|
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:39:40 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy. THAT was gov health care. ROTFL!!! I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. I would like to hear your views. Thunder talked about one that I like - the co-op. That seems to be a very effective and efficient way to provide quality health care. Another idea is open up the competition between companies and stop protecting them with legislation that virtually ensures monopolies in individual states. I also like the PPO system - preferred provider option. Insurance companies can negotiate with health care centers in terms of costs. Mrs. Wave is in a PPO system that seems to work really well - they have a system where the Town self-insures with a re-insurance option for the more costly members. The state of CT has a similar system for the state employees and it seems to work well enough that the state is considering extending their system to towns to participate in. Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. That's a few to start with. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:50:50 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On the face of it, it's a sound idea - actually, a little like an HMO in concept which seem to work well. But you pointed out the problem yourself - depending on how they are set up. It's my understanding that Blue Cross/Blue Shield started as a co-op. In some states it is still the dominate player in health insurance. Don't quote me on these numbers, but I believe collect 90% of the premiums in North Dakota, and 70% in Iowa and South Dakota, clearly the big player. I wonder how well they perform in keeping costs down. The simple truth is this - a public option would not be more efficient or cost effective than private plans. You just have to look around at various government run health care systems to see how inefficient they are - the Indian Health Service is one good example. The VA is another, although the VA has cleaned up it's act over the past few years quite a bit and the general care levels are becoming much better. I'm going into the VA system myself shortly - I looked at it hard and was satisfied that my situation will be handled well. So will a co-op work? It does in some states and they seem to be very effective and efficient in patient care. The few that I know about are small, self-contained (all-in-one service centers from testing to care) and being non-profit, the costs are containable and in general, less than standard health plans. I was in a similar system quite a few years ago - it was a non-profit health care system run by Hanneman Hospital in Worcester. To tell the truth, it was high quality care, the specialists were top rank and in general, the feeling was of a small doctors office where people knew who you were - a very nice. Everything was contained within one facility - you see the doctor, get an x-ray (or CAT/PET/MRI) on the spot readings, go back and see the NP or PA and if they needed to get the doc, they got the doc. It was good. So in my experience, the co-op seems like a good idea. Run by the government though? No - I can't see that. The very nature of government does not allow for efficiency, cost containment and effective. It's my understanding that it wouldn't be run by the government, but set up as a non-profit, owned by the subscribers. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/he...n.html?_r=2&hp |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts. Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken care of. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote: On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 06:39:40 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: BTW, I still bear a grudge against the Navy Captain who pulled my perfectly good molar in Naples, Italy. THAT was gov health care. ROTFL!!! I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. I would like to hear your views. Thunder talked about one that I like - the co-op. That seems to be a very effective and efficient way to provide quality health care. Another idea is open up the competition between companies and stop protecting them with legislation that virtually ensures monopolies in individual states. I also like the PPO system - preferred provider option. Insurance companies can negotiate with health care centers in terms of costs. Mrs. Wave is in a PPO system that seems to work really well - they have a system where the Town self-insures with a re-insurance option for the more costly members. The state of CT has a similar system for the state employees and it seems to work well enough that the state is considering extending their system to towns to participate in. Not real familiar with PPO's although they used to be touted over HMO's. Yet I rejected my company's PPO offering as less flexible and selected the HMO, which actually cost me more in premium. A work mate I'm friendly with still mocks HMO's because you go to a primary care physician first. I haven't found that to be an issue, and he readily refers me to specialists when called for, actually - since I have some blarney in me - all I have to do is ask. Guess my pal thinks he knows more than any primary doc. I have heard that there are no successful medical co-ops delivering the quality care expected by most, but I'm not sure about that. I do see a problem with many scattered entities and state legislatures determining what health care is available, because it can limit mobility and is just plain confusing. You mentioned medical coders once, and I see the non-stardardization of too many players just adding to cost. BTW, another thing I learned watching the C-Span Senate hearings was an issue raised by the Rep Senator from Wyoming - Inzi. This kind of ties in with the above. He cautioned that dumping people into Medicaid could have disastrous results for the states, since they pay a significant portion of Medicaid. Just another "minor complication." Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. I recently saw a program - I think on C-Span, maybe with Brian Lamb interviewing a journalist named Reid, who had sought out health care around the world for a PBS film - where a Japanese doctor was asked what he paid for malpractice insurance. The doc had to think a moment to understand what is meant by "malpractice insurance" then it came to him. "Oh, that's included in my medical association dues." The dues? $30 a year. So I agree with you there. This isn't to say that a malpractice suit can't be pursued, but that there are caps on punitive damages, and loser pays. Doesn't mean you can't get legit compensatory damages. Still severe reform. England has loser pays I think. Thank the trial lawyer lobby for no action here. Shame on Obama. --Vic |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
|
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills, the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed.. It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his hoods... Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever knew what was in it! |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills, the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed.. It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his hoods... Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever knew what was in it! Nope again. This is getting old, I think you only read what you want to read. I clearly noted my concern with the lesson plans and the teachers personal agendas that will follow the speech, and of course the collection of letters to the president and eventual use of those as political props like the little girl in Mass. at the Obama health care forum. -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:03:31 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: But no surprise there. Omelet = (eggs + broken) Hey, if anybody actually read this, let me know. The answer might save me some time. In real life, do you talk like you write? In little bites? :) Yes - I read the whole thing. The problem is that there are many ways to look at this issue. I'm not in favor of government run health care for a variety of reasons. I've got some ideas, but nobody listens to me and our chattering class and entrenched political elites don't seem to understand the issue either. They are all listening to Barry telling them that the republicans have no ideas. Like one pundit said today, the White House is the champion of misinformation in the health care issue, that's why so many folks don't trust them... The republicans put out a bill last week, HR3400 which addresses health care from a sensible point of view, and at no additional cost to taxpayers, but of course like all of the other bills, the dems don't only dismiss it, but they deny it was even proposed.. It's straight up lying, that's why nobody trust the Pres and his hoods... Oooh, the Small Business Health Reform Act?? It only addresses a very few issues and problems, first of all. And hey, you dismissed Obama's speech to school kids as propaganda and indoctrination before you ever knew what was in it! Nope again. This is getting old, I think you only read what you want to read. I clearly noted my concern with the lesson plans and the teachers personal agendas that will follow the speech, and of course the collection of letters to the president and eventual use of those as political props like the little girl in Mass. at the Obama health care forum. You didn't say he wanted to indoctrinate children?? Take her to the track on the 8th. That's the BO school kid indoctrination speech. Happens at 11 am, eastern. If Jesse's lucky, she'll be at lunch where their are no TV's. |
Can Anybody Here Talk Turkey?
thunder wrote:
On Tue, 08 Sep 2009 08:00:41 -0400, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote: Tort reform also has to be addressed - this could actualy be the water shed of health care reform. I saw the bill my kids pay for their malpractice insurance - it's simply amazing what they charge to protect doctors from malpractice claims. I could see some sort of threshold before allowing a suit. That would keep the minor and frivolous law suits at bay, but generally what people talk about when addressing tort reform, is the high end payouts. Personally, I wouldn't want that touched. If some incompetent doctor screws up, and makes me a paraplegic, I want to know my family is taken care of. A number of reputable sources state that malpractice insurance and payout adds maybe 2% to medical costs. I've seen a survey that claims it approaches 7%. Meanwhile, many health insurers are earning profits of more than 25%, and for what? It's not as if they add value. In fact, they increase costs dramatically for businesses and individuals. When the monster-sized private insurers force hospital and doctors to accept rates that don't cover costs, who do you think makes up the difference? The smaller insurers and those who insure themselves. I like the Swiss schema. There's mandatory national health insurance for everyone, and it isn't free, and there are private supplemental programs you can buy or not buy. Taking the profit out of health insurance will dramatically lower costs. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com