Page 16 of 37 FirstFirst ... 6111213141516171819202126 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 320 of 726
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    Lets face it, YOUR health, the health of your family and friends should NOT be subject to the (greed) free market. Yes they should be able to make some money.
    I would compare your health system this way; you are hanging by your fingernails from a cliff, you will die if you are not handed a rope. I am standing there with the rope, and for a LARGE price, will give it to you.
    That folks is health care in America.
    Obamacare doesn't change YOUR metaphor one bit. It just shifts control to the government, increases it's costs, and ultimately will limit the quality and availability of services.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. #302  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Obamacare doesn't change YOUR metaphor one bit. It just shifts control to the government, increases it's costs, and ultimately will limit the quality and availability of services.
    There is no proof that it will increase costs, none, as it has not been enacted yet. Nor is there proof that it will limit the quality or availability of services again, because it has not been enacted yet. Most of what is happening RIGHT now is knee jerk responses to what is believed will happen.
    Yes, there will be changes, some good some bad, to compare what "our founding fathers" believed is hogwash. Hell they were still using leaches when your "founding fathers" wrote that document and concieved your nation. Drop your "founding fathers" into todays world, they would likely be the most left wing radicals running around. Lets face it, compare their ideas with what was considered right wing at the time, they would be left leaning at the very least. Making Obama look like a Tea Party member.
    Stop using the founding fathers are rolling in thier graves arguments, look at what they did, what they thought, compare them to what was considered right wing at the time, none of them fit the right wing mould.
    You have no idea what they would think compared to todays society.
    I just love the fact that right wing zealots point to the founding fathers, hell, the right wing of today would be screaming bloody blue murder if any of those gentlemen were standing up demanding changes in the tax system that benifited everyone not just some CEO/Corp.
    The comparison I would make is this, International Corps = King George of Merrry old England. But that is just me. Sorry micael, i only used your quote, should have also used one a few back as well..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  3. sweaner's Avatar
    Posts
    161 Posts
    Global Posts
    249 Global Posts
    #303  
    Is there any evidence that it will decrease costs? In your prior example, in a real free market there would be many people selling rope, the price would come down, and you would be saved for a reasonable price. I suspect you can buy rope at Home Depot for less than the government pays.
  4.    #304  
    Quote Originally Posted by sweaner View Post
    Is there any evidence that it will decrease costs? In your prior example, in a real free market there would be many people selling rope, the price would come down, and you would be saved for a reasonable price. I suspect you can buy rope at Home Depot for less than the government pays.
    Only the CBO estimates, which is probably as good or better than anyone else could estimate. Of course, you probably wouldn't agree with them regardless.

    Your second point is exactly right, and is the perfect justification for a public option. If you're right, then the insurance companies should be able to beat the price point of the government option.....right?
  5.    #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Obamacare doesn't change YOUR metaphor one bit. It just shifts control to the government, increases it's costs, and ultimately will limit the quality and availability of services.

    Ultimately? What does that mean? Medicare costs less than private insurers in terms of overhead, and careful monitoring and decreasing waste on Advantage plans will make it even more solidly funded. The quality of care, as I've shown you time and time again, is better in VA hospitals than private care, and Medicare recipients are quite happy with their choices, which are extensive. Try some other talking points. Those are stale.
  6. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #306  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Ultimately? What does that mean? Medicare costs less than private insurers in terms of overhead, and careful monitoring and decreasing waste on Advantage plans will make it even more solidly funded. The quality of care, as I've shown you time and time again, is better in VA hospitals than private care, and Medicare recipients are quite happy with their choices, which are extensive. Try some other talking points. Those are stale.
    Show me again where VA hospitals offer better care than "private care" whatever that means.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  7.    #307  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Show me again where VA hospitals offer better care than "private care" whatever that means.
    You keep asking, I keep posting the same link. Maybe you should put it in "favorites".

    How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care - TIME
  8. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #308  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    You keep asking, I keep posting the same link. Maybe you should put it in "favorites".

    How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care - TIME
    I figured that was what you'd put forward. Time magazine? Really? Krugman's a bastion of fair and balanced analysis too, right?

    I mean, if it's written, it must be so!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  9.    #309  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I figured that was what you'd put forward. Time magazine? Really? Krugman's a bastion of fair and balanced analysis too, right?

    I mean, if it's written, it must be so!
    And your point is what? That two isolated incidences of what are medical errors mean that a huge system like the VA is somehow not providing quality care? Pardon me, but that's a little like me saying every insurance company is composed of thieves and crooks because they are like HCA. The numbers speak for themselves; they are not anecdotes, they are not collected by CNN or Time, but by the University of Michigan. Additionally, by using bar codes and computerized systems, the VA is way ahead of most private hospitals in the prevention of medical errors. Deny all you want, your "argument" is laughable...and not even a valid counterpoint. Show me some national figures that match mine, please.

    Oh, and while your at it, consider the Rand analysis of VA quality:

    Rand analysis of VA Quality of Care


    How does the VA measure up against other U.S. health care providers? To address this question, RAND researchers compared the medical records of VA patients with a national sample and evaluated how effectively health care is delivered to each group. Their findings:

    * VA patients received about two-thirds of the care recommended by national standards, compared with about half in the national sample.
    * Among chronic care patients, VA patients received about 70 percent of recommended care, compared with about 60 percent in the national sample.
    * For preventive care, the difference was greater: VA patients received about 65 percent of recommended care, while patients in the national sample received 20 percent less.
    * VA patients received consistently better care across the board, including screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up.
    * Quality of care for acute conditions — a performance area the VA did not measure — was similar for the two populations.
    * The greatest differences between the VA and the national sample were for indicators where the VA was actively measuring performance and for indicators related to those on which performance was measured.

    VA Delivers Higher Quality of Care

    Using indicators from RAND’s Quality Assessment Tools system, RAND researchers analyzed the medical records of 596 VA patients and 992 non-VA patients from across the country. The patients were randomly selected males aged 35 and older. Based on 294 health indicators in 15 categories of care, they found that overall, VA patients were more likely than patients in the national sample to receive recommended care. In particular, the VA patients received significantly better care for depression, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. The VA also performed consistently better across the spectrum of care, including screening, diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up. The only exception to the pattern of better care in VA facilities was care for acute conditions, for which the two samples were similar.
  10. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #310  
    My figures versus your figures.... a war of data reports. I'll pass. Being a veteran and having known many veterans all my life, I know something about VA Hospitals and care, and it's not good, by and large.

    But I can guess how you feel about real life experiences.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  11.    #311  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    My figures versus your figures.... a war of data reports. I'll pass. Being a veteran and having known many veterans all my life, I know something about VA Hospitals and care, and it's not good, by and large.

    But I can guess how you feel about real life experiences.

    Really? Can you? I doubt it. You have no "figures" or data reports, now, do you, just isolated incidents. Of course, it's possible that what you call "not good" has nothing really to do with the true quality of care you receive. So...let's see. In addition to actually working at two VA hospitals over the years, I am a veteran as well. I was a senior surgeon and a second lieutenant in the Navy. Non-combat, but I am a veteran as well. And guess what? I know something about VA Hospitals and care as well. And I think it is good...by and large.
  12. #312  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    There is no proof that it will increase costs, none, as it has not been enacted yet.
    That statement is simply false in two ways. First, I have proof that costs have gone up and it relates to your second incorrect statement that "it has not been enacted yet." Is the full plan in force, of course not, but the early stages have already been put in force and guess what? Premiums have increased.

    As of Sept 23, 2010, there were basically 4 main mandates that kicked in: 1) 100% no co-pay for preventive services, 2) unlimited benefits, 3) dependents under age 26 can stay on their parent's plan, and 4) no pre-ex for children. And before anyone corrects me, yes, I know some of those haven't kicked in if your plan is "grandfathered" (I won't go into those details, look it up). But since I believe you are in Canada, and I'm down here in the US of A and deal with premiums for clients, I can assure you they have already gone up specifically related to these mandates. That is simply a fact. In fact, I was speaking to UnitedHealthcare this AM about rates and all individual plans will see additional rate increases in early 2011 specifically related to these mandates.

    Now, further changes will occur between now and about 2017 (if we can't get this repealed and a bill in place that will actually reform health care), but I don't see anything that will cause rates to go down. I think the brains around obama forgot to include anything that will actually reduce the cost of services that would actually cause premiums to go down. Their main goal was to attack insurance companies and blame them for everything. And no davidra, that does not mean we need a public option, it means we need people who can actually make a real bill, not just rush out something that was supposed to help democrats get re-elected.

    As Pelosi said, "We have to approve this bill so we can know what is in it."
    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
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #313  
    Amazing. One-upped again. And I think you just told me that my experiences do not exist and do not count. Thanks David!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14.    #314  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Amazing. One-upped again. And I think you just told me that my experiences do not exist and do not count. Thanks David!
    Nope. What I told you is that basing an opinion on anecdotes and the personal opinion of a few friends doesn't really translate into mass statements about quality of care when faced with massive amounts of data from several different sources that contradict you. Hopefully your doctor doesn't make decisions based on what happened once or what someone told him, but instead actually reads the literature and bases decisions on data. Real data, like what you have been provided. I realize it conflicts with your closely held beliefs that anything to do with the government must be awful, but hey....that's life.
  15.    #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    And no davidra, that does not mean we need a public option, it means we need people who can actually make a real bill, not just rush out something that was supposed to help democrats get re-elected.

    As Pelosi said, "We have to approve this bill so we can know what is in it."

    Oh yeah. I remember what the republican "real bill" looked like. It covered almost nobody, and was composed of talking points like "tort reform" and "selling across state lines". That was about it. There was no way any of that will make any significant difference in costs. The difference in costs was that nobody was going to be covered. Yeah...that's the kind of real bill the republicans seem to want. Protect the insurance companies, don't cover people who need it, and it won't cost much. No wonder you like it.
  16. #316  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    My figures versus your figures.... a war of data reports. I'll pass. Being a veteran and having known many veterans all my life, I know something about VA Hospitals and care, and it's not good, by and large.

    But I can guess how you feel about real life experiences.
    Anonymous people's opinions on the internet is all well and good, but I find peer reviewed published studies in reputable medical journals so much more informative. Here's a few to supplement the conversation.

    Annals of Internal Medicine
    "Diabetes processes of care and 2 of 3 intermediate outcomes were better for patients in the VA system than for patients in commercial managed care"

    New England Journal of Medicine
    "The quality of care in the VA health care system substantially improved after the implementation of a systemwide reengineering and, during the period from 1997 through 2000, was significantly better than that in the Medicare fee-for-service program"

    Annual Review of Public Health
    "VA health care is now considered among the best in America, and the VA transformation is viewed as a model for health care reform"

    American Journal of Managed Care
    "The Veterans Health Administration is the United States' largest integrated health system. Once disparaged as a bureaucracy providing mediocre care, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reinvented itself during the past decade through a policy shift mandating structural and organizational change, rationalization of resource allocation, explicit measurement and accountability for quality and value, and development of an information infrastructure supporting the needs of patients, clinicians, and administrators. Today, the VA is recognized for leadership in clinical informatics and performance improvement, cares for more patients with proportionally fewer resources, and sets national benchmarks in patient satisfaction and for 18 indicators of quality in disease prevention and treatment."

    Cancer
    "The VA healthcare system has substantial expertise in the diagnosis and management of cancer. VHA's unprecedented transformation into a system of integrated networks supports and promotes that expertise"

    The Lancet
    "The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provides health care for U.S. military veterans. By the early 1990s, the VHA had a reputation for delivering limited, poor-quality care, which led to health care reforms. By 2000, the VHA had substantially improved in terms of numerous indicators of process quality, and some evidence shows that its overall performance now exceeds that of the rest of U.S. health care"
  17. #317  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Oh yeah. I remember what the republican "real bill" looked like. It covered almost nobody, and was composed of talking points like "tort reform" and "selling across state lines". That was about it. There was no way any of that will make any significant difference in costs. The difference in costs was that nobody was going to be covered. Yeah...that's the kind of real bill the republicans seem to want. Protect the insurance companies, don't cover people who need it, and it won't cost much. No wonder you like it.
    Not sure their "real bill" would have been allowed to be seen. Do you really think pelosi and reid would have allowed a Republican sponsored bill to come up for a vote? Heck no....this was all about the democrats leading the way. They did that scam of a televised meeting just so they could act like they wanted to hear the Republican ideas, but it was really just for show.
    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.    #318  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Not sure their "real bill" would have been allowed to be seen. Do you really think pelosi and reid would have allowed a Republican sponsored bill to come up for a vote? Heck no....this was all about the democrats leading the way. They did that scam of a televised meeting just so they could act like they wanted to hear the Republican ideas, but it was really just for show.
    Oh, it was seen. How quickly you forget. Of course, there's some spin involved here, but the numbers are reported right out of the CBO. The republican plan was a joke. But that's not surprising. It just reflects the party.

    Republicans are learning an unpleasant lesson this morning: The only thing worse than having no health-care reform plan is releasing a bad one, getting thrashed by CBO and making the House Democrats look good in comparison.
    Late last night, the Congressional Budget Office released its initial analysis of the health-care reform plan that Republican Minority Leader John Boehner offered as a substitute to the Democratic legislation. CBO begins with the baseline estimate that 17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance in 2010. In 2019, after 10 years of the Republican plan, CBO estimates that ...17 percent of legal, non-elderly residents won't have health-care insurance. The Republican alternative will have helped 3 million people secure coverage, which is barely keeping up with population growth. Compare that to the Democratic bill, which covers 36 million more people and cuts the uninsured population to 4 percent.
    But maybe, you say, the Republican bill does a really good job cutting costs. According to CBO, the GOP's alternative will shave $68 billion off the deficit in the next 10 years. The Democrats, CBO says, will slice $104 billion off the deficit.
    The Democratic bill, in other words, covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It's already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It's already made its compromises with reality. It's already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.
    Ezra Klein - Congressional Budget Office Thrashes Republican Health-Care Plan
  19. #319  
    some more references...

    Annals of Internal Medicine
    Objective: To compare the quality of VHA care with that of care in a national sample by using a comprehensive quality-of-care measure.
    Design: Cross-sectional comparison.
    Setting: 12 VHA health care systems and 12 communities.
    Conclusions: Patients from the VHA received higher-quality care according to a broad measure.

    British Medical Journal
    Many healthcare organisations are having to confront the challenge of how to provide high quality care within a fixed (or sometimes shrinking) budget.1 The Veterans Health Administration, which provides care for over 5 million veterans within the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States, faced this problem in the early 1990s, when it was struggling to overcome a reputation for providing inferior and inefficient health care. In 1995 it began a programme to simultaneously improve the organisation and quality of its care, with performance monitoring having a key role. Within 10 years, it was lauded as providing the best care in the US.

    HealthCare Papers
    Today, the VA is recognized for leadership in clinical informatics and performance improvement, cares for more patients with proportionally fewer resources, and sets national benchmarks in patient satisfaction and for 18 indicators of quality in disease prevention and treatment.
  20.    #320  
    Excellent....but you're only going to confuse them with the facts. No matter what you present, it will be either ignored or denied. Think I'm wrong? Watch if anyone says "gee....you were right all along. The VA has pretty good care". Any bets?

    I also find it interesting that two doctors are the ones arguing that government health care is very high quality, in discussion with two people that work for insurance companies, who are sure it isn't.

    Go figure.

Posting Permissions