Page 28 of 37 FirstFirst ... 182324252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 541 to 560 of 726
  1.    #541  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    A totally biased article, not surprising given the owner of the WSJ is also the owner of Fox Noise.

    Practices have been being bought by hospitals for more than 20 years. This wasn't in response to the government, it was in response to private HMO's control of reimbursement....of our trainees in practice, less than half now practice independently....and this has not changed since the health care bill was passed. That is absurd.

    Second, look at this profound statement:

    The accountable care movement could do some good if it spreads best practices. But no one should entertain the illusion that it will reduce costs perforce and "bend the curve." In fact, the most concrete effect of this wave of consolidation may be to increase private health spending significantly.
    Guess what? Best practices DO decrease costs. Find someone who says otherwise. This is so obvious that just this comment alone makes the author sound like a fool. I did note they suggest that these changes are taking place without public scrutiny. That I agree with. Let's have much more public scrutiny of the insurance/hospital cabal.

    What's interesting is that the "free market" system has been failing in medicine for many many years. The topics raised are hardly new. There's not even any evidence presented that these changes have increased, other than some hospitals claiming that's why they want to sell. As was pointed out, community hospitals are marginally successful anyway; I am aware of two that have closed in my area in the past three years, before any health plan was passed.

    This article is just an attempt to take the natural selection occurring among health plans and blaming it on the health care bill. It's misleading and basically carp.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #542  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    A totally biased article, not surprising given the owner of the WSJ is also the owner of Fox Noise.
    Same old "shoot the messenger" carp when you can't argue the facts.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3.    #543  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Same old "shoot the messenger" carp when you can't argue the facts.

    Next time try reading more than the first line.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #544  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Next time try reading more than the first line.
    Gotcha, you totally discount the whole article in your first line based on some personal bias, not facts, and then we're supposed to entertain the rest of your post as legitimate debate?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. #545  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Gotcha, you totally discount the whole article in your first line based on some personal bias, not facts, and then we're supposed to entertain the rest of your post as legitimate debate?
    What's amusing is that whenever the libs post an article from a liberal leaning company, they (the author) have always done their research and it's gospel. But let anything come from a non-liberal periodical or website and BAM....it must be discounted because it is biased. Just like NPR....as long as their folks are expressing their opinion bashing the right, all is good. But if one of their folks happens to express an opinion that is against what NPR feels is correct, well, we saw how they react. Liberals want freedom of speech as long as it agrees with their opinion.
    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
  6.    #546  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Gotcha, you totally discount the whole article in your first line based on some personal bias, not facts, and then we're supposed to entertain the rest of your post as legitimate debate?

    Maybe you need to re-read the original article. The point is that there ARE NO FACTS. It's a total opinion piece and as such is nothing more than bias. It's totally conjecture and predictions without any supporting evidence except for opinion. I'll be glad to discount the article based on facts....if there were any.
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #547  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Maybe you need to re-read the original article. The point is that there ARE NO FACTS. It's a total opinion piece and as such is nothing more than bias. It's totally conjecture and predictions without any supporting evidence except for opinion. I'll be glad to discount the article based on facts....if there were any.
    Certainly there was some conjecture and predictions, which is something you yourself do quite frequently, I might add. But there were facts. Perhaps you choose to ignore them based on your predisposition towards the author?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8.    #548  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Certainly there was some conjecture and predictions, which is something you yourself do quite frequently, I might add. But there were facts. Perhaps you choose to ignore them based on your predisposition towards the author?
    There are non sequitur facts, all linked with no evidence whatsoever to the evils of the health care plan. For example:

    Hospitals are now on a buying spree of private physician practices in the rush to build something that will qualify as an ACO. Some 65% of doctors who changed jobs in 2009 moved into a hospital-owned practice, while 49% of doctors out of residency were hired by hospitals, according to the Medical Group Management Association. In its 2010 census, the American College of Cardiology reports that nearly 40% of private cardiology groups are currently integrating with hospitals or merging with other practices.
    Now I did a brief search on the resource they listed, and couldn't find the answer, but how much would you like to bet that these numbers are not significantly different than the year before? And do you really think that these job changes that took place in 2009 were a result of health care reform when the bill passed in March, 2010? However, let's not let logic interfere with spin. Clearly these data points are all due to the bill, right?

    There are no facts whatsoever in that article that even remotely prove that the health care bill had anything whatsoever to do with the changes that are discussed....with the one exception that some company said they were selling their hospitals because of the impending bill. Excuse me, I don't consider that evidence, but really an excuse.

    I have plenty of opinions and I don't mind sharing them. I don't confuse them with facts.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #549  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    There are non sequitur facts, all linked with no evidence whatsoever to the evils of the health care plan. For example:



    Now I did a brief search on the resource they listed, and couldn't find the answer, but how much would you like to bet that these numbers are not significantly different than the year before? And do you really think that these job changes that took place in 2009 were a result of health care reform when the bill passed in March, 2010? However, let's not let logic interfere with spin. Clearly these data points are all due to the bill, right?

    There are no facts whatsoever in that article that even remotely prove that the health care bill had anything whatsoever to do with the changes that are discussed....with the one exception that some company said they were selling their hospitals because of the impending bill. Excuse me, I don't consider that evidence, but really an excuse.

    I have plenty of opinions and I don't mind sharing them. I don't confuse them with facts.
    Hey David, wasn't the bill supposed to lower healthcare costs? I mean, that *is* what they told us they'd set out to do, right?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #550  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Hey David, wasn't the bill supposed to lower healthcare costs? I mean, that *is* what they told us they'd set out to do, right?
    ...not really....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  11.    #551  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Hey David, wasn't the bill supposed to lower healthcare costs? I mean, that *is* what they told us they'd set out to do, right?
    Hmmm. Nice topic shift. Couldn't really find an answer to the previous post, huh? OK.

    That's what the non-partisan CBO said. They do the calculating. How do you *know* it won't? Tea leaves? Conjecture? Magic 8-ball?
  12. #552  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ...i'm glad in your infinite knowledge that you as a "consultant" know which VPs a company can "do without".... And you keep talking about competing with govt insurance...thats an impossibility since no prvt corp can compete in an arena with a govt monopoly
    FedEx? UPS? DHL?
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #553  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Hmmm. Nice topic shift. Couldn't really find an answer to the previous post, huh? OK.

    That's what the non-partisan CBO said. They do the calculating. How do you *know* it won't? Tea leaves? Conjecture? Magic 8-ball?
    Nevermind the fact that it's already caused price increases....
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  14. #554  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    FedEx? UPS? DHL?
    Private security firms, private schools, military contractors, private educational lenders . . . should I go on?

    As Obama pointed out during the health care "debate," you can't have it both ways--either "government" is horribly inefficient and terribly disorganized and economically out-of-kilter (which should make it *easy* to compete with, no?), or it's much more efficient and economical IN SOME ARENAS than the private sector, which would make it *hard* to compete with.

    As davidra says, if the government sucks so much at health care, what's the competitive problem again? The nation got Boehner-care and McConnell-care and Nelson-care, not "Obamacare," which means the insurance companies were not only at the table, they were handed the gavel an awful lot. Again, as davidra says, if they can't compete when the law bends over backwards to accomodate them . . . shrug.
    Last edited by grappler; 10/27/2010 at 06:52 AM.
  15. #555  
    Quote Originally Posted by grappler View Post
    Private security firms, private schools, military contractors, private educational lenders . . . should I go on?
    ...none of which are competing with govt monopolies...hence their existence....
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  16. #556  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Nevermind the fact that it's already caused price increases....
    ...nah...
    -- VZW Pre+ -- Uberk/Gov fixed @ 1ghz -- QPST gps mod -- stock battery (?mugen 3800?) --
  17. #557  
    Quote Originally Posted by jhodnettejr View Post
    ...none of which are competing with govt monopolies...hence their existence....
    Guess I have no idea what you mean by a "government monopoly," then. Or else you're using circular logic.

    They are competing against government-run, taxpayer-financed postal services, schools, armies, educational lenders, . . .

    Moreover, the healthcare bill does not provide for government healthcare nor governmentally supplied health insurance over and above narrow expansions of Medicare, which seems to run just fine.

    So I'm not sure what we're talking about here.

    Are we talking about some fictional, non-existent "Obamacare," or the actual legislation?
  18.    #558  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Nevermind the fact that it's already caused price increases....
    Spouting non-proven facts again, eh? Show me exactly where there is evidence that the healthcare bill has increased costs....and don't bother to use premium increases as an example, because there's no evidence that those were justified and appear to be nothing more than a profit grab. Show me some evidence, please?
  19.    #559  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Nevermind the fact that it's already caused price increases....
    And just in case you feel tempted, the growth in premiums has been astronomical even before the presidential election. You can try and blame premium increases on Obama, but you'd be wrong. Try blaming the current health care non-system.

    The public experiences the cost of health care primarily through
    the premiums they pay for health insurance and the cost sharing
    (e.g., deductibles, copayments) that they must pay at the time
    that they receive care.
    Health insurance premiums have consistently grown
    faster than inflation or workers earnings in recent years
    (Exhibit 4). Between 2002 and 2007, the cumulative
    growth in health insurance premiums was 78%,
    compared with cumulative inflation of 17% and
    cumulative wage growth of 19%.v
    http://www.kff.org/insurance/upload/7692.pdf
  20.    #560  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Nevermind the fact that it's already caused price increases....
    And of course there's this:

    In the midst of a deep economic recession, America's health insurance companies increased their profits by 56 percent in 2009, a year that saw 2.7 million people lose their private coverage.
    In 2009, the top five health insurance companies saw a profit increase of 56 percent, their best year ever, according to a report by Health Care For America Now.


    The nation's five largest for-profit insurers closed 2009 with a combined profit of $12.2 billion, according to a report by the advocacy group Health Care for American Now (HCAN).


    A spokesman for the nation's health insurers said their profits are reasonable and represent only a small part overall increase in health insurance costs.
    Health Insurers Post Record Profits - ABC News

    See, this is data. Facts. Not opinion.

Posting Permissions