http://www.credoaction.com/comics/TM...01original.gif
Printable View
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/TM...01original.gif
You know, debating YOUR prejudiced view of the opposition is pretty easy.
It is indeed satire and exaggeration.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
You do have to admit that the tactic of calling anything having to do with the goverments involvement with health care as "socialised medicine" is a pretty standard schtick, regardless of whether it is socialized or not.
The strip also called the proposed reforms half-assed, and seemed to expect that Democrats would f*** that up anyways, right?
A bit of criticism for both sides, and, I think, fair criticism.
Something needs to happen, you and I can both agree on that much at least.
Yes. Tort reform and less government interference. All insurance plans should have co-pays, but that's a free market choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
WASHINGTON, July 14 (Reuters) - A sweeping overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system to be announced on Tuesday in the U.S. House of Representatives will include a surtax on millionaires of 5.4 percent, congressional sources said.
The tax rate is higher than the 3 percent surtax lawmakers had been discussing earlier and would be imposed on those making more than $1 million a year, the sources said.
And they wonder why people want to shelter their money. What are the details?Quote:
Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas
since when has this administration dealt with details? details schmetails. just take what comes your way and don't complain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
When will demonrats ever learn. No matter how much they tax a group of individuals, the federal revenue settles to somewhere between 18% and 18.5% average of GNP. More taxation reduces economic activity, and thus, reduces revenue.
http://www.project.org/images/graphs...age-of-GDP.jpg
People that earn over $1 million a year pay 45% in taxes with this new legislation.
What nobody seems to realize is this program isnt designed to cover every American, its designed to cover those Americans who do not have health insurance currently.
It would seem that me, as an employer, now has a disincentive to actually continue to offer health insurance (especially if health benefits become taxable). Why should I, as an employer, pay for health insurance to employees who could freely get it (without weekly deduction to them) without me?
This is bizarro world, where politicians think up and agree to the most inefficent methods for tackling problems they perceive as large.
Healthcare = Total disastrous approach
Cap+Trade = Total disastrous approach
At least the President and his Congress are two-for-two, I guess.
Yes, that's what 101A was concerned about. He offers healthcare as a benefit, and there won't be a point to offering such.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
House health plan to boost taxes on richFuck that penalty bullshit. I'm fine with paying for my own doctors visits during the times I worked and had no insurance.Quote:
The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.
No it won't. It might collect that much under the program, but with less money going elsewhere in the economy, jobs will be lost, and other revenue will decrease. The federal government will still only get about 18% to 18.5% of the GNP.Quote:
The tax would raise an estimated $544 billion over 10 years.
It even costs $1T more than they claim they will get in revenue.Quote:
The liberal-leaning plan lacked figures on total costs, but a House Democratic aide said the total bill would add up to about $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private calculations.
Are any of you libtards stupid enough to buy this?
It sucks, but it's probably going to happen. Obama is determined to put the petal to the metal on the path to financial ruin.
I was trying to find the vote when the Department of Education was formed. Thomas doesn't have easy to find records that old. The vote was 215 to 201 in the house with 277 democrats and 158 republicans. 69 to 22 in the senate with 58 democrats and 42 republicans. The of course President Carter signed it into law. I assume it was a very partisan vote, but I couldn't find the dem/rep spits.Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
Oh well, not only will the health care set us back likely 1/3 or more trillion a year, it will be another nearly complete democrat failure.
Maybe democrats should stop thinking about their own selfish agenda and think what's best for the hard working normal people who keep the country running and don't want their health care quality to turn to shit.
Granted my politicians, whom I have the same health care as, will for sure be standing in line with me. :downspin:
If the government doesn't kick big pharma and insurance in the nuts, they will eat us alive.
They are eating us alive already. Letting them continue to do so is the essence of the "free market" solution, and, unfortunately, is the ostensible end of so-called health care reform as well. Either way, they'll fuck us.
The little guy always gets screwed. Status quo or reform makes little difference. The same interests write the bills.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I think we can debate all day wether a free system would work or not, but I do honestly think there are 3 things that must absolutely get done in any kind of healthcare reform: 1) Get big pharma in check, 2) Get Insurance companies in check and 3) Tort reform.
I don't think you can have an effective system, free or otherwise, if you don't seriously address those issues.
I think that healthcare, in a country as wealthy as ours, ought to not be something that any individual does not have access to. And, frankly, people are not. People are not turned away at hospitals, or ER's - and many, many bills are written off.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Of course this patchwork, hit and miss coverage is NOT efficient or reassuring for those without insurance or govt. sponsored coverage.
We ought to develop a mechanism to get coverage for the majority of them through the private sector. Bringing a govt. "competitor" into the mix will ultimately lead to that being the ONLY payor. I know Obama says that is not the goal, and that it won't.....but it will. We all know it. It may take 20 years, but eventually Congress will stack the deck in favor of that option to the point that it will be THE ONLY option.
Also, I have a fundamental problem with the conventional wisdom statement that healthcare is "TOO EXPENSIVE" in this country. Yes, it is getting more and more expensive - and we DO spend more of our GDP on it than just about any 6 other countries....but stop with the knee jerk rhetoric for a minute, and look at the numbers:
Healthcare is 17 - 18% of our economy.
Healthcare (and related industries) provides 17 - 18% of our jobs.....
SO - when Obama talks about cutting healthcare costs, what is the natural conclusion to draw about the effect that will have on the job market? Seems to me that healthcare is doing a good job of providing jobs and expanding work opportunities as many other (manufacturing anyone?) contract. You can't outsource a nurse, an insurance salesman, or his secretary, can you? There has to be Pharmasists and techs in Walgreens, right? Hell, healthcare is about the ONLY part of our economy that's providing jobs, growing, improving (in terms of product/service advancement), etc.....why screw it up? You "cut" expenses...you cut jobs, IMO.
Once the govt. gets involved in the employer/employee healthcare system (which is the controversial party of Obama's solution) - the govt. plan will get its ass kicked. The will not underwrite properly, probably not pay efficiently, but that won't matter - insurance companys are at a distinct disadvantage in that they can't print money to make up for shortcomings in those areas - it is impossible to compete with an entity that can.
My vote for providing health care to the masses is along the lines of credit unions and co-operatives. If a co-op can provide quality electricity or phone service, why can't we have a co-op provide health insurance, or just direct health care?
If a co-op is the one providing the health care, you know that A) they won't be out to make a profit, because all profits go back to the members. B) They are probably actually going to care about you as a human, because they are in the community.
Bingo. I'd be a lot more open to the idea of a government run plan if I knew as undisputable fact that 100% of the costs of funding that plan would be bourn by those covered under the plan. A not-for-profit government insurance plan needs to be a not-for-loss one as well in order to make any sense. But that's not what we're fixing to get. The government plan will just arbitrarily charge whatever premiums they think people can afford to pay with absolutely no regard for what it actually costs to provide those services. The plan will end up operating at huge losses and the taxpayers will end up subsidizing those losses so that the plan can keep going.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
It would be nice if we as a nation would have the balls to look in the mirror, recognize that we're a nation of couch potatoes and accepted our portion of the respobility we have in rising health care costs. But we'd much rather have the freedom to do as we please and make it someone else's responsibility to take care of us when we don't like where our choices led us to.
Because co-ops have to compete with other electric companies, not a government that can fire up the printing presses and print another trillion to pay for the public option and undercut private insurers.Quote:
Originally Posted by sam1617
Oh, and just wait - all those small businesses that the government is going to fine 8% for not providing health care - when this pile of crap passes they're going to do whatever they have to in order to survive, which is going to mean wage reductions and more firings.
Hope everyone is ready for their government mandated lowered standard of living. Just be sure you send your thank you card to the lord Messiah and the Demo thugs in Congress. :td
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyotes_geek
It won't be arbitrary. Those with jobs will pay, those without won't. This isn't about fixing health care, it's about the Dems keeping themselves in power. And what better way than to provide free health care to the idiots who keep voting for them while sticking it to the 'man' with a job and 'wealth'.
Just wait until healty able-bodied men have to sit and watch their family members, who once had great health-care, now waiting weeks or months for both simple and serious treatment.
That's about as personal an assault on an individual as government can get.
All so about 16 million people can get insurance (and have their votes bought by the Dems)...Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfAGun
You mean those able-bodied men that decided to save a buck and went for the public plan instead of paying for a private one? I mean, it's not like you don't have a choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by SonOfAGun
illegal and legalQuote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
I am for tort reform if it truly did what its proponents say it would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I am willing to try it to see if it works. The data that I have seen in the form of the white papers that analyse health care cost increases is that malpractice insurance and such things are far from the primary cost drivers tht some think they are.
People who need routine medical care are given free doctors visits if they show up at any clinic or hospital?Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
There is a huge difference between mandatory ER admits and the kinds of healthcare that is inaccessable to a lot of people that would keep them out ofthe ER in the first place.
Don't know if you read the rest of my post or not; I DO think everyone needs coverage - a 3rd party payor, if you will....Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
However; just a little anecdote:
My wife has a cousin - 27 years old. VERY big girl (5'2" 300+ lbs (thank God doesn't run in the family). Anyway, has no job; not on Medicaid, is a hypochondriac to boot - no insurance. She goes to the doctor weekly, takes a number of maintenance drugs; in the hospital a couple of times a year......never has to pay for any of it. If SHE is able to get all the healthcare she needs (and more)...who is being denied?
And again, as I said earlier, I do not believe this is a good, or efficient way to handle our uninsured.
You bring up a good point, that there are people that will abuse the system.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I can't think of any good way to combat that, in all honesty.
There is abuse in any system. No way around it, one has to understand this, as it is a rather important bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
My point is not that she abuses the system; it's that the system allows her to abuse the system; get all the care she desires; without "coverage".Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Proponents of changing the system constantly cite people not getting treated - my point is: If my cousin in law, with no coverage or money whatsoever, can get treated - who cannot?
And again, so we don't get off track - I want everyone covered because it will be more efficient; and everyone should be.
Gimme some of that European Healthcare!
Quote:
A 9-month wait for arthritis treatment: Delay can mean a lifetime of agony for victims
By Daniel Martin
Thousands of rheumatoid arthritis sufferers face a lifetime of agony because they are not being treated quickly enough, a report says.
Guidelines state that patients should receive treatment within three months of the first symptoms appearing.
But the average wait is nine months - and GPs are not trained well enough to know what help to offer.
There is no cure, but experts say that if arthritis is diagnosed in the first three months, drugs can be given which limit its progression. This means the disease will not be as painful as it would have been if the condition was diagnosed later.
The study by the National Audit Office found that patients do not know enough about the condition, and therefore delay going to see their GP.
Between half and three-quarters of people with symptoms wait more than three months before seeking medical help, and about a fifth delay for a year or more.
GPs lack the specialist knowledge required to diagnose the condition quickly, and on average it takes four visits before a patient is referred to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment, the report adds.
Its author, Chris Groom, said: 'This is a nasty disease, a progressive auto-immune disease, which attacks otherwise healthy joints. Early symptoms are joint pain and stiffness and it leads to inflammation and loss of strength.
'It also affects other parts of the body, such as the heart and lungs, and is also associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease.'
The report found that the average length of time from the onset of symptoms to treatment has not improved in the past five years. Mr Groom said that services needed to be better coordinated and designed around people's needs, including helping them remain in work.
Three-quarters of sufferers are of working age when diagnosed, meaning delays cost the economy almost £2billion a year - about £560million a year in NHS healthcare costs and £1.8billion in sick leave and work-related disability.
'Once people fall out of the job market with this disease, it is very hard to get back in', Mr Groom said.
The report also found that 50 per cent more people have rheumatoid arthritis than was previously thought.
Mr Groom added: 'We estimate that 580,000 adults in England have the condition, which is higher than existing estimates of 400,000 for the UK, and that there are 26,000 new cases each year in England, compared to estimates of 12,000 for the UK.'
Neil Betteridge, chief executive of the charity Arthritis Care, said: 'The report echoes what people with rheumatoid arthritis have been telling Arthritis Care for years.
'Early diagnosis and referral for suitable treatment is crucial as it can stop this debilitating condition in its tracks.
'We applaud the audit's recommendations that the Department of Health and Primary Care Trusts replace their often scattergun delivery with joined-up services.'
Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Commons public accounts committee, said the NHS needed to improve support services for people with arthritis.
Health minister Ann Keen said: 'We welcome this report and will consider it carefully before responding.'
Having a few medical practices as customers, I can tell you that malpractice insurance is the number two cost driver. Insurance companies being the number one. At least in their case.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
I don't know how this applies to hospitals, etc.
It's not just patients abusing the system. There was an article about McAllen, TX not long ago having the most expensive care cost per person under Medicare. What the reporter found out was that doctors were gaming the system by ordering all these completely unnecessary tests.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
There has to be a checks and balances system in place, obviously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
(Evil) Insurance companies help keep those in check.
I was reading this the other day about my state. According to state law here (Family act, or some such), In Vitro fertilization is obligatory for insurance companies to pay for on companies with over 500 employees, the sole exceptions being if the insured is a government employee or if the company is 'self-insured' (whatever that means).Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Guess what? Most of all companies with 500 or more employees in the state are now magically 'self-insured'.
This is the kind of loophole bullshit I really want to do away with.
Well, Evil Insurance companies actually have been raising the cost for uninsured patients for a long time now.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Since they're only going to pay for a % of the actual value of a procedure, doctors end up having to overcharge in order to get the amount that they want. This is how the last time I went to the dentist, he did x-rays and fixed 2 cavities and he charged the insurance $1250, of which he only got paid back $300.
It fucked me over, because I only get 80% coverage on dental. Which means I had to pay almost $250. It goes without saying I won't be going to that dentist anymore.
What's even more aggravating is that if I had to actually pay out of pocket, the cost would have been $1250. Which is simply delusional.
The amount of abuse in the system is a function of the culture in which the system is operated. This is why, for example, Germany can have a generous unemployment insurance system where few try to game the system, while in Argentina you can't even order food without a regimented system of tickets and stamps to ensure people don't steal one another's orders.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Americans are not very honest compared to other countries' citizens, which is both why we end up needing more social services, and why they are horribly corrupt and wasteful.
Public policy can't turn shit into gold, no matter how many ways it comes up with to polish the turd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
ERISA (Federal Level) forbids states from regulating Self-Insured plans. It's not magic; most employers over 250 employees are self-insured, and have been for years.
In Vitro a requirement? :lol Leads to multiple, premature births (very expensive to deal with, and is expensive in its own right).
And people wonder why health care is so damned expensive.
Always get a "predetermination" when getting dental procedures; that'll NEVER happen again.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
At some point in time, it became the quintessential American attitude for one to demand lots of goods and services, but refuse to pay for them.
It is both the reason for the drive towards Big Government and the reason it is doomed to fail.
What will never happen again? Me getting my tooth fixed?Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
The dental was just a personal example. It happens on medicine in general at every level.
I do wonder. Because that exact same procedure costs $25,000 here in the US, while it costs $5,000 overseas.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
The last time I had multiple cavities fixed back in my country, it cost me a succulent $30 dollars. Compare that to $1,250 in the US.
The fact that you don't wonder why they can do the exact same procedures for 500+% cheaper is the reason you keep paying through your nose for everything you get done here.
No, your not having to pay more than the benefit available.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I can buy leather wallets in Mexico for a buck; Whiskey at 30 cents on the dollar, and can stay in a 5 star hotel for 40 dollars a night. I had a friend from German visit last year; Timex watches cost a quarter here of what they do back home; he bought a dozen for his clients; and was excited as hell; they're gonna think he's generous as hell. That's right. Timex.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Why should healthcare be different than everything else?
But I didn't pay more than the benefit available. I don't think you understood my example at all. Which would explain a lot.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Because I do honestly believe there's a clear distinction between luxury items (your items) and people's access to health care. I don't necessarily mind doctors or companies making SOME profit, but I draw the line where the greed actually gets in the way of providing care to those who need it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Remember the government option will always be subsidized, thus it will be cheaper. The great MD's and better Doctors can decide they don't want to take people who on that cheaper subsidized government plan. And, usually those MD's are the ones people want to see.
You think Congress will elect the government option for themselves. That will be the day.:lol
Government run health-care will never result in a more quality efficient system. Government interference has never been the answer and never will. The government is not supposed to be running our healthcare.
We are in a deep recession, the plans to pay for this 1 trillion dollar health reform need to be carefully debated, not pushed through without careful contemplation. Nobody can afford this right now. We are leaving a terrible debt to our children and grandchildren.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Extra Stout
It's really frustrating how people believe Government is the answer.
They already exempted themselves within the bill. Kinda nice touch, don't you think?Quote:
You think Congress will elect the government option for themselves. That will be the day
This is a problem on your part. You didn't shop around. Last time I had X-Rays and cavities filled, it was $58. It's probably about $300 for two cavities now. Why do you expect the insurance to pay an inflated rate?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Next time, shop around. I do. I have dental available, but I opt out. It's cheaper for me to pay out of pocket than the insurance rates, but again... I shop around. And as a cash paying client, they don't have to take the man-hours to bill insurance. Cash payers do pay less when they shop around.
That's a procedure that is ridiculous to mandate. May as well mandate that insurance pays for woman's breast enhancements too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I think he meant that next time, because you have a financial stake in the game, that maybe you'll shop around for a better price.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Can you sue them if they fuck-up? Do they pay the same insurance premiums? Are they mandated by their government to have the same quality checks that we do?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Want to have cheaper medical here. Get some serious tort reform for starters.
TX has tort reform, didn't lower anybody's medical bills, only fucked over victims and enriched the docs.
It's WC, so of course he's for fucking over citizens and consumers to the benefit of the rich and corps.
Wealth redistribution here we come.
Who's not going to want free health care paid for them by the people who are successful and wealthy.
Yep, looks like I'll be paying for hundreds of people's health care. Socialist health care here we come! There are limited amount of doctors in this country, and to believe that health care won't be rationed after this partisan socialist bill passes is simply naive.
My spouses' colleagues are already talking about cutting their hours, since they will be getting taxed to death, and paying for the health care.
Rationing here we come, and if you don't think it's true good luck when you have a serious illness and you have to wait in line to see a Doctor who (based on their pay cuts, medicare cuts, and the new health care tax) will not be staying late to see you.
Welcome to Obamacare where the rich get plowed for being successful and the rest applaud free healthcare --that will be nowhere near the quality they were used too. :lmao
Here's what I don't get.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
If you feel that way, do you also feel the same about police and fire departments? That it would be fair to pay for certain levels of coverage? I'm guessing now, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Have fun standing in line or getting on waiting lists for good Doctors to see you. You think Doctors who go through college, then 4 years medical school, then residency and internship all the while taking out hundreds of thousands of dollars of loans should give you free health care for 30 cents on the dollar?:lmao:lmao:lmao
Well, with this free Obama socialist health care, I can guarantee you, you will be waiting in line for your health care. I also know my spouse and colleagues will begin cutting their hours and services because of this government run health care.
And, I'm sure the very good doctors would want to opt out of the Government plan since it will be cheaper and not pay as much. You get what you pay for or shall I say you get what the rich have paid for for you!
America will never be the same. Hope you don't come down with a terminal disease.:toast
I thought today's Daily Show segment on "socialized medicine" was tone perfect, if also fact-free. It made me laugh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
You won't be laughing when you or a loved one has to be put on a waiting list to see a doctor. Book it.:toast
If you don't believe me why don't you research how many doctors we have in the US? Than calculate all the free health care people will be getting and now you tell me if it's ridiculous to think health care will be rationed out like the socialists do.
This has to do with supply and demand. Lastly, do you think an MD would prefer to see a government run health care plan in his office or a private insurer? Demand will be high and I guarantee you, the MD will not chooses the government run plan. Quantity does not mean quality.
I already get upset just having to wait 20 minutes. I cannot imagine having to wait 20 weeks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Oh, so I shouldn't laugh now? :rollinQuote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
http://www.itsallabouteeyore.awoodma...es/eeyore6.jpg
If you've already done your homework why not share it with all of us? Sending me home to do my own homework is most inexpeditious, if you are already a professor of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Don't hoard the knowledge, Spursmania; please favor us with more of your impressions.
I agree with you that any proposed reform will probably tend to reinforce a multi-tiered health care system. Some animals are just more equal than others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Don't pre-assume things. This has been my 7th different dentist in 10 years. I HAVE shopped around and nobody gave me an estimate under $800.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It's an inflated price no matter where you go over here. About 5 years ago I had a dentist that would charge me $100 per cavity if I paid out of pocket. I fixed a couple of them with him, but then he claimed I had half a dozen cavities, which I most definitely didn't have (according to every other dentist I've seen since).
So ten years later, I'm still trying to find a reliable and affordable dentist here in the northeast. Considering my wife is on the same boat as me, and my inlaws that live in the valley and go to Mexico because they can't afford the US dentist, I have the impression it's a fairly common occurence.
I'm not arguing wether the mandate is a good thing or not. I would actually agree it's not. My point of contention is that if there is a mandate, the insurance companies should obey it, instead of clinging into loopholes to maximize their bottom line. It's not like they pass the savings down to the consumer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
We've gone through this before with you, and you know that I'm a supporter of tort reform. But that alone is not enough, as seen in Texas. You also need to either regulate or reform both insurance companies and big pharma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
As long as they care more about their bottom line and investors than to provide fair and reasonable care nothing is going to change.
OK, then I will assume that your area is one where the free market of dentistry has been killed by regulations. So many dentists have left private practice, or something else occurred reducing the supply of dentists to the population.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I'm glad it's not that bad in Oregon yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Well, since it will be free, I guess they can't complain. :lol
Those of us with medical connections will never have a problem being seen. But I guess since we're the only ones paying for the health care reform via the surtax, I won't feel too bad about it.
I'd rather laugh away at your ignorance. You know what they say ignorance is bliss. Afterall, I won't be the one on a waiting list.:toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Actually, my point of contention is that free market is what got us in this hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Now, I don't necessarily think that a competing free insurance is the only answer, but I do see how it would drive costs down. It's either that or capping profits, IMHO.
LOL @ the waiting list fearmongering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
I'm actually willing to bet you've never lived in a country with a mixed (free public, paid private) healthcare system and used it. Am I correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Incorrect, I have lived in Europe for ten years of my life. Germany and France.
So exactly what waiting lines are you talking about? Actually the cost of seeing a doctor paying out of pocket is ridiculously low compared to the US, not to mention they gladly spend more than the 30 seconds you see the average US doctor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
I am not fearmongering, but rather laying out a simple truth. Do you ever have to wait for an appointment and/or make one ahead of time? The AMA has already articulated the shortge of physicians we will have, and the need for more physicians due to the demand we will be seeing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I do agree that Healthcare reform is needed. However, the way Congress is burdening only the wealthiest Americans with a surtax to pay for health care reform is socialistic. If all Americans want this reform, then all should have to pay a tax to cover their load. Would you like to pay 45% of your taxes for the rest of us?
At least in Germany, everybody is required to pay into a medical insurance system. But, I would hardly call it the highest quality of healthcare available that's for sure. My friend's brother died because they misdiagnosed his cancer read. Moreover, I didn't get an epidural when delivering my fist child. I hardly call that state of the art health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I am talking about the wait lines you will see in the US. :toast
When's the last time you went to see a DR? I went to my pediatrician a month ago, 3 hours! And that was after waiting a few days for an appointment. If you believe healthcare will only get better you are in for a disappointment.
Your cost may go down a bit, but your quality of care will go down much more drastically. A vast and sweeping reform like this needs to take into account all participants. Obama's proposal hardly does that. He's trying to get it passed quickly without any open dialogue or transparent debates. As a result, it will be a partisan bill, and as written will destroy the greatest free choice health care system in the world.
Health care is never going to be cheap, so drop that fantasy world. Students don't go to school until their almost 30 and take out massive loans to get paid 40k a year. It is a very specialized field and it isn't surprising at all that medicine costs what it does. The problem is people want bleeding edge technology without the costs. Well, high tech plastics, electronics, $4 million dollar MRI machines and so forth have to get paid somehow. X-rays are so routine now, but they cost a fortune to maintain, use, and buy in the first place.
Socialized medicine looks good on paper because taxes are inevitable and most people don't realize that they are just paying into their own health care through those taxes (or paying for someone elses).
The whole thing is a very tricky situation. Is health care even a vital need, or a luxury? We've doubled/tripled our life expectancy through expensive technology. Most animals get through the majority of their adulthood without needing health care. Can people? Protecting people from crime and fire is different than from disease. Crime can be stopped by underpaid and unskilled workers. Same with fire. Health? Not so much.
There is a wealth of issues at stake.
If the government has a stake in health care, do they have an implied right to restrict things like transfats, smoking, alcohol?
What are solutions to an industry with massive demand and little supply?
How do you draw the line between luxury and necessary health care? Dental cleanings? Cavities? What is considered cosmetic and what is necessary?
What is the cost?
Who bears the burden?
Is this even ethical?
By the way, I am of the probably minority that thinks health care by and large, is a luxury good. People are spoiled
I think government should only bear the cost of emergency medicine. All routine check-ups, dentistry work, vision/hearing problems, fractures, disease should be paid by those who can afford it.
You know, where do you draw the line? Poverty is sad, the class gap is sad, but that's life. You can't artificially prop them up, it just doesn't work. Time and time again, government has tried to close this gap and failed every time. Like it or not, humans operate on capitalistc greed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
All excellent points. I wish there were an easy answer.
But I will say this, total health care reformation in the middle of a recession that will cost 1 trillion dollars over the next ten years doesn't seem like the answer to me. We should at least take care of the economy first before we add on to our already bloated debt with a health care proposal that we're not even sure will work and will cost at least 1 Trillion dollars over the next ten years. And, more often times than not, the programs end up costing more than originally projected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
I really couldn't agree with you more. I strongly believe health care is not a right but a privilege. By the way, the government already provides emergency health care to all. People cannot be turned away at ER's.
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Laughing at your ignorance of my point of view. I'm not in favor of healthcare reform as proposed, and you failed to notice I partially agreed with you upstream.
You're not much of a reader, are you?
Depends. If it's specialized medicine I do. If it's your run of the mill cold, I go to a walk-in clinic and I'm normally seen within 15 minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
I don't necessarily disagree with you in that there could be possibly better ways to pay for this. At least different ways that would be considered more 'fair'. But I also don't see you complaining about how much of your taxes go to bailout Wall Street executives. Or being wasted on inordinate military spending. The reality is that we're going to be taxed no matter what, so I would rather see some of that tax money go to provide a modicum of health care and help drive some of the costs of healthcare down.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
The reason doctors are required to have malpractice insurance here in the US is because malpractice happens here too. But without serious tort reform that's also one of the biggest drivers of care cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
One of the reasons for the lack of availability has to do with the current insurance system. At least two of my doctor clients simply do not see walk-in patients anymore and moved to only see patients under a personalized care program. They simply got fed up of fighting with insurance companies to get paid. I'm not really concerned about doctor's availability under a mixed program. If third world countries figured this stuff out a long time ago, I don't think it's going to be a problem for the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
I'm not against debate, but if it's only to stall and prevent any kind of reform happening, much like what happened under Clinton, then I would say pass it, and we'll tweak it as we go along. We need something to shake up the current system.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Healthcare costs worldwide are a lot cheaper than in the US. There's simply no denying that. And short of the niche of very high tech specialized medicine (which probably accounts for under 1% of total care, and it's here to stay since most insurance companies don't cover them anyways), the vast majority of doctor's visits don't involve any of that equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
I think CERTAIN basic care is vital. I don't think the entire spectrum of healthcare necessarily is. I think there's some basic care everyone should have access to, and then the luxury items reserved for those that can afford them. And I don't even think the line that separates the two is necessarily a static line. I would also like to think that we've evolved enough to do better than your run of the mill animal. And I completely disagree that crime and fire can be stopped by unskilled workers. Otherwise, anybody could prevent a crime or stop a fire, and we would not need to call the cops or the firemen.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
That said, medicine is probably the one that requires the most skill and training.
Sure there are massive issues at stake. And everybody is going to have a different opinion about those issues. The question is wether we do something to shake up the elitist and expensive system we have, we just sit on our asses and do nothing about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
I guarantee you I know what I am talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
You wrote:
Had you had the dentist submit a predetermination, you would have found out beforehand EXACTLY how much the insurance company was going to pay him (btw, HE is way out of line with his fees), and could have chosen to either pay his excessive price, or find another provider.Quote:
This is how the last time I went to the dentist, he did x-rays and fixed 2 cavities and he charged the insurance $1250, of which he only got paid back $300.
Or maybe, because you're such a prick, ANY dentist is going to nail it to you, having to spend 2 hours listening to your annoying ass in their chair and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I'm not talking about "level" of coverage; I'm talking about price.
Do you have any doubt that Police and Firemen make more in the U.S. than they do in Mexico...they cost "more". El Nono is on record as wanting doctors to be regulated to accepting modest salaries on moral grounds; should police and firemen as well? (his comparison was with Mexico, or some S. American country, I think).
I'm already on record as saying that health care ought to be a right in a country as wealthy as ours - and by that I don't limit it to basic, or rudimentary procedures. People ought to have access to the best we have to offer; and those that provide it ought to be both rewarded and have financial incentive to develop and provide the best.
Bullshit. You have no idea what you are talking about. Damn near every insurance contract out there pays for EVERY procedure, drug or device, regardless of price, if it is approved by the FDA, and administered/prescribed by a licensed MD/DO.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
As I already explained in this thread, I did shop around, and there was nothing under $800. This is the system we have right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
If not wanting to be ripped off makes me a prick, then so be it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
In the meantime, you can keep on getting anally raped in a chair while you smile thinking how well the current free market system works. I'm sure your dentist appreciates your business. :tu
Sure as hell I do. My doctor prescribed Prevacid for me 4 months ago. The insurance company filled it for the first month and now refuses to keep on filling up the very same prescription. My doctor has been fighting with them for 3 months now, and I still don't have my medicine. My wife needs to take MetanX for her arthritis, which is prescription strength folic acid. Insurance won't pay for it because it's classified as 'vitamins'. But you can't buy it without a prescription. Out of pocket, here we go.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I'm really glad that you have a nice insurance plan. Not all of us are that lucky. For us, it's either this plan or being uninsured.
Then you're lying about what you had done, or you have some really crappy insurance. The vast majority of plans limit charges to a "percentile" of an area's dentists going rates. Cheap plans limit to the 50th or 60th - meaning they will provide benefit for up to what 50 or 60% of dentists in an area charge. MOST plans pay at the 80th, and good ones pay at the 90th; meaning they are only cutting back charges on the most expensive 10% of dentists. There are several private companies in this country that payors (insurance companies) buy the billing data from.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
My job is to make sure that not only I, but 20,000 other people specifically DO NOT get rip off their self-insured employers.Quote:
If not wanting to be ripped off makes me a prick, then so be it.
In the meantime, you can keep on getting anally raped in a chair while you smile thinking how well the current free market system works. I'm sure your dentist appreciates your business. :tu
Again, I think you're missing my point. Out of those $800 I would have had to pay $160, since my insurance covers 80%. The same exact procedure paid out of pocket where I grew up costs $30. Obviously, standards of living differ between here and there, but the difference is definitely not 266%. I would actually say that the actual cost of the procedure here is most likely the amount the insurance paid. But those prices are simply not available to those without insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by 101A
They might be asking the doc why you need the Rx drug, when there are OTC brands that do very similar, or the exact same thing. Believe me, this is one place where the govt. will be LESS flexible than even the insurance companies; wouldn't surprise me if drugs like Prevacid didn't disappear altogether.....try Pepsid, Zantac, etc, for your heartburn.....Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Metanx is NOT FDA approved for that - vitamins or not. And again, you blame the insurance, but remember what Obama is saying he wants to fight....out of control costs. Both things that are happening to you are because someone is trying to control costs. You think these things will improve when the govt. takes over? They'll get much, much worse.Quote:
My wife needs to take MetanX for her arthritis, which is prescription strength folic acid. Insurance won't pay for it because it's classified as 'vitamins'. But you can't buy it without a prescription. Out of pocket, here we go.
I do understand that my understanding of the system makes all of this much easier for me - it is a confusing system, and people such as yourself are NOT treated with any care, usually, from any side of the equation (provider OR payor) - they are also both real good at blaming the other. I would recommend YOU call your insurance company on the Prevacid issue; chances are they are asking for some information that your doc. isn't providing - believe me, it costs them more to have an ongoing issue than to just pay the claim for a cheap Rx like that.Quote:
I'm really glad that you have a nice insurance plan. Not all of us are that lucky. For us, it's either this plan or being uninsured.
If you think your wait is long now, wait until ObamaCare...Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I've tried them all. Even prescription ones. I'm actually fortunate enough that I make a living writing practice management software, including insurance claim processing, and I have direct access to the doctors. I've been using sample packs for the past 3 months. The status of my prescription is "In Review". It's been like that for the past 3 months. They have my entire clinical history on this matter, including the drugs I've tried. Prevacid actually does not have a generic, but it's rumored there will be one soon. I've called. My doctor called. They're still reviewing, and I still don't have my medicine. I guess if I keep busting their balls eventually they're going to give in. It just simply shouldn't be this hard.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
Don't get me wrong. I'm not 100% on the boat with the proposed plan. But I'm also way, way tired of the current system. I want SOMETHING done.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I believe I understand the system pretty well. I understand that insurance companies fight to control costs, and increase their bottom line. That simply did not bring down the costs of health, or provide better access to it. That plan FAILED. Now it's time to try something else. I'm not saying it's necessarily what's being proposed, but we can definitely do better than what we have been doing, IMHO.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
I disagree. Maybe your area has a shortage of dentists. If that's the case, it's because government red tape has chased them out one way or another. More government will make things worse. Not better.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I agree with you. For how many millennium have people not had health care anywhere close to today's medicine? Our race has done rather well. Al;l nicities of life should be earned. Not given or taken for granted. They should be something that motivates people want to strive for, to better themselves, rather than be a burden on society.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabar
So you know, ElNono, youre arguing with a guy who runs a medical claim company (correct me where thats wrong, 101). 101A does nothing alllllll day but deal with insurance companies in just about every facet of the medical field in America.
Instead of arguing, take the advice. What you say happened to you, I believe you. But 101 is giving you some pointers for future reference in order to avoid being...well, fucked like you were before.
I'm fully aware who I'm having a conversation with.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
I do take his advice, which is appreciated. I also want to present him with a different perspective from somebody that lived 20+ years under a mixed system, and that it's been living for over 10 years under the US system.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkReign
My experience is that they both have their pro and cons. That's all.
101A, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but I wasn't asking rhetorically.Quote:
Originally Posted by 101A
What I meant is... police and firefighters are often state government, right? As such, they probably have salaries.
Now, when they respond to an issue, they don't require that the people they protect pay a certain amount monthly on fire or police insurance, right?
It has always seemed to me that medics are as an essential part of a functioning society as police. After all, even tribes have medicine men, right? (Though they usually function as the religious person as well. :)
Anyways, I have no expertise in this, and am just asking for information/opinions.
Shit, my bad then.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
Winehole, the reform, as proposed will have a devastating effect on many segments of the health care field but not all in effective or positive ways. I certainly believe insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies need to be reigned in more, so their policies are affordable and drugs are affordable.
However, this bill will kill Doctors. And, since MD"s make up a very small segment of society Obama doesn't care how drastically this bill affects doctors. First, the proposal will cut Doctor fees by 40%. This is called the "CMS fee changes". Secondly, only the so called wealthiest Americans will be paying a surtax 5.4% so the rest of America can have this health care reform. Is this fair? Where are people's own responsibilities for the reform? Everybody wants reform but no one wants to pay for it.
MD's already get killed with the medical malpractice fees the insurance companies charge. I don't see any reform that will control medical lawsuits? Tort reform is not enough.
These MD"s have gone through years and years of schooling, with college, medical school, internship, residency and then their specialty, if they choose to specialize, like my spouse. Hundreds of thousands spent on education, so they can provide the best healthcare Americans would want, and now they are getting screwed by this socialist bill.That is why I am calling Obama's reform a redistribution of wealth. A small amount of businesses and individuals, the so called "rich Americans" will be footing the bill for the rest of America's healthcare.
This bill should focus more on insurance industries and pharmaceuticals rather than biting the hand that feeds them-the Doctors. Most people are happy with their Doctors. Doctors are not the problem. This reform is a mess and only creates class warfare. This bill is astronomically expensive.
Those people and small businesses that have made it with their blood and sweat will now be paying for the rest of America health care, literally carrying them on their backs. This is not Capitalism, this is socialism at it's finest.
The economic stimulus package is hardly making a dent. Yet we passed the bill quickly because Obama thought the sky would fall if we didn't do it right away. It is not working. And, now the sky is falling again on healthcare. This plan doesn't even consult with the very people who will be providing the real healthcare-the Doctors. This is just a bunch of congressman guessing as to how they think a system should be run.
This bill will revolutionize health care and change the way you receive healthcare. Any bill that will cost 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years will definitely cost more than that. Since when has the government underspend?
Government run health care is the last thing people would want if they want quality. There are other options for reform, but without transparencies and real debates, this will be a partisan bill. And our children, and grandchildren will carry the load of our debt for generations to come. This is not what I want for them. I think we can do better.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/img/healthchart_GOP.jpg
This is the proposed health care chart. It is difficult to get directly to your Doctor without going through many bureaucratic loopholes. I'm trying to find a bigger chart.
Fear the chart. A day after House Democrats rolled out their plan for universal health care coverage, the GOP struck back hard on Wednesday with one of the toughest weapons in a politician's arsenal: a flowchart.
Via TPM's Brian Beutler comes this flowchart from the GOP. The message of this great big collection of lines, shapes, colors and boldface fonts? Health care reform legislation involves just too much government.
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsd...ealthchart.png
"If anybody thinks that all of this bureaucracy will fix our health-care system, I politely disagree," House Minority Leader John Boehner said of the chart to MSNBC. Trouble is, though, that very few of the agencies on the charts are ones that most Americans will ever have to interact with.
The president is on the chart. Every time I want a flu shot, I'm going to have to call Barack Obama first. And he's probably just going to want to keep me on the phone all day suggesting more exercise and asking if I'm getting a full eight hours of sleep.
The plan from House Democrats would cover 97 percent of Americans, cost $1 trillion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office; and offer individuals the option to participate in government-funded insurance. Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), whose office generated the chart, may be remembering back to 1994 -- the last time health care reform legislation looked ready to roll through Congress -- when another scary-looking flowchart from then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter did raise concerns that health care legislation was too complicated.
Acting under the maxim that the only way to fight charts is with charts, though, House Democrats have been passing around their own (also via TPM):
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsd...ealthchart.png
An even better counterpoint in this game of chart vs. chart, though, may be this one from the The New Republic explaining how our health care system currently works:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.politicsd...lthcaremap.jpg
Stupid chart by the Dems.
The Republicans did offer a plan, but the Dems told them they didn't care because the Waxman plan is the one they are going with.
They also pretend that doing their kneecap job on the American health care industry is better than no reform at all, which is comical at best, criminal in reality.
Obama didn't think that, that's just how he justified his political payback bill.Quote:
The economic stimulus package is hardly making a dent. Yet we passed the bill quickly because Obama thought the sky would fall if we didn't do it right away. It is not working. And, now the sky is falling again on healthcare.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by Aggie Hoopsfan
And, what's up with Czar's he's created? Just more government and control I guess.
I didn't see Cap and Trade on the chart.
Aren't we going to cap how much care someone gets, and trade our unused benefits with others?
What about roll-over care?