OT health care
 

Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

OT health care
 

On Apr 16, 1:50*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc





wrote:
Here's my question. *We all know that the present system can't go on
working. *We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. *That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. *Hey, you
could be starving. *Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? *If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, *no tickey, no laundry. *You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. *I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Those people just got thrown back to the states in the Medicaid plan.
There was no federal money that went along with this (unless you are a
corn husker) . That is how this was "revenue neutral" for the feds. It
is the broke assed states who will be paying these bills. BTW there
are already plenty of hospitals and doctors who will not take Medicaid
patients unless they come in through the ER and even then, they just
stabilize and transport.
I know that a lot of hospitals simply don't have an ER, that
eliminates the problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, there are loopholes that some hospitals use. But eventually the
people end up getting treatment somewhere and can't pay for it.

So do you want # 1 or # 2? Or do you see a # 3 I've missed. And I
mean a #3 that isn't just a variation of 1 or 2.

OT health care
 

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 1:50 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc





wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Those people just got thrown back to the states in the Medicaid plan.
There was no federal money that went along with this (unless you are a
corn husker) . That is how this was "revenue neutral" for the feds. It
is the broke assed states who will be paying these bills. BTW there
are already plenty of hospitals and doctors who will not take Medicaid
patients unless they come in through the ER and even then, they just
stabilize and transport.
I know that a lot of hospitals simply don't have an ER, that
eliminates the problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, there are loopholes that some hospitals use. But eventually the
people end up getting treatment somewhere and can't pay for it.

So do you want # 1 or # 2? Or do you see a # 3 I've missed. And I
mean a #3 that isn't just a variation of 1 or 2.


It's worse than that... those who "get treatment somewhere" and can't pay,
tend to be much more expensive to treat at that point. We have to get them
into the system. I can't think of any other options... we already have a
modified #2 (caveat previously noted), so I vote for #1.

Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting" people
to skid row.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

On Apr 16, 3:40*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:16:10 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc





wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:50*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc

wrote:
Here's my question. *We all know that the present system can't go on
working. *We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. *That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. *Hey, you
could be starving. *Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? *If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, *no tickey, no laundry. *You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. *I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Those people just got thrown back to the states in the Medicaid plan.
There was no federal money that went along with this (unless you are a
corn husker) . That is how this was "revenue neutral" for the feds. It
is the broke assed states who will be paying these bills. BTW there
are already plenty of hospitals and doctors who will not take Medicaid
patients unless they come in through the ER and even then, they just
stabilize and transport.
I know that a lot of hospitals simply don't have an ER, that
eliminates the problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, there are loopholes that some hospitals use. *But eventually the
people end up getting treatment somewhere and can't pay for it.

So do you want # 1 or # 2? *Or do you see a # 3 I've missed. *And I
mean a #3 that isn't just a variation of 1 or 2.

I think the real solution is to get some cheaper care on the street
for routine and minor problems. You don't need 12 years of school to
fix a hangnail but it is illegal to do it.
If we are dumping 15 million under served people into the system we
need more practitioners today, not in 2022. I still suggest mining the
pool of former military medics.
If we would just come home from our mid east misadventures we would
have the perfect people to deal with the kind of injuries that come
into an inner city ER along with being the initial contact for the
normal ailments of life..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That trend is already happening. Most of these things like "minute
clinic" are staffed by nurse practictioners rather than drs. And even
when you see a dr a lot of triage has already been done by others so
that the dr doesn't need to waste time with the routine. You have an
injury and a dr might look at during the evaluation process but actual
treatment is often done by someone else.

OT health care
 

On Apr 16, 3:48*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting" people
to skid row.

In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

Frankly I think we could save a whole lot from the administrative
costs and returning insurance back to the non-profit state. Right now
we have two layers of profit and two layers of administrative costs
coming out of every health care dollar.

OT health care
 

jamesgangnc wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:48 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting" people
to skid row.
In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

Frankly I think we could save a whole lot from the administrative
costs and returning insurance back to the non-profit state. Right now
we have two layers of profit and two layers of administrative costs
coming out of every health care dollar.

I heard that two thirds of Medicare spending is for the last year of life.
That's why the Dems want death panels.
Lowers the cost. Got nothing to do with hangnails.
Remember how they killed that Schiavo girl down here?
Took her off life support. Too expensive.
Then you got your trial lawyers.

Jim - Watch what you wish for. You might get it.

OT health care
 

In article ,
says...

Sure, there are loopholes that some hospitals use. But eventually the
people end up getting treatment somewhere and can't pay for it.

So do you want # 1 or # 2? Or do you see a # 3 I've missed. And I
mean a #3 that isn't just a variation of 1 or 2.

I think the real solution is to get some cheaper care on the street
for routine and minor problems. You don't need 12 years of school to
fix a hangnail but it is illegal to do it.
If we are dumping 15 million under served people into the system we
need more practitioners today, not in 2022. I still suggest mining the
pool of former military medics.
If we would just come home from our mid east misadventures we would
have the perfect people to deal with the kind of injuries that come
into an inner city ER along with being the initial contact for the
normal ailments of life..

I do know that they are sending military doctors into city ERs to deal
with knife wounds and bullet wounds. This isn't experience you get at
most military hospitals stateside.

The should be sending medics and Corpsman out with the ambulances and
EMTs to gain experience with handling issues in the field. The problem
is you may get the unions up in arms if the military guys apply a band-
aid to a boo-boo.

OT health care
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where
he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting"
people
to skid row.

In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

As you said, funnelling it back to the state doesn't equate to the hospital
"eating" the bill.

In the long run, a single-payer system is less expensive with better
results. But, what you're talking about happening so far isn't a "whole
insurance bureaucracy" either. And, even if it were, it wouldn't happen
overnight.


BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

The current bill that passed has problems. No doubt, but it's the beginning,
and probably the best that could be had in the short term. I'll check out
the show later tonight.


--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

"jamesgangnc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 16, 3:40 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:16:10 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc





wrote:
On Apr 16, 1:50 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc

wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Those people just got thrown back to the states in the Medicaid plan.
There was no federal money that went along with this (unless you are a
corn husker) . That is how this was "revenue neutral" for the feds. It
is the broke assed states who will be paying these bills. BTW there
are already plenty of hospitals and doctors who will not take Medicaid
patients unless they come in through the ER and even then, they just
stabilize and transport.
I know that a lot of hospitals simply don't have an ER, that
eliminates the problem.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sure, there are loopholes that some hospitals use. But eventually the
people end up getting treatment somewhere and can't pay for it.

So do you want # 1 or # 2? Or do you see a # 3 I've missed. And I
mean a #3 that isn't just a variation of 1 or 2.

I think the real solution is to get some cheaper care on the street
for routine and minor problems. You don't need 12 years of school to
fix a hangnail but it is illegal to do it.
If we are dumping 15 million under served people into the system we
need more practitioners today, not in 2022. I still suggest mining the
pool of former military medics.
If we would just come home from our mid east misadventures we would
have the perfect people to deal with the kind of injuries that come
into an inner city ER along with being the initial contact for the
normal ailments of life..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That trend is already happening. Most of these things like "minute
clinic" are staffed by nurse practictioners rather than drs. And even
when you see a dr a lot of triage has already been done by others so
that the dr doesn't need to waste time with the routine. You have an
injury and a dr might look at during the evaluation process but actual
treatment is often done by someone else.


Also, there are lots of Physician Assistants coming on board. As you said
otherwise...
--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:16:17 -0700 (PDT), jamesgangnc
wrote:

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes. Open the system similar to the auto insurance industry (and
other insurance industries) nationwide and let the market settle it.
Establish a minimum requirement, like catastrophic care (similar to
collision and liability) and go from there - you want more coverage,
add it on.

Second, reform tort laws sufficiently that outrageous settlements for
hangnails aren't available to ambulance chasing lawyers.

It's funny you should bring this up. I had my regular three month
specialists appointments today - the bone doc and the rheumatologist
and when asked what they thought of this recently passed system, they
went ballistic.

At best, it will cost them money per patient if the proposed measures
go through. And their insurances will go up. And thats assuming they
stay in the system at all because it is going to be difficult to
maintain acceptable standards and practices in a constantly evolving
regulatory environment where anything and everything can change at the
whim of a beaurucrat.

One made the case that Obamacare is going to create more legal issues
which will increase third party insurance costs both for the patients
and for the doctors.


Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem. Same
goes with the "maintain acceptable standards" bs. Nothing evolves that
quickly. It's all about legislation and underlying statuary laws. Those take
time. Your docs should stick to doctoring or get a law degree.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:44:34 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

uh...you have a problem

you assume that what the insurance companies charge is related to what
they pay out in insurance claims.

got any proof of that? because what the companies DO do is use
premiums to cover their investment losses.

OT health care
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:44:34 -0400, W1TEF
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

uh...you have a problem

you assume that what the insurance companies charge is related to what
they pay out in insurance claims.

got any proof of that? because what the companies DO do is use
premiums to cover their investment losses.

Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.
This is a quantifiable cost.
"Defensive" medicine costs can't be determined.
A case can be made that "defensive" medicine is simply "thorough and
careful" medicine.
Even among OB/GYNs - a high premium specialty - the rate can vary
drastically, eg 600%, due to what state the practice is in, since it the
states that regulate the insurance companies.
As always, it is the insurance company middlemen raking it in.
Dealing with insurance companies, whether with exorbitant malpractice
premiums, or with nitpicking health care claims, is the doctor's curse.
They can deal with it, work to change the system, or find another
occupation.
That's pretty much what I do in selling and fitting shoes.
When confronted by smelly feet, I recommend these to my customers.

http://www.amazon.com/Pair-Anti-Odor...Insoles-Smell-
Eater/dp/B001M5JKXU

I think carrying these in the shop would be profitable, but haven't been
able to convince management of that. We do sell orthopedic insoles, and
they move pretty good. Rack space is limited, and the margin on the
orhtos is better than the smell-eaters.
I do love my job, try to help people, change what I can, and accept what
I can not change. Learned that early from Ann Landers.

Peter

OT health care
 

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

And thats about right on average for most doctors who specialize in
oncology and OB/GYN.

They wish it was 3/4% of their costs.


You can tell us... how's that? You have some proof of this? Doubtful, since
the proof is that it's as stated... 3 or 4%.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter

OT health care
 

On 4/16/10 8:37 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.


That's been Tom's M.O. here.

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

OT health care
 

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter



I don't mind differing opinions... if they can be supported by facts or
intelligent thought about an opinion. For example, one can argue that the
Afg. war is needed or not needed. But to claim things to be the opposite of
what is easily checked is just posturing. Even posturing is better than
nothing, which is what the poster is doing by the "I'm outta here"
statement. If he were really serious, he'd cite some facts to back up his
story. Acedotes are interesting, but they don't necessarily speak to the
larger issues.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only
be deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured
to a government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided
they are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in
arrears with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then
hike taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it.
Government care will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive
stuff. It may be rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched
implants or sex changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care,
it cannot be skimed or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

OT health care
 

On 16/04/2010 1:48 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting" people
to skid row.

In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

That should be a red flag. Governemtn hiring consultants to sell the
governemtn view.

GM having lobbiests yet it is Government Motors!

Sounds like voters and listening to the people does not mater any more.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

OT health care
 

On 16/04/2010 2:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious where
he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting"
people
to skid row.

In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

As you said, funnelling it back to the state doesn't equate to the hospital
"eating" the bill.

Why not have the voters in each state choose. Seriously! If the
residents want it, they get both the service and the bill. If you don't
want the bill you can move out.

In the long run, a single-payer system is less expensive with better
results. But, what you're talking about happening so far isn't a "whole
insurance bureaucracy" either. And, even if it were, it wouldn't happen
overnight.

Debatable.

BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

The current bill that passed has problems. No doubt, but it's the beginning,
and probably the best that could be had in the short term. I'll check out
the show later tonight.

Blank check to **** away money. You should see the plans on spending
more and increasing taxes... I see a national sales tax coming soon...
there isn't that much money in the 2% "rich".


--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

OT health care
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:01:15 -0600, Canuck57
wrote:

On 16/04/2010 2:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

The current bill that passed has problems. No doubt, but it's the beginning,
and probably the best that could be had in the short term. I'll check out
the show later tonight.

Blank check to **** away money. You should see the plans on spending
more and increasing taxes... I see a national sales tax coming soon...
there isn't that much money in the 2% "rich".

aint that much in the middle class, either.

didn't stop the rich from stealing it.

OT health care
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2010 2:56 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious
where
he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting"
people
to skid row.

In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

As you said, funnelling it back to the state doesn't equate to the
hospital
"eating" the bill.

Why not have the voters in each state choose. Seriously! If the
residents want it, they get both the service and the bill. If you don't
want the bill you can move out.

The voters in each state do choose. They choose their Federal
representatives who vote in either the majority or the minority. It was
decided at the federal level.


In the long run, a single-payer system is less expensive with better
results. But, what you're talking about happening so far isn't a "whole
insurance bureaucracy" either. And, even if it were, it wouldn't happen
overnight.

Debatable.

Only by idiots.


BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

The current bill that passed has problems. No doubt, but it's the
beginning,
and probably the best that could be had in the short term. I'll check out
the show later tonight.

Blank check to **** away money. You should see the plans on spending more
and increasing taxes... I see a national sales tax coming soon... there
isn't that much money in the 2% "rich".

According to PhD Canuck, who's barred from entering the US. Uh huh.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...
On 16/04/2010 11:16 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
Here's my question. We all know that the present system can't go on
working. We can't have 15% of the population not have some way to pay
for health care and at the same time pass laws that force hospitals to
care for them anyway. That's like having a law that a restaurant has
to serve you even though you are obviously not going to pay. Hey, you
could be starving. Do both sides agree that what we have now isn't
going to go on working forever? If so then at the end of the day
don't we really just have 2 options.

Option 1, figure out some way to get those people back into the system
with some minimal benefits as the rest of us.

Option 2, no tickey, no laundry. You can't pay the the hospital is
within it's rights to turn you away.

I'm not advocating one or the other with this post. I'm just asking
at the 20,000 foot level is there a 3rd choice I'm missing?

Yes.

3) Tax everyone 25% of their gross income from all sources, it can only be
deducted if you can show you and all of your dependants are insured to a
government minimum. Next, government will insure the rest provided they
are legal residents with a valid social security number and not in arrears
with taxes. No more illegal care unless charity funds it. Then hike
taxes to cover the costs where the 25% does not cover it. Government care
will be minimum care, no exotic or super expensive stuff. It may be
rrationed and cannot be used to fix stuff like botched implants or sex
changes. Revenue for health care goes to health care, it cannot be skimed
or reallocated by corrupt congress.

Either a tough and realistic 3) or do 2). 1) Is a blankj check to screw
taxpayers.

--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.


You're proving to be more of an idiot than first meets the eye. I don't know
about you, but I don't really want really sick people roaming the streets.
Everyone who's sick needs to get care, as it is now, except that now it's
way too expensive.

Botched implants? Like a penile implant? Or, like a sex change operation
you'd be planning?

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

"Jim" wrote in message
...
jamesgangnc wrote:
On Apr 16, 3:48 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:40 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
Interesting about the stabilize and transport model... just curious
where he
thinks they get transferred to? Some places have been "transporting"
people
to skid row.
In DC it was DC General;. In Lee County it is Lee Memorial, both
government supported hospitals. Basically it still comes back on the
taxpayer.
The real question is where will they go when they do get their
Medicaid this year? Probably the same place.
The real question is, what's cheaper, letting the hospital eat the
bill and put it on the government tab or create a whole insurance
bureaucracy to pay them through the normal channels?

BTW did you watch Frontline this week?
They did a show on the back room dealing in this health care bill and
pointed out the senate bill was really written by 2 former United
Health Care lobbyists who went around the revolving door and work for
the government now. It is no surprise how things came out

Check it out on the PBS.ORG web site. Called "Obama's Deal".

Frankly I think we could save a whole lot from the administrative
costs and returning insurance back to the non-profit state. Right now
we have two layers of profit and two layers of administrative costs
coming out of every health care dollar.

I heard that two thirds of Medicare spending is for the last year of life.
That's why the Dems want death panels.
Lowers the cost. Got nothing to do with hangnails.
Remember how they killed that Schiavo girl down here?
Took her off life support. Too expensive.
Then you got your trial lawyers.

Jim - Watch what you wish for. You might get it.



Lots of Medicare spending is about like medicade spending. My mom's
stockbroker is in Jacksonville, FL. They are next to a major hospital. The
seniors come down, get a small checkup and then come over and check their
stocks. Couple times a week. No copays. Cheap entertainment. I am a
medicare participand and always figured there should be a copay.

OT health care
 

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter


He addressed the problem and you come right back and state the same thing
numdenuts stated. Is exasperating to deal with lazyiness.

OT health care
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:42:07 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry
can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and
cheaper. Just seems odd.

we have free market healthcare NOW.

it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like
asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'?

OT health care
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 21:42:07 -0700, "Bill McKee"
wrote:


Odd, how the government is basically dumping NASA saying private industry
can do it better and cheaper. But government can do healthcare better and
cheaper. Just seems odd.

we have free market healthcare NOW.

it doesn't work. how much evidence do you need? it's kind of like
asking 'who's buried in grant's tomb'?





Mr. and Ms. Grant. :)

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter


He addressed the problem and you come right back and state the same thing
numdenuts stated. Is exasperating to deal with lazyiness.

It's exasperating to deal with stupidity, be we do that with you and only
complain a little bit.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:30:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't mind differing opinions... if they can be supported by facts or
intelligent thought about an opinion. For example, one can argue that the
Afg. war is needed or not needed. But to claim things to be the opposite of
what is easily checked is just posturing. Even posturing is better than
nothing, which is what the poster is doing by the "I'm outta here"
statement. If he were really serious, he'd cite some facts to back up his
story. Acedotes are interesting, but they don't necessarily speak to the
larger issues.

--

You are reporting the tort lawyer's side and he is reporting the
doctor's side.
You are not acknowledging the defense lawyers side and the insurance
company cut. (probably more than one company)
There is a health insurance company with their lawyer and a
malpractice insurance company with their lawyer.
The doctor and the next patient pay 4 lawyers and 2 insurance
companies, all because patient #1 didn't get the result he wanted.

Since this involves a posting of mine, I will respond to what you said.
First, Mr W1TEF is not reporting "the doctors side."
He is reporting a particular doctor's experience with health insurance
premiums.
I clearly stated in my reply to him that even for OB/GYNs the
malpractice insurance premiums vary wildly by state.
Because states regulate the insurance companies.
This is a known FACT.
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.
Which only shows that lawyers are a part of the problem.
I did not cite those charts since I expected that the source would be
attacked, as "kill the messenger" seems to be a de rigeur means of
argument here.
You employed it above - "reporting the tort lawyer's side."
Second, I clearly stated that the widely accepted figure of .5% of total
health care costs was comprised of payouts to plaintiffs and total
litigation costs. That includes the insurance company defense lawyers.
Third, I explicitly said to look at the insurers and their premiums for
the rest of the costs.
You are welcome to provide actual cites of costs if you care to, but I
hope you are specific in your argument when doing so.
"Malpractice" is an industry. There are many players.
You may blame lawyers all you want, but their part of it and claims paid
comprising .5% or less of health care costs is often reported by
disparate sources, and can be quantified by court filings.
The most recent number I've seen is $6.6 billion.
A few years old, but that is often the case with statistic gathering.
Bye the bye, I often have a customer, usually a woman (that's just my
experience, and I'm making no sexist remark here) who asks for a size 6
shoe. When I fit it is clearly too small, and she needs a size 7.
I say "Hmmm. Let me measure."
I put her foot in the Brannock, and it says her foot is size 7.
Not one customer has argued after that.
Because the Brannock doesn't lie.
Facts are facts.
Now, having said all that, let me be clear that I think tort reform is
necessary, if only to eliminate frivolous and fraudulent litigation, and
insurance company premium gouging.
Additionally, I won't stand firmly behind any figures I have presented,
because I question everything until there is a general agreement as to
the facts.
There is no sense arguing without facts.
When you argue without facts, it is called "politics."

Peter

OT health care
 

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 20:01:11 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter


I've heard it said that life is like a new shoe box. You never know what you're
gonna get 'til you try it on. Or bite into it...or something like that.
--
John H

For a great time, go here first... http://tinyurl.com/ygqxs5v

OT health care
 

In article ,
says...

"Peter (Yes, that one)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 19:02:51 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


Paid malpractice claims and malpractice litigation costs have been
pegged at about one half of one percent (.5%) of health care costs.

And I'm outa here.

Morons.


Can't argue in a cogent way, leave. Typical.

I am rather shocked by his conduct, but I have seen similar conduct in
my shop when a customer leaves in a huff after 5 or 6 shoe fittings,
none to satisfaction.
It happens when none of our lines will fit the particular customer, who
invariably has an odd foot.
In this case however, there was nothing wrong with what I was selling.
The figures of awards to plaintiffs and litigation costs are all over
the internet, and most independent statistical studies actually peg them
at less than .5%, which is $6.5 billion.
I was being generous, seeing that he may be sensitive to the issue due
to his daughter's outrageous malpractice premiums.
That he should call names is really unwarranted behavior.
Perhaps he is in the insurance business?
One never knows how that can affect one's, shall we say, prejudices.
I'm that way myself about criticism of some shoe lines, which I
personally like, but my customer doesn't like.
I hold my tongue then, as he should have when given stark facts.
Or, as you suggest, argue otherwise in a cogent manner.

Peter


He addressed the problem and you come right back and state the same thing
numdenuts stated. Is exasperating to deal with lazyiness.

I would define "laziness" as thinking that knowing the experience of one
particular doctor in one particular locale gives you all the answers you
need to have a solution to tort reform. It's not that easy.
And I would add "arrogance" as fitting those same parameters.
I occasionally get a customer that tells me her preferred line of shoes
is the best made that money can buy.
Even if I know better, there is no harm in letting her harbor that
belief.
It's a $70 dollar pair of shoes, and she can afford them.
Health care is a bit different.

Peter

OT health care
 

In article ,
says...



I've heard it said that life is like a new shoe box. You never know what you're
gonna get 'til you try it on. Or bite into it...or something like that.


Funny you should mention that.
I actually have occasional requests to put new shoes in a different box.
Young folks buying a lesser priced sport shoe and asking if I have a
spare Nike box to put them in. Both boys and girls.
I have always been able to accommodate them.
They then carry the box out into the mall - they don't want a bag.
Thankfully, none have asked for a box without purchasing shoes.

Peter

OT health care
 

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.



--
The Liberal way, take no responsibility.

OT health care
 

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?

--
http://tinyurl.com/ykxp2ym

OT health care
 

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.

OT health care
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 18:30:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I don't mind differing opinions... if they can be supported by facts or
intelligent thought about an opinion. For example, one can argue that the
Afg. war is needed or not needed. But to claim things to be the opposite
of
what is easily checked is just posturing. Even posturing is better than
nothing, which is what the poster is doing by the "I'm outta here"
statement. If he were really serious, he'd cite some facts to back up his
story. Acedotes are interesting, but they don't necessarily speak to the
larger issues.

--

You are reporting the tort lawyer's side and he is reporting the
doctor's side.
You are not acknowledging the defense lawyers side and the insurance
company cut. (probably more than one company)
There is a health insurance company with their lawyer and a
malpractice insurance company with their lawyer.
The doctor and the next patient pay 4 lawyers and 2 insurance
companies, all because patient #1 didn't get the result he wanted.


No I'm not. This is the total effective cost to the system. It's a tiny
percentage of the cost of healthcare. Every reason to address. No reason to
become hysterical about it.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 17:36:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"W1TEF" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:01:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Tort reform is a right-wing canard. It's about 3-4% of the problem.

Horsefeathers as my Grandfather used to say in polite company.

I know what it costs my daughters for their insurances and I can tell
you, it's easily 18% of their liability in terms of payout for their
practices to stay in business.

And thats about right on average for most doctors who specialize in
oncology and OB/GYN.

They wish it was 3/4% of their costs.


You can tell us... how's that? You have some proof of this? Doubtful,
since
the proof is that it's as stated... 3 or 4%.

He is telling you what it costs his daughters, presumably doctors. You
can either believe it is say he is lying.
My ex is in the medical biz, currently at the DC Medical Society and
she says something similar. That is hundreds of doctors
.


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

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

"Canuck57" 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.

--
Nom=de=Plume

OT health care
 

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.

OT health care
 

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 09:24:26 -0600, Canuck57
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