Page 103 of 143 FirstFirst ... 353939899100101102103104105106107108113 ... LastLast
Results 2,041 to 2,060 of 2855
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2041  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    As I previously stated, in plain language:

    "Some ambiguity surrounds how to treat individuals who are already eligible for public insurance programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but do not enroll in those programs, which estimates from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured suggest may amount to millions of individuals. These individuals are uninsured but some interpretations would suggest they should not be counted among those who "cannot get" coverage. Subtracting them from the total [47M] would produce a number closer to 30 million."

    If you're still unable to properly interpret the OMB Director's very elementary explanation ... Obfuscate away ...
    As Woof mentioned, how does "cannot get insurance" count as uninsurable by your own definition of uninsurable? Can you just answer that one question?
  2. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2042  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    As Woof mentioned, how does "cannot get insurance" count as uninsurable by your own definition of uninsurable? Can you just answer that one question?
    If you can accept the explanation of the esteemed OMB Director that you originally referred to as a proper authority on this subject, do you agree, for the sake of argument, with how both the 47M "uninsured" figure was obtained as well as the 30M "uninsurable" figure? If not, there is no use in further discussion on what constitutes "uninsured" or "uninsurable".
  3. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2043  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    To me, the numbers speak for themselves. What is it? 16% of our GNP goes to healthcare? With how many still uninsured or under insured? and those are the cases that will cost even more. England uses like what, 8% of their GNP for healthcare and they have no uninsured or under insured. It just doesn't make sense to keep our current model.
    Hello Palandri,

    We spend more per capita, or so I hear. We spend plenty of money--including massive amounts on the poor, and they still aren't getting treatment, which means there is something messed up in those systems. I'm not sure there is much disagreement there.

    The major question is how best to fix it. I don't think insurance companies are doing a particularly good job, nor do I think that the government is--specifically with medicaid.

    I think that those in power are pursuing the "solutions" that they prefer, not be best possible solutions, because I don't think they are even being considered--just too much political pressure from one source or another. If they are proven to be best, and are acceptable within our nations legal framework, I'd be happy to see them.

    I haven't seen an honest attempt to look at all possibilities.

    KAM
  4. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2044  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If you can accept the explanation of the esteemed OMB Director that you originally referred to as a proper authority on this subject, do you agree, for the sake of argument, with how both the 47M "uninsured" figure was obtained as well as the 30M "uninsurable" figure? If not, there is no use in further discussion on what constitutes "uninsured" or "uninsurable".
    As I mentioned, I defer to the director of OBM as more of an authority than you about why the president changed his talking point. That's all. But I fail to see how that makes your initial claim any more valid. Again, as I said previously, that link only proved to bolster my argument that the original number is bogus since it clearly included non-Americans as Americans.
  5. #2045  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If you can accept the explanation of the esteemed OMB Director that you originally referred to as a proper authority on this subject, do you agree, for the sake of argument, with how both the 47M "uninsured" figure was obtained as well as the 30M "uninsurable" figure? If not, there is no use in further discussion on what constitutes "uninsured" or "uninsurable".
    Another important question would be, "why was 'cannot get' specifically put in quotation marks?"
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2046  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    As I mentioned, I defer to the director of OBM as more of an authority than you about why the president changed his talking point. That's all. But I fail to see how that makes your initial claim any more valid. Again, as I said previously, that link to
    The president changed nothing. He spoke of apples, yet you only hear oranges. This has become nothing but a childish game of semantics for you. You expect direct answers when you offer none. You make the conscious decision to be obtuse about simple math and grammar because politics holds more gravity for you than the healthcare concern at hand.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2047  
    Hello Everyone,

    I've mentioned this several other times. We've heard the 47 Million uninsured number for a while, and recently the President used 30 million. Other numbers I've heard are 12 million who actually cannot afford it.

    Let's take the higher number--47 million uninsured, which presumably means the rest are insured. We currently are spending about 300 billion a year on medicaid--which is meant to give medical care to the poor. If divided up that would be about $6400 per person per year.

    Even at today's elevated prices for medical insurance, $6400 per person is a pretty healthy amount to cover insurance costs. Has anyone asked why we aren't able to effectively spend this money to cover these uninsured?

    KAM
  8. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2048  
    I understand that its difficult admitting an error so I'll move on. Have a good night.
  9. #2049  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Then please move to one of these awesome countries! Please! LOL Why do you keep quoting these people...who are they?....are they real?.....why do I care what someone in Italy thinks? Good grief.....you are....you are just....wow....I don't know what your are. Holy Cow.
    If I labeled it exotic dancing, would you read it?
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  10. #2050  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    The president changed nothing. He spoke of apples, yet you only hear oranges. This has become nothing but a childish game of semantics for you. You expect direct answers when you offer none. You make the conscious decision to be obtuse about simple math and grammar because politics holds more gravity for you than the healthcare concern at hand.
    Do you walk in circles too?
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. #2051  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    If you can accept the explanation of the esteemed OMB Director that you originally referred to as a proper authority on this subject, do you agree, for the sake of argument, with how both the 47M "uninsured" figure was obtained as well as the 30M "uninsurable" figure? If not, there is no use in further discussion on what constitutes "uninsured" or "uninsurable".
    Saying "No I can't answer that" would be a more judicious use of bandwidth and it would actually make you sounds smarter.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2052  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    This begs pointing out the numerous denied claims and denied coverage examples out there eh?
    I'll give you this, you get what you pay for far more often than you get what you do not pay for.
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2053  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    We aren't going to let people over 65 and those who are on Social Security disability go without coverage. You have the best medical minds look at the program, and you follow their recommendations. Sure, it may include a tax hike. I don't have a problem paying more if that's the case.
    How about this? I would gladly vote for a package that would ensure health care for every American who was 65 years or older on or before 2007 to be paid for though tax hikes on people born between 1943 and 1963.
  14. #2054  
    I knew my taxes were going up!
  15. #2055  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Hello Everyone,

    I've mentioned this several other times. We've heard the 47 Million uninsured number for a while, and recently the President used 30 million. Other numbers I've heard are 12 million who actually cannot afford it.

    Let's take the higher number--47 million uninsured, which presumably means the rest are insured. We currently are spending about 300 billion a year on medicaid--which is meant to give medical care to the poor. If divided up that would be about $6400 per person per year.

    Even at today's elevated prices for medical insurance, $6400 per person is a pretty healthy amount to cover insurance costs. Has anyone asked why we aren't able to effectively spend this money to cover these uninsured?

    KAM
    How about because that amount of money would cover one day in an ICU?
  16. #2056  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    It's okay doc....just regroup....take the night off....your "unquestionable" facts are getting tougher and tougher to defend. To say that more and more doctors are not dropping Medicare patients is just irresponsible. I could have posted even more links to articles saying the same thing. Of course, you da doc and you know everything. LOL I would hate to be the patient that questions your judgement...whew.
    How about just one? Show me one link that has collected national data that shows that the number of doctors accepting Medicare has decreased? I realize you don't understand the difference between opinion and facts. As I said, not one of the links you posted showed reputable data....all opinion. In my state Medicare is generally highly sought after....because without it, you are automatically decreasing your options for patients. While you're looking for data, see if you can find one academic health center anywhere in this country that doesn't gladly accept Medicare. Have at it.
  17. #2057  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Well, couldn't an HSA be invested in so-called "low risk" investments such as treasury bonds. If so, I think they'd be a stable as anything to do with the government.

    As far as Tax breaks--well, I think that making all medical expenses tax deductible from the first dollar is an important thing. A waitress probably wouldn't get much tax benefit not--perhaps because she wouldn't be itemizing. However, that portion of the tax code can easily be revised (or SHOULD be easy). Regardless of whether you itemize or not, you they could make all of those medical expenses deductible. Even if it is a modest benefit--why not give everyone that additional buying power?

    The major benefit I see in the HSA type of arrangement (and it might not be exactly like now), is thath it isn't money that goes into a hole like insurance. Naturally situations vary, but I mentioned my own--my employer and I have paid for many years into an insurance policy with no claims, but the year I need it--I end up paying a VERY large out of pocket percentage. If I had been building up funds in an HSA-type account, my total expenditure would be similar over those years but my out of pocket would be much less.

    Now, I don't support forcing anyone into anything--so if someone had a better option for them, then I see no reason to not offer that. I think for some people (like me) the HSA plan might work out better--and in fact that's exactly the case. As I said--it won't be the same for everyone, but that's something I think people need to decide for themselves.



    Well, I would tend to agree with your assessment there. As I mentioned, I didn't really envision that we'd try to shift seniors currently on medicare into a different plan. It would be complicated, and they are highly resistant to changes. They are too dependent on it to risk changing, and that's understandable.



    Are you saying that other colleagues have experience more problems with medicare than with private insurance? I think you mentioned that some doctors refuse medicaid, because of problems there. I'd also guess that some insurers are better than others as well.

    I've got to admit--I've been very unhappy with the customer service with my insurance company--their answer is invariably to not give any relevant information, but I've had similar displeasure dealing with the hospital as well.

    KAM
    If you are saying that HSA's should be invested in the government and not subject to access by crooks like Bernie Madoff, then I agree that HSA's are a good idea. You mean it doesn't bother you at all that all this money will be put into the government? Excellent. Because HSA's are seen by many in the investment community as a gold mine. If anybody needs a gold mine, it's our deficit.

    Less than a third of doctors accept Medicaid; 75% accept Medicare. On the other hand, Medicaid provides a lot more services to patients than Medicare. That forces the reimbursement rate down so that it really isn't cost-effective to deal with Medicaid patients, again for SOME but not all providers. I know of places that fight for Medicaid patients.

    I know of very few people who have needed their insurance who haven't had some kind of problems with private insurance companies. Not that people don't have bad experiences with Medicare, but all these people that think the private insurance industry gives a damn about them and provides them great service are wolfing down the kool-aid.
  18. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #2058  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Saying "No I can't answer that" would be a more judicious use of bandwidth and it would actually make you sounds smarter.
    Understanding the difference between 47M uninsured and 30M uninsurable is an elementary proposition. It is through no fault but your own that you are unable to rise above petty politics and internet gamesmanship to recognize. If this is the "loyal opposition", Republicans have more to fear from within their ranks than from any external force.
    Last edited by 1thing2add; 09/14/2009 at 09:09 AM.
  19. #2059  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    How about just one? Show me one link that has collected national data that shows that the number of doctors accepting Medicare has decreased? I realize you don't understand the difference between opinion and facts. As I said, not one of the links you posted showed reputable data....all opinion. In my state Medicare is generally highly sought after....because without it, you are automatically decreasing your options for patients. While you're looking for data, see if you can find one academic health center anywhere in this country that doesn't gladly accept Medicare. Have at it.
    Well.....the first thing I noticed on your "hard data" is that in that survey, only 62% of doctors responded. The fact that 75% are accepting Medicare patients means that 25% are not accepting...at least...based on the 62% response rate.

    Here is a survey of Texas physicians: Fewer Texas Physicians Accepting New Medicare Patients; Payment Cut Would Exacerbate Problem Here is a quote from the article: "Fifty-eight percent of Texas physicians are accepting new Medicare beneficiaries, compared with 90% before 1990, according to a survey by the Texas Medical Association, the Houston Chronicle reports. The proportion of primary care physicians accepting new beneficiaries is 38%, according to the survey. The physicians say treating these patients is no longer affordable because of Medicare reimbursement rates, which have declined by 20% in inflation-adjusted dollars over the last seven years. TMA predicts that the trend will continue unless Congress develops a long-term solution regarding physician reimbursement under Medicare, with debate in Congress continuing over how to eliminate a scheduled Medicare physician payment cut." I know I just went to Clemson, but, I think a drop of 90% to 58% means that their is a decrease? I'll defer to you, doc, since you are so much smarter than me. Is that a decrease?

    So whatever....you have your statistics, I have mine. I will stick by my believe that more and more physicians will continue to stop accepting new patients, nation wide (maybe not in Florida) based on all the info I keep reading.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  20. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #2060  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    How about because that amount of money would cover one day in an ICU?
    Hello Davidra,

    I think you might be misunderstanding me. I'm well aware of the extremely high costs of a hospital stay--and not just in the ICU. I think previously I mentioned the overnight stay of a friend that cost nearly $5000--for absolutely nothing special at all.

    I was referring to that money being used to purchase insurance (and pay deductibles) for those people. I referred to this several times earlier in the thread. While you know that I've got many issue with how insurance is currently run, I'm not attempting to address that at the moment.

    To reiterate. I'm asking if the problem is 47 million people without insurance, why we aren't spending that 300 billion to INSURE them--right now, today. $6400 might be wiped out quickly for a stay in the ICU, but it alternatively can buy a pretty good health-insurance policy.

    My quick example cost $4400 for a 40 year old--that had 100% pay after the deductible which I think was $1600 (using the other $2000 for first dollar coverage--by whatever system you wish--HSA or other).

    Again--if the problem is that they don't have insurance, and we currently spend enough to provide each and every one of them insurance, why not simply do that? Obviously, there are other issues, but doesn't this address the gross problem immediately, giving those poor (or otherwise uninsured) people coverage right now. That would provide time to find the best solutions for reform, without making these people wait years more.

    KAM

Posting Permissions