OT health care
 

On 4/17/10 2:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600,
wrote:



Not really. The government views health care as a money machine.

ROFLMAO!! guess he doesn't know about health insurance companies.



Quite predictable from a out of control greedy government acually.

the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health
care...and it works pretty well.

it's called 'medicare'.

but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way



Canuck seems to be on the same evolutionary step as JustWaita-Loogy, and
therefore worthy of dismissal.

JustWaita-Tosk must be away on some exotic vacation, leaving Loogy with
no one to argue.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

OT health care
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:53:44 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

I saw a chart of OB/GYN premiums where the cost in Colorado and
Wisconsin is $20,000 and in NY and Florida $120,000 for the same
coverage. But in Dade county the premium is +$200,000.
So just blaming lawyers won't do as an analysis, though I suspect Dade
county is a lawyer heaven and that accounts for the high premiums there

I suppose the real answer would be to get a comprehensive list of what
doctors pay for various specialties across the country. I will see if
my ex can come up with that. I bet she already knows someone who has
it.
That still ignores the defensive medicine costs.

Just as an example using the cost of a root canal:

Downtown, DC: $3,000
Bethesda, MD: $2,500
Rockville, MD: $2,200
Gaithersburg, MD: $2,000
Damascus, MD: $1,700
Mount Airy, MD: $1,400

The costs vary depending upon lots of variables, even within 20 miles of
Washington, DC. The biggest one in the DC area being the cost of the
space need for your office and then the cost of the hired help. The
supplies are the same the procedures are the same.

Dentists don't get sued as often as OB/GYNs and I would imagine that
people in Miami (Dade County) are not as tolerant of the vagaries of
life as the people in Colorado or Wisconsin. Sometimes the genes just
don't mix well.

OT health care
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:53:44 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

I saw a chart of OB/GYN premiums where the cost in Colorado and
Wisconsin is $20,000 and in NY and Florida $120,000 for the same
coverage. But in Dade county the premium is +$200,000.
So just blaming lawyers won't do as an analysis, though I suspect Dade
county is a lawyer heaven and that accounts for the high premiums there

I suppose the real answer would be to get a comprehensive list of what
doctors pay for various specialties across the country. I will see if
my ex can come up with that. I bet she already knows someone who has
it.
That still ignores the defensive medicine costs.

You have not defined "defensive medicine."
Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means.
"Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive
medicine."
Can you describe such a test?
It seems to me that all testing should be done to pinpoint or eliminate
a cause of an ailment, either current or predicted.
It would be a waste of time to bother your ex for premium rates.
They could change tomorrow.
I found this, which is a good unbiased look at malpractice insurance.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03702.pdf

The complexities are worse than I thought.
And reliable data also less than I imagined.
My view is that the federal government with their regulatory authority
is the only entity capable of bringing the pieces together to make sense
of it and improve it. Similar to the FDIC insurance authority, but this
is more complex due to the nature of medical malpractice lawsuits.
This would greatly benefit physicians in some states, but perhaps cost
physicians in other states more because premiums would be federally
equalized.
The goal is taking the malpractice premium worry off the backs of good
physicians, and reducing costs, including tort reform to penalize
frivolous lawsuit filers.
Of course that federalizing will ruffle many "free market" and states
rights feathers.
Oddly, those are the same states rightists want to federally impose
payment caps across all states.
But if you prefer the free market, live with the current "system."
As always, it will charged with political nonsense.
I hear it from my customers all the time, when they attempt to engage me
in such political talk. I reply by addressing the actual issues, and
asking a few questions about policy.
The discussion invariably ends there, and we are back to shoes.
But as long as the customer walks away with a well fitting pair of
shoes, I'm happy with the outcome.
I'm pretty single-minded about that.

Peter

OT health care
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:50:53 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:29:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Which has little to do with the argument that tort reform is going to save
the healthcare system.

Tort reform would save the whole economic system. The lawyers tax is a
drag on the whole economy, producing absolutely nothing.

if only it were that simple

in addition, lawsuits are sometimes the only recouse people have in
that absence of legislation. in the name of 'free market' economics,
the right has crippled protection for middle class people. sometimes
a lawsuit is the only choice they have

OT health care
 

On 17/04/2010 12:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600,
wrote:



Not really. The government views health care as a money machine.

ROFLMAO!! guess he doesn't know about health insurance companies.



Quite predictable from a out of control greedy government acually.

the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health
care...and it works pretty well.

it's called 'medicare'.

but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way

If it works so well, why does Obama want to screw with it?

Hint for your shallow mind, it is all about the money. That is also why
they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast, don't want people
to take too long of a look at it. Especially the load of pork.

I submit you can't rationalize your own facts and that is why you can't
understand what this is really about.

Think, Obama is playing you for a fool.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

OT health care
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 17/04/2010 12:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600,
wrote:

the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health
care...and it works pretty well.

it's called 'medicare'.

but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way

If it works so well, why does Obama want to screw with it?

of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective...


Hint for your shallow mind, it is all about the money.

he just keeps repeating it, hoping if he says it 10,000 time it'll be
true

of course, that's the definition of insanity, not truth

That is also why
they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast,

HHAhAHAHAAHAH!!!!

it took a YEAR to get through!! BWHAHAHAHAH!!!!



Think, Obama is playing you for a fool.

and you're the king of fools

OT health care
 

On 17/04/2010 3:21 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600,
wrote:

On 17/04/2010 12:45 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600,
wrote:

the moron doesn't realize the US already has ALOT of govt health
care...and it works pretty well.

it's called 'medicare'.

but no one ever said the right let facts stand in their way

If it works so well, why does Obama want to screw with it?

of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective...

You mean less coverage to conserve cash for a bloated overspending
debt-spend government.

Hey, why cut the pork when you can slash what the people really need to
justify higher taxes eh?

Hint for your shallow mind, it is all about the money.

he just keeps repeating it, hoping if he says it 10,000 time it'll be
true

Could say the same with your denial.

of course, that's the definition of insanity, not truth

Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a
presidential BS line like Obama has for you.

That is also why
they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast,

HHAhAHAHAAHAH!!!!

it took a YEAR to get through!! BWHAHAHAHAH!!!!

For the lethargic geriatrics in DC, that is fast. Just enough time to
pork it up.

Think, Obama is playing you for a fool.

and you're the king of fools

Time will tell. But forgve me if I start laughing now.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

OT health care
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:37:50 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 17/04/2010 3:21 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:01:19 -0600,
wrote:

of course, he's NOT...except to make it a bit more cost effective...

You mean less coverage to conserve cash for a bloated overspending
debt-spend government.

no one knows what 'less coverage' means.

and how much coverage do you have if you cant get ANY coverage?

kinda forgot about that, didn't you?


Hey, why cut the pork when you can slash what the people really need to
justify higher taxes eh?

as opposed to higher insurance premiums?


Insanity is how you can spend less and get better services with a
presidential BS line like Obama has for you.

except, of course, the deficit is smaller this year than projected AND
obama's plans have been demonstrated to be at LEAST deficiit neutral
and may evenb REDUCE the deficit.


That is also why
they wanted to jam it through congress/senate so fast,

HHAhAHAHAAHAH!!!!

it took a YEAR to get through!! BWHAHAHAHAH!!!!

For the lethargic geriatrics in DC, that is fast. Just enough time to
pork it up.

IOW it's fast only if you say it's fast.

golly. i had no idea you had a govt job determining what 'fast' is.


Think, Obama is playing you for a fool.

and you're the king of fools

Time will tell. But forgve me if I start laughing now.

wait a year. you seem to think that's fast

OT health care
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2010 11:30 AM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 17/04/2010 9:38 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/17/10 11:28 AM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 17/04/2010 7:19 AM, mmc wrote:

Our problem is that our government and government contracting has
become a
huge social program, we make jobs where no one breaks a sweat and get
little
in return.
Bingo. Which makes us tax paying producers just slaves for the
government and associated lard.


Tax paying producer? You're unemployed, remember? What the hell do you
produce, other than poop out your exhaust pipe?

Not yet, but planning on retiring in this decade some time, maybe sooner
than later. Depends when I have had enough of working for other people.
Ready to drop off the producer tread mill.

That way our leaders can borrow more.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


Meta message from Canuck: I'm about to be fired.

Sure more lucrative than quitting. Recent pension contributions vests
sooner too. My attitude is make my day. But unfortunately not going to
happen that way. I pretty much at least have to quit before 54 3/4 as I
don't want my pension locked in where I am at.

Plus I don't have to pay for the liberal increases in taxes a coming.
Added bonus.
--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


Yeah, and now you'll tell us your employee of the year. You're a joke! Why
would anyone want you around as an employee.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:22:20 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


You have not defined "defensive medicine."
Whenever I hear that phrase used I wonder what it means.
"Unnecessary tests" is often used in conjunction with "defensive
medicine."

An example of defensive medicine is when the doctor gives someone an
MRI when there is really nothing in their diagnosis that justifies an
MRI but the doctor is afraid if anything ever did go south he would
have to defend that decision.
I had that happen to me.


Why didn't you refuse? I've refused certain procedures. It's no big deal.
The patient is the one who's in charge.

--
Nom=de=Plume