0
bluesilver30

Do you have healthcare currently? What is your view on the bill?

Recommended Posts

Ion, I may agree with you, I may not; but I'll never know because your posts are sometimes so long. Any chance you could shorten it up a tad?
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>It just seems to fly in the face of the stated need for MORE preventative
>medicine.

But it does seem to make sense when it comes to reducing radiation exposure to women in an area prone to cancer. It would surely be foolish to push a breast cancer screen that causes breast cancer, eh?

The risk of incurring cancer from any given xray is tiny, which is why they are done so often for traumatic injuries. They are a good diagnostic tools. But overused they increase the risks from ionizing radiation. In women already prone to breast cancer, they can increase the risk of developing breast cancer significantly - especially when mammograms are begun before age 30.

In addition, they are not perfect diagnostic tools. Sometimes they miss breast cancer that a manual exam would discover.

So you have to trade off many different things. How useful is a mammogram? Perhaps it can detect a small tumor 80% of the time. Are there alternatives? A manual exam might discover the same thing 60% of the time. Are they risky? For some women, when done early, they may be. Are there times they are more important? In older women, they may be.

So saying "we need MORE mammograms because they are preventative medicine!" doesn't really work. It's a procedure with its own risks, and the risks and benefits must be weighed to determine if it makes sense. If, at the end of the day, an average patient is harmed more than they are helped by getting a mammogram, it's a bad idea overall. Evidence-based medicine helps identify such cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I guess that's why pharmaceuticals are so much cheaper here than in Canada.

Oh, wait...


Thats because the government controls prices in canada which means the companies can't recoup the cost of the research and all the government red tape they had to go through to get the product on the market. They have to recoup the cost some how so they are higher here because prices are not controlled by the government. So you benefit from us paying higher prices or they wouldn't have the money to continue the research and make better meds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ion, I may agree with you, I may not; but I'll never know because your posts are sometimes so long. Any chance you could shorten it up a tad?



I an nutshell:

Cost are high because there is already huge government invovlement and regulation (such as required to treat illegals and can't turn them in).

The fix for to much government is not more government.

Healthcare can be provided for cheap and quick if it was a truely free market system.

There is nothing wrong with people having to live with the consequences of thier own actions.

Its not "fair" to punish me (a hard worker who plans ahead) because of the consequences of others actions/inactions or irresponsibility.

By rewarding people and protecting people from the consequences of thier action you provide no incentive for people to work hard and make the right decisions.

Still a little long but much shorter than in was. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I don't want my tax dollars going to fund abortions." ...

Why not? It'll stop "ghetto dwelling welfare moms" from overbreeding and creating yet more ghetto kids who go on to sponge off welfare. Overall, it's a bargain and seems like it's logically the fiscally conervative route - I'm confused. Morals aside, this seems like a no-brainer, and I'm assuming morals are put aside for the people who oppose healthcare reform, because they are ironically allowing this sort of thing to happen by living in their temporarily perfect little worlds:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/Baby.denied.coverage.2.1587978.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. Let's take my recent stay as an example.

2 days ICU, cath lab stent implant

$54000.00
($5500.00) deductible and Max out of pocket)
$48,500 billed to my insurance company

My insurance company paid roughly $17,000 to the provider(s). What happens to the rest? If you beleive these folks http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5216G320090302 they would have you believe hospitals aren't making any money.

I'm assuming that what is left over becomes a loss on the books. But is it really a loss? I think it's by design so they can avoid a tax burden.

Again...fix the root cause for why it's so expensive to see a doctor or go to a hospital and the rest takes care of itself.
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If a few changes in the way doctors and nurses were trained and treated that would upen up a lot more people desiring to be in the career. Take away all the negatives they have to deal with and the financial incentives take over. I would rather see doctors and hospitals making profits for good work.. than the scummy insurance caste that is currently running things into the ground doing so.



The AMA, in cohorts with the medical colleges, control the bottleneck on the supply of doctors - not the scummy caste you refer to.

Also, without that scummy caste, health care grinds to a near (relatively) halt. You have no idea what access to health care was like when the only way to get it was to pay out of pocket, do you?

Well run health care financing companies (insurance) retain about 10% of rates for admin. That is for EVERYTHING - salaries, infrastructure, mowing the lawn - EVERYTHING. The other 90% is paid out as reimbursement for claims. The average is somewhere in the low to mid 80's; which is why the target set in the legislation of 85% is hardly earthshaking.

I think a company that returns 90% of revenues in the form of goods and services is representative of a well run machine. Do you think they should work for free?

Rather than rant with stereotype and hyperbole, why don't you specify exactly what it is that the scummy caste are doing that is running the system into the ground? Use numbers if at all possible, with clear explanations about the specific activities.

BTW, you hit on a point that is definitely on the right track. Increasing the number of doctors would probably get the biggest bang for the buck in reducing the cost and improving the quality of health care (and thefefore insurance). If there were enough doctors that they had to actually compete for patients, everything about health care delivery and financing would change drastically.

Our governments reluctance to deal with the AMA has more to do with the anticipated emotional response (flames the AMA would fan as best they could) than with any financial reality; insurance-wise, cost-of-care-wise, tax-wise, or any other wise.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of those numbers that you want, cover the tax write off the companies recieved for the over the top salaries the executives got for creating the poilicies that have dumped BILLIONS in profit into their pockets while denying people the health care they thought they were paying for by bogus denials for pre-existing conditions etc.


When looking at the overall profits..... you can damn well bet that those profits are far lower than they would have been without all the "expenses" run up but executives skimming their bonus right off the top>:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Ion, I may agree with you, I may not; but I'll never know because your posts are sometimes so long. Any chance you could shorten it up a tad?



I an nutshell:

Cost are high because there is already huge government invovlement and regulation (such as required to treat illegals and can't turn them in).

The fix for to much government is not more government.

Healthcare can be provided for cheap and quick if it was a truely free market system.

There is nothing wrong with people having to live with the consequences of thier own actions.

Its not "fair" to punish me (a hard worker who plans ahead) because of the consequences of others actions/inactions or irresponsibility.

By rewarding people and protecting people from the consequences of thier action you provide no incentive for people to work hard and make the right decisions.

Still a little long but much shorter than in was. ;)


In principle, I pretty much agree with your statements. The slightly liberal lean I have though says a civilized society takes certain care of it's members. Because a basic availability to maintain good health does rely in part on access to professionals, and because we have already established ourselves as a society that does those things for the basic needs in life, then a certain level of care ought to be guaranteed for all. My opinions on the mechanics of making that happen is the only difference between me and ObamaCare.

I say thoughtful sensible, but comprehensive regulation that fosters healthy business competition is the way to go. ObamaCare just extends the current system for now - special favors, loopholes, outdated BS, sacred cows all included - watch it struggle even more under the burden - then when it fails, transition to the world's largest bureacracy ever seen, and collect whatever it takes in taxes to keep it running.

Perfect.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What part of those numbers that you want, cover the tax write off the companies recieved for the over the top salaries the executives got for creating the poilicies that have dumped BILLIONS in profit into their pockets while denying people the health care they thought they were paying for by bogus denials for pre-existing conditions etc.


When looking at the overall profits..... you can damn well bet that those profits are far lower than they would have been without all the "expenses" run up but executives skimming their bonus right off the top>:(



Yes. Doesn't need to be precise; just give us something more than vague whiny hyperbole (like you just did again). Maybe the amounts of the bonuses as a percent of the revenue stream.

Percent of claims denied would be good, and a breakdown for the reasons for denial. Are you aware that when the hyperbolic numbers for denied claims are thrown about by the uninformed (such as yourself), never mentioned is that the number 1 reason for claims denials is for duplicate filings? Or that the number 2 reason is for insufficient information, like forgetting to name the patient.

Are you aware of the results of independent audits of claims processing (accuracy as measured against contracted benefits)? Are you aware of claims processing timeliness (% in X number of days)?

Are you aware at all, or are you just another uninformed ranting hyperbolic internet lunatic spewing forth based on the emotional flames someone is fanning?

(See this is why I was not more successful when I was in the biz - I got fed up and could not deal diplomatically with uninformed idiots).
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

And that is because the insurance companies have no incentive to bargain costs down because they just pass them along, and the healthcare consumer is insulated from the cost. A single payer system is the way to fix that problem.

Why does a hospital charge $10 for an aspirin tablet? Because it can.



If there is anybody here who has ever sat on the other side of the table (negotiating reimbursement rates on behalf of a provider system), please chime in so Mr Kallend doesn't think I'm making this all up.

Is your experience that the insurers pay whatever the provider requests, and that they have no incentive to bargain?



Tell us why it is, if our insurers are SO effective in bargaining down costs, that we have the world's most expensive so-called "system".
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am one of those denied..... for a fucking injury.... a NEW injury.... as a pre existing condition.

I am the one who had to pay out of pocket, for the MRI that the doctor wanted to do to see how badly my rotator cuff was torn, to determine if surgery was neccesary, and because of my experience with them denying diagnostic procedures, I had the doctors office CALL United Non-Health Care to make sure it was covered, the insurer said yes covered and then they still denied the claim.

I am one who has paid out of pocket... thousands of dollars... for what should have been covered.. such as the scan by the doctors wh needed to see how much of my lungs were filling up due to the pneumonia.. that was killing me at the time.

EDIT... oh did I mention the CO-PAY of $30 on things like the pain pills... that only cost $17 dollars for a months supply because I get to live in constant pain for my the arthritis in my back or for my shoulder... IT's ok... I am used to the pain>:(>:(

This is why I think insurance company people need to be treated as the crooks they are, because I have no legal recourse going after them, its called throwing away a lot more money after bad when they have a lot more lawyers than I can hire.

AT least if a criminal invades my home I can shoot the mutherfucker, but these criminals who took me for a lot more of my money I cant.

But time will tell... I am looking forward to life in 2013 after Dec 2012

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

"I don't want my tax dollars going to fund abortions." ...

Why not? It'll stop "ghetto dwelling welfare moms" from overbreeding and creating yet more ghetto kids who go on to sponge off welfare. Overall, it's a bargain and seems like it's logically the fiscally conervative route - I'm confused. Morals aside, this seems like a no-brainer, and I'm assuming morals are put aside for the people who oppose healthcare reform, because they are ironically allowing this sort of thing to happen by living in their temporarily perfect little worlds:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/Baby.denied.coverage.2.1587978.html



This, in fact, wouldn't work as they keep having kids because we pay them too. We call it welfare. The more kids you have the more money you get. They could have abortions now but they want the kids because they want more money. The real solution is to stop pay for them to have kids. Then, once again, they must be responsible for thier own actions meaning if they have to actually live with the extra expense of a kid they won't have a kid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

"I don't want my tax dollars going to fund abortions." ...

Why not? It'll stop "ghetto dwelling welfare moms" from overbreeding and creating yet more ghetto kids who go on to sponge off welfare. Overall, it's a bargain and seems like it's logically the fiscally conervative route - I'm confused. Morals aside, this seems like a no-brainer, and I'm assuming morals are put aside for the people who oppose healthcare reform, because they are ironically allowing this sort of thing to happen by living in their temporarily perfect little worlds:

http://cbs11tv.com/local/Baby.denied.coverage.2.1587978.html



This, in fact, wouldn't work as they keep having kids because we pay them too. We call it welfare. The more kids you have the more money you get. They could have abortions now but they want the kids because they want more money. The real solution is to stop pay for them to have kids. Then, once again, they must be responsible for thier own actions meaning if they have to actually live with the extra expense of a kid they won't have a kid.



Can we also take away the tax incentives given for people who want to have 10 kids as well??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

In principle, I pretty much agree with your statements. The slightly liberal lean I have though says a civilized society takes certain care of it's members. Because a basic availability to maintain good health does rely in part on access to professionals, and because we have already established ourselves as a society that does those things for the basic needs in life, then a certain level of care ought to be guaranteed for all. My opinions on the mechanics of making that happen is the only difference between me and ObamaCare.

I say thoughtful sensible, but comprehensive regulation that fosters healthy business competition is the way to go. ObamaCare just extends the current system for now - special favors, loopholes, outdated BS, sacred cows all included - watch it struggle even more under the burden - then when it fails, transition to the world's largest bureacracy ever seen, and collect whatever it takes in taxes to keep it running.

Perfect.



I too want to take care of people....which brings me to the "give a man a fish feeds him for a day; teach a man to fish feed him for life" principle. The reality is it takes more effort to teach the man to fish.
The reality is in a free society it falls to the individuals to take care of people. We can no longer ignore the needs of people around us by saying "the government has a program for that" and "I already payed taxes that thier living off of." It puts the responsibility on the individual.

A couple of examples:
When the earthquake happen in Haiti the american public gave more money in a single day than the government gave....and, lets face it, if the government wanted to out do the public it couldn't come close.

In the healthcare bill private hospitals such as the childrens hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma must become "public" (government run). This hospital is for children with cancer and saves thier lives. It is run with private donations. The government hasn't and can't match what they do. Events for raising money are set up where private companies donate huge sums for advertising purposes and things. But with the increase in taxes and such private companies can no longer afford to support such hospitals for advertising or otherwise because we must redistribute the wealth!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



I too want to take care of people....which brings me to the "give a man a fish feeds him for a day; teach a man to fish feed him for life" principle. The reality is it takes more effort to teach the man to fish.



STUPID analogy.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote



I too want to take care of people....which brings me to the "give a man a fish feeds him for a day; teach a man to fish feed him for life" principle. The reality is it takes more effort to teach the man to fish.



STUPID analogy.



Statement does not equal fact. Why is it stupid? Explain to me who does it benefit someone by giving them money while they sit on a street corner so that they can go buy more alchohol and drugs and continue to kill themselves? Explain to me how just giving someone some money or putting them on a government program is better for them than giving them a job or taking them in and giving them an opportunity to go back to school and better thier situation? Explain to me how its better to just hand some money to someone through the window of your car or just giving them government handouts is better than picking them up and taking them to a privately owned shelter which provides them with technical training so they can better thier situation and contribute to society instead of constantly taking from society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>I too want to take care of people....which brings me to the "give a man
>a fish feeds him for a day; teach a man to fish feed him for life" principle.
>The reality is it takes more effort to teach the man to fish.

Yep. But if he's about to die of starvation, the compassionate thing is to give him a fish _then_ teach him how to fish. Both have their place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote



I too want to take care of people....which brings me to the "give a man a fish feeds him for a day; teach a man to fish feed him for life" principle. The reality is it takes more effort to teach the man to fish.



STUPID analogy.



Statement does not equal fact. Why is it stupid?



Explain how fishing equates to healthcare, and you may have a point.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Like the mammograms that gov't has decided you don't need until after age 50, you mean?



I know it's the party line and you're required to say it, but do you really believe this shit? Do you really believe that a medical panel announcing their opinion that mammograms for women under 50 do more harm than good is the same as, "gov't has decided you don't need [a mammogram] until after age 50?"



Of all the screaming of dire consequences out there, this is one of the more plausible.

Contrary to what Kallend writes, preventative care isn't always cheaper than the alternative. Screening in particular leads to a lot of false positives. With the occasional high school age athlete dropping dead from congenital heart defects, there is a movement to test all athletes, or everyone. But in an environment where we're looking to reduce the costs of health care, the results won't justify it.

Another example are the millions with the cold or flu that go to their doctor's office at all, rather than sleep it off at home, and then demand antibiotics (and often receive it). Total waste of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote



I too want to take care of people....which brings me to the "give a man a fish feeds him for a day; teach a man to fish feed him for life" principle. The reality is it takes more effort to teach the man to fish.



STUPID analogy.



Statement does not equal fact. Why is it stupid?



Explain how fishing equates to healthcare, and you may have a point.



Its about teaching someone to take care of themselves which may include getting healthcare or not gettting healthcare and saving thier money to pay for it themselves or whatever they choose. It all comes down to people making thier own decisions.

The healthcare bill would like to just give them a fish which doesn't actually help because people won't provide for themselves which means the system will ultimately collapse.

I made the decision to not have healthcare for years and as a result I invested it in 2 houses which I couldn't have had if I did have healthcare during that period. I made the decision to take care of myself by not having healthcare and as a result I can now take care of myself and numerous others which includes healthcare. The government won't let me make that decision anymore and had they not back then I wouldn't have that ability today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

Your poll has generated some interesting numbers



Indeed...36 for, 60 against. I would have thought in here it would have been the opposite.






I have healthcare; I support the bill 30 / 30%
I Don't have healthcare; I support the bill 9 / 9%
I have healthcare; I Don't support the bill 48 / 48%
I Don't have healthcare; I Don't support the bill 12 / 12%


I have healthcare and I would like to see it actually work and I supported the bill

I wonder if the 48% would change their minds if they had a fucking clue that using theirs and POOF they run into the issues I have had with mine.

And to the 12%.. nice roulette wheel you are riding.. and WHY the fuck do you think the rest of us should have to pay for your bad choices..... since this is a skydiving site.. and you stand a VERY good chance of getting to use the medical system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0