Page 32 of 37 FirstFirst ... 222728293031323334353637 LastLast
Results 621 to 640 of 726
  1.    #621  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    I can think of a few overpaid management types that they could "downsize" to improve profits.
    Sorry. They would rather deny people health care to make their profits. Better for business, don't you know.
  2. #622  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Do you think maybe you might feel differently if someone in your family was dying because they couldn't afford health insurance? You'd still argue for them making record profits, right? I bet not.
    well, I just lost my mom in september and some of the decisions she made were driven by money. She definitely checked out a year or two early. She didn't blame insurance companies and neither did the rest of the family. The issues that created problems were all on the medicare side, not insurance.

    so after you stop feeling really crappy, land on the fact that I am consistent with my principles. Rules are for everyone or no one.
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 11/09/2010 at 01:07 PM.
  3.    #623  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    well, I just lost my mom in september and some of the decisions she made were driven by money. Sge didn't blame insurance companies and neither did the rest of the family. The issues that created problems were all on the medicare side, not insurance.

    so after you stop feeling really crappy, land on the fact that I am consistent with my principles. Rules are for everyone or no one.
    I'm sorry about your loss, but I don't feel crappy. Comes with the territory. "The issues that created problems were all on the Medicare side"? Medicare is insurance. So....she had insurance. What if she didn't have insurance? What if there was no Medicare and she couldn't afford private insurance, like many 60-64 year olds I see every day?

    Do you believe her outcome or survival would have been different if she had had private insurance? If so, why? Was she denied care somewhere because all she had was Medicare?

    You may not want to discuss it, and that's up to you, but I have no idea what you mean by "consistent with (your) principles".

    I do know that I feel strongly that patients shouldn't have to make decisions about their health care based on money. Good argument for universal health care, don't you agree?
    Last edited by davidra; 11/09/2010 at 01:15 PM.
  4. #624  
    her insurance was kaiser. Medicare only kicked in for certain aspects of care. She carefully engineered things so that care couldn't be given where medicare wouldn't pay.

    amd no, this doesn't argue for public healthcare. I'm still trying to get over having my crotch examined in airport security. Governemt should pnly do what can't be done any other way.

    by the way, now that I'm unemployed I sure am glad I will be mandated by law to buy insurance to help drain my savings more quickly. Thanks, obama!
    Last edited by Cantaffordit; 11/09/2010 at 01:50 PM.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #625  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Maybe it's because my hospital lost $13 million last year due to uncompensated care.
    Uncompensated? Ever consider the massive markups your hospital charges for aspirin and bandaides? Maybe if they didn't mark things up 300-900 percent....
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6.    #626  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Uncompensated? Ever consider the massive markups your hospital charges for aspirin and bandaides? Maybe if they didn't mark things up 300-900 percent....

    Talk about confusing the chicken and the egg...
  7.    #627  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    her insurance was kaiser. Medicare only kicked in for certain aspects of care. She carefully engineered things so that care couldn't be given where medicare wouldn't pay.

    amd no, this doesn't argue for public healthcare. I'm still trying to get over having my crotch examined in airport security. Governemt should pnly do what can't be done any other way.

    by the way, now that I'm unemployed I sure am glad I will be mandated by law to buy insurance to help drain my savings more quickly. Thanks, obama!
    I'm sorry about your crotch, too.
    You said that she made certain decisions based on finances, and that she died sooner than she might have otherwise. All I'm saying is that that shouldn't happen.

    And you shouldn't drain your savings paying for premiums, either, and you should have access to health care regardless of your employment situation. In other words, you continue to make a great argument for universal health care, no matter how much you deny it.
  8. #628  
    we will have universal health care because we have to buy it.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #629  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Talk about confusing the chicken and the egg...
    That's it? That's the best ya got?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #630  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    by the way, now that I'm unemployed I sure am glad I will be mandated by law to buy insurance to help drain my savings more quickly. Thanks, obama!
    Ouch. That sucked when it happened to me last year around this time. Was glad for the subsidized COBRA premium program at the time though. Only $160 a month. Are they still doing that or did they not extend that for this year?

    As for the mandate, that's another 2 or 3 years away from going into effect isn't it?
  11.    #631  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    That's it? That's the best ya got?
    Seeing as in the previous post I outlined why hospital charges are so high, and that it's directly related to trying to make up the lost money for uncompensated care, it appeared to me you just didn't read the post. Try providing reimbursement for all care and watch the charges decrease. You see, unlike insurance companies, most providers and hospitals feel an obligation to society, and not just to their stockholders, so they try and make up their losses by charging you. Which, again, is a great justification for universal health care. I'm so glad to see you all coming around.
  12.    #632  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    we will have universal health care because we have to buy it.

    Of course.....but it won't cost you $15,000 a year, like a non-group policy would. Yes, your tax rate would go up somewhat, but not that much. Not close.
  13. #633  
    Quote Originally Posted by Orion Antares View Post
    Ouch. That sucked when it happened to me last year around this time. Was glad for the subsidized COBRA premium program at the time though. Only $160 a month. Are they still doing that or did they not extend that for this year?

    As for the mandate, that's another 2 or 3 years away from going into effect isn't it?
    cobra for me will be $1600/month. I don't pay that much for house payment and utilities in a month.
  14.    #634  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    cobra for me will be $1600/month. I don't pay that much for house payment and utilities in a month.
    Yeah....insurance is expensive, isn't it?
  15. #635  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Of course.....but it won't cost you $15,000 a year, like a non-group policy would. Yes, your tax rate would go up somewhat, but not that much. Not close.
    in addition to the premiums, you have to add all the taxes to determine actual cost. I'll bet you my avatar that it's more than that. Heck, my cobra is going to be $1600/month
  16.    #636  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    in addition to the premiums, you have to add all the taxes to determine actual cost. I'll bet you my avatar that it's more than that. Heck, my cobra is going to be $1600/month
    Not sure you're understanding me. Let's use the expansion of Medicare as an example. Do you really think that if Medicare was expanded to provide care to all, and those who wanted more personalized insurance could get it by paying more, that your income tax would go up by more than $15,000 per year? Not a chance. There would be no premiums, maybe a slight copay, no loss of coverage if you become unemployed...employers would no longer be responsible for providing insurance, which would save them an awful lot of money....making sense yet?
  17. #637  
    income tax isn't the only tax that will go up, plus you have to count what gets added to the deficit each year.


    it's a losing battle to argue that the govt can do it cheaper than private industry. Ever.
  18.    #638  
    In case you're interested:

    Our proposed reorganization, Medicare Expansion, would build a national care system by expanding on the existing Medicare program for citizens over the age of 65 years, with a gradual phasing out of state administered Medicaid programs. This restructuring would involve gradual changes in the age of eligibility into the Medicare system to include the most needy first, until eventually the entire population is covered. The first step in the Medicare Expansion program would be to enroll children under 5 years of age and pregnant women by the end of 2010. The remainder of the population would be phased in gradually, taking the most needy age groups first, until all persons are covered by the end of the decade. In 2011, those between 5 and 15 would be enrolled and in 2012 those from 15-25 would be included. Those between 15 and 30, as well as those from 60-65 would be added in 2013, while those between 30 and 40 as well as those from 55-60 would be included in 2014. Finally by the end of the year 2015, by adding the remaining population between 40 and 55, the entire U.S. population would be covered by Medicare, so there would be Medicare for all. There would be no limitations based on preexisting conditions, as is common in private insurance plans.

    The changes we are proposing under the Medicare Expansion program would be relatively easy to make from an administrative standpoint since age is easily verified and the basic system is in place and functioning. The Medicare program has established an effective track record during the past 43 years, covering almost 20% of the population, primarily the elderly and the disabled who utilize medical resources much more than any other age group. Physicians, community hospitals, and major academic centers have adjusted to this program and continue to provide high quality care on a fee-for-service basis. Physicians as well as patients strongly desire a fundamental change in the present overall system of health care delivery that involves multiple providers, unclear and diverse policies regarding coverage, and excessive paperwork. Both groups consider Medicare to provide easy access, and see it as cost effective and successful. Medicare permits patients a choice of physicians and hospitals, but places a cap on reimbursement for both. This phased expansion of Medicare into a system of national health care would be the basis for rationalizing the allocation of health resources, including greater use of preventive medicine, widespread use of electronic records, more emphasis on primary care, and limits on the treatment of patients who have conditions with a hopeless prognosis.

    The program would utilize existing hospital facilities with emphasis on more efficient administration. It would involve a single payor and it would provide for care in rural as well as urban areas. Its costs of marketing and middle management would be minimal as compared with the present system. Only slightly over 3% of current health care expenditures for the Medicare program are spent for administrative costs, whereas this figure is over 25% for private indemnity insurance companies. Medicare expansion thereby has the likelihood of reducing the overall cost of health care, while at the same time providing greater access to care. Just shifting people from private health care plans to Medicare would generate significant immediate savings. The extensive overhead costs of physician and hospital billing would be reduced markedly, and the patients would have a much better understanding of what is and is not covered in their health care benefits. Medications provided under the Medicare program should in most cases be generic, with the government negotiating for the lowest price with competing pharmaceutical companies. The Medicare program should in most cases encourage the use of hospitals that have more than one patient per room, unless there are specific indications for isolation or intensive care, in order to lower hospital and nursing costs.

    With the expanded Medicare system, all citizens would be covered regardless of preexisting conditions and would have complete portability of care and medical records throughout the entire country. Those persons who desire more extensive coverage, e.g. cosmetic surgery, and many other conditions for which very expensive care of occasionally questionable benefit, or self-inflicted disorders are placed lower on the list of covered disorders, with all citizens having the option of purchasing supplemental private insurance for these conditions, as now exists in the current Medicare program. Further expansion of the national quality and assessment programs together with outcomes research studies will play an important role in eliminating unnecessary and ineffective services and treatments, and standardize health care delivery throughout the nation. The very erratic and incomplete employer provided health insurance could be gradually phased out to reduce costs and to make businesses more competitive with those in other nations.
    Medicare Expansion Plan
  19.    #639  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    it's a losing battle to argue that the govt can do it cheaper than private industry. Ever.
    Medicare already does. So does the VA.
  20. #640  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    it's a losing battle to argue that the govt can do it cheaper than private industry. Ever.
    Thats just not true, the govt run VA health care system is more cost effective and provides just as good if not better care than the private sector.

    Achieving a High-Performance Health Care System with Universal Access: What the United States Can Learn from Other Countries — Ann Intern Med
    The Health Care System for Veterans: An Interim Report
    The Veterans Health Administration: Quality, Value, Accountability, and Information as Transforming Strategies for Patient-Centered Care

Posting Permissions