Page 14 of 71 FirstFirst ... 49101112131415161718192464 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 1405
  1. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #261  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    So you think that private insurers will be able to add all the high risk people they have been avoiding and now provide them insurance? They will need subsidies. The taxpayers will be subsidizing private for-profit insurance companies, with a 30% overhead. No wonder the insurance companies are dancing with joy over Baucus' bill. Just a handout to big insurance, the same way the republicans handed out to the drug companies. Why not just stand in front of the toilet and throw 30% of your money in the toilet?

    Providing health care to everyone will cost money. If you think we should do it, then we should do it in the most cost-effective way. That excludes insurance companies from the equation. If you don't want to do it, just say so. That's where you appear to be.
    That didn't really answer my question.
  2. noaxis2's Avatar
    Posts
    172 Posts
    Global Posts
    173 Global Posts
    #262  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    As another physician, I'm not sure what office you work in. Maybe being in California you only have to deal with Kaiser. When you deal with multiple companies, each with different criteria about forms, approval requirements, even where labs can be ordered, things (such as the need for multiple office personnel) are much much worse with private insurers than with Medicare. And I'm also sure that you're wrong when you say "many doctors do not accept Medicare and Medicaid". That's true about Medicaid...only around a third of doctors accept Medicaid, because it's flawed. 75% of physicians accept Medicare. As the population continues to age, I would suspect that unless they do accept Medicare, many practices will note a decrease in their patient population.

    snip
    I work with kids (so very little medicare) but I have worked primarily with the medicaid population, so my opinions have nothing to do with my specialty. I went to an Ivy League medical school and (until the past 12 months) have always chosen to work specifically with the medicaid/low-income population because I think they should access to good doctors also.

    I've never had a private practice mainly due to the fear of going broke because I would probably treat everyone even if they didn't pay!

    I just do not believe further involvement of the federal government will improve anything. Of the 46 or so million of uninsured people (I think the new numbers are lower)--once you take out those who are eligible but not enrolled in benefits; those who make over $70k/yr (and are defined as "able to afford insurance) and those who are not legal residents/citizens (I'll have to find the show I was listening to when the exact numbers were cited)--there are approximately 5 million people who are legal, not eligible for public benefits and make under $70k/yr.

    I think there are much more simple solutions to provide access to coverage for that group of people rather than attempting to restructure the entire system when over 70% like what they have and want to keep it the way it is (again...have to remember when I heard that but it was well over 50%...I commute and listen to a lot of talk radio shows! Can't always write things down).

    Just my two cents...



    Being me has its advantages.

    -- Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
  3. noaxis2's Avatar
    Posts
    172 Posts
    Global Posts
    173 Global Posts
    #263  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    snip

    Not only can't we afford to throw a quarter of all our health care dollars into the toilet of for-profit insurance company overhead, we also can't afford to pay doctors for unneccessary procedures, excessive testing, and unmanaged access to unlimited specialists. And that's going to be the case whether there's a private option or not, if there are going to be any cost controls applied to stop health care increases. What that translates into for all doctors is that if there is going to be health care reform (and for all I know you love the status quo, which is doomed to failure) it's going to mean less income. And without a public option, and subsidization of private for-profit insurance companies with taxpayer money, that income will be even less. Pick your poison. Even the AMA recognizes this.
    snip.
    IMHO the only way you're going to get doctors to stop practicing "defensive" medicine is tort reform so it is harder to sue a doctor and malpractice rates can go down. Do I think doctors mess up? Of course! But there are few if any guarantees in medicine and if doctors feel they have to do extra things because they believe it decreases their liability, they'll do them.

    Of course...once you can't sue an insurance company and just the Federal government, tort reform will pass faster than the initial TARP program!



    Being me has its advantages.

    -- Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster, Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry
  4. #264  
    Quote Originally Posted by noaxis2 View Post
    IMHO the only way you're going to get doctors to stop practicing "defensive" medicine is tort reform so it is harder to sue a doctor and malpractice rates can go down. Do I think doctors mess up? Of course! But there are few if any guarantees in medicine and if doctors feel they have to do extra things because they believe it decreases their liability, they'll do them.

    Of course...once you can't sue an insurance company and just the Federal government, tort reform will pass faster than the initial TARP program!
    Please. Go through the threads. I've listed a number of non-partisan sources that state that there is a huge amount of agreement that tort reform will have little, if any, effect on health care costs. It's become the trumpeting of the conservatives, and fine, do it. I don't care. But in places where it's been implemented, and studied WELL (emphasis mine), not only doesn't it decrease costs but insurance companies don't even lower their premiums to doctors, even though they've been protected. Tort reform is nothing but a red herring.

    Listen, you sound like a nice guy. I'm glad you go out of your way to see Medicaid patients, and I certainly understand your feelings about philosophical problems with turning patients away. That's why your stance is illogical. You can try and fine-tune the numbers, and decrease the numbers who need help (by the way, if it's that few, we should be able to provide for them easily, but nobody seems to want to do that). The point is that having insurance is a false sense of security. In the post above, note that 80% of those who filed for medical bankruptcies HAD INSURANCE. The population is not safe against financial ruin no matter whether they have insurance or not. They're not protected against their claims being denied by private insurers, and they die because of it. Are most people happy with their insurance? You betcha. Try doing the survey in people who have actually had to use it for a serious illness. Or who had it canceled when they got a serious illness.

    The point is not whether people are happy with what they have. The point is that we will not have it in a few years if we don't do something. The percent of the GDP due to health care costs has continued to climb incessantly and will soon be 20%. The ONLY time in the last 50 years it stablized was in the early '90s when HMO's were being very restrictive about care. Guess what? It worked. The costs leveled off for four or five years. But this amount of management was unacceptable to the population, HMO's became much less restrictive....and costs promptly rose again. All you conservatives that are so worried about money in the future can't see your nose in front of your face.

    I'm not going to dwell on the fact that you criticize how difficult Medicare is to deal with when you have a pediatric practice. That would be too easy. But I will mention it. I do deal with Medicare patients. They make up a substantial part of my practice as a general internist. I cannot support my practice without gladly taking Medicare. And based on my experience with private (including non-profit) insurers and their creative ways of non-payment (within the last three years we've sued two private insurers, BCBS and another non-profit) for non-payment and won both cases). I will take Medicare every time. They pay promptly, they support the education of residents along with controlling costs through DRG's....Medicare is a great program given the limitations that it has been put under (including a republican handout to drug companies which certainly hurts it's bottom line). Is it pefect? Hell no. There is no perfect in health care. But it's better and cheaper and a better deal than Humana, or BCBS, or especially Bill Frist's bunch of crooks at Columbia/HCA, who represent the absolute perfect example of why private insurers should stick to cars. They defrauded Medicare of millions and millions of dollars...and they're not the only private insurers that do that. They're just the ones that got caught.

    So you are welcome to your own opinion about health care financing, as is everybody on this board (except for those who use several identities and have now disappeared). But you might try thinking about the larger picture, which is something this country has failed to do because of the massive numbers of citizens that care only about themselves. And I have to admit some respect for some of them on this board....it's not like they try and pretend they're any different, they are right up front in saying they don't really care. Good for them, but hopefully there are a lot more that do care.

    And by the way. Try something other than talk radio shows. There are better places to get your information, don't you think?
  5. #265  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Listen, you sound like a nice guy.
    You really don't pay attention to what others say, do you? Or did you mean guy in a non-gender-specific way?
    ‎"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. #266  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    You really don't pay attention to what others say, do you? Or did you mean guy in a non-gender-specific way?
    I use the term androgynously.

    Of course, there's always the chance that I was blinded by the Hogwart's references.
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #267  
    Sorry if I missed it, but was it ever mentioned how any of the proposals currently under consideration would provide health care to the poor without providing subsidies in one form or another? And if it doesn't provide subsidies, why would it cost a trillion dollars?
  8. #268  
    Quote Originally Posted by noaxis2 View Post

    I still believe that our representatives should represent what we want--not what they believe we need (but apparently we don't know what we need and will thank them in the future for saving us from ourselves).
    Me too. And that's exactly what's going to happen, since the majority of citizens want available health care for all. And probably not from a paid consultant....we do need to be saved from doctors that see their role in that manner. There are too many that can't afford a consultant...but they still need care...and they seem to like doctors that are invested in their care. Maybe psychiatrists don't feel that's appropriate.
    Last edited by davidra; 09/24/2009 at 05:19 AM.
  9. #269  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Me too. And that's exactly what's going to happen, since the majority of citizens want available health care for all. And probably not from a paid consultant....we do need to be saved from doctors that see their role in that manner. There are too many that can't afford a consultant...but they still need care...and they seem to like doctors that are invested in their care. Maybe psychiatrists don't feel that's appropriate.
    Would you mind posting the data from this survey?
    “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
  10.    #270  
    Yes, a majority of people DO want available healthcare, and they DO want it affordable. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

    BUT, most people DO NOT want their healthcare availability dictated by the government. Do you?

    Government regulations have done more to increase premiums than to lower them.
  11. #271  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    Yes, a majority of people DO want available healthcare, and they DO want it affordable. I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

    BUT, most people DO NOT want their healthcare availability dictated by the government. Do you?

    Government regulations have done more to increase premiums than to lower them.
    What is it? We spend 16% of our GNP on healthcare and the UK spends half of that and covers everyone? I don't see it increasing cost, rather lowering them, but that's just my opinion looking at it.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  12.    #272  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    What is it? We spend 16% of our GNP on healthcare and the UK spends half of that and covers everyone?
    Comparing care in US vs UK...Do you think the quality of care and the amount of care in the UK is equal or better than US? and...What makes you say so?
  13. #273  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    What is it? We spend 16% of our GNP on healthcare and the UK spends half of that and covers everyone? I don't see it increasing cost, rather lowering them, but that's just my opinion looking at it.
    And being an union electrician (if memory serves) qualifies you to determine that government involvement will save money/cut costs how?

    What business/financial expertise gives you this knowledge?

    Not saying I possess any such skill or experience either. I'd just like to know why you think you know how its all gonna work.
    “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
  14.    #274  
    My post...
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    Comparing care in US vs UK...Do you think the quality of care and the amount of care in the UK is equal or better than US? and...What makes you say so?
    Your response...???
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Your fears, once again, are unfounded, as the systems both in today's practice and those being considered in the US are not equivalent.
    And you, once again, did not answer the question. I don't see anything in my post that mentions any fears, is this just an automatic response you use?
  15. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #275  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    What is it? We spend 16% of our GNP on healthcare and the UK spends half of that and covers everyone? I don't see it increasing cost, rather lowering them, but that's just my opinion looking at it.
    When you throw percentages around like that, you're misleading people. It's not whats spent, it's what it costs and who pays for it, and it's who decides who gets what treatment, that's at stake.

    In the UK, the government decides all of the above.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #276  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Your question is baseless, in that the systems in place in the US and the UK are not now similar, nor would they be similar when any proposal being considered by congress is signed into law.

    You have a fear of witnessing Joe Scarborough unequivocally state that?
    And so... if Joe Scarborough says it, it must be true?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #277  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    When you throw percentages around like that, you're misleading people. It's not whats spent, it's what it costs and who pays for it, and it's who decides who gets what treatment, that's at stake.

    In the UK, the government decides all of the above.
    That's the way you think and there is nothing anyone can do to change your mind. Just like there is nothing you can do to change my mind.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  18.    #278  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Your question is baseless, ...
    I'll give up on getting an answer from you..

    Regarding "Death Panels"; I have read the entire bill in question. (talk about a headache) No, the term "Death Panels" is not in the bill. (Funny though, I've heard reports that after the public outcry they took the non-existent panels out of the bill.) The bill DOES have provisions that will determine whether it is "cost effective" to do certain types of treatment on someone that would just prolong their lives. President Obama himself stated that sometimes it is better to just give someone medicine to ease the pain instead of prolonging the inevitable.

    The bill does have provisions to pay for end-of-life counseling. Sure, a living will is good to have. But, is this something the government should be involved in? This should be between the person involved and their families or doctor.

    Another question you won't answer: Who wrote the bill?
  19. #279  
    Quote Originally Posted by Woof View Post
    And being an union electrician (if memory serves) qualifies you to determine that government involvement will save money/cut costs how?

    What business/financial expertise gives you this knowledge?

    Not saying I possess any such skill or experience either. I'd just like to know why you think you know how its all gonna work.
    I listen to the health experts. One of things they bring up is how much we are spending compare to other countries and what we are getting for the amount we spend. You think the way you do. I think the way I do. Neither of us are going to change our opinion.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  20.    #280  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    And so... if Joe Scarborough says it, it must be true?
    Yes, of course. After all, it was on MSNBC and they couldn't put anything on if it wasn't true.

Posting Permissions