Page 64 of 143 FirstFirst ... 1454596061626364656667686974114 ... LastLast
Results 1,261 to 1,280 of 2855
  1. coolqf's Avatar
    Posts
    42 Posts
    Global Posts
    631 Global Posts
    #1261  
    Our current healthcare system is in sad shape. We rank we below 30th place in terms of how good our health system is and yet we rank number 1 in how expensive it is. We have become a country of "borrowing" and continually become more and more individualistic, meaning that we care less and less about the greater good of the health of America... We're nearing to a point where we spend 20% of our GDP on our healthcare.... 1 in 5 dollars to cover your health? 37 other nations do it better than us and for less.... Why is it that we can't seem to learn from them?
  2. #1262  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You're not. Because progress is not your goal.
    Hey old buddy. Been a long time. How's Seattle?

    If progress is leading to a government run single payer system, then your absolutely correct. Reform is necessary, I'll agree with that.
    “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
  3. #1263  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    Hey old buddy. Been a long time. How's Seattle?

    If progress is leading to a government run single payer system, then your absolutely correct. Reform is necessary, I'll agree with that.
    And greetings to you to! Are you drinking your kool-aid over ice or straight up these days? Seattle hit 103 degrees a couple of weeks ago. Almost went Mad Maxx around here for fans and air conditioners. We're now back to our reasonable temperatures, reasonable like our views on the health care debate <--- segue

    A gov't run single payer OPTION is the only solution. Please let me know how much you enjoy it next year.

  4. #1264  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    ....A gov't run single payer OPTION is the only solution. Please let me know how much you enjoy it next year.

    I agree with you 100%, but at this point in time I don't see anything close to that happening. Too many lies have been spread about government death panels and the government pulling the plug on your grandma.... and on... and on.

    It really sad that the right move can't take place.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  5. #1265  
    Lies about government death panels? The legislation was in the Senate version, not the House version. The Senate version has since had it deleted. So no lie. As for it being the only solution - not at all.
  6. #1266  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Well....I do respect your view from the doctor's side and the hastle of dealing with multiple insurance companies, but let's face it, many issues arise from the doctor's office as well.

    Now, some are related to physicians being concerned with missing a test and then later getting sued over not ordering a test....and I can respect that point of view. Just recently my primary care doctor wanted me to go for an expensive Thallium Stress Test ($2100 +) when a trip to the cardiologist showed I didn't need it ($350 for that visit rather than $2100). My physician had no idea the test would cost that much (at least that is what she said). Had I not asked about some options I would have gone the more expensive route (I told the cardiologist that if I needed the Thallium test I would go in for it, but if I didn't, would prefer not spending $2100). Secondly, when I was first put on HBP medication, she originally put me on a 3 week trial medication that seemed to work just fine. It was a new medication and when I asked the price, she said it would be about $85 per month. I asked if there was another generic and she said, "sure", and I now pay $5.60 for a low dose of Lisinopril....but only because I asked about my options. Third....a couple of years ago I went in for my annual physical and they filed it with a diagnostic code rather than preventative code, and so it was processed as diagnostic and went to my deductible rather than paying it as 100% (I have an HSA plan which covers annual physicals at 100% and no deductible while diagnostic visits are applied to my deductible and therefore I must pay from my pocket). The insurance processed it exactly as it was sent to them, but it was the doctor's office that screwed up (same thing just happened to my wife as well) and I never could get them (the doctor's office) to process it correctly. I finally told them it was their mistake and I wasn't going to pay them, and they finally ate it. Go figure, not sure why they wouldn't just resubmit the claim as preventative.

    So, while there may be issues with the insurance company, I'd just like to point out that the physicians also cause problems. I have dealth with many claims for my clients and it is amazing how many errors started at the doctor's office. Do insurance companies make mistakes? Sure they do....but they can only process what is sent to them. Garbage in, garbage out. I won't even get into the case with my client who went in for a pacemaker, had an infection afterwards, and after 2 more operations they discovered a sponge was left inside him from the initial surgery.

    I guess my point is many areas can be made more efficient without throwing out the good part of our health care simply because some areas need to be fixed. While I do get calls to help clients with claim issues, I also know way more go through with no problems and they are quite happy with the results. But, these fixes can be done, in my opinion, without a public option which will eventually lead to single payer plans such as in the UK and Canada.

    Oh....almost forgot....not smoking anything! Never have, never will!
    Please don't construe what I said as suggesting that physicians are not a primary contributor to the mess we're in right now. I think your example is a great one, and there is no doubt that "defensive" practices add significantly to the cost of care. But the real problem, as you pointed out, is lack of knowledge by physicians. One of my teachers once told me that the most expensive item in the office is the doctor's pen. My pen determines costs to a much greater extent that it should. It's estimated that at least 30% of what we order and use for treatment has been demonstrated to be ineffective in good studies. Many docs practice according to national guidelines (take a look at guidelines.gov if you want to see what I'm talking about) but many don't, and the reasons vary from a desire for independence (nobody tells me how to take care of my patients) to poor training to questionable business operations and profit motives. This is a much more common problem than simple defensive medicine practice IMHO. Tort reform is supposed to make a big difference, and I favor it, but critical review of practice patterns is essential for controlling costs. The Dartmouth Index tracks the performance of Medicare procedures across the US. In some places the rate of performance (after corrected for age; these are all Medicare patients) varies by as much as 300%. This is solely due to variability in practice patterns and has no bearing on quality of care. The best example was in Florida, where the rate of prostatectomy in St. Petersburg was almost twice as high as in Tampa....and they are 8 miles apart. Why? Because a large private urology group is in one town, and a university teaching hospital with a famous radiation therapy group is in the other. But the fact remains that we have no idea if the patients were better off in either location, so patients from one place will continue to get operated on for the same thing that patients in the other place will not. That is why quality measures are so important for cost reduction. And the reason is not just to save money; it's to provide higher quality care. If a major surgical procedure gives the same outcome as another mode of treatment, but costs 10 times as much, should the insurance company or the government pay for it? The answer is clearly no. But when control is applied, whether through strict HMOs or Medicare, patients and doctors rebel. It's getting to the point, however, that we have no choice but to control the use of ineffective treatments or we'll go bankrupt.

    There are no easy answers to this problem, but the one thing that's clear to me is that something needs to be done now. The nights I volunteer in community clinics seeing working people who are sick and need care and can't afford it have convinced me of that.
  7. #1267  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Please don't construe what I said as suggesting that physicians are not a primary contributor to the mess we're in right now. I think your example is a great one, and there is no doubt that "defensive" practices add significantly to the cost of care. But the real problem, as you pointed out, is lack of knowledge by physicians. One of my teachers once told me that the most expensive item in the office is the doctor's pen. My pen determines costs to a much greater extent that it should. It's estimated that at least 30% of what we order and use for treatment has been demonstrated to be ineffective in good studies. Many docs practice according to national guidelines (take a look at guidelines.gov if you want to see what I'm talking about) but many don't, and the reasons vary from a desire for independence (nobody tells me how to take care of my patients) to poor training to questionable business operations and profit motives. This is a much more common problem than simple defensive medicine practice IMHO. Tort reform is supposed to make a big difference, and I favor it, but critical review of practice patterns is essential for controlling costs. The Dartmouth Index tracks the performance of Medicare procedures across the US. In some places the rate of performance (after corrected for age; these are all Medicare patients) varies by as much as 300%. This is solely due to variability in practice patterns and has no bearing on quality of care. The best example was in Florida, where the rate of prostatectomy in St. Petersburg was almost twice as high as in Tampa....and they are 8 miles apart. Why? Because a large private urology group is in one town, and a university teaching hospital with a famous radiation therapy group is in the other. But the fact remains that we have no idea if the patients were better off in either location, so patients from one place will continue to get operated on for the same thing that patients in the other place will not. That is why quality measures are so important for cost reduction. And the reason is not just to save money; it's to provide higher quality care. If a major surgical procedure gives the same outcome as another mode of treatment, but costs 10 times as much, should the insurance company or the government pay for it? The answer is clearly no. But when control is applied, whether through strict HMOs or Medicare, patients and doctors rebel. It's getting to the point, however, that we have no choice but to control the use of ineffective treatments or we'll go bankrupt.

    There are no easy answers to this problem, but the one thing that's clear to me is that something needs to be done now. The nights I volunteer in community clinics seeing working people who are sick and need care and can't afford it have convinced me of that.
    I can't argue with your statement that something needs to be done. I don't think there have been many people in here that have said the healthcare system is perfect and nothing needs to be done. Many areas need to be improved upon, but that doesn't mean that we throw everything out and go to a government plan. No need to go through all that again, but I just disagree with the liberals that a government run plan is the best for everyone....sorry....just disagree. Even Obama seems to be making the point when he continues to use the example of how poorly the Post Office does against private enterprises.....the Post Office is simply run poorly and that is suppose to be a reason to be excited about the government running healthcare? Would everyone feel comfortable if it was announced that the Post Office would be running healthcare?

    No doubt things can be done better....but our system is not broken, just needs some repairs. Folks like Palandri are just drooling over the government running all aspects of our life....I just don't understand that mentality. Different strokes for different folks.

    By the way.....love the video out now from about 3 or 4 years ago showing Pelosi going on and on about how much she likes "disruptors". Seems she only likes disruptors when they are disrupting Republican issues....but when disruptors are opposing democrat issues it apparently is unAmerican. She must be one of the biggest hypocrites in politics these days.
    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
  8. #1268  
    Right behind Ensign, Sanders and Vitters.

    Yes, but those repairs are not going to decrease costs without significant change. So we'll get everyone covered, it will just cost a lot more. Exactly like Medicare D, which was foisted on taxpayers by the republicans as being a help.
  9. #1269  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Right behind Ensign, Sanders and Vitters.

    Yes, but those repairs are not going to decrease costs without significant change. So we'll get everyone covered, it will just cost a lot more. Exactly like Medicare D, which was foisted on taxpayers by the republicans as being a help.
    Funny how left leaning folks bring up Medicare Part D as being so bad, and then don't seem to mention that their precious Medicare is going bankrupt. It's easy for everyone on Medicare to be happy with the program when they don't have to worry about the cost of it. Unfortunately, since no one seems to worry about the cost it will be costing everyone more in the future or you doctors will be treating Medicare patients for free. You don't mind not getting paid for your services, do you? I mean, you have that oath and all, huh?

    You doctors could help dramatically by simply lowering what you charge and taking home less money, I mean, if people are upset at insurance companies making profits why should doctors and hospitals make a profit?
    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
  10. #1270  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    I agree with you 100%, but at this point in time I don't see anything close to that happening. Too many lies have been spread about government death panels and the government pulling the plug on your grandma.... and on... and on.

    It really sad that the right move can't take place.
    That would be the "left" move, not the right move. I'm not ready to call the public option dead yet as the far left folks are pretty nasty and they are quite good at pushing their socialistic agenda. They'll start throwing the word "free" around again, and discussing how the wealthy will pay for it, and then it will gain momentum again until the truth patrol has to fight back with the truth.

    Folks like Howard Dean and Pelosi won't give up that easily, unfortunately.
    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
  11. #1271  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    That would be the "left" move, not the right move. I'm not ready to call the public option dead yet as the far left folks are pretty nasty and they are quite good at pushing their socialistic agenda. They'll start throwing the word "free" around again, and discussing how the wealthy will pay for it, and then it will gain momentum again until the truth patrol has to fight back with the truth.

    Folks like Howard Dean and Pelosi won't give up that easily, unfortunately.
    Socialist agenda? There's that fear monger coming out again - The government will pull the plug on your grandma with their death panel.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  12. #1272  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Socialist agenda?
    Yes. It was quite refreshing last week when Lawrence O'Donnell was substituting for Chris Matthews to hear a Democrat outright admit that Social Security, Medicare, and government run health care were socialism on at least two occasions. He ripped Culbertson apart with his wishy-washy stance. Personally, I think the only reason Social Security hasn't been discarded already is because many still seem to think that their money that has been put in over the years has just been held in escrow for them and is being used to pay them back when they retire. The reason for concern with the Baby Boomers about to start retiring is that it will reveal the system to be little different from the Ponzi scheme that's sending Madoff to jail.
    ‎"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...
  13. #1273  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Socialist agenda? There's that fear monger coming out again - The government will pull the plug on your grandma with their death panel.
    No....I think the concerned citizens of the US have hopefully squashed that part of the bill. A "check" mark for democracy on that issue. I'm not ready to put a "check" mark next to "squash public option" as I think the liberals are going to fight for that to remain. I think it is great when our representatives actually pretend to listen to us (not counting that democrat from TX, Lee, who didn't even pretend to listen to her constituants as she talked on the phone...LOL....what a hoot).

    But seriously palandri, I'm sorry the death panels might not make it through for you....I know that is disappointing.
    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
  14. #1274  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Yes. It was quite refreshing last week when Lawrence O'Donnell was substituting for Chris Matthews to hear a Democrat outright admit that Social Security, Medicare, and government run health care were socialism on at least two occasions. He ripped Culbertson apart with his wishy-washy stance. Personally, I think the only reason Social Security hasn't been discarded already is because many still seem to think that their money that has been put in over the years has just been held in escrow for them and is being used to pay them back when they retire. The reason for concern with the Baby Boomers about to start retiring is that it will reveal the system to be little different from the Ponzi scheme that's sending Madoff to jail.
    Toby, did you read this link I posted last week?

    Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian

    Interesting article on how Social Security even made it through the Supreme Court....pretty interesting. Social Security really is a Ponzi scheme. Imagine putting in all this money and dieing before you start to receive the benefit and not be able to pass that along? I just got my social security estimate in the mail the other day and I serioulsy doubt I will ever see that....sad.
    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
  15. #1275  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Toby, did you read this link I posted last week?

    Is Social Security Constitutional? by John Attarian
    Did not have a chance yet.
    ‎"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...
  16. #1276  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Funny how left leaning folks bring up Medicare Part D as being so bad, and then don't seem to mention that their precious Medicare is going bankrupt. It's easy for everyone on Medicare to be happy with the program when they don't have to worry about the cost of it. Unfortunately, since no one seems to worry about the cost it will be costing everyone more in the future or you doctors will be treating Medicare patients for free. You don't mind not getting paid for your services, do you? I mean, you have that oath and all, huh?

    You doctors could help dramatically by simply lowering what you charge and taking home less money, I mean, if people are upset at insurance companies making profits why should doctors and hospitals make a profit?
    Do you work for free? Do you have a number of people who work for you that you have to pay? Do you have to pay overhead on a building and a lab? Don't make the mistake of thinking that it's what doctors bill...it's actually what insurance companies pay. Since primary care docs make about $80 for an hour visit and ophthalmologists make about $7000 for an hour procedure, do you think there's some inequity? And why should my hospital be solvent? Because if it's not, and nobody that works there gets paid, then there isn't any place for your sorry *** to go when you're sick, right? Do you have any relatives that are nurses, or who work for in a hospital cleaning bedpans and wiping asses? Think they should do that work for free? Here's the difference: those people are being paid for delivering care. Insurance companies are being paid to be an intermediary, and what's worse, a controlling intermediary. Admittedly, if you don't see any difference between a nurse and an insurance company employee, then your argument holds. I just hope you get a nurse who is more empathetic than an insurance company executive.

    If you are so anti-Medicare, then why don't you start voting against all the hypocritical republicans who won't speak out against it? One major contributant to Medicare financial problems (although not all) is Part D. No business in their right mind that used massive amounts of a product would ever just agree to pay list price for it without negotiating a better price. But no, the republicans passed the bill with the proviso that the government (read you) will only pay full retail price for all drugs used in Part D. Even the VA knows better than that. But the pharmaceutical companies got their way. Want to save some money? Change just that provision and allow the government to negotiate prices.

    The fact is that every government in existence is socialist; otherwise it wouldn't be a government. Roads, the military, police, fire....all socialist. The only argument, like with a prostitute, is what you're going to do and how much will it cost. Throwing the word around like it actually describes something specific just shows a lack of honesty about what we really have....and have always had.
  17. #1277  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you work for free? Do you have a number of people who work for you that you have to pay? Do you have to pay overhead on a building and a lab? Don't make the mistake of thinking that it's what doctors bill...it's actually what insurance companies pay. Since primary care docs make about $80 for an hour visit and ophthalmologists make about $7000 for an hour procedure, do you think there's some inequity? And why should my hospital be solvent? Because if it's not, and nobody that works there gets paid, then there isn't any place for your sorry *** to go when you're sick, right? Do you have any relatives that are nurses, or who work for in a hospital cleaning bedpans and wiping asses? Think they should do that work for free? Here's the difference: those people are being paid for delivering care. Insurance companies are being paid to be an intermediary, and what's worse, a controlling intermediary. Admittedly, if you don't see any difference between a nurse and an insurance company employee, then your argument holds. I just hope you get a nurse who is more empathetic than an insurance company executive.

    If you are so anti-Medicare, then why don't you start voting against all the hypocritical republicans who won't speak out against it? One major contributant to Medicare financial problems (although not all) is Part D. No business in their right mind that used massive amounts of a product would ever just agree to pay list price for it without negotiating a better price. But no, the republicans passed the bill with the proviso that the government (read you) will only pay full retail price for all drugs used in Part D. Even the VA knows better than that. But the pharmaceutical companies got their way. Want to save some money? Change just that provision and allow the government to negotiate prices.

    The fact is that every government in existence is socialist; otherwise it wouldn't be a government. Roads, the military, police, fire....all socialist. The only argument, like with a prostitute, is what you're going to do and how much will it cost. Throwing the word around like it actually describes something specific just shows a lack of honesty about what we really have....and have always had.
    Ease up killer.....I was just being a bit facetious about you docs and hospitals not making a profit. I personally have no problem with anyone making a profit, and in fact, trying to make as much profit as you can. But for some reason, people don't believe an insurance company should make a profit because "no one should make a profit off of one's health" (not your quote, just a general quote we see in here often). So, I wonder if the same people who think that would also think that a doctor or hospital shouldn't make money off of the sick or injured? Again, I don't have such a problem with profit making.

    As for negotiated rates, you obviously realize this helps keep costs down. By negotiating rates with doctors and hospitals (just like medicare, except the government tells you what you will accept), the idea is to try and keep costs down. No offense to you on this next statement, as you might be different, but if insurance companies simply had to pay whatever doctors wanted to charge, I'm going to guess doctors would charge a whole lot more. But, the negotiated fees keep these within a reasonable range (you may differ on "reasonable", but I would bet the rates received from insurance companies are more than medicare, correct?). Doctors do not have to accept the rates the networks negotiate by simply staying out of the network. Of course, I would assume your business would be hurt some by this, but it is still your perogative, correct?

    All government is socialistic? Well....I'll admit they are becoming so, but it doesn't have to be this way. As for the United States, I go along with what our Constitution says. I do seperate what the Federal government should be responsible for and what local government (states, counties, cities, etc) should be doing. I've pointed out in here many times that I simply don't believe the Federal government should be involved in healthcare (that includes medicare) because it doesn't mention it in the Constitution (education isn't mentioned either, and that is why at least 83% is handled by the states and local governments). It makes it pretty clear what the Federal government should be responsible for and all else handled at the state level (10th Amendment) and I tend to go along with that. But I will agree with you that many governements are becoming mostly socialistic. Many of the items you mentioned are handled (as they should be) by local government (fire, roads, police, community services, etc).

    I honestly don't know that much about Medicare Part D and so will keep quiet on that. I did notice that Obama in one of his Town Hall meetings said that he wanted to cut costs in the drug area by shortening the period that Drug Companies can maintain their patents. While this sounds good, I think you have to allow a company time to recoup their costs of drugs developed as well as drugs they work on but end up having to drop because of them not being safe. Don't doctors push brand names rather than generic drugs? Why is that? I mentioned in an early post by simply asking the question, I went from possibly spending $85 for a brand name medication to $5.60 for a generic. The generic is working just fine. So, I have no problem with generic medications and believe they should be used whenever possible.
    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
  18. #1278  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    The fact is that every government in existence is socialist; otherwise it wouldn't be a government.
    That is certainly a new argument.
    Roads, the military, police, fire....all socialist.
    I suppose you could make an argument that some of those are communist to an extent as well.
    The only argument, like with a prostitute, is what you're going to do and how much will it cost.
    No, prostitutes are definitely capitalist.
    Throwing the word around like it actually describes something specific just shows a lack of honesty about what we really have....and have always had.
    Socialism is something specific. Throwing around the idea that we have always had it shows a lack of perspective and history.
    ‎"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...
  19. #1279  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    That is certainly a new argument.

    I suppose you could make an argument that some of those are communist to an extent as well.

    No, prostitutes are definitely capitalist.

    Socialism is something specific. Throwing around the idea that we have always had it shows a lack of perspective and history.
    If you think socialism is something specific, then by all means enlighten us. Especially specifically at what point taking taxes from the population and paying for the military, and interstate highways, and education differ from health care? Is it only because it's not mentioned in the constitution? Is mail service mentioned in the constitution? And just because something is supported by state taxes instead of federal taxes doesn't automatically mean it's not socialist, right? I mean, look at Governor Romney's universal health care plan in Massachusetts. Socialist, right? If you define socialism as taking individual's money and using it for the overall good of the population as a whole, doesn't that fit all of these things? Why should health care be different? Certainly a master of history and perspective should be able to rattle that answer right off.
  20. #1280  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    But for some reason, people don't believe an insurance company should make a profit because "no one should make a profit off of one's health" (not your quote, just a general quote we see in here often). So, I wonder if the same people who think that would also think that a doctor or hospital shouldn't make money off of the sick or injured? Again, I don't have such a problem with profit making.

    As for negotiated rates, you obviously realize this helps keep costs down. By negotiating rates with doctors and hospitals (just like medicare, except the government tells you what you will accept), the idea is to try and keep costs down. No offense to you on this next statement, as you might be different, but if insurance companies simply had to pay whatever doctors wanted to charge, I'm going to guess doctors would charge a whole lot more. But, the negotiated fees keep these within a reasonable range (you may differ on "reasonable", but I would bet the rates received from insurance companies are more than medicare, correct?). Doctors do not have to accept the rates the networks negotiate by simply staying out of the network. Of course, I would assume your business would be hurt some by this, but it is still your perogative, correct?

    All government is socialistic? Well....I'll admit they are becoming so, but it doesn't have to be this way. As for the United States, I go along with what our Constitution says. I do seperate what the Federal government should be responsible for and what local government (states, counties, cities, etc) should be doing. I've pointed out in here many times that I simply don't believe the Federal government should be involved in healthcare (that includes medicare) because it doesn't mention it in the Constitution (education isn't mentioned either, and that is why at least 83% is handled by the states and local governments). It makes it pretty clear what the Federal government should be responsible for and all else handled at the state level (10th Amendment) and I tend to go along with that. But I will agree with you that many governements are becoming mostly socialistic. Many of the items you mentioned are handled (as they should be) by local government (fire, roads, police, community services, etc).

    I honestly don't know that much about Medicare Part D and so will keep quiet on that. I did notice that Obama in one of his Town Hall meetings said that he wanted to cut costs in the drug area by shortening the period that Drug Companies can maintain their patents. While this sounds good, I think you have to allow a company time to recoup their costs of drugs developed as well as drugs they work on but end up having to drop because of them not being safe. Don't doctors push brand names rather than generic drugs? Why is that? I mentioned in an early post by simply asking the question, I went from possibly spending $85 for a brand name medication to $5.60 for a generic. The generic is working just fine. So, I have no problem with generic medications and believe they should be used whenever possible.
    As I said in another post, just because something is state-run instead of federal doesn't exclude it from being "socialist", right? Is Massachusetts a socialist state?

    In 2006 pharmaceutical companies spent 2.5 times as much on marketing as R&D. Link Read that brief article if you want to find out the truth about drug prices. This article was written by Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Medicare guidelines are that it will reimburse at 80% of the standard pricing "for the community". That means that payment for the same thing will vary considerably between rural Missisippi and NYC. That is one of the reasons for geographical maldistribution; docs who work in rural or less well funded areas get less money for doing the same thing. That is one aspect of most of the current plans that will be addressed.

Posting Permissions