Sober thoughts on health care
 

Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:42:42 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Health insurance, like other forms of insurance, should be to prevent the
financial wipeout of an individual and his/her family in the event of a
catastrophic injury or health problem. It should not be designed to cover
every little ailment or boo-boo that comes along that can easily and
routinely treated at home.

When my youngest boy was ineligible for our insurance, we looked
around for a strictly major medical policy for him - bare bones, just
cover any catastrophe.

It was cheap - I mean like $4-500/yr? Something like that.


Millions of Americans are employed in marginal jobs with lousy pay and
no benefits. How are these folks supposed to afford any kind of medical
insurance or doctor's office visits. I think the base price for an
office visit with my doctor is $125, plus any tests he thinks are
necessary. That's too much money for a family living off one or two
minimum wage earners.

Of course, if you are relatively wealthy, you probably have no idea how
difficult life is for those near the bottom rung of the economic ladder.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:18:19 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:


When my youngest boy was ineligible for our insurance, we looked around
for a strictly major medical policy for him - bare bones, just cover any
catastrophe.

It was cheap - I mean like $4-500/yr? Something like that.

Was that recently? I'm surprised it was that low. Major medical sounds
interesting, but there is something to be said for access before it gets
to a major medical situation. Personally, I don't know what the answer
is, but this system is clearly broken. We are spending, as %GDP, nearly
twice as much as any other industrialized nation, and getting less care.
I've heard it argued that we have the best emergency care on the planet,
but when it comes to life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. we do not
have the best care.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 09:48:47 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:01:51 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

And you have to be suspicious of this Obamacare if Congress critters
aren't getting the same Obamacare as the average citizen.

I'd agree, but in Waukon Iowa on June 30, 2009 Republican Senator
Chuck Grassley (ranking senator on the Finance Committee) made the
point that, if you want insurance equal to his, the only way you are
going to get it is to go to work for the Federal Government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj_1y...layer_embedded.

That doesn't sound terribly compassionate, to me.....

Well, look at it from the other angle.

What he's saying that is if you work for the government, or are a
Congress critter, you will be fine.

If you don't, you're screwed.

You're right - that isn't compassionate, but that's the way the system
is being set up.

The way this is being promoted, it's the answer to everything - it
will solve all the problems.

Which is not true - it's rationed health care. Assuming that you even
qualify for a treatment, that doesn't mean you are going to get it
right away.

Believe it or not, our system works, but people don't understand the
way it works. Again, I'll use me as an example. My treatments cost
roughly $200,000/yr, 1/4 of which I pay in co-pay - not because I have
to by the way - it's just the right thing to do. The rest is paid for
by employer insurance up to $20,000 at which point a re-insurer is
involved - so the total cost to the employer is $20,000/yr plus a
$10,000 re-insurance premium.. The re-insurer is part of a large pool
of patients who require exotic treatments who pay a premium to obtain
the re-insurance - essentially it's cost neutral - the re-insurer gets
an administration fee and parcels out the money as necessary to a
negotiated price for said treatment.

Part of the reason it works is that I have a vested interest in
keeping my general costs low as it applies back to my co-pay - the
less I use general health care, the more my co-pay is reduced. This
year I've been very healthy and I'll get back about 2/3rds of my
co-pay for the RA treatments. As long as I have a general
comprehensive physical once a calendar year and adhere to the
generally accepted standard and practices for pro-active health style,
I'm golden.

The key is that you have to participate personally in your own health
care and be pro-active in maintaining personal lifestyle choices and
follow the guidelines.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

H the K wrote:
RLM wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:59:18 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:40:49 -0700, Jack wrote:


Sounds like you need to get a job with some benefits, and rescue your
wife from having to support you and from providing you with your own
health care.
Yeah, but ... tying health care to business is the wrong approach,
IMO. Besides the anti-competitive costs to business in the world
market, if you get sick with a long-term illness, you are SOL. A
dirty little secret, most employee health insurance policies end when
you aren't collecting a pay check. Try paying for CORBA with just a
disability check, if you even get a disability check.

This is usually the point when the insurance carrier declairs that it was
a pre-existing condition and refuse to pay anything.
Been there for that approach.



There are lots of dirty little secrets in connection with our current
health care insurance fiasco, and some of them are not so little and not
so secretive. There are all sorts of horror stories, for example,
relating to denials of needed service, making patients and their
providers jump through hoops, reimbursement horrors, et cetera.

It's sort of humorous that those who oppose the modernizations being
discussed think everything will get "worse" when the government steps
in. I suspect the percentage of those satisfied with the way social
security and medicare are run is higher than those who are satisified
with the way medical insurance is run.

The problem most of us have is the falsehood that you push that
providing everyone with government funded health insurance will solve
the problem of access to health care. There is no access to health care
problem. The problem is that people are not paying for the health care
they are receiving and the costs are being passed onto those who are
paying via their health insurance.

When you go to a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and get up and
walk out without paying for it you are stealing. But, when you go to the
hospital emergency room and receive medical care and leave without
paying for it nobody says anything. Both are examples of stealing.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

BAR wrote:



There is no access to health care
problem.


We've been hearing that b.s. from conservatives for decades. It wasn't
true then and it isn't true today.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:49:36 -0400, H the K
wrote:

RLM wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:59:18 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:40:49 -0700, Jack wrote:


Sounds like you need to get a job with some benefits, and rescue your
wife from having to support you and from providing you with your own
health care.
Yeah, but ... tying health care to business is the wrong approach, IMO.
Besides the anti-competitive costs to business in the world market, if
you get sick with a long-term illness, you are SOL. A dirty little
secret, most employee health insurance policies end when you aren't
collecting a pay check. Try paying for CORBA with just a disability
check, if you even get a disability check.

This is usually the point when the insurance carrier declairs that it was
a pre-existing condition and refuse to pay anything.

Been there for that approach.

There are lots of dirty little secrets in connection with our current
health care insurance fiasco, and some of them are not so little and not
so secretive. There are all sorts of horror stories, for example,
relating to denials of needed service, making patients and their
providers jump through hoops, reimbursement horrors, et cetera.

It's sort of humorous that those who oppose the modernizations being
discussed think everything will get "worse" when the government steps
in. I suspect the percentage of those satisfied with the way social
security and medicare are run is higher than those who are satisified
with the way medical insurance is run.

" An evaluation was performed to determine the effects of managed care
on patient satisfaction, medical outcomes (as measured by functional
status), employer satisfaction, and medical and disability costs.
Approximately 7,000 employees at 120 firms were enrolled in the pilot.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Workers treated under managed care reported lower
levels of satisfaction at both six weeks and six months."

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAb...102234416.html

And then there's this - which, as it happens, I knew about.

"No significant difference in overall satisfaction was found between
HMO enrollees and fee-for-service beneficiaries. However, HMO
enrollees expressed less satisfaction compared with fee-for-service
beneficiaries regarding the professional competence of their health
care providers and the willingness of the HMO staff to discuss
problems. On the other hand, HMO enrollees were more satisfied than
fee-for-service beneficiaries with waiting times and claims
processing. Approximately half of the disenrollment from an HMO within
1 year was attributed to misunderstanding the terms of enrollment."

I's kind of a damned if you do,damned if you don't. :)

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:40:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"H the K" wrote in message
om...


For everyone like your nephew's kid, there are 10 more kids who don't get
any medical attention, or the wrong sort of medical attention or the
cheapest of "patches" medical attention, or medical attention long after
whatever problem there is has escalated into something a lot more serious.


That's because health care and insurance has become unaffordable for many.
Make it more affordable for those that can work.

How?

By relieving those who pay for health insurance the costs of development of
new equipment, procedures and drugs. *That* should be the role of the
government. If we can bail out wall street corporations, we can subsidize
some of the medical industry.

Users of the health care system should pay for services rendered and not the
development costs of those systems. Make the use cost affordable, not free.
Of course those who cannot work to pay for their medical service needs
should be cared for by us, but not those who can pay, but don't or won't.

Now there's a good point and one that should be taken into account.

And there's an additional issue - Americans are actually paying for
costs of other nations for drug treatments. Did you know that I can
get Retuxin in France, paying for it myself, for about 1/4 the cost of
obtaining the same treatment in the US? In Germany, if I paid for it
myself, it's about 1/3 the cost. Same in Spain.

It's almost worth flying to France every couple of months to get it.

The only drawback is that it's France. :)

I do like Spain though.

But I don't speak Spanish.

And I don't like German food.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:44:00 -0400, BAR wrote:


The problem most of us have is the falsehood that you push that
providing everyone with government funded health insurance will solve
the problem of access to health care. There is no access to health care
problem. The problem is that people are not paying for the health care
they are receiving and the costs are being passed onto those who are
paying via their health insurance.

It can be argued that those very same health insurance plans aren't
paying their fair share. You do know that health insurance plans get a
*very* discounted rate, don't you? There is also a new trick many are
using. If the hospital is in the network, they pay the pre-negotiated
discounted rate, but here's the trick. When the hospital is not in the
network, many insurance plans still will only pay the discounted rates.
That also leaves the health care professionals SOL.

Add to that, if you don't have insurance, you pay through the nose, far
above normal rates.

When you go to a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and get up and
walk out without paying for it you are stealing. But, when you go to the
hospital emergency room and receive medical care and leave without
paying for it nobody says anything. Both are examples of stealing.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:38:33 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 02:01:51 -0400, Wizard of Woodstock
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:59:18 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:40:49 -0700, Jack wrote:


Sounds like you need to get a job with some benefits, and rescue your
wife from having to support you and from providing you with your own
health care.

Yeah, but ... tying health care to business is the wrong approach, IMO.
Besides the anti-competitive costs to business in the world market, if
you get sick with a long-term illness, you are SOL. A dirty little
secret, most employee health insurance policies end when you aren't
collecting a pay check. Try paying for CORBA with just a disability
check, if you even get a disability check.

I believe there is a need for a national system for situations like
this.

What I don't like about this Obamacare is that it's going to force
choices on people and that bothers me.

From what I've been reading, if your job status changes (like changing
jobs/companies, etc.) or there are benefit changes (like an increase
in co-pay), you and/or your employer are forced into the "qualified"
system rather than just pay the increased co-pay. The "qualified"
plans are run by Federal bureaucrats who are going to tell you what is
and what isn't acceptable.

Additionally, if would appear that treatments will be rationed by
"cost effectiveness". Meaning that, to use me for example, if the
Feds decide that the Retuxin treatment isn't effective because of cost
vs my age (I'll be 63 on Monday), that I'll be forced into a
different treatment that is cheaper and not as effective - but it will
cost less.

Personally, I don't want to be taking percocet for the rest of my life
because some douche bag bureaucrat decides that my treatment isn't
worth the money being spent on a costly, but very effective treatment
regime. If what I"m reading is correct, I can't even pay for the
treatment myself - that's not an option.

And you have to be suspicious of this Obamacare if Congress critters
aren't getting the same Obamacare as the average citizen.

"In the health debate, liberals sing Hari Krishnas to the "public
option" -- a new federal insurance program like Medicare -- but if
it's good enough for the middle class, then surely it's good enough
for the political class too? As it happens, more than a few Democrats
disagree.

On Tuesday, the Senate health committee voted 12-11 in favor of a
two-page amendment courtesy of Republican Tom Coburn that would
require all Members and their staffs to enroll in any new
government-run health plan. Yet all Democrats -- with the exceptions
of acting chairman Chris Dodd, Barbara Mikulski and Ted Kennedy via
proxy -- voted nay."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124786946165760369.html

That right there has got to tell you something and as I understand it,
Federal employees will get the keep their very generous plans - paid
for by the taxpayer.

It's got to say something when even Bernie Sanders wants to stay out
of the very system he is to hot to trot on. Personally, I agree with
the general consensus on this - if it's good enough for me and you,
it's good enough for them too.

Dollars to donuts, Obamacare wouldn't even make it out of comittee if
the Congress critters were forced to accept the same system as the
American citizen.

Do we need some kind of health care system for those who can't afford
it or protect them and their families? Yes - absolutely - I agree.

Do I need it or want it? Absolutely not.

Good points. One of my brothers was for changing the health care
system before he got some rare ailment. Now he's reaping many, many
of times more in benefits than he's paying for insurance, and wants to
keep his plan. Just the drug costs are a kazillion dollars.
Makes sense to me. Doesn't address the problem though.
And a sticky one it is.
I see the main issues as not everybody kicking in - for whatever
reason, defensive medicine, inefficient treatment by medical staff,
excessive insurance company vigorish, excessive drug company vigorish,
essentially dishonest medical practices (eg., the insurance company
will pay for those $10 12 ounce bottles of water when we bill them)
and the list goes on. I'll bet about 10-20% of medical costs are
outright fraud by medical providers. Then you got your "want to live
forever at whatever cost" syndrome.
Sticky indeed.

I would agree with you on almost everything with one exception.

Not enough people take charge of their own health - Obama is right on
that score, but his solution isn't.

You have to be pro-active and not reactive meaning that if a Doctor
says - we have to run this test or that procedure, you need to ask
questions - of if you don't have the base knowledge of your own
physiology, anatomy and pharmacology, find a advocate who can explain
it to you.

In my case, I'm a licensed paramedic/trauma specialist and while I'm
not a Doctor or NP, I'm the next best thing and I can ask pointed and
detailed questions. My internist learned her lesson very early in our
relationship - don't ever try to bull**** me on a course of action.
Same with my RA doc and the osteopath I see regularly.

The funny part is if I have a funky blood test and they want to
"consult" a GI doc or another RA doc (specialist) they usually set
aside additional patient contact time because they know they are going
to get the third degree rubber hose treatment. And if they do answer
my questions properly and explain it so that I agree to see the
specialist, they call ahead and speak personally to the physician and
tell them to watch out because, while I'm never a wise guy or a
difficult patient, I tend to be fully prepared to ask questions and
get appropriate answers. :)

And believe it or not, my providers are very good about it - they
appreciate the dialoge and it even works out that by questioning them,
they get different ideas about what may or may not work - it helps
them think outside the box.

Granted that my condition is extremely rare (1 in 300 million men) and
it's interesting from that aspect, but still. :)

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:49:36 -0400, H the K
wrote:

RLM wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:59:18 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:40:49 -0700, Jack wrote:


Sounds like you need to get a job with some benefits, and rescue your
wife from having to support you and from providing you with your own
health care.
Yeah, but ... tying health care to business is the wrong approach, IMO.
Besides the anti-competitive costs to business in the world market, if
you get sick with a long-term illness, you are SOL. A dirty little
secret, most employee health insurance policies end when you aren't
collecting a pay check. Try paying for CORBA with just a disability
check, if you even get a disability check.
This is usually the point when the insurance carrier declairs that it was
a pre-existing condition and refuse to pay anything.

Been there for that approach.
There are lots of dirty little secrets in connection with our current
health care insurance fiasco, and some of them are not so little and not
so secretive. There are all sorts of horror stories, for example,
relating to denials of needed service, making patients and their
providers jump through hoops, reimbursement horrors, et cetera.

It's sort of humorous that those who oppose the modernizations being
discussed think everything will get "worse" when the government steps
in. I suspect the percentage of those satisfied with the way social
security and medicare are run is higher than those who are satisified
with the way medical insurance is run.

" An evaluation was performed to determine the effects of managed care
on patient satisfaction, medical outcomes (as measured by functional
status), employer satisfaction, and medical and disability costs.
Approximately 7,000 employees at 120 firms were enrolled in the pilot.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Workers treated under managed care reported lower
levels of satisfaction at both six weeks and six months."

http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAb...102234416.html

And then there's this - which, as it happens, I knew about.

"No significant difference in overall satisfaction was found between
HMO enrollees and fee-for-service beneficiaries. However, HMO
enrollees expressed less satisfaction compared with fee-for-service
beneficiaries regarding the professional competence of their health
care providers and the willingness of the HMO staff to discuss
problems. On the other hand, HMO enrollees were more satisfied than
fee-for-service beneficiaries with waiting times and claims
processing. Approximately half of the disenrollment from an HMO within
1 year was attributed to misunderstanding the terms of enrollment."

I's kind of a damned if you do,damned if you don't. :)


Yeah, well, insurance company HMOs are on their way out, as they should
be. Most HMO's are private sector managed no-care options.

We're in a PPO. It's great. Whatever care you need, and fast.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:21:55 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:37:40 -0700, jps wrote:

snipped for brevity

There's a ton of small businesses like mine that are already stressed
by the cost of providing health care. Expect there are a lots having
to drop coverage because of cost. Ours has been going up at more than
10% a year and we've had to opt for inferior coverage to what we had
originally to keep it within our means.

I suppose if you're not currently operating a business, you might be
unaware how challenging the situation is...

If the business is stressed by providing health care, why provide it?
There is no governmental mandate that you do so. The only mandate in
most states is for the provisioin of Workman's Comp.

It's standard in our industry where I'm a small player. Large
employers provide and I compete in the same market for expert
employess.

Are your
employees incapable of providing thier own? Is the compensation given
your employees inadequate for their needs? Do you pay full cost of
their insurance? It is a common practice for businesses to help
relieve the (voluntary) stress of coverage by putting part or all of
the cost of coverage on the employee, even if their coverage is a
group.

We cover employee only and deduct for spouse and dependents. There's
no way we could cover families.

Have you explored HSA's, HRA's, FSA's?

We have an FSA in place.

Are you aware that
insurance companies compete for you business?

Yes, painfully.

Are you aware that
HDHP's are desgined to keep premiums low?

Yes, we're considering a move to one.

If your insurance is a
group, is it a PPO?

Yes, Regence.

If you are genuinely concerned about covering
your employees, have you earnestly explored all insurance options?

Abso-****ing-lutely.

(I owned a manufacturing concern for more than a decade. It wouldn't
in your best interest to complain about any naivete on my part, in
asking these questions. (And I am also a licensed insurance agent.))

When I moved my company from CA to WA we enjoyed significantly lower
premiums. CA had already started the steep climb. After double digit
hikes in rates, it has become painful.

I identified the problem to a state representative 5 years ago at a
small dinner reception. And while it was a known problem, it wasn't
the state's only problem nor high on the priority list. I expect it's
higher now.

Do you think that health insurance reform legislation won't require
that employers pay for health insurance, in some measure, for all of
their employees?

So, I answered all your questions and narry a syllable retort. You
seem only to want to take pot shots.

My sincere hope is that the public option represents a competitive bid
against the scammers that currently make profit through health care.

I take it you're among the profiteers whose living comes from taxing
our access to proper health care?

Sober thoughts on health care
 

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:



There is no access to health care
problem.


We've been hearing that b.s. from conservatives for decades. It wasn't
true then and it isn't true today.

Provide examples of the problem you allege people have accessing health
care in the USA?

My first experience with our system
 

Jack wrote:
Reformers' Claims Just Don't Add Up
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, July 17, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Health Reform: Many extravagant claims have been made on behalf of the
various health care "reforms" now emerging from Congress and the White
House. But on closer inspection, virtually all prove to be false.


I have what is continually described as "Gold Plated Health Care," by
those who tell me I have have the best and how happy I am, and get the
best health care in the world.

My hearing changed one afternoon, lost all high frequency hearing in the
right ear. This is "Sudden Hearing loss." According to what I have
read, immediate treatment (within one week) might restore the lost hearing.

The first Ear, Nose and Throat specialist insisted it was long term
hearing loss and isn't treatable.

Second opinion, second doctor, several days later, recognized it as
sudden hearing loss and sent me for an MRI, but no treatment was offered.

Got a referral to a good specialist, had to wait two months for an
appointment. I'm still waiting.

Now, just why is it that the Canadian system would be worse?

Sober thoughts on health care
 

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:



There is no access to health care
problem.


We've been hearing that b.s. from conservatives for decades. It wasn't
true then and it isn't true today.

Provide examples of the problem you allege people have accessing health
care in the USA?


Oh, please. Do some reading on other than reich-wing sites. Why do you
righties always try to insist that everyone else do your homework for you?

Sober thoughts on health care
 

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:44:00 -0400, BAR wrote:


The problem most of us have is the falsehood that you push that
providing everyone with government funded health insurance will solve
the problem of access to health care. There is no access to health care
problem. The problem is that people are not paying for the health care
they are receiving and the costs are being passed onto those who are
paying via their health insurance.

It can be argued that those very same health insurance plans aren't
paying their fair share. You do know that health insurance plans get a
*very* discounted rate, don't you? There is also a new trick many are
using. If the hospital is in the network, they pay the pre-negotiated
discounted rate, but here's the trick. When the hospital is not in the
network, many insurance plans still will only pay the discounted rates.
That also leaves the health care professionals SOL.

Get everyone who uses the hospital to pay for the services they use.

Add to that, if you don't have insurance, you pay through the nose, far
above normal rates.

I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

When you go to a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and get up and
walk out without paying for it you are stealing. But, when you go to the
hospital emergency room and receive medical care and leave without
paying for it nobody says anything. Both are examples of stealing.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Gene wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:59:50 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:03:18 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:38:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:21:54 -0400, Gene
wrote:

Medicare pays a billion dollars a year for test strips that 20% are
faulty. That's capitalist America at work.

Are the ones from UK or Canada better?
Probably not, in fact, they are most likely the same ones. Thus, the
big issue I have is that all of them were probably made 50 miles from
where I am typing and shipped to the UK and Canada... but they pay
about 50% as much for those items as I do. I always have to stand in
long lines *here* to get the high dollar prescription filled....
So if the bloated US medical system didn't subsidize these things they
might not exist at all?
Bloating sure must incur significant expenses, but why does the VA pay
a different rate than I do?
I assume it is a negotiated price, one way or the other.

And how am I supposed to barter medicines?

Your prescription problem sounds local.
And is probably headed your way. Recently, pharmacies have begun to
keep short hours and close on Sundays. This includes ones in grocery
stores (and there aren't many), Revco, Walgreens, Phar-mor, CVS,
Rite-Aid, Kerr..... etc. Note that the STORE might be open, but the
pharmacy is closed.
I am generally at the store in the middle of the day so what?

My wife and I are gainfully employed in the middle of the day. Only
answer is to do without..... which is what I had to do.

Of it helps them contain costs, that is what you can expect more of
under government managed health care.
You might reach a point where you have to go to a government pharmacy
that is only open 9-5 M-F and there are not very many of them. Ever
been in a state where the government is the only one to sell alcohol?

Sure, I live in one. How do the prices compare?
http://www.ncabc.com/pricing/pricebook.aspx

Open every day 9-9 except Sunday to placate the born again
Christians....

There might only be one state store in a town or even a county.
Publix (grocery store) fills
my prescriptions faster than I can buy my groceries. They also give
you most antibiotics for free.
Here, you aren't getting ANYTHING for free. Last antibiotics I was
prescribed cost ME $25.00 per pill after my insurance paid a few token
dollars.
I know they aren't really "free" but what they are saying is the
generic of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics are so cheap at
the wholesale level that they can give them away to get you in their
store. A shrewd businessman would make the "free" prescriptions take
longer to fill, in hopes you would shop longer.

BTW the other good thing about Publix is they don't try to perpetuate
the mystique of prescription drugs. Most pharmacies try to tell you
this is a complicated process that takes an hour or more. Once your
profile is in the Publix computer they just type in the prescription,
count out the pills and put the label the computer spits out on the
bottle. If you have conflicting drugs, the computer will spit out a
warning right away. I assume it also compares your other prescriptions
and detects "doctor shopping" too but I have never heard of anyone
getting busted but I don't really know any abusers.

This is not much different than groceries.... no mystique, just a very
real need. If you stand at the register with your bread and milk and
there are 20 registers and 2 checkers, you are likely to get ****ed
off and leave. You are much less likely to do that with the kid's
whooping cough prescription... and they all know it. How do I know?
Because I walked out of about 4 pharmacies, before I realized they
were all following the same business model. I was going to wait for
the better part of an hour WHEREEVER I was...


Find a better store.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"H the K" wrote in message
m...


For everyone like your nephew's kid, there are 10 more kids who don't get
any medical attention, or the wrong sort of medical attention or the
cheapest of "patches" medical attention, or medical attention long after
whatever problem there is has escalated into something a lot more
serious.


That's because health care and insurance has become unaffordable for many.
Make it more affordable for those that can work.

How?

By relieving those who pay for health insurance the costs of development
of new equipment, procedures and drugs. *That* should be the role of
the government. If we can bail out wall street corporations, we can
subsidize some of the medical industry.

Users of the health care system should pay for services rendered and not
the development costs of those systems. Make the use cost affordable, not
free. Of course those who cannot work to pay for their medical service
needs should be cared for by us, but not those who can pay, but don't or
won't.

Eisboch




You calculated in your machine costs and development costs to your product.
Why should the government pay for just one segment? If the government was
paying for development, very few drugs and devices would make it to market.
Greed may be a driving factor. Last company I worked for was a Biomed
company. The venture capitalists dumped $35 million in to the company with
hope for a large return. Unfortunately, they picked some bad management. I
doubt if a stage 1 Urinary Incontanance would be high up the list of
government programs. Does cost the people suffering about $700 million a
year in supplies.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"Yogi of Woodstock" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 07:40:45 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


"H the K" wrote in message
news:RISdnWicQMEEZf_XnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@earthlink. com...


For everyone like your nephew's kid, there are 10 more kids who don't
get
any medical attention, or the wrong sort of medical attention or the
cheapest of "patches" medical attention, or medical attention long after
whatever problem there is has escalated into something a lot more
serious.


That's because health care and insurance has become unaffordable for many.
Make it more affordable for those that can work.

How?

By relieving those who pay for health insurance the costs of development
of
new equipment, procedures and drugs. *That* should be the role of the
government. If we can bail out wall street corporations, we can
subsidize
some of the medical industry.

Users of the health care system should pay for services rendered and not
the
development costs of those systems. Make the use cost affordable, not
free.
Of course those who cannot work to pay for their medical service needs
should be cared for by us, but not those who can pay, but don't or won't.

Now there's a good point and one that should be taken into account.

And there's an additional issue - Americans are actually paying for
costs of other nations for drug treatments. Did you know that I can
get Retuxin in France, paying for it myself, for about 1/4 the cost of
obtaining the same treatment in the US? In Germany, if I paid for it
myself, it's about 1/3 the cost. Same in Spain.

It's almost worth flying to France every couple of months to get it.

The only drawback is that it's France. :)

I do like Spain though.

But I don't speak Spanish.

And I don't like German food.

Rosetta Stone is about $250 to teach you Spanish.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:


Ah... it sounded like you were complaining about the high cost of
insurance. But now I understand that you're both "retired", with your
wife choosing to work at a basic job where the insurance cost 25% of
her pay. Nothing wrong with that.

No, my wife is 17 years younger than me and will be working for a long
time yet, insurance or not. And she's the highest paid in her unit
except for the manager. The rest there can't afford the insurance, so
they go to the e-room for everything. That's the problem. The high
cost of health care/insurance. There ain't no free lunch except the
one those paying for health insurance are buying for the others.
Whether I complain about it or not, you may have noticed that others
are.

I agree that the people who choose to not insure, then use the
emergency room for free health care is a problem. However, if you're
rooting for national health care so your wife can quit work and I'll
have to pick up your health care tab... well, I have a problem with
that.

Tell me your problem with paying my SS and I'll shed a couple tears.
My problem isn't with paying, it's with a system that only *some* pay
into, and a system that locks people into jobs because health
insurance isn't universally available and portable. Stifles and puts
artificial constraints into movement in the job market, and gives
foreigners a competitive edge in trade.

--Vic

Part of our high costs are the E room. I had a toothache while in Sorrento,
Italy. A Saturday and no dentist working. I was told to go to the local
hospital and go to the "Pronto Soccorso" entrance. Happens to be free to
everyone, foreign, locals etc. Was like a walk in doctors office. There
were people there with hurting ankle, etc. Had a Doctor, nurse & aid and
clerk. No big tests, no major equipment. If you needed more, they sent you
to the hospital, where I would have had to pay. Much cheaper setup than our
E rooms and Urgent Care clinics.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
RLM wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:59:18 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 19:40:49 -0700, Jack wrote:


Sounds like you need to get a job with some benefits, and rescue your
wife from having to support you and from providing you with your own
health care.
Yeah, but ... tying health care to business is the wrong approach, IMO.
Besides the anti-competitive costs to business in the world market, if
you get sick with a long-term illness, you are SOL. A dirty little
secret, most employee health insurance policies end when you aren't
collecting a pay check. Try paying for CORBA with just a disability
check, if you even get a disability check.

This is usually the point when the insurance carrier declairs that it was
a pre-existing condition and refuse to pay anything. Been there for that
approach.



There are lots of dirty little secrets in connection with our current
health care insurance fiasco, and some of them are not so little and not
so secretive. There are all sorts of horror stories, for example, relating
to denials of needed service, making patients and their providers jump
through hoops, reimbursement horrors, et cetera.

It's sort of humorous that those who oppose the modernizations being
discussed think everything will get "worse" when the government steps in.
I suspect the percentage of those satisfied with the way social security
and medicare are run is higher than those who are satisified with the way
medical insurance is run.

Hell most of us in Medicare are happy with the product. No co pays, go to
the doctor anytime. Unfortunately it is threatening the Federal Budget.
We gets lots for very little. Sort of like the welfare people. Go to the E
room or Urgent Care for a cold or scratch. No costs. When I paid for
insurance for wife and I, paid about 1200 month, with a 2K deductible and
co-pays. Now we pay about $420 a month total with supplemental and no
co-pays.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"BAR" wrote in message
...
thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:44:00 -0400, BAR wrote:


The problem most of us have is the falsehood that you push that
providing everyone with government funded health insurance will solve
the problem of access to health care. There is no access to health care
problem. The problem is that people are not paying for the health care
they are receiving and the costs are being passed onto those who are
paying via their health insurance.

It can be argued that those very same health insurance plans aren't
paying their fair share. You do know that health insurance plans get a
*very* discounted rate, don't you? There is also a new trick many are
using. If the hospital is in the network, they pay the pre-negotiated
discounted rate, but here's the trick. When the hospital is not in the
network, many insurance plans still will only pay the discounted rates.
That also leaves the health care professionals SOL.

Get everyone who uses the hospital to pay for the services they use.

Add to that, if you don't have insurance, you pay through the nose, far
above normal rates.

I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

When you go to a restaurant and sit down and eat a meal and get up and
walk out without paying for it you are stealing. But, when you go to the
hospital emergency room and receive medical care and leave without
paying for it nobody says anything. Both are examples of stealing.


Easy cure would be make it the law, that if you pay cash, you get the best
insurance pay rate plus maybe 10%. When I see the negotiated charges, the
under insured or those without insurance and have assets, they are getting
ripped of.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"thunder" wrote in message
t...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:18:19 -0400, Captain Zombie of Woodstock wrote:


When my youngest boy was ineligible for our insurance, we looked around
for a strictly major medical policy for him - bare bones, just cover any
catastrophe.

It was cheap - I mean like $4-500/yr? Something like that.

Was that recently? I'm surprised it was that low. Major medical sounds
interesting, but there is something to be said for access before it gets
to a major medical situation. Personally, I don't know what the answer
is, but this system is clearly broken. We are spending, as %GDP, nearly
twice as much as any other industrialized nation, and getting less care.
I've heard it argued that we have the best emergency care on the planet,
but when it comes to life expectancy, infant mortality, etc. we do not
have the best care.

Life expectancy is higher than most European nations. If you exclude
Homicides and accidents. We drive a lot more than Europeans, and therefore
have more fatalities. Looking at the cancer survival rates, we are lots
higher.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:59:50 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 13:03:18 -0400, Gene
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:38:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:21:54 -0400, Gene
wrote:

Medicare pays a billion dollars a year for test strips that 20% are
faulty. That's capitalist America at work.


Are the ones from UK or Canada better?

Probably not, in fact, they are most likely the same ones. Thus, the
big issue I have is that all of them were probably made 50 miles from
where I am typing and shipped to the UK and Canada... but they pay
about 50% as much for those items as I do. I always have to stand in
long lines *here* to get the high dollar prescription filled....

So if the bloated US medical system didn't subsidize these things they
might not exist at all?

Bloating sure must incur significant expenses, but why does the VA pay
a different rate than I do?

I assume it is a negotiated price, one way or the other.



Your prescription problem sounds local.

And is probably headed your way. Recently, pharmacies have begun to
keep short hours and close on Sundays. This includes ones in grocery
stores (and there aren't many), Revco, Walgreens, Phar-mor, CVS,
Rite-Aid, Kerr..... etc. Note that the STORE might be open, but the
pharmacy is closed.

I am generally at the store in the middle of the day so what?
Of it helps them contain costs, that is what you can expect more of
under government managed health care.
You might reach a point where you have to go to a government pharmacy
that is only open 9-5 M-F and there are not very many of them. Ever
been in a state where the government is the only one to sell alcohol?
There might only be one state store in a town or even a county.

Publix (grocery store) fills
my prescriptions faster than I can buy my groceries. They also give
you most antibiotics for free.

Here, you aren't getting ANYTHING for free. Last antibiotics I was
prescribed cost ME $25.00 per pill after my insurance paid a few token
dollars.

I know they aren't really "free" but what they are saying is the
generic of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics are so cheap at
the wholesale level that they can give them away to get you in their
store. A shrewd businessman would make the "free" prescriptions take
longer to fill, in hopes you would shop longer.

BTW the other good thing about Publix is they don't try to perpetuate
the mystique of prescription drugs. Most pharmacies try to tell you
this is a complicated process that takes an hour or more. Once your
profile is in the Publix computer they just type in the prescription,
count out the pills and put the label the computer spits out on the
bottle. If you have conflicting drugs, the computer will spit out a
warning right away. I assume it also compares your other prescriptions
and detects "doctor shopping" too but I have never heard of anyone
getting busted but I don't really know any abusers.

You won't miss the government run alcohol stores in New Hampshire if
you're on I-95. Both exits have the Alcohol Store right on the Exit
signs. It's unreal.
--

John H

Sober thoughts on health care
 

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.


That is correct...if that.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:



There is no access to health care
problem.


We've been hearing that b.s. from conservatives for decades. It
wasn't true then and it isn't true today.

Provide examples of the problem you allege people have accessing
health care in the USA?


Oh, please. Do some reading on other than reich-wing sites. Why do you
righties always try to insist that everyone else do your homework for you?

Talking out of your ass again Harry. You can't support your assertions
again.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:
H the K wrote:
BAR wrote:



There is no access to health care
problem.


We've been hearing that b.s. from conservatives for decades. It
wasn't true then and it isn't true today.

Provide examples of the problem you allege people have accessing
health care in the USA?


Oh, please. Do some reading on other than reich-wing sites. Why do you
righties always try to insist that everyone else do your homework for
you?

Talking out of your ass again Harry. You can't support your assertions
again.



Wrong, Bertie. Like many non-intellectual and anti-intellectual
righties, you tend to believe what your right-wing sources and your
prejudices tell you to believe.

I see no purpose served in handing you and others like you information
you can find on your own, if you are interested.

You were colossally wrong just yesterday on Maryland gun laws, but that
didn't stop you from posting your b.s, and getting defensive about it,
and you were too lazy to find the facts for yourself, even though they
are readily available.

I don't do homework for other people.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Gene wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:06:00 -0400, H the K
wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.
Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.

That is correct...if that.

Harry is correct.

I first came across this when Rush declared that all must be treated
for free and I thought that was the case. I then learned that one must
only be "stabilized" and that many hospitals actually didn't reach
even that standard of care. This led to a spate of lawsuits which
culminated in the pursuit of "anti-dumping" laws.

Contrary to some assertions here, if America falls as the Roman Empire
did, I really think that it is more about having to legislate morality
than anything else.... really.

"Stabilization" nonsense is especially true for poor people suffering
from serious mental health issues or drug addiction. A hospital with
facilities for treating either (and not all hospitals do), might take a
suicidal person in for a couple of days and then, if that person says he
is not feeling like killing himself at that moment, he is discharged. Of
course, the next day he might feel suicidal again, and kill himself.
Even if you have decent health insurance, the time you are allowed to
stay in a treatment facility usually is very, very limited. In many
communities, there are absolutely no openings at treatment facilities
for months at a time for addicts or alcoholics who want help *if* those
troubled folks have no money or insurance.

The "right" has been spreading this nonsense about availability of
treatment for decades.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Sober thoughts on health care
 

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:30:15 -0400, H the K
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:54:34 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

Ah... it sounded like you were complaining about the high cost of
insurance. But now I understand that you're both "retired", with
your
wife choosing to work at a basic job where the insurance cost 25% of
her pay. Nothing wrong with that.

No, my wife is 17 years younger than me and will be working for a long
time yet, insurance or not. And she's the highest paid in her unit
except for the manager. The rest there can't afford the insurance, so
they go to the e-room for everything. That's the problem. The high
cost of health care/insurance. There ain't no free lunch except the
one those paying for health insurance are buying for the others.
Whether I complain about it or not, you may have noticed that others
are.

I agree that the people who choose to not insure, then use the
emergency room for free health care is a problem. However, if you're
rooting for national health care so your wife can quit work and I'll
have to pick up your health care tab... well, I have a problem with
that.

Tell me your problem with paying my SS and I'll shed a couple tears.
My problem isn't with paying, it's with a system that only *some* pay
into, and a system that locks people into jobs because health
insurance isn't universally available and portable. Stifles and puts
artificial constraints into movement in the job market, and gives
foreigners a competitive edge in trade.

--Vic
Part of our high costs are the E room. I had a toothache while in
Sorrento,
Italy. A Saturday and no dentist working. I was told to go to the
local
hospital and go to the "Pronto Soccorso" entrance. Happens to be free
to
everyone, foreign, locals etc. Was like a walk in doctors office.
There
were people there with hurting ankle, etc. Had a Doctor, nurse & aid
and
clerk. No big tests, no major equipment. If you needed more, they
sent you
to the hospital, where I would have had to pay. Much cheaper setup
than our
E rooms and Urgent Care clinics.


I guess if you could get it by the Doctopr/Nurse union the government
could cut a lot of this off at the pass by opening store front "Quack
in the box" operations in the places where poor people live. They
could staff it with military or ex-military medical people when they
stop the war. My niece was a navy Corpsman for 12 years. If she can
treat the aches and pains of a ship full of sailors or save a Marine
with a sucking chest wound, there is not much in the ghetto she can't
handle. Unfortunately they want her to go to another 4 year course
before she can give someone, stateside, a shot.


And I thought we were over "separate and unequal."

I wouldn't see a non-physician or nurse practitioner for a medical
issue. Why should a poor person? The nurses who draw my blood for tests
or give me a flu shot, et cetera, are college graduate nurses who have
passed board exams, are licensed, and required to continue their
educations during their professional life.




Government medicine will never be equal to what Bill Gates gets. If we
actually try to make that true we will certainly be broke very
quickly. That is the biggest flaw in this program. .

Steve Jobs seemed to have no problem getting a new liver. As one that was
*almost* placed on the liver transplant list I do know a little about how
UNOS works.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:54:34 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

Ah... it sounded like you were complaining about the high cost of
insurance. But now I understand that you're both "retired", with your
wife choosing to work at a basic job where the insurance cost 25% of
her pay. Nothing wrong with that.

No, my wife is 17 years younger than me and will be working for a long
time yet, insurance or not. And she's the highest paid in her unit
except for the manager. The rest there can't afford the insurance, so
they go to the e-room for everything. That's the problem. The high
cost of health care/insurance. There ain't no free lunch except the
one those paying for health insurance are buying for the others.
Whether I complain about it or not, you may have noticed that others
are.

I agree that the people who choose to not insure, then use the
emergency room for free health care is a problem. However, if you're
rooting for national health care so your wife can quit work and I'll
have to pick up your health care tab... well, I have a problem with
that.

Tell me your problem with paying my SS and I'll shed a couple tears.
My problem isn't with paying, it's with a system that only *some* pay
into, and a system that locks people into jobs because health
insurance isn't universally available and portable. Stifles and puts
artificial constraints into movement in the job market, and gives
foreigners a competitive edge in trade.

--Vic
Part of our high costs are the E room. I had a toothache while in
Sorrento, Italy. A Saturday and no dentist working. I was told to go
to the local hospital and go to the "Pronto Soccorso" entrance. Happens
to be free to everyone, foreign, locals etc. Was like a walk in doctors
office. There were people there with hurting ankle, etc. Had a Doctor,
nurse & aid and clerk. No big tests, no major equipment. If you needed
more, they sent you to the hospital, where I would have had to pay.
Much cheaper setup than our E rooms and Urgent Care clinics.
I guess if you could get it by the Doctopr/Nurse union the government
could cut a lot of this off at the pass by opening store front "Quack
in the box" operations in the places where poor people live. They
could staff it with military or ex-military medical people when they
stop the war. My niece was a navy Corpsman for 12 years. If she can
treat the aches and pains of a ship full of sailors or save a Marine
with a sucking chest wound, there is not much in the ghetto she can't
handle. Unfortunately they want her to go to another 4 year course
before she can give someone, stateside, a shot.

And I thought we were over "separate and unequal."

I wouldn't see a non-physician or nurse practitioner for a medical issue.
Why should a poor person? The nurses who draw my blood for tests or give
me a flu shot, et cetera, are college graduate nurses who have passed
board exams, are licensed, and required to continue their educations
during their professional life.





You may know about Maryland gun laws, but you know little about the medical
world. Rare is it an RN taking blood for your tests. They are normally a
phlebotomist. 4-8 months course.



Sorry, the nurses at my doctor's office are RN's or Nurse Practitioners.
Says so on their badges, on the office directories, on the diplomas
hanging on the walls of the various offices.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:54:34 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack
wrote:

Ah... it sounded like you were complaining about the high cost of
insurance. But now I understand that you're both "retired", with your
wife choosing to work at a basic job where the insurance cost 25% of
her pay. Nothing wrong with that.

No, my wife is 17 years younger than me and will be working for a long
time yet, insurance or not. And she's the highest paid in her unit
except for the manager. The rest there can't afford the insurance, so
they go to the e-room for everything. That's the problem. The high
cost of health care/insurance. There ain't no free lunch except the
one those paying for health insurance are buying for the others.
Whether I complain about it or not, you may have noticed that others
are.

I agree that the people who choose to not insure, then use the
emergency room for free health care is a problem. However, if you're
rooting for national health care so your wife can quit work and I'll
have to pick up your health care tab... well, I have a problem with
that.

Tell me your problem with paying my SS and I'll shed a couple tears.
My problem isn't with paying, it's with a system that only *some* pay
into, and a system that locks people into jobs because health
insurance isn't universally available and portable. Stifles and puts
artificial constraints into movement in the job market, and gives
foreigners a competitive edge in trade.

--Vic
Part of our high costs are the E room. I had a toothache while in
Sorrento, Italy. A Saturday and no dentist working. I was told to go
to the local hospital and go to the "Pronto Soccorso" entrance. Happens
to be free to everyone, foreign, locals etc. Was like a walk in doctors
office. There were people there with hurting ankle, etc. Had a Doctor,
nurse & aid and clerk. No big tests, no major equipment. If you needed
more, they sent you to the hospital, where I would have had to pay.
Much cheaper setup than our E rooms and Urgent Care clinics.

I guess if you could get it by the Doctopr/Nurse union the government
could cut a lot of this off at the pass by opening store front "Quack
in the box" operations in the places where poor people live. They
could staff it with military or ex-military medical people when they
stop the war. My niece was a navy Corpsman for 12 years. If she can
treat the aches and pains of a ship full of sailors or save a Marine
with a sucking chest wound, there is not much in the ghetto she can't
handle. Unfortunately they want her to go to another 4 year course
before she can give someone, stateside, a shot.


And I thought we were over "separate and unequal."

I wouldn't see a non-physician or nurse practitioner for a medical issue.
Why should a poor person? The nurses who draw my blood for tests or give
me a flu shot, et cetera, are college graduate nurses who have passed
board exams, are licensed, and required to continue their educations
during their professional life.





You may know about Maryland gun laws, but you know little about the medical
world. Rare is it an RN taking blood for your tests. They are normally a
phlebotomist. 4-8 months course.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"H the K" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:06:58 -0400, H the K
wrote:

"Stabilization" nonsense is especially true for poor people suffering
from serious mental health issues or drug addiction. A hospital with
facilities for treating either (and not all hospitals do), might take a
suicidal person in for a couple of days and then, if that person says he
is not feeling like killing himself at that moment, he is discharged. Of
course, the next day he might feel suicidal again, and kill himself.

Statistically Truly "suicidal" people end up killing themselves at about
the same
rate, no matter how much "treatment" they get. About all "treatment"
does is separate "gestures" from "attempts" and treat those who make
gestures, with no intent of actually killing themselves.


I had no idea you were an accomplished mental health researcher. So what's
your point...just leave the potential suicides by the side of the road?

Put a diving board on the high bridge. So they land in a designated area.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Calif Bill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:54:34 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack

wrote:

Ah... it sounded like you were complaining about the high cost of
insurance. But now I understand that you're both "retired", with
your
wife choosing to work at a basic job where the insurance cost 25% of
her pay. Nothing wrong with that.

No, my wife is 17 years younger than me and will be working for a
long
time yet, insurance or not. And she's the highest paid in her unit
except for the manager. The rest there can't afford the insurance,
so
they go to the e-room for everything. That's the problem. The high
cost of health care/insurance. There ain't no free lunch except the
one those paying for health insurance are buying for the others.
Whether I complain about it or not, you may have noticed that others
are.

I agree that the people who choose to not insure, then use the
emergency room for free health care is a problem. However, if
you're
rooting for national health care so your wife can quit work and I'll
have to pick up your health care tab... well, I have a problem with
that.

Tell me your problem with paying my SS and I'll shed a couple tears.
My problem isn't with paying, it's with a system that only *some* pay
into, and a system that locks people into jobs because health
insurance isn't universally available and portable. Stifles and puts
artificial constraints into movement in the job market, and gives
foreigners a competitive edge in trade.

--Vic
Part of our high costs are the E room. I had a toothache while in
Sorrento, Italy. A Saturday and no dentist working. I was told to go
to the local hospital and go to the "Pronto Soccorso" entrance.
Happens to be free to everyone, foreign, locals etc. Was like a walk
in doctors office. There were people there with hurting ankle, etc.
Had a Doctor, nurse & aid and clerk. No big tests, no major
equipment. If you needed more, they sent you to the hospital, where I
would have had to pay. Much cheaper setup than our E rooms and Urgent
Care clinics.
I guess if you could get it by the Doctopr/Nurse union the government
could cut a lot of this off at the pass by opening store front "Quack
in the box" operations in the places where poor people live. They
could staff it with military or ex-military medical people when they
stop the war. My niece was a navy Corpsman for 12 years. If she can
treat the aches and pains of a ship full of sailors or save a Marine
with a sucking chest wound, there is not much in the ghetto she can't
handle. Unfortunately they want her to go to another 4 year course
before she can give someone, stateside, a shot.

And I thought we were over "separate and unequal."

I wouldn't see a non-physician or nurse practitioner for a medical
issue. Why should a poor person? The nurses who draw my blood for tests
or give me a flu shot, et cetera, are college graduate nurses who have
passed board exams, are licensed, and required to continue their
educations during their professional life.





You may know about Maryland gun laws, but you know little about the
medical world. Rare is it an RN taking blood for your tests. They are
normally a phlebotomist. 4-8 months course.

Sorry, the nurses at my doctor's office are RN's or Nurse Practitioners.
Says so on their badges, on the office directories, on the diplomas
hanging on the walls of the various offices.



And they send you to Quest Diagnostics to get the blood tests, etc.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:06:00 -0400, H the K wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:03:02 -0400, BAR wrote:


I thought they weren't allowed to deny you care if you couldn't or
wouldn't pay for it.

Yeah, but what is care? It may vary by state, but I believe they only
have to stabilize you.


That is correct...if that.

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

Sober thoughts on health care
 

"thunder" wrote in message
t...

It's also true that many hospitals go beyond the requirement, regardless
of the cost. Still, I wouldn't want to be in an emergency room without
insurance. Hell, even with insurance, a major sickness is a leading
cause of personal bankruptcy.

You've touched on the forbidden facet of health care.
At what point is someone's life worth destroying the lives of loved ones by
putting them in hopeless debt or bankrupcy?

Eisboch

Sober thoughts on health care
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
Calif Bill wrote:
"H the K" wrote in message
m...
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 11:54:34 -0700, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Jack

wrote:

Ah... it sounded like you were complaining about the high cost of
insurance. But now I understand that you're both "retired", with
your
wife choosing to work at a basic job where the insurance cost 25% of
her pay. Nothing wrong with that.

No, my wife is 17 years younger than me and will be working for a
long
time yet, insurance or not. And she's the highest paid in her unit
except for the manager. The rest there can't afford the insurance,
so
they go to the e-room for everything. That's the problem. The high
cost of health care/insurance. There ain't no free lunch except the
one those paying for health insurance are buying for the others.
Whether I complain about it or not, you may have noticed that others
are.

I agree that the people who choose to not insure, then use the
emergency room for free health care is a problem. However, if
you're
rooting for national health care so your wife can quit work and I'll
have to pick up your health care tab... well, I have a problem with
that.

Tell me your problem with paying my SS and I'll shed a couple tears.
My problem isn't with paying, it's with a system that only *some* pay
into, and a system that locks people into jobs because health
insurance isn't universally available and portable. Stifles and puts
artificial constraints into movement in the job market, and gives
foreigners a competitive edge in trade.

--Vic
Part of our high costs are the E room. I had a toothache while in
Sorrento, Italy. A Saturday and no dentist working. I was told to go
to the local hospital and go to the "Pronto Soccorso" entrance.
Happens to be free to everyone, foreign, locals etc. Was like a walk
in doctors office. There were people there with hurting ankle, etc.
Had a Doctor, nurse & aid and clerk. No big tests, no major
equipment. If you needed more, they sent you to the hospital, where I
would have had to pay. Much cheaper setup than our E rooms and Urgent
Care clinics.
I guess if you could get it by the Doctopr/Nurse union the government
could cut a lot of this off at the pass by opening store front "Quack
in the box" operations in the places where poor people live. They
could staff it with military or ex-military medical people when they
stop the war. My niece was a navy Corpsman for 12 years. If she can
treat the aches and pains of a ship full of sailors or save a Marine
with a sucking chest wound, there is not much in the ghetto she can't
handle. Unfortunately they want her to go to another 4 year course
before she can give someone, stateside, a shot.
And I thought we were over "separate and unequal."

I wouldn't see a non-physician or nurse practitioner for a medical
issue. Why should a poor person? The nurses who draw my blood for tests
or give me a flu shot, et cetera, are college graduate nurses who have
passed board exams, are licensed, and required to continue their
educations during their professional life.




You may know about Maryland gun laws, but you know little about the
medical world. Rare is it an RN taking blood for your tests. They are
normally a phlebotomist. 4-8 months course.
Sorry, the nurses at my doctor's office are RN's or Nurse Practitioners.
Says so on their badges, on the office directories, on the diplomas
hanging on the walls of the various offices.



And they send you to Quest Diagnostics to get the blood tests, etc.



They don't send me anywhere for blood tests; the nurses draw the blood.
I have no idea who does their blood testing for them, though. You and
BAR don't seem to get much right...right-wingedness?