Page 6 of 71 FirstFirst 12345678910111656 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 1405
  1. #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    No. I'm saying that your personal health care means little to me in a real sense. And vice versa. You respond that you volunteer at the VA hospital. Unless I can get health care at your local VA hospital, you apparently de facto agree with me.

    I don't believe that for a minute.

    The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
    Your argument that because I work at a VA hospital I still don't care about other peoples health care does not make sense and using terms like defacto and in real terms does not help, at last doesn't help me understand your point any better. Plus when I say I am sincere about something I mean it and your sayin that you don't believe it pretty much tells me you are either calling me a liar trying to pick a fight or both. Truth is I do care about other peoples health care. I care about making a difference in the world before I die. It's patrotic and it's also religious that I feel the duty to serve. That why I was in the military and that's why I volunteer. So that's my motivation why I care about other folks including you. And that's why even though I have my own health care situation worked out and that of my family, if It comes down to it, I'm not going to complain about paying some taxes to make sure other Americans are also not going to the poor house becuse they happen to get sick. Anyway I hope this makes things more clear.
  2. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    What Micael seems to be missing is your point...

    To answer your question, it does not.
    The simple truth is, if the current private insurance framework operated for the benefit of patient outcomes, there would have developed a convergence over the past 50 years between those insurance companies who are most profitable and those insurance companies whose enrollees have the most superior outcomes.

    If one believes fully in the free market ultimately "working" for the benefit of the customer, there should be easy to obtain data showing the same insurance companies which have the highest profitability as having the most superior healthcare outcomes. I've not seen it. Have you? Anyone?

    Where the data?
  3. #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    No. Uneducated means uneducated. The average person is capable of understanding how the market works with a little education and learning to not make their decisions based purely on emotion. Stupid is far worse. Stupid means even if you were educated, it wouldn't do any good.
    What about people who think they're educated, but are still stupid? And on what basis have you educated yourself about health care, other than Googling the Healthy Americans act and prattling on about it? The fact is that the right would never support the HAA, even the ones who sponsored it, because it essentially will completely change the private insurance market, requiring them to provide services to people that will hurt their bottom line. They will likely not be able to survive without considerable additonal support. And it doesn't really address the uninsured who currently would end up with no tax credit whatsoever with which to buy insurance. While there are some good ideas in it that can be combined with other good ideas into a plan, this would fail because there is no option for pulling massive health insurers out of the debt they will incur. Yes, it avoids a public option and replaces it with total control of the insurance industry. It makes more sense to just do away with that industry.

    Your opinions, which admittedly are yours with no argument whatsoever, echo those of most "me first" individuals with whom you share a common rock. Of course you're interested in your own health care, and your own family. And then you lose interest. If you want to sound patriotic, caring nothing about the health care of the rest of the country comes up real short, but I'm not sure that patriotism is something you would value either. One of the things that comes through again and again in the rest of the civilized world is that many people in other countries are actually proud of the fact that the mere happenstance of getting sick doesn't mean there's a good chance someone may go bankrupt. It's telling that you don't see any difference whatsoever in purchasing a car or purchasing health care. That will continue until you are faced with some kind of health care situation that will change your mind in a hurry. While it's against my grain to hope for such an event, I do think it would actually educate you. You can take that however you want.
  4. #104  
    Quote Originally Posted by E.LesterBrown View Post
    Your argument that because I work at a VA hospital I still don't care about other peoples health care does not make sense and using terms like defacto and in real terms does not help, at last doesn't help me understand your point any better. Plus when I say I am sincere about something I mean it and your sayin that you don't believe it pretty much tells me you are either calling me a liar trying to pick a fight or both. Truth is I do care about other peoples health care. I care about making a difference in the world before I die. It's patrotic and it's also religious that I feel the duty to serve. That why I was in the military and that's why I volunteer. So that's my motivation why I care about other folks including you. And that's why even though I have my own health care situation worked out and that of my family, if It comes down to it, I'm not going to complain about paying some taxes to make sure other Americans are also not going to the poor house becuse they happen to get sick. Anyway I hope this makes things more clear.
    You are such a tool of the left. Next thing we know you'll be wanting to sing "Kumbaya" and hold hands. You need to leave America right now, because your attitude is too much like those in other countries. How dare you be willing to pay more of your hard-earned money to help others. Why, that's....un-American.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by theog View Post
    What Micael seems to be missing is your point...

    To answer your question, it does not.
    I didn't miss his point... or said differently, I didn't miss his false argument.

    Like most on the left, he goes on and on about the evil health insurance profits. I've illustrated NUMEROUS times in these threads that those meager profits have nothing to do with high healthcare costs..... but he doesn't listen, and I get the impression, neither will you.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I didn't miss his point... or said differently, I didn't miss his false argument.

    Like most on the left, he goes on and on about the evil health insurance profits. I've illustrated NUMEROUS times in these threads that those meager profits have nothing to do with high healthcare costs..... but he doesn't listen, and I get the impression, neither will you.
    No. you miss the point. Maybe it's because of your own special interest, right? It's not just the cost of the profits, it's the cost of business. All those employees who provide nothing of substance directly to the patient (like you, for instance) have to be paid. It's the total cost of doing business that makes insurance companies. It's not 2%, it's the 25-30% overhead that makes the difference. Surely being a smart guy you see that, don't you?
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    No. you miss the point. Maybe it's because of your own special interest, right? It's not just the cost of the profits, it's the cost of business. All those employees who provide nothing of substance directly to the patient (like you, for instance) have to be paid. It's the total cost of doing business that makes insurance companies. It's not 2%, it's the 25-30% overhead that makes the difference. Surely being a smart guy you see that, don't you?
    Ok, I'm done with you and your insults. Argue with someone else.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I've illustrated NUMEROUS times in these threads that those meager profits have nothing to do with high healthcare costs.
    With the long-standing practice of private insurance serving as the intermediary provider of care to the patient for decades, it it certainly reasonable to expect that the framework you support has proven its worth, in objective terms where patient outcomes are concerned. Can't that data survive close scrutiny.

    Being such a pragmatist, you certainly wouldn't want to support a plan that, over 50 years, still cannot prove itself. Right? If that data is so compelling, maybe it could even change some minds!
  9. #109  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Ok, I'm done with you and your insults. Argue with someone else.
    Buck up, dude. After all, I've been accused of robbing and overcharging patients as well as stealing from the government in this forum. But I do apologize for specifying you individually. I have no knowledge about that. It's the industry as a whole that provides nothing of substance to the therapeutic relationship. For all I know you are a patient service representative who actually tries to make things better for individuals. Who knows? You might just turn out to be another Wendell Potter

    Anything's possible.
  10. #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by E.LesterBrown View Post
    Your argument that because I work at a VA hospital I still don't care about other peoples health care does not make sense
    That's because I made no such argument. I didn't say that you didn't care about anyone's health. At most I'm saying that as proximity decreases, one would expect that the level of your caring would also decrease. Whatever volunteering or contributing that you or I do on a local level is unlikely to directly impact the other. That does not devalue it. It just means that one's impact on a local level is always going to have more weight than on a less local level.
    and using terms like defacto and in real terms does not help, at last doesn't help me understand your point any better.
    Are you actually trying to understand my point, or are you trying to figure out which pigeonhole I should fit into so that you can either give me the thumbs up or dismiss me out of hand?
    Plus when I say I am sincere about something I mean it and your sayin that you don't believe it pretty much tells me you are either calling me a liar trying to pick a fight or both.
    I think you are being a bit disingenuous. I think you are trying to play a character on the internet.
    Truth is I do care about other peoples health care.
    Do you care about every person's health care at exactly the same level?
    ‎"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...
  11.    #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    With the long-standing practice of private insurance serving as the intermediary provider of care to the patient for decades
    Insurance is not a provider of care. Insurance is a provider of money. It does this by sharing risk among its policyholders.

    A lot of people get excellent healthcare without insurance. We have one of the best healthcare systems in the world. The problem with it is making it affordable to the average person.

    We need to separate "Healthcare Reform" and "Insurance Reform" both need changes, just not a complete overhaul.
  12. #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    What about people who think they're educated, but are still stupid?
    I generally try not to spend too much time with them. OTOH, I'm sure that our definitions of what constitutes stupidity can differ.
    And on what basis have you educated yourself about health care,
    I've already posted some of my involvement with various points of the health care and insurance systems. Going into more detail would obviously be fruitless.
    other than Googling the Healthy Americans act and prattling on about it?
    I get it, doc. You don't like me. You think I'm stupid. No need for your own prattling and belligerence.
    The fact is that the right would never support the HAA, even the ones who sponsored it, because it essentially will completely change the private insurance market, requiring them to provide services to people that will hurt their bottom line.
    That's really irrelevant to why I asked you and others about it. I couldn't care less about whether the 'right' would support it.
    Your opinions, which admittedly are yours with no argument whatsoever, echo those of most "me first" individuals with whom you share a common rock.
    That's interesting considering you've put yourself on record as wanting a public option so that you wouldn't have to figure out a way to tell someone that they require a treatment they can't afford or might bankrupt them. And what's with the 'common rock' jab?
    Of course you're interested in your own health care, and your own family. And then you lose interest.
    No, I don't lose interest completely, but my interest will obviously lessen. Anyone who says differently is lying to someone.
    If you want to sound patriotic, caring nothing about the health care of the rest of the country comes up real short, but I'm not sure that patriotism is something you would value either.
    I'm certainly not trying to sound patriotic, and you are inadvertently correct that I do not place as high a value on patriotism (at least not blind patriotism) as others do.
    It's telling that you don't see any difference whatsoever in purchasing a car or purchasing health care.
    It's telling that you can't tell whether I see a difference. Where I do see similarities is that I'm not prone to going into a decision on either without some background work, and that one cannot legislate trust.
    That will continue until you are faced with some kind of health care situation that will change your mind in a hurry. While it's against my grain to hope for such an event, I do think it would actually educate you. You can take that however you want.
    I'll take that as evidence of your not acknowledging that someone else might have a different and yet valid perspective from your own. I'll also take is as further evidence that you place far more stock in anecdotal evidence than you claim. I've already been faced with health care situations of various stripes. One would be errant to assume that we should all be expected to deal with them in exactly the same 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...
  13. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    Insurance is not a provider of care
    Certainly insurance is a provider of care! Insurance may not be the one to empty your bedpan, but it is most likely responsible if you have access to one or not. Private insurance directs the pattern of which physicians are available to a patient, the number of days approved as an in-patient, the number and type of treatments are approved, the number and type of therapies approved, which surgical procedures are approved, which surgeons are approved to perform those procedures, which medications are available, discharge criterion, access to rehab, etc are decided. This much is indisputable. These all contribute directly to the clinical outcome of every enrollee.

    It is reasonable to expect that the most "successful" private insurance companies to have the best clinical outcomes for their enrollees, if one believes fully in the free market system of today's healthcare. Where is the supporting evidence? How can anyone support a continuation of today's framework without knowing how well it works, after decades of practice?
  14. #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    That's really irrelevant to why I asked you and others about it. I couldn't care less about whether the 'right' would support it.

    That's interesting considering you've put yourself on record as wanting a public option so that you wouldn't have to figure out a way to tell someone that they require a treatment they can't afford or might bankrupt them.

    I'm certainly not trying to sound patriotic, and you are inadvertently correct that I do not place as high a value on patriotism (at least not blind patriotism) as others do.

    I don't support it (although I think a great deal of Wyden) because I think that without a public option as a backup, we will be left with no infrastructure. Another reason why a public option would be a safety net, not only for those without insurance, but also for those with insurance when insurance reform makes those companies marginally successful.

    Avoiding blind patriotism is about the best quality I can think of in anyone. On the other hand, having pride that your country is willing to take care of its citizens is the kind of nationalism that makes sense to me. As opposed to renaming freedom fries, for example.
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #115  
    Hello Everyone,

    The question of overhead and profit are running throughout all these discussions.

    My view is this--eliminating as much overhead as possible is a good idea. Some people seem to advocate eliminating insurance overhead, but favor shifting that role to government. I see little benefit in that. Let's assume that elimination of profit is a pure benefit, that still doesn't seem to address the scope of the problem.

    My suggestion for this is to remove Government and insurance from the bulk of the medical transactions--what I call common care. I believe that if you take that out of their hands and return it to a Provider-Patient interaction (no middle man at all) that has the best benefit of eliminating overhead. A solution that incorporates this goal is worth pursuing in my view.

    Secondly, there is little or no free market in health care, and I believe that is a major cause of skyrocketing prices. Some try to blame the free market, but that simply isn't true, because it basically doesn't exist. Insurance companies and government-paid healthcare are both indirect payer systems that try to follow an insurance model. However, insurance only works when payouts are not of high likelihood, relative to the costs. Since medical expenses ARE of high likelihood it should be no surprise to anyone that costs (for both insurance and government spending) are rising much more quickly than the economy at large. Add in medical advancements (which are costly) and it gets even worse. In my view, indirect payer systems are a major problem--regardless of who runs them. Minimizing that is another goal worth pursuing in my view.

    We don't have a free market--we've got a half-baked price control system where third parties (government and insurance companies) block and obscure costs, until it is far too late (when the patient gets the bill that says "You Pay X." They spread these costs around by taxation or a (flawed) insurance model. Under this NON Free market system costs have skyrocketed. Perpetuating this failed system isn't a good idea, but that's essentially what is being proposed. No one is talking about eliminating this model--they are merely shifting who is administering it.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 09/16/2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason: Fixes
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    That's because I made no such argument. I didn't say that you didn't care about anyone's health. At most I'm saying that as proximity decreases, one would expect that the level of your caring would also decrease. Whatever volunteering or contributing that you or I do on a local level is unlikely to directly impact the other. That does not devalue it. It just means that one's impact on a local level is always going to have more weight than on a less local level.
    Thanks for clarifying some of that stuff. Sorry if I seemed a bit over sensitive but what I said on the last couple posts about service and helping others is something thats personal and important to me.
  17.    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Certainly insurance is a provider of care!
    ABSOLUTELY WRONG! Insurance makes expensive healthcare accessible if you don't have money, but it is NOT the provider of care!

    When I needed physical therapy and my insurance did not cover it (because I chose a policy with lower premiums that I knew would not cover anything outpatient) I did not go without treatment. The healthcare was provided. I just had to pay for it!

    People need to stop thinking of the Insurance Companies as the providers of care. We do need to find ways to help people without insurance to get access to those who do provide the care!
  18. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #118  
    Fundamentally, there are three realistic frameworks which are being considered for passage. Those three are:

    -Public-only option

    -Mix of Public and Private Insurers, including a Public Option

    -Private-only Option

    Of these realistic choices, there are no proposals in congress pursuing a Public-only option.

    The Private-only option, with proposals that include subsidies to provide limited access coverage to low-income people does not cover all, does not prevent catastrophic costs from forcing families into bankruptcy, and has only fractured support.

    The only realistic option, at this time, that provides universal access to insurance exchanges with a public option safety net receives the most support from physicians and the public alike.

    medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/HealthPolicy/15962

    Given that private insurance will remain a significant part of our future framework, is it not prudent to confirm the clinical outcomes of their enrollees or should we blindly assume that each is carrying out what is in the best interest of each patient? If insurance companies have under-performed where the outcomes of their enrollees are concerned, should they not be weeded out or reformed to perform at a more appropriate level of acceptance?
  19. #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You are such a tool of the left. Next thing we know you'll be wanting to sing "Kumbaya" and hold hands. You need to leave America right now, because your attitude is too much like those in other countries. How dare you be willing to pay more of your hard-earned money to help others. Why, that's....un-American.
    david, thanks I appreciate your sarcasm and support
  20. 1thing2add's Avatar
    Posts
    6 Posts
    Global Posts
    8 Global Posts
    #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by Technologic 2 View Post
    ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

    When I needed physical therapy and my insurance did not cover it (because I chose a policy with lower premiums that I knew would not cover anything outpatient) I did not go without treatment. The healthcare was provided. I just had to pay for it!
    No. What is wrong is that if your insurance coverage had included out-patient PT, you would have been instructed where you were approved to receive it and how many treatment visits you were approved for. Your clinical outcome, with coverage, is highly determined by your insurance provider.

Posting Permissions