On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 06:13:23 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:39:41 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock wrote:


This, however, ain't the answer. Growing health care from 18% to 30% of
GDP isn't sound either.

Want an example? My daughter treat a lot of Medicare/Medicade, Plan B
people along with her regular patient load.

She and her partner have to hire what is called a "coder" - Medical
Coding Specialist - just to fill out the paperwork properly to send in
for reimbursement which takes it's sweet time getting back to her - as
much as six to eight months in general and it's just about covers her
expenses - as a rule.

At least she does get paid. Have you ever asked her about dealing with
private insurers? If she's like most doctors I know, she won't have
anything good to say about them, either. I have a sister that worked in
one of the larger, well known, health insurers, until she couldn't deal
with the ethical strain. The standard practice was to deny, deny, deny,
approve. The company figured that at every denial, a percentage of
clients would stop, saving the company $$$. For someone dealing with an
illness, or a loved ones illness, fighting an insurer is stress that is
not needed.

$85,000/yr for a Medical Coding Specialist.

Her practice is her, her partner (a surgeon), an NP and a PA. Four
direct care providers supported by 2 nurses, 4 clerks, an office manager
and this coding specialist.

That's what's broken about health care.

You know, Medicare's overhead is @ 3%. That compares quite favorably
with the 15-25% of the typical HMO. Personally, I haven't seen anything
overly onerous in H.R. 3200. What exactly are your concerns about it?

Seems like the Democrats on the hill have the same idea.

They've seen nothing onerous in H.R. 3200.

Of course, they've not *read* H.R. 3200!

Ah, ignorance is bliss.
--
John H

All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking.