that says their Nationalized Healthcare is good.


So now we want to be like Denmark??
What happened to being like France??

tpaschal30
07-21-2009, 09:01 AM
The only way socialized medicine can keep cost down is to ration. " its inefficient allocation of resources" is inherent in any nonmarket system. We mostly nonmarket now. Socialist want it totally nonmarket. We need to end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance(with high deductable) . Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

YardleyLabs
07-21-2009, 09:19 AM
Every where that has gone to nationalized health care laments it's failure.

What makes all you progressive liberals think it will work here now??

It's a power grab!!
That's a very broad statement. I would be interested in your basis for such a claim. The fact is that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that has not implemented some form of national health coverage. On one hand, I would expect to see some level of dissatisfaction with any such system. However, the real test is whether or not people in those countries would choose to abandon their national coverage and return to a primarily privately funded system. The track record is pretty clear that they do not make that choice. I believe in this country that five years after a national program is established, the only question for the majority of the population will be why didn't we do it sooner.

dnf777
07-21-2009, 10:19 AM
Cite one source that says their Nationalized Healthcare is good.


So now we want to be like Denmark??
What happened to being like France??

Whoa!!! You're taking those comments WAY out of context. Read my first line. I DO NOT want nat'l health care. Nor do I want to be like France, although I wish Pennsylvania had better cabernets and merlots.

I won't restate my post, you can read it in it's entirety, and see what I said.

I will say again, and you can mark my words, that a two-teired system will likely evolve. Fords for everyone, Cadillacs for those who can/want to pay for it. (poor analogy, I'd rather have a ford anyday, but you get the point)

Waits will exist. And will probably get longer as more doctors seek employment outside of healthcare due to continuuing declining reimbursement. And, as I said before, our best and brightest are no longer going into medicine, nor people born and raised in the USA. (notice, you don't see Danish or French doctors here, but more and more from the middle-east and asia)

WaterDogRem
07-21-2009, 11:02 AM
That's a very broad statement. I would be interested in your basis for such a claim. The fact is that the US is the only industrialized country in the world that has not implemented some form of national health coverage. On one hand, I would expect to see some level of dissatisfaction with any such system. However, the real test is whether or not people in those countries would choose to abandon their national coverage and return to a primarily privately funded system. The track record is pretty clear that they do not make that choice. I believe in this country that five years after a national program is established, the only question for the majority of the population will be why didn't we do it sooner.

Umm, the US has not done this, but Tennessee has tried and is failing. TN even tried instating a state income tax just to pay for Tenn Care.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=51238
So again the question is still, give one example where this works?

kjrice
07-21-2009, 11:40 AM
After my last knee surgery, I went to PT three times per week. For an hour all I did was get electro-stimulated for 15 minutes, do some exercises according to a chart that was handed to me (super easy), and ice for 10 minutes. They charged my insurance $300 per visit. GIVE ME A BREAK! Since we have been forced down the road of "managed care", the costs have gone up and the service has gone down. The cost of prescriptions are insane too.

Eric Johnson
07-21-2009, 03:26 PM
http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning%2Dbell%2Dobama%2Dadmits%2Dhes%2Dnot%2Dfami liar%2Dwith%2Dhouse%2Dbill/

http://tinyurl.com/nl7ses

Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill

Posted July 21st, 2009 at 9.16am in Health Care.

With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”

-more-

HuntsmanTollers
07-21-2009, 03:35 PM
Eric you know its the concept that matters. Don't worry about the details they will only get in the way. It won't hurt too much, he promised.

Gerry Clinchy
07-21-2009, 03:51 PM
The track record is pretty clear that they do not make that choice.

Do they have the opportunity to make the choice?

Has anyone surveyed the recipients and providers of a government-run program in the countries that have it already? Or in the states that have tried it?

If the systems in place have problems, the caregivers and patients would know about them first-hand. It seems it would be worth examining what does not work, before jumping intoa program like this that will be a HUGE investment of taxpayer money. It is not something to be rushed into as this administration is trying to do.

So far in the U.S. Medicare and Medicaid are growing way over projections in cost. Whatever is wrong with Medicare in cost projections (and fraud and abuse) would be an excellent "model" to get working well before extending the same kind of system to millions more people.

YardleyLabs
07-21-2009, 05:25 PM
http://www.heritage.org/2009/07/21/morning%2Dbell%2Dobama%2Dadmits%2Dhes%2Dnot%2Dfami liar%2Dwith%2Dhouse%2Dbill/

http://tinyurl.com/nl7ses

Morning Bell: Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill

Posted July 21st, 2009 at 9.16am in Health Care.

With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.”

-more-
If you are seriously interested, the full text of the house Bill is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text. The section 102 questioned in the links you provide is a technical paragraph guaranteeing that people and employers will be able to retain current plans, even if they do not meet the standards of the bill, during a transitional period. If they meet the minimum standards of coverage stated in the bill, the plans would be qualified plans under the law and there would be no limits on their continuation.

Basically the proposed law defines minimum standards of coverage for insurance plans including standards to preclude discrimination in coverage or rates based on pre-existing conditions. Plans that meet the standards would be available through union or employer sponsored programs or for individual purchase. A publicly operated plan would be one of the options available in addition to all private offerings. Coverage would be ensured through a mix employer provided coverage mandates, individual coverage mandates, and cost subsidies for lower income individuals. Obviously, all parts of the bill are potentially important. All are available for review by any legislator or member of the public. Obviously, as amendments are introduced and voted on, the text changes. However, suggestions by Republicans that the process is being kept secret and that the bill is not available for review are simply propaganda.

For the most part, as far as I can tell, the bill does nothing that will significantly change benefits now available through (legitimate) private insurance programs. Its primary impacts will be felt in three areas related to maximizing the extent of coverage:

A requirement that employers provide qualified coverage under which the employer either covers a defined minimum percentage of premium costs or pays a tax equal to 8% of payroll if no coverage is offered.
A requirement that individuals not otherwise covered either purchase qualified coverage or pay a tax equal to 2.5% of income.
A program for subsidizing the costs of coverage for low income individuals and families.

YardleyLabs
07-21-2009, 05:39 PM
Do they have the opportunity to make the choice?

Has anyone surveyed the recipients and providers of a government-run program in the countries that have it already? Or in the states that have tried it?

If the systems in place have problems, the caregivers and patients would know about them first-hand. It seems it would be worth examining what does not work, before jumping intoa program like this that will be a HUGE investment of taxpayer money. It is not something to be rushed into as this administration is trying to do.

So far in the U.S. Medicare and Medicaid are growing way over projections in cost. Whatever is wrong with Medicare in cost projections (and fraud and abuse) would be an excellent "model" to get working well before extending the same kind of system to millions more people.
Virtually every government offering national health insurance is at least as democratic as we are. Presumably they could eliminate national coverage if they chose. Most countries allow individuals to purchase private insurance to supplement nationally mandated coverages if they choose. This is similar to what has been proposed in the US where the mandated minimum standard of coverage would be limited but individuals and employers could choose to buy additional coverages.

Surveys are done all the time in those countries concerning satisfaction with coverage. Satisfaction varies, just as the approaches used y different countries vary. In the proposed US plan, there would be no nationalization of health services as there is in England. Rather, there would simply be an expansion of the number of people receiving coverage under health benefit plans similar to those that exist now. I suspect that satisfaction amond those who now lack coverage but would have it in the future would go up and that satisfaction among those that now have coverage and continue to have it would be essentially unchanged.

With respect to cost control under Medicaid and Medicare, the problem has historically been that the programs are not permitted to control costs because of restrictions imposed to meet the desires of lobbyists representing providers. The most dramatic instance of this was the prohibition of negotiated pricing when the prescription plans was implemented under Medicare. This dramatically increased the cost of benefits. The "value" was a massive windfall in pharmaceutical company profits. Nothing in the proposed bill limits the authority of any plan (private or public) from negotiating prices with providers as long as they maintain networks of participating providers sufficient to meet the needs of their covered population.

Henry V
07-21-2009, 05:46 PM
There was a good health care discussion on public radio today. You can download a podcast at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106853465

If you turn your tinfoil hats just right, I am sure you won't be assimilated if you listen to the broadcast.;)

IowaBayDog
07-21-2009, 06:47 PM
1. 61% of Americans are obese
2. USA is 37th in Healthcare performance out of all countries (World Healthcare Organization)
3. Americans pay more for healthcare than any other nation - >$1 trillion paid in 1997.... projected to be >$16 trillion by 2030 (Healthcare Financing Administration)
4. 60 Million Americans suffer from some sort of Cardiovascular Disease (American Heart Association)
5. 1 out of 13 Americans has Diabetes and the numbers are rising
6. Some people believe the world is flat
7. Some people believe that man has never landed on the moon
8. Some people believe the Holocaust Never really happened
9. Some people believe Canada is planning to invade the USA
10. Some people believe we don't need Healthcare reform

As one who has recently entered the Healthcare business....... I can say we don't have "healthcare" in this country, we only have "sickness" care for those that can afford it..... and more and more cannot afford it. You might be next, or your neighbor, or your children, etc. Visit my website to learn more.

11. Some people think snake oil in a glass will improve your health. :rolleyes:

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-21-2009, 07:30 PM
If you are seriously interested, the full text of the house Bill is available at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text. The section 102 questioned in the links you provide is a technical paragraph guaranteeing that people and employers will be able to retain current plans, even if they do not meet the standards of the bill, during a transitional period. If they meet the minimum standards of coverage stated in the bill, the plans would be qualified plans under the law and there would be no limits on their continuation.

Basically the proposed law defines minimum standards of coverage for insurance plans including standards to preclude discrimination in coverage or rates based on pre-existing conditions. Plans that meet the standards would be available through union or employer sponsored programs or for individual purchase. A publicly operated plan would be one of the options available in addition to all private offerings. Coverage would be ensured through a mix employer provided coverage mandates, individual coverage mandates, and cost subsidies for lower income individuals. Obviously, all parts of the bill are potentially important. All are available for review by any legislator or member of the public. Obviously, as amendments are introduced and voted on, the text changes. However, suggestions by Republicans that the process is being kept secret and that the bill is not available for review are simply propaganda.For the most part, as far as I can tell, the bill does nothing that will significantly change benefits now available through (legitimate) private insurance programs. Its primary impacts will be felt in three areas related to maximizing the extent of coverage:

A requirement that employers provide qualified coverage under which the employer either covers a defined minimum percentage of premium costs or pays a tax equal to 8% of payroll if no coverage is offered.
A requirement that individuals not otherwise covered either purchase qualified coverage or pay a tax equal to 2.5% of income.
A program for subsidizing the costs of coverage for low income individuals and families.

I am glad you know where to access the viewing of the bill, I am glad you can explain it to others (as you see it)....

NOW GO DO THAT FOR OUR LEADER....THE DAMN PRESIDENT!!!!!!

He should (I feel) have some ELEMENTRY explainations ready for the masses, especially an easy question like that Blogger/Reporter asked.

Bold face type: I do not and have not ever (and I think that the majority of Repubs) felt that our claims are of a nature that would include, "kept seceret" or "not available for review"

I would however say that my complaint (and most others) is that they are not giving ENGOUH TIME TO REVIEW, and want to ram it down the pipeline. Now whos propaganda should I believe, ours...Please give us some time to review this MASSIVE proposal throughly and accurately, or theirs WE NEED IT NOW, IT CANT WAIT, DO IT OR ELSE!!!!

Bold Red Type: Both of those points are what I have a major problem with...WHAT HAPPENED TO MY FREEDOM OF CHOICE...I am now expected to give up that right too...I have the freedom to NOT HAVE HEALTHCARE for what ever GOD damn reason I want (of course I do, employer provided) but if I didnt want it, now your telling me I have to have it...Piss off pal, If I am healthy and dont need it, which I happen to be and havent been to the doctors or called in sick to work in 8 years, the government is telling me TAKE IT OR PAY....to hell with that...I FLAT OUT WONT.

and if you dont have healthcare, I have to pay for you...sorry you better live a healthy lifestyle, eat your fruits and veggies, cut back on BK, Jacks and the like.

OR GET A JOB and get some health care...either employer provided or pay as you go...and if you tell me that the premiums are to high, well then I revert back to YOU BETTER GET A HEALTHY LIFESYTLE plan in place.

Jeff,

I just want you to know that only the top portion of my post, when using the "You" word actually is in reference to you. ie. You exlain, You tell the president.

The other 94.828374654 % of the "you" "your" "piss off pal" references were about the Gooberment.


NCA

Gerry Clinchy
07-21-2009, 07:38 PM
A requirement that employers provide qualified coverage under which the employer either covers a defined minimum percentage of premium costs or pays a tax equal to 8% of payroll if no coverage is offered.
A requirement that individuals not otherwise covered either purchase qualified coverage or pay a tax equal to 2.5% of income.
A program for subsidizing the costs of coverage for low income individuals and familWhy does an employer pay 8% of payroll, but each individual would only pay 2.5% of income? Does that mean that the employer is required to give a better plan than could be purchased for 2.5% of payroll. (I'm assuming here that "payroll" is equal to the income paid to all their employees.) Or is the extra 5.5% used to help out the low-income people?

I think there is a real problem starting such a program when the economy is in the toilet. The # of low-income people gets pretty large as people stay unemployed. The tax revenues go down. Small businesses are struggling.

I might have more sympathy for our legislators' motives if they
1) Agreed to accept the low-income, subsidized plan as their own basic plan; and pay for anything more luxurious out of their own pockets;

2) Join the Social Security/Medicare program that the rest of us have to pay into, instead of having their own "special" retirement package. This would free up a substantial amount of $. They could always upgrade their retirement plan from their own earnings, just like everybody else has to do.

Goose
07-21-2009, 07:47 PM
"You know I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about"

Unbelievable!! Dear Leader's shoving health care up our arse and he hasn't even read the freakin' bill. I'm pretty sure he learned to read in elementary school. They DO teach reading in elementary school in Kenya, don't they?

Question: How many democrats in Congress have read more than a few paragraphs of this Bill? Answer: None.

And I'm sure Dear Leader and his family including his children will be under the same health care plan as the rest of us...since it's such a great thing. And Congress will surely be included, too. We can all wait in line together to see the doctor.

And when it's discovered that this monster proves way more expensive than we thought let's just jack-up tax brackets to 70%, 80% or 95%. That'll take care of it. But if it doesn't let's just borrow more money from the ChiComs. I'm sure they won't mind.

And isn't ol' Teddy Kennedy getting a little old for those expensive surgeries? Shouldn't he just step aside and let somebody younger have a chance. We don't need to be spending so much money on an old man closer to death than most. I'm sure Dear Leader (and Tom Daschle) would agree with me. Stop wasting health care money on the elderly.

YardleyLabs
07-21-2009, 07:59 PM
I agree that the points regarding compulsory coverage are the heart of the bill. The balance is actually not very complicated. Currently, for those with employer or government sponsored health insurance, there are no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and the premiums paid by the healthy pay for the care of the ill. That is the essence of health insurance. In my company, employees had a choice of whether or not to accept coverage. One young woman with two young children did not. At the age of 30 she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. She had never been sick for a single day in the five years she worked for me. She had never had a day of hospitalization except when her kids were born. She didn't need coverage, especially if were going to cost her money she needed for other things.

As it turns out, she received the surgery she needed and the radiation and chemo treatments afterwards. She is still alive and still caring for her kids and still working. The costs were paid by the taxpayer. She had no savings so Medicaid took over. By her decision not to pay for her own insurance, she stole from each of us. So, while I understand your point, I disagree. I don't want to be the country that watches people die in the street for making the kind of decision you defend and that she made. The only fair way to avoid that is to make you pay a penalty that will help cover the cost of your mistake -- in this case, a 2.5% tax. You can still reject coverage, but you cannot reject all responsibility.

YardleyLabs
07-21-2009, 08:14 PM
[/list]Why does an employer pay 8% of payroll, but each individual would only pay 2.5% of income? Does that mean that the employer is required to give a better plan than could be purchased for 2.5% of payroll. (I'm assuming here that "payroll" is equal to the income paid to all their employees.) Or is the extra 5.5% used to help out the low-income people?

I think there is a real problem starting such a program when the economy is in the toilet. The # of low-income people gets pretty large as people stay unemployed. The tax revenues go down. Small businesses are struggling.

I might have more sympathy for our legislators' motives if they
1) Agreed to accept the low-income, subsidized plan as their own basic plan; and pay for anything more luxurious out of their own pockets;

2) Join the Social Security/Medicare program that the rest of us have to pay into, instead of having their own "special" retirement package. This would free up a substantial amount of $. They could always upgrade their retirement plan from their own earnings, just like everybody else has to do.
I can't pretend to speak for the authors of the bill, but I think I understand their logic. For qualified employer plans, the employer is required to pay at least 72% of the premium cost for an individual employee with the employee paying the difference. On average employers now pay more. I believe the 2.5% tax was intended to reflect the average amount of the premium cost that would normally be paid by employees, and the 8% was intended to approximate the cost to employers of providing qualified coverage. I am simply reporting, not advocating it. Personally, I believe employees should pay 100% of premium and that employers should pay zero. The non-coverage penalties paid by both employers and individuals as a consequence of not offering/buying coverage go into a trust fund used to pay for care provided to peole without coverage.

Gerry Clinchy
07-21-2009, 09:01 PM
I believe the 2.5% tax was intended to reflect the average amount of the premium cost that would normally be paid by employees,

Then this would mean that this amount would not cover the kind of plan an employer would provide. The kind of plan that the 2.5% would purchase, might only be the barest kind of catastrophic coverage. For someone earning $50,000/year, that would come to $1,250/year. Don't think that would buy a whole lot of protection for that wage-earner ... especially if there is a kid or two in that person's family.

The math of the whole thing just doesn't work. I figure I've paid about $30,000 or $35,000 in health insurance over the past 15 years. One serious illness, puts the insurance company "in the hole", probably big time in the hole. Now, the insurance company has had that $ to invest, if they can, so that it would be worth more by the time they have to pay out for an illness. However, some of their insureds have probably drawn out a whole lot more than I've put in during that time.

To insurance companies it's just a matter of math. You actuarily compute how much you need to take in from people who aren't getting sick, so that you can pay out to the ones that, according to the laws of probability, will need to be paid for. The math doesn't lie.

If we are to have any headway in the whole scenario, then we have to start with containing the expenses. If one could contain the expenses, then people could afford insurance from private providers.

If a private provider, to remain financially sound, charges 3X $1250/year, and the government will give it to you for $1250 ... and you get the same care. Which would you take? Keeping in mind that the private provider may only be making a profit of 10% on their "product" ... $375. If the government sells the same product for only $1250, and the actual cost of the product is $3375 (using actuarily sound computations), where do we end up? In a very deep hole. Hey, even if you give the private provider 20% profit, there's still a big hole in the bucket.

But this is even more frightening: from newsmax.com (granted a conservative source)


Ezekiel Emanuel is director of the Clinical Bioethics Department at the U.S. National Institutes of Health and an architect of Obama's healthcare reform plan. He is also the brother of Rahm Emanuel, Obama's White House chief of staff.


,,,, troubling article co-authored by Emanuel, which appeared in the medical journal The Lancet in January. It read in part: "Unlike allocation [of healthcare] by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. Every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age.
"Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.
"Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."

Sounds like Ezekiel thinks rationing of health care is okay.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-21-2009, 10:56 PM
I agree that the points regarding compulsory coverage are the heart of the bill. The balance is actually not very complicated. Currently, for those with employer or government sponsored health insurance, there are no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and the premiums paid by the healthy pay for the care of the ill. That is the essence of health insurance. In my company, employees had a choice of whether or not to accept coverage. One young woman with two young children did not. At the age of 30 she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. She had never been sick for a single day in the five years she worked for me. She had never had a day of hospitalization except when her kids were born. She didn't need coverage, especially if were going to cost her money she needed for other things.

As it turns out, she received the surgery she needed and the radiation and chemo treatments afterwards. She is still alive and still caring for her kids and still working. The costs were paid by the taxpayer. She had no savings so Medicaid took over. By her decision not to pay for her own insurance, she stole from each of us. So, while I understand your point, I disagree. I don't want to be the country that watches people die in the street for making the kind of decision you defend and that she made. Tough to watch, but thats the way it is, I dont like watching homeless people freeze during the winter months but they HAVE A CHOICE for better or worse the HAVE A CHOICE. The only fair way to avoid that is to make you pay a penalty that will help cover the cost of your mistake -- in this case, a 2.5% tax. You can still reject coverage, but you cannot reject all responsibility.

"pay a penalty"= "fair way" in your world.

Your senerio is touching, I feel for your former employee. But to say, "the only fair way to avoid that is to make you pay a penalty that will help cover the cost of your mistake" and then to say "I can still reject coverage" but "cannot reject all responsibility"

1st point is, it is MY mistake. Not yours, my mom's, my dad's, my grandparents, not my neighbors, and NOT AMERICAS. Mine and mine alone to bear the burdon of. I made a sound minded decision to not accept healthcare coverage, there should be NO obligation for anyone to pay up for me...(in my case) medi-cal or not. Your rational would be the same as if I choose to smoke 10 packs a day, well I got cancer and I choose not to have healthcare so, everyone pony up for me...the form of sickness doesnt matter be it unfournate luck or your own doing..

2nd point is, Yes I can choose to reject responsibility its a choice I again make without a gun to my head and of my own free will. People do it all the time, dead beat dads do every day...walking away from pregnant mothers. Mothers do it all the time walking away from obligations to their children...It is a choice and there should be no responsibility of the "masses" to pick up the slack.

What SHOULD happen is people should be held accountable for there choices...

you signed the dotted line...pony up!!! car, house, boat, credit cards, HEALTHCARE (bills not payed)

you choose to not have healthcare...pony up!!!! pay for it with a loan, or take your shot at the odds of survival.

I do think that reform needs to be made, but reform in the way of "pay a penalty" is not the way to go about it.

NCA

dnf777
07-21-2009, 11:26 PM
"pay a penalty"= "fair way" in your world.

you choose to not have healthcare...pony up!!!! pay for it with a loan, or take your shot at the odds of survival.

NCA

That sounds good, but what happens when your job is outsourced, you're unemployed and lose your health insurance. Do you think it's as simple as going to a bank and telling him you have no job, but would like to borrow $12,000 for family coverage?

That just happened to our former neighbors. He was a contractor who worked his A$$ off 12, 14 hour days to support his family. $hit happens, and through no fault of his own, he's now scraping by doing any menial job he can find. The job market isn't exactly booming right now.

He's a damn good man, married to a damn good woman, raising 6 beautiful kids who do well in school and are being raised with good Christian values, and now they're S.O.L.
I'd offer to help him out, but I know he's too proud, and I wouldn't want to embarrass him.

That's the problem I'm concerned with. Not third generation welfare rats, but GOOD, HARDWORKING AMERICANS who have had their jobs sold out overseas and are in a real bind. I don't have the answers, and nobody who spouts the old rhetoric of "git yerself a job" or take a loan, as a fix does either.

God forbid you find yourself inbetween jobs and insurance coverage and something like diabetes or breast cancer rears its ugly head. Then you have a "pre-existing condition" and are basically screwed for life, financially. Immunotherapy and radiation can EASILY top $100,000!

I guess my rant is all about the fact that NOT EVERYONE who is unemployed right now, or has devastating medical expenses is an irresponsible, worthless, lazy moocher. There's alot of our neighbors and brothers who have fallen on hard times. I can sit here and blame Bush, and everyone else here can blame Obama, but in the end, that doesn't help one person, or our country solve its problems.

On that cheerful note, I'm off to the hospital to rid the world of anothe rogue appendix. (hosp. bill = $6500, surgeons reimbursement = $380 medicare...where the heck does $6120 go????)

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-22-2009, 12:33 AM
God forbid you find yourself inbetween jobs and insurance coverage and something like diabetes or breast cancer rears its ugly head. Then you have a "pre-existing condition" and are basically screwed for life, financially. Immunotherapy and radiation can EASILY top $100,000!
I guess my rant is all about the fact that NOT EVERYONE who is unemployed right now, or has devastating medical expenses is an irresponsible, worthless, lazy moocher. There's alot of our neighbors and brothers who have fallen on hard times. I can sit here and blame Bush, and everyone else here can blame Obama, but in the end, that doesn't help one person, or our country solve its problems.


Been there done that.....(not that exact same thing)

and I agree not everyone is those things you listed...

there are resources out there for these situations..

you say he is a Christian...ever heard of Sumaritan insurance...point him in that direction...tell him to do some research I cant do it for him and quite frankly you shouldnt either. Thats the responsibility of being an adult.

I feel for everyone, dont get me wrong I am not some cold hearted person I do vol. my time 24 hrs a week with a FD, 6 hrs a week with Loves and Fishes and once a month with the Richmond rescue mission....but I have had those "hard times" fall on my head...and you know what I pulled myself up from the boot straps.

and thankfully I had the good fourtune of being raised with the motto..a penny saved is a penny earned..or the other one..SAVE IT FOR A RAINY DAY...thats what payed for my medical bills when I was without work...now I am blessed with a job and benifits, but that could change tommrow and you know what..BACK TO SQUARE ONE...pulling my bootstraps up again.

NCA

dnf777
07-22-2009, 07:00 AM
Been there done that.....(not that exact same thing)

and I agree not everyone is those things you listed...

there are resources out there for these situations..

you say he is a Christian...ever heard of Sumaritan insurance...point him in that direction...tell him to do some research I cant do it for him and quite frankly you shouldnt either. Thats the responsibility of being an adult.

I feel for everyone, dont get me wrong I am not some cold hearted person I do vol. my time 24 hrs a week with a FD, 6 hrs a week with Loves and Fishes and once a month with the Richmond rescue mission....but I have had those "hard times" fall on my head...and you know what I pulled myself up from the boot straps.

and thankfully I had the good fourtune of being raised with the motto..a penny saved is a penny earned..or the other one..SAVE IT FOR A RAINY DAY...thats what payed for my medical bills when I was without work...now I am blessed with a job and benifits, but that could change tommrow and you know what..BACK TO SQUARE ONE...pulling my bootstraps up again.

NCA

I understand what you're saying, and believe me, this guy knows more than you and I about the "responsibilities of being an adult".

I also agree and understand about saving for a rainy day. I try to keep 6 months of full monthly operating expense tucked away. I'm wasn't talking about sniffles and strep throat visits to the doc...MSAs are great for that...but try an MI, allergic reaction to bee stings....you can end up in the ICU for several days and come home with a nice little bill of $30,000 to $120,000 depending on procedures, etc....not many blue-collar working Americans can put THAT much away for a rainy day!

I see it every day, and it's getting more and more common. Hard-working americans who own a little home and are near retirement, get laid off, have a little medical problem, and BAM...losing their house and retirement savings. It happens. And its sad.

road kill
07-22-2009, 07:20 AM
I agree that the points regarding compulsory coverage are the heart of the bill. The balance is actually not very complicated. Currently, for those with employer or government sponsored health insurance, there are no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and the premiums paid by the healthy pay for the care of the ill. That is the essence of health insurance. In my company, employees had a choice of whether or not to accept coverage. One young woman with two young children did not. At the age of 30 she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. She had never been sick for a single day in the five years she worked for me. She had never had a day of hospitalization except when her kids were born. She didn't need coverage, especially if were going to cost her money she needed for other things.

As it turns out, she received the surgery she needed and the radiation and chemo treatments afterwards. She is still alive and still caring for her kids and still working. The costs were paid by the taxpayer. She had no savings so Medicaid took over. By her decision not to pay for her own insurance, she stole from each of us. So, while I understand your point, I disagree. I don't want to be the country that watches people die in the street for making the kind of decision you defend and that she made. The only fair way to avoid that is to make you pay a penalty that will help cover the cost of your mistake -- in this case, a 2.5% tax. You can still reject coverage, but you cannot reject all responsibility.


You've read the bill??

IowaBayDog
07-22-2009, 07:48 AM
The only thing in a glass that will restore your body that will then improve your health is Kangen water that you make yourself in your own home. Do your due diligence.


12. Some snake oil salesmen are actually convinced they're in the Healthcare industry.

I built and owned a bottled water business for several years. Attended all the trade shows, you're not even close to the first person that has attempted to peddle that snake oil. There were 5 or 6 at every Water trade show.

IowaBayDog
07-22-2009, 07:51 AM
The president sets the agenda. Congress makes the laws....that is why they are called the legislative branch. It is time for them to get to work.

I for one am glad we have a President that will let the light shine on his agenda rather than secret agenda's that 2 or 3 people decided was in our best interest as long as those active and often illegal agendas were kept secret from the tax paying citizens. The name calling is reminiscent and synonymous with the stellar tactics the minority used during the election cycle. If you don't think we need healthcare reform just say so, otherwise urge congress to get to work and express your details on the subject to your Representatives and Senators. "I am against healthcare reform because BHO has a fake birth certificate", and the like....is pretty lame at best.

By "letting the light shine on his agenda" do you mean forcing legislation through as an "Emergency" in 1000 page bills that no one has time to even read (Including himself)? "Can't let a good crisis go to waste" -Rahminator

YardleyLabs
07-22-2009, 09:34 AM
You've read the bill??
Yes. Haven't you?

txbadger
07-22-2009, 09:44 AM
Yep, let's punish the 85% of the population to provide for 15% of the population without health insurance of which 49% are under age 29 and 58% of that 49% are males.

Check the stats at Kaiser.org

Goose
07-22-2009, 09:59 AM
Just think...the 20 million illegal aliens in this country have been included in Dear Leader's massive healthcare bill. Ain't that great!

Why not just expand coverage to include all of South America now and get it over with.

Living in Cuba now.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-22-2009, 11:08 AM
The only thing in a glass that will restore your body that will then improve your health is Kangen water that you make yourself in your own home. Do your due diligence.

The president sets the agenda. Congress makes the laws....that is why they are called the legislative branch. It is time for them to get to work.

I for one am glad we have a President that will let the light shine on his agenda rather than secret agenda's that 2 or 3 people decided was in our best interest as long as those active and often illegal agendas were kept secret from the tax paying citizens. The name calling is reminiscent and synonymous with the stellar tactics the minority used during the election cycle. If you don't think we need healthcare reform just say so, otherwise urge congress to get to work and express your details on the subject to your Representatives and Senators. "I am against healthcare reform because BHO has a fake birth certificate", and the like....is pretty lame at best.

Ohhh Bruce, dont tell me you actually think BHO is shining light on his agenda...the difference between the two is, before it was "his" (I assume your refering to the past again!!!!) agenda shared WITH two or three people...now its "2 or 3 people" share with HIM....just saying there is something "fishy" about this stuff...OBAMA IS A PUPPET!!!!!!!!



Just think...the 20 million illegal aliens in this country have been included in Dear Leader's massive healthcare bill. Ain't that great!

Why not just expand coverage to include all of South America now and get it over with.


Living in Cuba now.


Finally someone call's it how it is....I have been waiting for this..

They say 47 Million "Americans" but lets call it how it really is....12 million Americans and 35 MILLION ILLEGAL ALIENS.

NCA

txbadger
07-22-2009, 11:24 AM
How has the Mass's plan worked out which the proposed plan is modeled after?

With 20%, as of 2007, uninsured adults, of which 30% are under 24 and another 26% between 30-34 it seems questionable to change 80% of the rest.

Wonder what article of the Constitution gives the government the right to run health insurance, auto etc...?

Edited to add link:
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/upload/7451_04_Data_Tables.pdf

WaterDogRem
07-22-2009, 12:59 PM
1. 61% of Americans are obese
2. USA is 37th in Healthcare performance out of all countries (World Healthcare Organization)
3. Americans pay more for healthcare than any other nation - >$1 trillion paid in 1997.... projected to be >$16 trillion by 2030 (Healthcare Financing Administration)
4. 60 Million Americans suffer from some sort of Cardiovascular Disease (American Heart Association)
5. 1 out of 13 Americans has Diabetes and the numbers are rising
6. Some people believe the world is flat
7. Some people believe that man has never landed on the moon
8. Some people believe the Holocaust Never really happened
9. Some people believe Canada is planning to invade the USA
10. Some people believe we don't need Healthcare reform

As one who has recently entered the Healthcare business....... I can say we don't have "healthcare" in this country, we only have "sickness" care for those that can afford it..... and more and more cannot afford it. You might be next, or your neighbor, or your children, etc. Visit my website to learn more.

Now just talking about the wellness of people. With free (low/no income) or 2.5% income taxed Gov. health care, all I see happening is that 61% obese number rising along with the total percentage of al unhealthy activities. People who engage in unhealthy lifestyles will have no reason to change as their health care will be taken care of for free. Now if we all had to pay more for our health care at the time of care, like having high deductibles ~ 4K/year or more, most people will start thinking about how to save some of that money and make necessary lifestyle changes to improve their health. Some might say, well that will only cause people to stay away from going to the doctor so they can save the cost or can't afford it, but really it will only keep people from going when they really didn't need to anyway, but will still get care for required concerns.

Personally, I'm on a health saving account Insurance program where I pay reasonable monthly premiums (~$35), have a high yearly deductible (after which 100% of cost are covered), and with that comes no-cost regular check-ups (allowed 2 and 2 dentist cleanings per year). I'm lucky enough that my employer puts a small amount into my savings account each year (if I complete a couple preventive health programs each year), which allows me to use that money towards my health care costs or to save/invest the money in the account. Is this a perfect health care plan? No but I personally think it's a great program and makes the individual think more about their health and the costs associated with care.

badbullgator
07-22-2009, 01:58 PM
So which amendment granted the right ot healthcare?
publik schole regards

HuntsmanTollers
07-22-2009, 02:05 PM
1. 61% of Americans are obese
2. USA is 37th in Healthcare performance out of all countries (World Healthcare Organization)
3. Americans pay more for healthcare than any other nation - >$1 trillion paid in 1997.... projected to be >$16 trillion by 2030 (Healthcare Financing Administration)
4. 60 Million Americans suffer from some sort of Cardiovascular Disease (American Heart Association)
5. 1 out of 13 Americans has Diabetes and the numbers are rising
6. Some people believe the world is flat
7. Some people believe that man has never landed on the moon
8. Some people believe the Holocaust Never really happened
9. Some people believe Canada is planning to invade the USA
10. Some people believe we don't need Healthcare reform

As one who has recently entered the Healthcare business....... I can say we don't have "healthcare" in this country, we only have "sickness" care for those that can afford it..... and more and more cannot afford it. You might be next, or your neighbor, or your children, etc. Visit my website to learn more.

Since you are also "in the Healthcare Business" you should be aware that the WHO uses data submitted by the countries to compute their healthcare rankings. Few countries use the same data controls that we utilize. For example we count infant mortality versus all live births, most countries use a time period after birth for example infant deaths after 30 days of life. If the rankings really mean anything the data requirements should be standardized by the WHO, currently they are not.

road kill
07-22-2009, 02:13 PM
Yes. Haven't you?
You are the only person on earth who has!

dnf777
07-22-2009, 03:57 PM
Since you are also "in the Healthcare Business" you should be aware that the WHO uses data submitted by the countries to compute their healthcare rankings. Few countries use the same data controls that we utilize. For example we count infant mortality versus all live births, most countries use a time period after birth for example infant deaths after 30 days of life. If the rankings really mean anything the data requirements should be standardized by the WHO, currently they are not.

I propose we develop a "Consumer Twinkie Index" (CTI). That is the number of twinkies sold per annum in a country, divided by it's population. I'd be willing to bet that the CTI would correlate perfectly with average BMI, rate of diabetes, heart disease, and the number of morbidly obese with the associated complications.

We could then buy and sell "twinkie credits", in a cap and trade fashion, to disperse our unhealthy problems around the globe.

I propose we appoint a "Twinkie Czar" to oversee this program.

Now for the bad news....there will be a 1% tax levied on all BigMac combo meals, and a 5% tax on all BK Smokehouse Stackburgers. Hey, it's a sacrafice we all have to make to usher in the new age of dietary-fascism! Its for your own good!

Do I really need the emoticon here?

Hew
07-22-2009, 04:33 PM
We could then buy and sell "twinkie credits", in a cap and trade fashion, to disperse our unhealthy problems around the globe.
:D:D:D

Man, on Wednesdays around here BK has two Whoppas (the full-blown mac-daddy Whopper; not the Whopper Jr.) for $3. That's crazy. You can't afford not to take advantage of that.

john fallon
07-23-2009, 08:17 AM
Universal Health Care Program



FINALLY...THE $50,000 QUESTION WAS ASKED !!!!!.....

YESTERDAY ON THE "ABC. OBAMA SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE"......OBAMA WAS ASKED:

"MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH
CARE PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM" THAT THE REST OF US WILL BE ON ????.....

OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND DIDN'T ANSWER IT !!!.....A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THERE RESPONSE WAS...WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT !!!!

IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL"....
HAS WRITTEN INTO IT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE ( FROM THIS GREAT HEALTH CARE PLAN)..EXEMPT !!!!!

HOW ABOUT THOSE APPLES.....NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR OBAMA OR CONGRESS.....
BUT "OK" FOR THE REST OF US ????????

WE....THE AMERICANS NEED TO STOP THIS ...ASAP !!!!....
AND REVOLT...THIS IS WRONG !!!!!

IF YOU AGREE PLEASE PASS THIS ON ....IF NOT PLAN TO SUFFER ( WITH THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE PLAN)....WHILE OUR POLITICIANS TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES FOR FREE..........

road kill
07-23-2009, 08:23 AM
Universal Health Care Program
The Obama answered that question last night, he said "NO" he would NOT give up his current insurance!!

Really, did anyone understand what that guy was talking about last night?

He should call Yardley, the only person who has actually read the bill!!

stan b

Bayou Magic
07-23-2009, 08:54 AM
The Obama answered that question last night, he said "NO" he would NOT give up his current insurance!!

Really, did anyone understand what that guy was talking about last night?

He should call Yardley, the only person who has actually read the bill!!

stan b

BHO's incoherent ramblings last night confirmed that the proposed plan is a bad deal. When the facts are on your side making a compelling argument is rather easy. He struggled thoughout his orchestrated old-news conference.

Healthcare is indeed in need of reform, but it needs to be done without a government takeover.

fp

dnf777
07-23-2009, 09:40 AM
BHO's incoherent ramblings last night confirmed that the proposed plan is a bad deal. When the facts are on your side making a compelling argument is rather easy. He struggled thoughout his orchestrated old-news conference.

Healthcare is indeed in need of reform, but it needs to be done without a government takeover.

fp

I wouldn't argue with what you say, however, it makes me ask....without gov't intervention (let alone takeover) what have we been waiting for? These aren't new revelations we're dealing with.

To answer my own question, it seems that the right people (HMO execs, politicians of both parties, and lawyers) are all getting RICH from the current system. Why would we expect them to kill their golden goose?

Seems to me that SOME type of gov't mandated change is necessary, but of course, it will be designed to protect the aforementioned players, not you and me.

I don't like his plan as it is, but I do give credit to Obama for getting the discussion going. That's more than has happened since healthcare reform died in '94.

If Obama and the congressional dems are smart, they'll do well to recall that the same wave of public discontent that swept them into power in 06 and 08, can sweep them right back out. From what I see them doing, and from what I see the republicans clinging to, I don't think they (either party) has learned that its about the American People....not them and their lobbyists.

2012 may be ripe for an independent candidate. America is fed up and tired of the failed policies of the Bush era, and I see us quickly getting fed up with the Obama era (all 6 months of it, so far). At least he seems on a poor trajectory. Interestingly, if you would ask dems what they dislike about Obama, its that he's too much like Bush, and carrying on his policies!! I doubt you get the same concern from republicans. But either way, he's in a hole, and still holding a shovel.

YardleyLabs
07-23-2009, 10:16 AM
If what the government is proposing is to allow/require virtually everyone to have a health insurance plan -- typically privately operated -- essentially identical to those now in place, how would this constitute a government takeover of health care. Nothing has been proposed that would make the government any more of a provider of health services than it is now (a role currently limited to VA hospitals and a limited number of public health clinics). The existence of a government sponsored health plan competing with privately sponsored plans shouldn't be a big deal. The government has "sponsored" Medicaid and Medicare for years and in fact typically outsources the actual work to private benefit management companies. I suspect that this will also be the case under the proposed program. The entire claim of government takeover seems to be simply a talking point.

Goose
07-23-2009, 10:32 AM
Has Dear Leader read the bill, yet?

dnf777
07-23-2009, 11:41 AM
Has Dear Leader read the bill, yet?

Probably not. There is not enough time in the day for executives to read entirely every piece of legislation before them. The budget alone is as large as the World Book Encyclopedia....thousands of pages.

After seeing Bush reading children's books on 9-11, do you HONESTLY think HE read ANYTHING that didn't have lots of pictures??:eek::eek::eek:

Seriously, we all drive cars or trucks....I bet none of us has read our state's Motor Vehicle Code in its entirety, yet when we enter a public road, we accept responsibility for the same. That's why there are briefs, staffers, summaries. Every president, king, governor, mayor, emir, and PTA president uses those tools to economize their time.

There's more legit questions to ask.

Julie R.
07-23-2009, 11:59 AM
After seeing Bush reading children's books on 9-11, do you HONESTLY think HE read ANYTHING that didn't have lots of pictures??:eek::eek::eek:

Seriously, we all drive cars or trucks....I bet none of us has read our state's Motor Vehicle Code in its entirety, yet when we enter a public road, we accept responsibility for the same. That's why there are briefs, staffers, summaries. Every president, king, governor, mayor, emir, and PTA president uses those tools to economize their time.

There's more legit questions to ask.

Well at least Bush was seen actually reading! I'm beginning to doubt if Dear Leader can read or if he has to have everything done on flash cards.

And while you're correct in assuming most of us have never read our state's Motor Vehicle Code all or even in part--none of us is State Transportation czar, either. I doubt Dear leader even read the table of contents to the Communist Manifesto, errr, health care reform package. He might do a more effective job of pimping it if he actually understood it.

Gerry Clinchy
07-23-2009, 02:39 PM
Jeff, since you've read the bill ...

... something mentioned on radio yesterday about a segment of the bill (page 18 or section 18?) that will preclude private insurors from issuing certain types of policies after the law takes effect that they issue now. The problem would be that you could keep certain coverage you like, if you have it now, but you might not be available to those who don't have it already at the time the law goes into effect.

YardleyLabs
07-23-2009, 03:11 PM
Jeff, since you've read the bill ...

... something mentioned on radio yesterday about a segment of the bill (page 18 or section 18?) that will preclude private insurors from issuing certain types of policies after the law takes effect that they issue now. The problem would be that you could keep certain coverage you like, if you have it now, but you might not be available to those who don't have it already at the time the law goes into effect.
The bill defines minimum standards of coverage for what constitutes a "qualified" plan. This includes coverage for hospitalization, major medical, and emergency care with maximum out of pocket limits of $5000/individual or $10,000/family and prohibitions on exclusion of pre-existing conditions or cancellation based on use of benefits or medical condition. A plan not meeting these standards could still be sold but would not be considered as a qualified plan under the law when offered by an employer or purchased by an individual. During a transitional period, these plans could continue even though non-compliant. That is, employers/individuals with such plans could avoid non-coverage penalties under the law. However, following the grace period the policies would need to be modified to meet standards for qualification or would not be considered to be health insurance as that is defined under the law.

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-23-2009, 10:21 PM
The bill defines minimum standards of coverage for what constitutes a "qualified" plan. This includes coverage for hospitalization, major medical, and emergency care with maximum out of pocket limits of $5000/individual or $10,000/family and prohibitions on exclusion of pre-existing conditions or cancellation based on use of benefits or medical condition. A plan not meeting these standards could still be sold but would not be considered as a qualified plan under the law when offered by an employer or purchased by an individual. During a transitional period, these plans could continue even though non-compliant. That is, employers/individuals with such plans could avoid non-coverage penalties under the law. However, following the grace period the policies would need to be modified to meet standards for qualification or would not be considered to be health insurance as that is defined under the law.

I still say, that I have the FREEDOM of choice, granted to me at birth by GOD or (for those of you out there) the big bang.

This bill, strips me of the FREEDOM to choose....

If I choose to not have health care, I am penalized
If I choose to have a plan "considered to not be a qualified" then I am penalized
If I choose to take my employers plan that WAS acceptable but is now, "not qualified" I am penalized
If I choose to keep my plan and have it longer than a set "grace period" I am penalized by way of an individual penality or employer penality which boils down to me being penalized...

What happened to my FREEDOM of CHOICE?????? and why am I PENALIZED by way of a monetary assesment or otherwise known as a TAX.

NCA

YardleyLabs
07-24-2009, 06:59 AM
I still say, that I have the FREEDOM of choice, granted to me at birth by GOD or (for those of you out there) the big bang.

This bill, strips me of the FREEDOM to choose....

If I choose to not have health care, I am penalized
If I choose to have a plan "considered to not be a qualified" then I am penalized
If I choose to take my employers plan that WAS acceptable but is now, "not qualified" I am penalized
...
As long as you are conscious and mentally competent, you have the right to refuse medical care. However, there is a big difference between refusing medical care and refusing insurance coverage. By law, medical providers cannot refuse to provide you with emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. Those costs are borne by those with coverage. The situation is similar to auto insurance where we require everyone driving to have a minimum level of insurance coverage to protect the rest of us from having to pay the costs of their accidents.

Becoming ill, having accidents, and requiring medical care are an inevitable consequence of living. What the law seeks to do is require each of us to make responsible financial decisions to meet our individual medical needs over the course of our lives so that selfish individual decisions are less likely to result in bills the rest of us must pay.

We make similar decisions in many areas. We do not, for example, provide police protection only to those who pay a fee for protection. We do not let buildings burn if their owners have failed to contribute to the volunteer fire company. It has not been that long since we used to do both. As recently as the late 19th century, police protection and fire protection were only provided on a subscription basis. However, that approach was replaced by universal taxation to pay for these services -- a loss of freedom for those who would have preferred to meet their own needs. Personally, I think that moving to "universal coverage" for police and fire protection was a good thing. I feel the same way about moving to universal coverage for health services.

Goose
07-24-2009, 09:53 AM
With this bill at what age do our senior citizens become surplus population? 55? 60? 65? And since healthcare will be rationed and harder to get as you get older will there be a method for funding assisted-suicide clinics for patients the government determines are too old to 'fix'?

road kill
07-24-2009, 10:09 AM
As long as you are conscious and mentally competent, you have the right to refuse medical care. However, there is a big difference between refusing medical care and refusing insurance coverage. By law, medical providers cannot refuse to provide you with emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. Those costs are borne by those with coverage. The situation is similar to auto insurance where we require everyone driving to have a minimum level of insurance coverage to protect the rest of us from having to pay the costs of their accidents.

Becoming ill, having accidents, and requiring medical care are an inevitable consequence of living. What the law seeks to do is require each of us to make responsible financial decisions to meet our individual medical needs over the course of our lives so that selfish individual decisions are less likely to result in bills the rest of us must pay.

We make similar decisions in many areas. We do not, for example, provide police protection only to those who pay a fee for protection. We do not let buildings burn if their owners have failed to contribute to the volunteer fire company. It has not been that long since we used to do both. As recently as the late 19th century, police protection and fire protection were only provided on a subscription basis. However, that approach was replaced by universal taxation to pay for these services -- a loss of freedom for those who would have preferred to meet their own needs. Personally, I think that moving to "universal coverage" for police and fire protection was a good thing. I feel the same way about moving to universal coverage for health services.

So, who determines ones ability to pay??

Is cable TV, a Black Jack & a Lexus more important than Health insurance??

Cable TV & wirless=$150 a month
Black Jack with unlimited texting, internet & twitter=$150 a month
Friday night at the pub=$150 a month
Cigarettes or cigars=$150 a month
Total=$600 a month= nice healthcare plan!!:D

Prioritys and responsibility.

So you would penalize those of us who made the proper decisions and took responsibility to PURCHASE health care, and GIVE it to those who didn't.

GARBAGE and YOU know it!!

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-24-2009, 01:55 PM
As long as you are conscious and mentally competent, you have the right to refuse medical care. However, there is a big difference between refusing medical care and refusing insurance coverage. By law, medical providers cannot refuse to provide you with emergency care regardless of your ability to pay. Those costs are borne by those with coverage. The situation is similar to auto insurance where we require everyone driving to have a minimum level of insurance coverage to protect the rest of us from having to pay the costs of their accidents.

Becoming ill, having accidents, and requiring medical care are an inevitable consequence of living. What the law seeks to do is require each of us to make responsible financial decisions to meet our individual medical needs over the course of our lives so that selfish individual decisions are less likely to result in bills the rest of us must pay.

We make similar decisions in many areas. We do not, for example, provide police protection only to those who pay a fee for protection. We do not let buildings burn if their owners have failed to contribute to the volunteer fire company. It has not been that long since we used to do both. As recently as the late 19th century, police protection and fire protection were only provided on a subscription basis. However, that approach was replaced by universal taxation to pay for these services -- a loss of freedom for those who would have preferred to meet their own needs. Personally, I think that moving to "universal coverage" for police and fire protection was a good thing. I feel the same way about moving to universal coverage for health services.

Jeff,

I understand this and DISAGREE (not with it being a fact, but with the idea) I worked at a major level I trauma center for 5 years in the ER...so I know the cost assoicated with it.

my point is, YOU pay to play...not I pay for YOU to play...You get hurt YOU PAY or the DOOR IS NOT OPEN.

and furthermore

sometimes WE do let homes burn!!!!!!!!!

believe me WE DO...I happen to be an 8 year Vol. Firefighter (now promoted to CAPTAIN)

It is what we (shortened explaination) call, Risk V Gain or Salvageable or NOT...we give homeowners every oppertunity to comply with a very simple set of guidelines that will help us prevent distruction to their homes in times of wildland fires. We provide inspections and request that they provide a defensable perimetar of 100' clear of dead veg, laddering fuels and provide basic roof line protections..spark arrestors, limb back trees etc.etc.etc.

It is their CHOICE (a FREEDOM) that they comply with our request, they can CHOOSE NOT TO, and a copy of our inspection and findings is presented to them with a copy kept by us. If they CHOOSE to not have the common sense to comply, when a fire does come ripping through there community and we have inspected there property before hand, we can determine that the home should be saved if it can or if we should MOVE ON to a better home more suited to be saved. When their home burns down, they then have the option to battle it out with INSURANCE based upon our decision (home not salvageable) and theirs to NOT comply with the requests, use the inspection report which would support our decision because they did not prepair and let the chips fall where they may.

while we would make EVERY EFFORT to protect their home, if it is a RISK versus GAIN situation, WE WILL WALK!!!!!!!!!

so, while I understand your point I must say that there, even in the fire service, are situations that dictate YOU PAY TO PLAY and sometimes YOU LOSE!!!!!!!!

NCA

Gerry Clinchy
07-24-2009, 02:41 PM
What the law seeks to do is require each of us to make responsible financial decisions to meet our individual medical needs over the course of our lives so that selfish individual decisions are less likely to result in bills the rest of us must pay.


Based on this logic, i.e., a law to require us to make responsible financial decisions, I think it would be similarly "fair" to require people on public assisstance to:

1) Take urine tests to prove they are not taking illicit drugs;
2) Use birth control to preclude having more children for someone else to support;
3) Require proof of legal residency before being provided with food stamps, Medicaid or other public assistance services;
4) Require community service (if not employed otherwise);

I can almost see hackles rising a those suggestions :-) Bottom line: I don't think there is a way to make laws to make people make responsible decisions. The only laws that succeed are those which compel responsible people to pay for the costs of those who continue to fail to make responsible decisions & penalize, in a meaningful way, those who fail to do so.

Many of those on the forum may be self-employed, as I am. You will recall that until quite recently, all those self-employed paid for their own health insurance totally with after-tax dollars. This would be no different than taxing health care benefits for those who receive employer-paid health care benefits. Some of us have been taxed this way for years.

dnf777
07-24-2009, 03:10 PM
I understand this and DISAGREE (not with it being a fact, but with the idea) I worked at a major level I trauma center for 5 years in the ER...so I know the cost assoicated with it.

my point is, YOU pay to play...not I pay for YOU to play...You get hurt YOU PAY or the DOOR IS NOT OPEN."

Don't know where you worked, but that is an EMTALA violation, and will get the individual doctor a $50,000 fine, and the hospital a $100,000 fine, not to mention malpractice and possibly criminal charges.

Elective cases are different. You want a boob job or tattoo removed, you pay up front.

And unfortunately, both you and I DO pay for others to play. Surcharges on tickets, general taxes, SS tax, all eventually find their way to help pay for the uninsured who ball themselves up and are carted into a trauma center and recieve the same care that Donald Trump would get.

helencalif
07-24-2009, 03:34 PM
BHO's incoherent ramblings last night confirmed that the proposed plan is a bad deal. When the facts are on your side making a compelling argument is rather easy. He struggled thoughout his orchestrated old-news conference.



fp

I agree. I watched and listened intently to everything the President said. It was rambling goblygook and double-speak.

Bob Gutermuth
07-24-2009, 03:43 PM
My health care is just fine thanks, I don't want the govt screwing with it at all.

Franco
07-24-2009, 03:49 PM
I too watch the Obama circus the other night. Like others have said, he didn't say anything. We need to stop the Dems before they destroy our Health Care.

The Dems are willing to destroy the best health care in the work in order to have thier Socialized Medicine.

STOP THE DEMS NOW!

helencalif
07-24-2009, 04:04 PM
Hope this is not off topic, but thought I would throw this out.

My daughter is chief tech at a clinic or whatever it is called that provides x-rays, CT scans, and MRI services. She's been there 5 years. What she has noticed is this ... the amount of mammograms has gone down considerably this past year. Women just are not getting them done. She thought maybe the business was going elsewhere so she checked around with friends at other facilities and their mammograms are way down, too. The women who got them a year ago or so are just not scheduling them.

October and early November was always booked solid. Last October they had plenty of openings. She is watching to see what happens this year in October.

Nationally speaking, I am wondering how widespread this is.

TWO: My niece lives near Portland, Oregon. For over 10 years she has worked for a company that makes dentures. Big layoff last January at the company because denture orders went into the toilet. The company has limped along for 6 months running a skeleton crew and is about to fold permanently. She is still out of work and can't find a job in the same industry so she is trying to sign up for training in an industry that is growing, not failing. I told her to look into going back to school to become an RN.

I don't know anything about the denture mfg. industry, but I bet it's because folks are not going to the dentist and/or are simply not going to pay for dentures when they need them.

It used to be that I would call my dentist for an appointment and it would be 2 or 3 weeks out if it wasn't an emergency. Recently I called and got an appointment in 2 days. I was suprised and was told they are now open only Mon.-Wed. and the dental hygienist comes in only every other week. When I drive by, I seldom see cars in the parking lot. My guess is his dentistry business is way down.

Just some observations during this serious discussion about health reform.

Helen

Buzz
07-24-2009, 04:07 PM
My health care is just fine thanks, I don't want the govt screwing with it at all.


I had a brother that is dead today because he lost a job and his health insurance. So, while I'm glad that you are satisfied with your healthcare, it is little comfort to me and my family.

Bob Gutermuth
07-24-2009, 04:33 PM
Sorry for your loss Buzz, but I do not believe allowing the govt to dictate medical care is the answer. In my case, 2 yrs ago I had radiation, chemo and surgery for cancer. It was successful and the insurance paid almost every dime of the cost, I doubt seriously that intervention by congress can improve on that. The idea that I could be denied care because of my age also scares the heck out of me.

Franco
07-24-2009, 05:01 PM
Just some observations during this serious discussion about health reform.

Helen

That is because the current administration has everyone scared to death about spending money they don't absolutly have to.

I've been seeing the same dentist for nearly 4 years. I just called about scheduling a routine exam & cleaning. Sept 17th was the earliest they could take me.

Hew
07-24-2009, 05:14 PM
Republicans think that by demanding delays, they can kill reform--and too many conservative Democrats are playing into their hands.
You girls control the executive branch and both houses of Congress with a filibuster-proof majority and it's the Republicans who are the problem? I think you started your weekend a little early.

Richard Halstead
07-24-2009, 05:52 PM
I received an email from the Whitehouse from David Axelrod using some scare tactics that if Health care is not passed or "unless we act now, these problems are guaranteed to get worse and worse."

road kill
07-24-2009, 05:53 PM
You girls control the executive branch and both houses of Congress with a filibuster-proof majority and it's the Republicans who are the problem? I think you started your weekend a little early.
More specifically, it's George Bush's fault!!

just sayin':D

tpaschal30
07-24-2009, 06:07 PM
I repeat

Radical reform would, first, end both Medicare and Medicaid, at least for new entrants, and replace them by providing every family in the United States with catastrophic insurance (i.e., a major medical policy with a high deductible). Second, it would end tax exemption of employer-provided medical care. And, third, it would remove the restrictive regulations that are now imposed on medical insurance—hard to justify with universal catastrophic insurance.

Franco
07-24-2009, 07:10 PM
Hi,


Republicans think that by demanding delays, they can kill reform--and too many conservative Democrats are playing into their hands.

Thanks!

Well, maybe we could get those 52 Blue Dog Democrats to change party afilliation.;-) I've never thought all Democrats to be elitist!

helencalif
07-24-2009, 08:05 PM
In my case, 2 yrs ago I had radiation, chemo and surgery for cancer. It was successful and the insurance paid almost every dime of the cost, I doubt seriously that intervention by congress can improve on that. The idea that I could be denied care because of my age also scares the heck out of me.

I am concerned about what I am hearing about medical care and treatment being denied because of age, too. I am not the only one. On the news today a representative (or maybe it was a senator) said something to the effect, do they just want the elderly to DROP DEAD ?

I think this could be part of the plan to also 'save' Medicare costs and Social Security. People are living longer, thus greater costs. I can see not getting permission for a boob job or other cosmetic surgery after 62, but would they deny knee replacements, hip replacements, diabetes supplies and medication? Or terminal illness treatment? Or preventive care?

I worry about the "Hey, they are old and are going to die anyway" solution to saving Medicare and Social Security.

Buzz
07-24-2009, 09:27 PM
Sorry for your loss Buzz, but I do not believe allowing the govt to dictate medical care is the answer. In my case, 2 yrs ago I had radiation, chemo and surgery for cancer. It was successful and the insurance paid almost every dime of the cost, I doubt seriously that intervention by congress can improve on that. The idea that I could be denied care because of my age also scares the heck out of me.


I recall your problems with cancer, and I'm happy everything so far is working out. I also fear what limitations might be put on healthcare someday too. But it's been 40 years since the government got into providing healthcare for retired people. I fear that if something isn't done to change the increasing healthcare costs, it will come down to rationing because no one will have the resources to afford it besides the super rich. Nine years ago I had about 18 inches of my colon removed. I remember specifically the cost for the colonoscopy I had leading up to surgery was right around $800. I recently had another one, it cost over $3000. It was almost 4 times what it was 10 years ago. It was done in a new fancy outpatient surgery center built right across the street from the biggest hospital in Sioux Falls, owned and operated by the doctors. They have redundant equipment and operating rooms right across the street, MRI machines, x-rays, CT scan machines, etc. The doctors decided that they needed a piece of the action that the hospital was getting, and we're all paying for it.

That surgery I had 9 years ago was done at Cleveland Clinic by one of the best colon surgeons in the world. The cost of the surgery and 3 days in the hospital was $11k. Last winter I had my gallbladder out at that outpatient surgery center in Sioux Falls. I spent 1/2 hour in surgery, and about 3 hours recovering before they sent me home with a bottle of pain pills. The bill was about $17k. It's just getting crazy. I don't know where all that money is going, but someone is getting fat.

Newton's First Law comes to mind when I think of the trajectory of healthcare costs:

An object in motion will stay in motion until acted on by another opposing force.

Bob Gutermuth
07-24-2009, 10:21 PM
My cancer treatment topped $160K, but it was successful so I cannot complain. The idea of my age playing into whether or not I get treatment for a future problem is very scary.

The gov of the Great State of Texas has raised the possibility of a legal challange based on the state's rights part of the 10th Amendment.http://www.star-telegram.com/804/story/1504240.html

Nor_Cal_Angler
07-25-2009, 12:48 AM
I understand this and DISAGREE (not with it being a fact, but with the idea) I worked at a major level I trauma center for 5 years in the ER...so I know the cost assoicated with it.

my point is, YOU pay to play...not I pay for YOU to play...You get hurt YOU PAY or the DOOR IS NOT OPEN."

Don't know where you worked, but that is an EMTALA violation, and will get the individual doctor a $50,000 fine, and the hospital a $100,000 fine, not to mention malpractice and possibly criminal charges.

Elective cases are different. You want a boob job or tattoo removed, you pay up front.

And unfortunately, both you and I DO pay for others to play. Surcharges on tickets, general taxes, SS tax, all eventually find their way to help pay for the uninsured who ball themselves up and are carted into a trauma center and recieve the same care that Donald Trump would get.

DNF...

I think you misunderstood my point, and I misrepresented my point...

The hospital I worked at...NEVER closed its doors to a patient. We took EVERYONE in unless on divert..

I ment....I THINK (personal opinion) that if you get hurt..PAY or the door is closed.

NO more moms, comming to the ER for a child with a fever and headache, that gets a 1900 dollar (visit,nurse,doctor,perscription) bottle of asprin...when 7.95 would have done the job at your local store...and when asked WHY she brought her child to the ER. (actual story in the local paper about 3 years ago) she said because "Its FREE"

If you (being a MD) and anyone else thinks that Healthcare reform is going to change that 1900 dollar vist you must be dreaming, I for one firmly believe that it will be more expensive for everyone not LESS.

NCA

txbadger
07-25-2009, 10:21 AM
Bottom line: I don't understand why we should punish 85% of the population to cover 15% of the population with some % of the 15%, 49% under age 34, not wanting coverage.

Why anyone wants a health czar, who answers only to da prez, to decide whom gets treatment is beyond me. And if anyone thinks the proposed plan, already loaded with entitlement plans, will not cost Us more money is stupid, to use a fav prez word.

dnf777
07-26-2009, 08:36 AM
I received an email from the Whitehouse from David Axelrod using some scare tactics that if Health care is not passed or "unless we act now, these problems are guaranteed to get worse and worse."

I didn't like that tactic when W used it to get us into a trillion dollar war in a big hurry (to avoid mushroom clouds), and I don't like it now when Obama uses it, just the same.

dnf777
07-26-2009, 08:47 AM
DNF...

I think you misunderstood my point, and I misrepresented my point...

The hospital I worked at...NEVER closed its doors to a patient. We took EVERYONE in unless on divert..

I ment....I THINK (personal opinion) that if you get hurt..PAY or the door is closed.

NO more moms, comming to the ER for a child with a fever and headache, that gets a 1900 dollar (visit,nurse,doctor,perscription) bottle of asprin...when 7.95 would have done the job at your local store...and when asked WHY she brought her child to the ER. (actual story in the local paper about 3 years ago) she said because "Its FREE"

If you (being a MD) and anyone else thinks that Healthcare reform is going to change that 1900 dollar vist you must be dreaming, I for one firmly believe that it will be more expensive for everyone not LESS.

NCA

If there is a financial disincentive to bringing non-emergent cases to the ER, that's not a bad thing. In my days in the Army, (largest HMO in the world, run by Uncle Sam) we had people turn our ER into an After-hours peds clinic. Why? Didn't cost anything, and the wait was shorter than the peds clinic.

Its a very complex, large problem, and no change is going to be easy, and it may or may not be good.

I've alluded to the question of Where is the money going???? The other night, I left my family and warm bed at 2am to take a bad appendix out. Hospital bill is around 20x what I get paid.

As physicians, our slice of the Gross national medical product has remained stagnant at around 14-17 percent. IOW, we are not the source of increasing healthcare costs. Surgeons have seen a ~40% REDUCTION in pay over the past 20 years. You can argue they were paid too much then, and that may be....but we are certainly not the ones at the feeding trough getting fat off healthcare dollars. I'm not complaining, I feel very fortunate to have a job, where I actually help people, and am paid enough to afford a hobby like retrievers! I just don't want to see doctors maligned by democrats or republicans as this debate moves forward. I sure haven't seen lawyers get their fair share of the blame. (posts #6, #16)

Gerry Clinchy
07-27-2009, 10:45 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/health/policy/27health.html?th&emc=th

Why can't politicians ever come up with less convoluted things? This proposal seems far to complex, with far too many unanticipated results to rush through.

Why not start simpler? Tax the first $5000 of employer-provided health care benefits for starters. Concentrate their efforts on controlling costs, fraud, and tort reform.

Question: If an uninsured uses emergency room services, isn't a bill prepared? Why not set up a payment plan based on the individual's income level. This is presuming that the ER visits are working people. The idea being to dispel the belief that the ER visits are "free". Presumably the others are covered by Medicaid? I could be naive about this, but willing to become informed.

Bob Gutermuth
07-28-2009, 09:43 AM
More reasons to vote against the so-called health care program in congress:http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/72047.html

Gerry Clinchy
07-29-2009, 02:48 PM
From what I can tell there are 2 camps of folks on this issue:

1. Healthcare is changing (once there is a majority consensus in the legislative branch) - Thank God!

2. Keep the status quo, stay the course, 1,000 points of light

"The only thing constant in life is change"

Either of these two statements, I think, is an inaccurate summation of various positions expressed here.

I confess to not having read the near-1500-age document. Jeff says that he has. Thus, I will respect Jeff's comments on factual discussion of the points in the bill.

I would surely like to know that our legislators have read the bill! So far not many of them have spoken out with specific references that make me believe that they have done so; or if they have done so, that they understand its ramifications.

I totally object to the fact that O was calling for a vote in favor of the bill when not having given the legislators time to fully read it.

I totally object to O speaking to AARP and putting fear in the souls of the elderly people that if his health care program doesn't pass, they will end up without any Medicare because the program will go bankrupt.

The government's track record on estimating ultimate costs on just about anything they do has been pretty bad. Obviously, they did this with Medicare. This has also happened with the Medicaid programs administered by the states.

If they do as badly with universal health care coverage as they have with so much else, by the time it is evident that it was a mistake, it will be near-impossible to extricate ourselves from it.

I do not blame only Ds or Rs for the mistakes. Each day our news media reveals that they have equal potential for greed, corruption and dumbness.

Would I like to pay less for health care coverage? You bet! Do I give up some stuff in order to make that payment each month? Yup. But I would sure like to know that we are not jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

But if the D's are the ones to institute a health care program that ends up bankrupt ... as O told those oldsters Medicare will be in a few years ... then I would have to say that the Ds would be responsible for that one.

I will repeat again ... our legislators should put their money where their mouths are. If this proposed legislation is good stuff, they should agree to be covered by the same base plan & pay for added benefits out of their own pockets ... just like the rest of us do in the real world.

road kill
07-29-2009, 03:49 PM
We were talking today at the gym I go to.
We had a chart of obesity.
I am 6'4' weaigh 220.6.
I go to the gym every day.
I weigh myself every day.
I have about 8.8% body fat (I am 57).
BP 117/75 (check it every day).

By the standard on this chart, I am "Morbidly Obese."

WHAT??

Who will determine these things?

I would pay an increased premium because of that classification.

This is not right!!


stan b

WaterDogRem
07-29-2009, 03:56 PM
I'm guessing you were looking at a BMI chart?

As I'm in about the same boat as you on that chart (age not considered).

road kill
07-29-2009, 04:04 PM
I'm guessing you were looking at a BMI chart?

As I'm in about the same boat as you on that chart (age not considered).

The guy that brought it in works for Sentry Ins here in WI.
He said it is some of the info they are getting as to what is coming.
The Govt. will be making "Healthy" choices for us.

Also, another good point;
What will all the people in the Insurance and Health Care industry do when they lose thier jobs?
It is estimated to be in the millions.

UE??

stan b

dnf777
07-29-2009, 04:28 PM
We were talking today at the gym I go to.
We had a chart of obesity.
I am 6'4' weaigh 220.6.
I go to the gym every day.
I weigh myself every day.
I have about 8.8% body fat (I am 57).
BP 117/75 (check it every day).

By the standard on this chart, I am "Morbidly Obese."

WHAT??

Who will determine these things?

I would pay an increased premium because of that classification.

This is not right!!


stan b

I didn't like where I fell out on the BMI chart either. But remember, societal norms and medical norms are often different. My Italian grandmother would think both of us are "wasting away" and tell us to "mange mange!!"

The height/weight charts are only approximations. For muscular folks, there are more precise ways to measure BMI.

When I was in the army, I can tell you that body builders all were classifed into the "fat boy" program....obviously in error!

Gerry Clinchy
07-30-2009, 03:43 PM
From the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/us/politics/30mcallen.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Whether one supports or does not support the health care legislation, we can count on one thing ... the legislators will make sure to take care of those who contribute funds to their elections. Whether that will translate into benefit for the rest of their constituency remains to be seen.

I couldn't help but notice this:


At Doctors Hospital, where 353 of its 452 owners are physicians, net revenue amounted to $64 million in 2008.

and


Eighty-eight percent of Doctors Hospital patients are either on public insurance or uninsured, 750 babies are delivered there a month, and no one is turned away because of inability to pay, they said.

Is this proof that our present health care system can work? Here's a hospital that does not turn away those who cannot pay; 88% of its patients are either on public insurance or uninsured; and yet it nets $64 million a year. Hey, only in America. Those numbers, BTW, translate into a a bit over $141,000 per owner for the year.

It occurs to me that the other 12% of their patients must pay some pretty hefty bills, or the public assistance compensation from the government (local, state or Federal) must be pretty reasonable.

It has 503 beds. That would mean each of those beds earns the hospital a bit over $127,000 each year. The article does not mention how many patients are served each year.

K G
08-03-2009, 09:04 AM
Now the "middle class" gets to look at a tax increase to pay for the health care plan....sure didn't take long for "The One" to change his tune, did it....:rolleyes:....looks like it's going to be easier than we expected for conservatives to take back Congress and the White House!

Let's start in 15 months regards, ;-)

kg

Steve Amrein
08-03-2009, 10:14 AM
For a look at what fantasy care will look like ABC's 20/20 shows a preview. I cant wait:rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdx_2cuPgQQ&feature=player_embedded

dnf777
08-03-2009, 10:35 AM
From the NY times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/30/us/politics/30mcallen.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th

Whether one supports or does not support the health care legislation, we can count on one thing ... the legislators will make sure to take care of those who contribute funds to their elections. Whether that will translate into benefit for the rest of their constituency remains to be seen.

I couldn't help but notice this:



and



Is this proof that our present health care system can work? Here's a hospital that does not turn away those who cannot pay; 88% of its patients are either on public insurance or uninsured; and yet it nets $64 million a year. Hey, only in America. Those numbers, BTW, translate into a a bit over $141,000 per owner for the year.

It occurs to me that the other 12% of their patients must pay some pretty hefty bills, or the public assistance compensation from the government (local, state or Federal) must be pretty reasonable.

It has 503 beds. That would mean each of those beds earns the hospital a bit over $127,000 each year. The article does not mention how many patients are served each year.

If you believe THAT, I got a bridge for sale! ;-)

Just in case it's true, in 2004, hospital and insurance lobbyists succeeded in getting bans placed on new, physician-owned procedure centers. It is still possible to open, but you need "cert of need" from guess who...the gov't.

Julie R.
08-03-2009, 10:47 AM
I don't pretend to understand the existing system, much less the one that's proposed. By reading what I can about ObongoCare I've determined that the elements I do understand are positively frightening. It seems to me it will worsen the underlying problem, which is an entire system set up around what some bean counter decides a drug or a procedure should cost.

Here is an example of what I mean, this example happens to be about prescription drugs, but it could just as easily be about a surgical procedure. I'm using this because it's a true story with patients and drugs not named for obvious reasons.

Patient A, age 45, has very good employer-provided health insurance (works in the auto industry....need I say more). Patient has a non life threatening minor condition easily treatable by a variety of different long term medications, so doc prescribes Drug #1. Patient doesn't have to pay anything for prescriptions so has no idea what this one costs. Patient B, age 78, has the same condition but is also suffering from cancer so is already taking many medications. Patient B is on medicare plus has 'gap' insurance. Doctor prescribes same medication, Drug #1. As with Patient A, Patient B pays nothing for this prescription. Enter Patient C, who only has basic hospitalization with a fairly high deductible and the same condition as patient A and B. Patient C is prescribed Drug #1. Patient nearly keels over when the pharmacist presents the bill for Drug #1 which costs $300 for a 30-day supply!

Patient C goes back to the doctor, who fortunately has a kind assistant who researches similar classes of drugs online and finds a similar, older version of Drug #1 we'll call Drug #2. Drug #2 also has a generic version: Drug #3. All the drugs have similar properties and have proven to be equally effective. Drug #3 costs $4 a month. Doctor agrees this is a decent alternative to Drug #1.

In my mind Patient A, with a good employer plan, and Patient B, with the government plan, aren't much different than the insured mother who takes her kid to a busy ER for the sniffles so she won't have to wait for an appointment. Neither knows or cares about the cost because they aren't paying it.

WHY the discrepancy? Why the prescribing of New Drug #1 (even though I'm sure there's some deal and insurance companies dont' pay $300 a month?). It's no wonder the under or uninsured can't afford health care with a system like this. It's NOT the fault of doctors, either. But, billing shouldn't be so complicated that an entire new bureaucracy has to spring up around it and that seems to be exactly what Obongo-Care will do.

Gerry Clinchy
08-03-2009, 11:14 AM
If you believe THAT, I got a bridge for sale! ;-)

Just in case it's true, in 2004, hospital and insurance lobbyists succeeded in getting bans placed on new, physician-owned procedure centers. It is still possible to open, but you need "cert of need" from guess who...the gov't.

dnf that was from an interview with a hospital official. Unless the quote was not accurate.

Yes, the article also mentioned that doctor-owned hospitals were now going to be subject to regulation; something about limiting the % of doctors that would be permitted to be owners.

If the hospital did make a profit, I'd like to know more about how they accomplished that, while still being able to provide a high level of quality care and serve the needs of the uninsured. If they are successful in doing this, then is there something to be learned from this hospital? Was the profit not on the up-and-up?

dnf777
08-03-2009, 12:09 PM
dnf that was from an interview with a hospital official. Unless the quote was not accurate.

Yes, the article also mentioned that doctor-owned hospitals were now going to be subject to regulation; something about limiting the % of doctors that would be permitted to be owners.

If the hospital did make a profit, I'd like to know more about how they accomplished that, while still being able to provide a high level of quality care and serve the needs of the uninsured. If they are successful in doing this, then is there something to be learned from this hospital? Was the profit not on the up-and-up?

Most private for-profit procedure centers really cherry-pick their patients. Since most of it is non-urgent, elective procedures, they can do so. Possibly for some tax break, they will make sure to treat a certain percentage of no-pay. These will not be expensive procedures, mind you. Hospitals complain b/c docs (who can run a facility 10x more efficiently when they have the final say) are snatching the profitable procedures up and leaving the community hospitals all the no-pay, low-pay business. They have a point, but what happens to fair-market competition we all cherish so much? They run a small business, efficiently and profitably, the patients recieve excellent, botique care and come away better and happy with excellent outcomes....then government and corporation cries "NO FAIR"..... I don't see WalMart being regulated for running a successful chain, and running countless mom-n-pops out of business. As I've said in numerous other posts....there's no free-market in health care.

road kill
08-03-2009, 04:09 PM
Can anyone tell me if there is any money in this bill for ACORN??

If so, how much?

And WHY??

Rhetorical regards,

YardleyLabs
08-03-2009, 04:17 PM
Can anyone tell me if there is any money in this bill for ACORN??

If so, how much?

And WHY??

Rhetorical regards,
Yes. $423.2 billion has actually been included as an earmark for ACORN in both the House and Senate bills to provide outreach to enroll illegal aliens in the program. This may be seen on page 622 of the electronic version of HR 3200 on Thomas, the legislative web site at the Library of Congress (http://thomas,loc.gov (http://thomas,loc.gov/)).

I just want to see how long it takes for this to appear as fact on conservative blogs.:D

Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 04:22 PM
Osama said during the campaign he wanted to insure illegals. The bill is too expensive without insuring those who won't pay a dime.

road kill
08-03-2009, 05:05 PM
Yes. $423.2 billion has actually been included as an earmark for ACORN in both the House and Senate bills to provide outreach to enroll illegal aliens in the program. This may be seen on page 622 of the electronic version of HR 3200 on Thomas, the legislative web site at the Library of Congress (http://thomas,loc.gov (http://thomas,loc.gov/)).

I just want to see how long it takes for this to appear as fact on conservative blogs.:D

Why would you post this?
I thought EVERYTHING you posted was rooted in research and fact?

dnf777
08-03-2009, 05:24 PM
Yes. $423.2 billion has actually been included as an earmark for ACORN in both the House and Senate bills to provide outreach to enroll illegal aliens in the program. This may be seen on page 622 of the electronic version of HR 3200 on Thomas, the legislative web site at the Library of Congress (http://thomas,loc.gov (http://thomas,loc.gov/)).

I just want to see how long it takes for this to appear as fact on conservative blogs.:D

Shame on you Jeff! It's not fact until Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh SAY it three times on air, you know that!:rolleyes:

Bob Gutermuth
08-03-2009, 05:26 PM
What sources of truth do you rely on Huffington Post, Move on and Daily Kos? I prefer to get info from Rush Sean and Fox

dnf777
08-03-2009, 05:36 PM
What sources of truth do you rely on Huffington Post, Move on and Daily Kos? I prefer to get info from Rush Sean and Fox

The problem with political debate nowadays, is that many people really believe that the truth is limited to the above named sources!

road kill
08-03-2009, 05:45 PM
The problem with political debate nowadays, is that many people really believe that the truth is limited to the above named sources!

No....the problem is that many people beleive the truth is being told by other sources!!;)

Eric Johnson
08-03-2009, 10:41 PM
Setting aside the 1000+ pages of HR3200, something thing comes to the forefront.

1. The Congressional Budget Office says that the bill cuts something like $219 billion from Medicaid.

2. There is no apparent increase in physicians.

So, with less money for care and more recipients and supposedly the same number of providers, how will rationing be avoided?

This simply doesn't compute.

Eric

K G
08-04-2009, 08:48 AM
Setting aside the 1000+ pages of HR3200, something thing comes to the forefront.

1. The Congressional Budget Office says that the bill cuts something like $219 billion from Medicaid.

2. There is no apparent increase in physicians.

So, with less money for care and more recipients and supposedly the same number of providers, how will rationing be avoided?

This simply doesn't compute.

Eric

Ignorance is bliss to some folks, Eric. If the President says it, it must be so...either blind or living in a DEEP hole to continue to evoke Bush 41....:rolleyes:

kg

Gerry Clinchy
08-04-2009, 08:58 AM
Yardley

Yes. $423.2 billion has actually been included as an earmark for ACORN in both the House and Senate bills to provide outreach to enroll illegal aliens in the program. This may be seen on page 622 of the electronic version of HR 3200 on Thomas, the legislative web site at the Library of Congress (http://thomas,loc.gov (http://thomas,loc.gov/)).


LOL! Have they considered that once ACORN finds them, we should just send them home rather than give them free health care?

Or why not just spend the $432 billion with the INS?

Gerry Clinchy
08-04-2009, 09:09 AM
Julie raises a major point about medications, as demonstrated in her example.

Data like that on meds should be fairly easy to computerize. Each doctor could be then given access to a website for determining the least costly medication for the patient.

Nobody has mentioned the role in pharmacists in the whole scheme. There's no question that the pharmacy will make more $ on the $300-drug than the $4-drug.

Julie's post also relates to the fact that cost control becomes a responsibility for all of us. Large deductibles on health care policies do foster more cost consciousness on the part of the patient.

A few months back I needed an antibiotic for one of my dogs. First off, I took the scrip from my vet to go to a local pharmacy, which is almost always a cheaper alternative to letting the vet fill the scrip. Ironically, I found that taking a smaller size pill (rather than a larger one) of the identical med cut the cost by 1/2 ($144 as opposed to over $300). It simply meant that I would give the dog 2 pills each time, rather than 1 pill. Evidently, humans who use this med prefer to take fewer, larger pills?

How many of us ever ask the cost? In the case above, one does not even have to sacrifice a lesser medication ... simply bear with the minor inconvenience of using more pills of a different size.

Each and every one of us has a responsibility to help control costs.

dnf777
08-04-2009, 09:44 AM
Julie raises a major point about medications, as demonstrated in her example.

Data like that on meds should be fairly easy to computerize. Each doctor could be then given access to a website for determining the least costly medication for the patient.

Nobody has mentioned the role in pharmacists in the whole scheme. There's no question that the pharmacy will make more $ on the $300-drug than the $4-drug.

Julie's post also relates to the fact that cost control becomes a responsibility for all of us. Large deductibles on health care policies do foster more cost consciousness on the part of the patient.

A few months back I needed an antibiotic for one of my dogs. First off, I took the scrip from my vet to go to a local pharmacy, which is almost always a cheaper alternative to letting the vet fill the scrip. Ironically, I found that taking a smaller size pill (rather than a larger one) of the identical med cut the cost by 1/2 ($144 as opposed to over $300). It simply meant that I would give the dog 2 pills each time, rather than 1 pill. Evidently, humans who use this med prefer to take fewer, larger pills?

How many of us ever ask the cost? In the case above, one does not even have to sacrifice a lesser medication ... simply bear with the minor inconvenience of using more pills of a different size.

Each and every one of us has a responsibility to help control costs.

This opens a whole silo of worms. What drug a doc prescribes, and what the patient actually recieves is dictated by hospital-corporate contracts, purchasing agreements, and "equivalency exchange" protocols. What is more expensive for the patient, is often much cheaper for the hospital/insurance company.