Irony score incalculable

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

yes we do, make health care cheaper to provide.

Yep, who needs all those MRI machines and CAT scanners anyway. And $6,000/month cancer drugs. Leeches are cheap and were good enough for your great grandfather; they should be good enough for you.

...

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

http://www.cato.org/bad-medicine/

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

http://www.cato.org/bad-medicine/

An opinion piece from Cato, well known for its non partisan, non ideological positions.

...

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

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

http://www.cato.org/bad-medicine/

An opinion piece from Cato, well known for its non partisan, non ideological positions.

Doesn't make it wrong.

[billvon 2,411]

>yes we do, make health care cheaper

And how do we do that?

>and make people responsible for the bill. garnish wages to pay for the bill.

That's how it works now.

>work to bring down insurance premiums instead of making them higher so more
>can afford insurance so they don't hae this happen to them.

And how do we do that?

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>yes we do, make health care cheaper

And how do we do that?

>and make people responsible for the bill. garnish wages to pay for the bill.

That's how it works now.

>work to bring down insurance premiums instead of making them higher so more
>can afford insurance so they don't hae this happen to them.

And how do we do that?

tort reform and selling insurance across state lines would be a good start. only ordering tests that are medically needed and making the doctors proove that the test is needed.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

yes we do, make health care cheaper to provide.

Yep, who needs all those MRI machines and CAT scanners anyway. And $6,000/month cancer drugs. Leeches are cheap and were good enough for your great grandfather; they should be good enough for you.

opening the drug market to generic would greatly decrease drug pricing.

[billvon 2,411]

>only ordering tests that are medically needed and making the doctors proove
>that the test is needed.

You really think the government knows better than you and your doctor what tests to order, eh? Sounds like you want government control of doctors! You socialist you.

[billvon 2,411]

>opening the drug market to generic would greatly decrease drug pricing.

The market IS open to generics. You can get advil under a dozen different brand names.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>only ordering tests that are medically needed and making the doctors proove
>that the test is needed.

You really think the government knows better than you and your doctor what tests to order, eh? Sounds like you want government control of doctors! You socialist you.

I did not say that, I said order only the tests taht are needed and the doctor needs to proove they are needed, what part of my statement said that the government should order test? please reread and rethink your post.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>opening the drug market to generic would greatly decrease drug pricing.

The market IS open to generics. You can get advil under a dozen different brand names.

only because the pattent has run out, many drugs are still controled by the company that made them. every drug is cheaper that hits the generic market.

[charlie5 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://www.cato.org/bad-medicine/

An opinion piece from Cato, well known for its non partisan, non ideological positions.

Doesn't make it wrong.

Unless it's from huffpo it's wrong

The feather butts bounce off ya like raindrops hitting a battle-star when they come in too fast...kinda funny to watch. - airtwardo

[Stumpy 256]

I have a genuine question about Obamacare. Can someone point me at something non-partisan (or at least not too bad) that sums up the pro's ad cons? For those of us on the outside, the mind boggles that anyone thinks state funded healthcare is a bad idea. I'm guessing there must be a good reason but its all far too smothered in Republican party rhetoric.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[DanG 1]

Quote

doctor needs to proove they are needed

To whom is he offering this proof, if not the government? Do you really thing healthcare costs will go down if doctors need to provide evidence for every test, and have that evidence reviewed? How much time will the doctor spend putting together his cases for the 20 strep tests he wants to order today? Who paying the person (not government employed, apparently) who reviews those 20 files every day?

I think you need to review your cost saving plan a little.

- Dan G

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

doctor needs to proove they are needed

To whom is he offering this proof, if not the government? Do you really thing healthcare costs will go down if doctors need to provide evidence for every test, and have that evidence reviewed? How much time will the doctor spend putting together his cases for the 20 strep tests he wants to order today? Who paying the person (not government employed, apparently) who reviews those 20 files every day?

I think you need to review your cost saving plan a little.

It is a prooven fact that doctors order unneeded tests to cover their but from lawsuites and other things like that, if the insurance companies and the government backed off and just let doctors run only the needed test it would save alot of money.

[DanG 1]

Quote

It is a prooven fact that doctors order unneeded tests to cover their but from lawsuites and other things like that, if the insurance companies and the government backed off and just let doctors run only the needed test it would save alot of money.

I agree, but that's not what you said. You said you wanted doctors to prove the tests were needed.

The flip side of the coin is that many labs are owned by doctors, so the doctors have a financial interest in ordering as many tests as possible. There's nothing illegal about this (unfortunately), but it's a huge ethical problem.

- Dan G

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

It is a prooven fact that doctors order unneeded tests to cover their but from lawsuites and other things like that, if the insurance companies and the government backed off and just let doctors run only the needed test it would save alot of money.

I agree, but that's not what you said. You said you wanted doctors to prove the tests were needed.

The flip side of the coin is that many labs are owned by doctors, so the doctors have a financial interest in ordering as many tests as possible. There's nothing illegal about this (unfortunately), but it's a huge ethical problem.

the government and insurance companies should give a list of possible needed tests for each part of treatment and the doctor should discuss them with you. then decide on path to follow.

[normiss 622]

You seriously want the government deciding what action is taken in response to your illness??????????

I'd like to pre-opt out of this whacko plan please.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

You seriously want the government deciding what action is taken in response to your illness??????????

I'd like to pre-opt out of this whacko plan please.

where did I say that? please reread and take an english class if you have trouble understanding what is wrote.

[normiss 622]

Quote

the government and insurance companies should give a list of possible needed tests for each part of treatment

THAT IS what was wrote [sic].

[DanG 1]

Quote

where did I say that?

Right here:

Quote

the government and insurance companies should give a list of possible needed tests for each part of treatment

You're proposing what many people feared about the healthcare law: death panels.

- Dan G

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

where did I say that?

Right here:

Quote

the government and insurance companies should give a list of possible needed tests for each part of treatment

You're proposing what many people feared about the healthcare law: death panels.

I did not say gov or ins companies should control your care, I said that they should give a list of treatments and tests so you can sit with your doctor and make a plan for treatment. I don't trust the doctors, gov or ins companies so I need something to eduacate myself. There for the gov and ins companies should set some guidelines for me to educate myself and then I can control the doctor on how he treats me.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I did not say gov or ins companies should control your care, I said that they should give a list of treatments and tests so you can sit with your doctor and make a plan for treatment. I don't trust the doctors, gov or ins companies so I need something to eduacate myself. There for the gov and ins companies should set some guidelines for me to educate myself and then I can control the doctor on how he treats me.

So you trust the insurance companies and government more than your doctor? Why are you against the healthcare law? Did it not go far enough?

- Dan G

[normiss 622]

Based on what the government thinks???
That's insane!

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

I did not say gov or ins companies should control your care, I said that they should give a list of treatments and tests so you can sit with your doctor and make a plan for treatment. I don't trust the doctors, gov or ins companies so I need something to eduacate myself. There for the gov and ins companies should set some guidelines for me to educate myself and then I can control the doctor on how he treats me.

So you trust the insurance companies and government more than your doctor? Why are you against the healthcare law? Did it not go far enough?

gov should only have an advisory board for health care, and no control over anything. that is what gov is for is to protect us not control us. all choices made should be between the doctor and the patient not the ins company or the gov. Advice is what we need not control.