An article about medical costs
 

If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:59:08 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.

The word "Paymaster" is going to gain popularity in the US lexicon.

An article about medical costs
 

On 3/11/2013 11:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.


Does it say why my premium has rose 8%, 9% and 18% in the last three
years? He promised they would go down.
Mikek

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 14:43:45 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 3/11/2013 11:59 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.


Does it say why my premium has rose 8%, 9% and 18% in the last three
years? He promised they would go down.
Mikek

Our premiums went up the smallest amount in 15 years. Less than 5%
vs. between 10 and 15% each of the last 15 years.

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:10:39 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:59:08 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.

The word "Paymaster" is going to gain popularity in the US lexicon.

There's for sure nothing biased about Time Magazine!


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:03:18 -0400, J Herring
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:10:39 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:59:08 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.

The word "Paymaster" is going to gain popularity in the US lexicon.

There's for sure nothing biased about Time Magazine!


Salmonbait

Hey stupid ****.. Time didn't write the article. Feel free to be an
idiot.

An article about medical costs
 

On 3/11/2013 5:03 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:10:39 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:59:08 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.

The word "Paymaster" is going to gain popularity in the US lexicon.

There's for sure nothing biased about Time Magazine!

LOL! Yeah, my bud in Florida sent me a subscription once, it was
comical...


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:39:55 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:21:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:



Yep, and Medicare, by law can't negotiate with either hospitals of
Pharma. That's quite a free market system isn't it.

Go read the article again. Medicare pays about 10% of the Charge
Master price on the bills they looked at.
That was a big part of what Brill was saying.

That isn't a negotiation. They're barred by law from negotiating. It's
a fixed price that Medicare pays. And, 10% of complete bull**** is
still complete bull****. the costs are way below that. Try again.

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

And, your conclusion is that we should not regulate hospitals,
insurance companies, or equipment manufacturers, or allow Medicare to
negotiate prices with them. Also, according to you, big money flowing
to politicians is just fine.

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?

An article about medical costs
 

On 3/11/2013 8:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


And O'Bama is the great shaker downer of the masses.

An article about medical costs
 

On 3/11/2013 7:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


Is there no end to hard working taxpayers being shaken down for the
enrichment of those who would rather while away the time until the first
of the month to come around so they can get their benefits.

Mikek

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:07:39 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 3/11/2013 7:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


Is there no end to hard working taxpayers being shaken down for the
enrichment of those who would rather while away the time until the first
of the month to come around so they can get their benefits.

Mikek

Sure. That's the heart of the problem. Not the billions spent by the
big corporations trying to get every last dime out of some guy who can
barely feed his family. You're really either stupid or a ****.

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:56:35 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:37:37 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:39:55 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:21:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:



Yep, and Medicare, by law can't negotiate with either hospitals of
Pharma. That's quite a free market system isn't it.

Go read the article again. Medicare pays about 10% of the Charge
Master price on the bills they looked at.
That was a big part of what Brill was saying.

That isn't a negotiation. They're barred by law from negotiating. It's
a fixed price that Medicare pays. And, 10% of complete bull**** is
still complete bull****. the costs are way below that. Try again.

The 10% is higher than the reality. Medicare pays more like 6-7%
OK I will try quoting the article you didn't seem to read.

Chest X ray $283 Medicare $20.44
Troponin Test $199.Medicare $13.64
CBC $157.61 Medicare $11.02
EKG $1200 Medicare $96
The list goes on


Brill says Medicare does pay too much for medical equipment tho.

What the **** is your problem? You said 10%. They don't negotiate.
It's a fixed percentage for each item. You go read the ****ing
article.

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 23:02:41 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:39:00 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

And, your conclusion is that we should not regulate hospitals,
insurance companies, or equipment manufacturers, or allow Medicare to
negotiate prices with them. Also, according to you, big money flowing
to politicians is just fine.

Try to pay attention. I never said bribing congress was OK. On the
contrary I have been saying that is why we are in as much trouble as
we are in.
There is nothing that is much more regulated than the medical
industry, what we don't do is make the system any cheaper.
The way it is set up, it will always be getting more expensive.

If I could wave a wand, I would outlaw advertising for candidates,
lawyers and the whole medical establishment.


Try to be intelligent. Oh yeah, you can't.

If you read the ****ing article you'd know how things can be fixed.

If you could waive a magic want, I'd rather have a hellfire shoved up
my ass.

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:02:42 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:07:39 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 3/11/2013 7:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


Is there no end to hard working taxpayers being shaken down for the
enrichment of those who would rather while away the time until the first
of the month to come around so they can get their benefits.

Mikek

Sure. That's the heart of the problem. Not the billions spent by the
big corporations trying to get every last dime out of some guy who can
barely feed his family. You're really either stupid or a ****.

The top 1% own something like half the country. Sounds like the folks
who are living off welfare checks probably don't own much, or have
much to look forward to in terms of helping their kids get an
education or having a retirement or living in anything resembling
comfort. Those are naturally occuring consequences.

But the fact that the middle class is under siege by the wealthy is
something we should be paying attention to, since our economy depends
on a healthy middle class.

Otherwise, we're going to become Mexico.

An article about medical costs
 

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:33:07 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:02:42 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:07:39 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 3/11/2013 7:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


Is there no end to hard working taxpayers being shaken down for the
enrichment of those who would rather while away the time until the first
of the month to come around so they can get their benefits.

Mikek

Sure. That's the heart of the problem. Not the billions spent by the
big corporations trying to get every last dime out of some guy who can
barely feed his family. You're really either stupid or a ****.

The top 1% own something like half the country. Sounds like the folks
who are living off welfare checks probably don't own much, or have
much to look forward to in terms of helping their kids get an
education or having a retirement or living in anything resembling
comfort. Those are naturally occuring consequences.

But the fact that the middle class is under siege by the wealthy is
something we should be paying attention to, since our economy depends
on a healthy middle class.

Otherwise, we're going to become Mexico.

I thought that was the dream of the 'progressives'.

You liberals want open borders, no 'rich' (except liberal politicians, whom you never seem to
discuss), and equality for all.

Isn't that what becoming Mexico is all about, senor?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!

An article about medical costs
 

On 3/12/2013 7:29 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:33:07 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:02:42 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:07:39 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 3/11/2013 7:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


Is there no end to hard working taxpayers being shaken down for the
enrichment of those who would rather while away the time until the first
of the month to come around so they can get their benefits.

Mikek

Sure. That's the heart of the problem. Not the billions spent by the
big corporations trying to get every last dime out of some guy who can
barely feed his family. You're really either stupid or a ****.

The top 1% own something like half the country. Sounds like the folks
who are living off welfare checks probably don't own much, or have
much to look forward to in terms of helping their kids get an
education or having a retirement or living in anything resembling
comfort. Those are naturally occuring consequences.

But the fact that the middle class is under siege by the wealthy is
something we should be paying attention to, since our economy depends
on a healthy middle class.

Otherwise, we're going to become Mexico.

I thought that was the dream of the 'progressives'.

You liberals want open borders, no 'rich' (except liberal politicians, whom you never seem to
discuss), and equality for all.

Isn't that what becoming Mexico is all about, senor?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!


Carlos slim seems to be doing OK; much better than his fellow countrymen.

An article about medical costs
 

In article om,
says...

On 3/12/2013 7:29 AM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:33:07 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:02:42 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:07:39 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 3/11/2013 7:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


Is there no end to hard working taxpayers being shaken down for the
enrichment of those who would rather while away the time until the first
of the month to come around so they can get their benefits.

Mikek

Sure. That's the heart of the problem. Not the billions spent by the
big corporations trying to get every last dime out of some guy who can
barely feed his family. You're really either stupid or a ****.

The top 1% own something like half the country. Sounds like the folks
who are living off welfare checks probably don't own much, or have
much to look forward to in terms of helping their kids get an
education or having a retirement or living in anything resembling
comfort. Those are naturally occuring consequences.

But the fact that the middle class is under siege by the wealthy is
something we should be paying attention to, since our economy depends
on a healthy middle class.

Otherwise, we're going to become Mexico.

I thought that was the dream of the 'progressives'.

You liberals want open borders, no 'rich' (except liberal politicians, whom you never seem to
discuss), and equality for all.

Isn't that what becoming Mexico is all about, senor?


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!


Carlos slim seems to be doing OK; much better than his fellow countrymen.

Much better than every country's men.

An article about medical costs
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:10:39 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:59:08 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.

The word "Paymaster" is going to gain popularity in the US lexicon.

There's for sure nothing biased about Time Magazine!


Salmonbait

Please tell what in the article you disagree with and why.

An article about medical costs
 

In article ,
says...

On 3/11/2013 5:03 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 10:10:39 -0700, jps wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:59:08 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

If you want a VERY informative look at healthcare costs in the U.S. and
why we need reform, get a copy of March 2013 time magazine. If you read
it un-biased, you'll see that something HAS to be done and I for one am
glad that we have a start.

The word "Paymaster" is going to gain popularity in the US lexicon.

There's for sure nothing biased about Time Magazine!

LOL! Yeah, my bud in Florida sent me a subscription once, it was
comical...


Salmonbait

--
'Name-calling'...the liberals' answer to a lost argument!


What in the article on health care costs do you disagree with and why?
Please give examples proving it wrong.

An article about medical costs
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:21:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:



Yep, and Medicare, by law can't negotiate with either hospitals of
Pharma. That's quite a free market system isn't it.

Go read the article again. Medicare pays about 10% of the Charge
Master price on the bills they looked at.
That was a big part of what Brill was saying.

Yes.

An article about medical costs
 

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:49:56 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:56:35 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:37:37 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:39:55 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:21:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:



Yep, and Medicare, by law can't negotiate with either hospitals of
Pharma. That's quite a free market system isn't it.

Go read the article again. Medicare pays about 10% of the Charge
Master price on the bills they looked at.
That was a big part of what Brill was saying.

That isn't a negotiation. They're barred by law from negotiating. It's
a fixed price that Medicare pays. And, 10% of complete bull**** is
still complete bull****. the costs are way below that. Try again.

The 10% is higher than the reality. Medicare pays more like 6-7%
OK I will try quoting the article you didn't seem to read.

Chest X ray $283 Medicare $20.44
Troponin Test $199.Medicare $13.64
CBC $157.61 Medicare $11.02
EKG $1200 Medicare $96
The list goes on


Brill says Medicare does pay too much for medical equipment tho.

What the **** is your problem? You said 10%. They don't negotiate.
It's a fixed percentage for each item. You go read the ****ing
article.

I said 10% and it was actually lower than that. You are right, it is
not a negotiation, they just say what they pay and the provider has
the choice, take it or leave it. A lot of providers are "leaving it"
and not taking Medicare patients.

I laugh when I hear this. They might as well close shop. It's called
"Pricing yourself out of the market." Or maybe "My business would be
profitable if I had any ****ing customers."
I've seen estimates that 70% of all health costs are charged for elderly
care. Jesus, just look around the provider's waiting room.
Then account for the multiple drugs and procedures the old farts are
getting compared the the young.
Half of all health care money to providers already comes from
government. Health care has been for years the biggest socialist
"business" going, after defense.
It's like Northrop Grumman refusing any more defense contracts.
Difference is Northrop Grumman can't be easily replaced by a hungrier
health care provider.
It's really funny hearing this argument.
Besides that, +50% of ALL Medicare cost is spent to keep what might be
called "vegetables" alive for their last 2 months of life.
I don't take a stand end-of-life care, except for myself.
But the solutions to all of this are pretty simple. Cut costs, or cut
services, or pay up.

An article about medical costs
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:05:30 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

I said 10% and it was actually lower than that. You are right, it is
not a negotiation, they just say what they pay and the provider has
the choice, take it or leave it. A lot of providers are "leaving it"
and not taking Medicare patients.

I laugh when I hear this. They might as well close shop. It's called
"Pricing yourself out of the market." Or maybe "My business would be
profitable if I had any ****ing customers."

We are heading toward a two tier system like they have in UK
There are already doctors who are moving into concierge medicine
where they only court rich customers who pay a premium for better
service.
Everyone else may end up standing in line for a 3d world doctor with
English as a second language

Most of the doctors at DeWitt Army Hospital at Fort Belvior were
contract doctors and they were better than the Army docs.

I've seen estimates that 70% of all health costs are charged for elderly
care. Jesus, just look around the provider's waiting room.
Then account for the multiple drugs and procedures the old farts are
getting compared the the young.
Half of all health care money to providers already comes from
government. Health care has been for years the biggest socialist
"business" going, after defense.
It's like Northrop Grumman refusing any more defense contracts.
Difference is Northrop Grumman can't be easily replaced by a hungrier
health care provider.
It's really funny hearing this argument.
Besides that, +50% of ALL Medicare cost is spent to keep what might be
called "vegetables" alive for their last 2 months of life.
I don't take a stand end-of-life care, except for myself.
But the solutions to all of this are pretty simple. Cut costs, or cut
services, or pay up.

Hungrier providers? Like WalMart?

I do tend to agree that we spend too much money on people in the last
6 months of life but when you ask the families, they want that last 6
months with grandma and grandma usually wants it too.
I am a little frustrated by the number of 6 month old artificial hips
we bury.

Most old people never recovery from a broken hip regardless as to
whether it was replaced or not. Too bad we can't just take them out back
and leave them there.

As soon as you bring this up you start hearing about death panels.

An article about medical costs
 

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 01:45:00 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 21:49:56 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 22:56:35 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 17:37:37 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:39:55 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:21:12 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:



Yep, and Medicare, by law can't negotiate with either hospitals of
Pharma. That's quite a free market system isn't it.

Go read the article again. Medicare pays about 10% of the Charge
Master price on the bills they looked at.
That was a big part of what Brill was saying.

That isn't a negotiation. They're barred by law from negotiating. It's
a fixed price that Medicare pays. And, 10% of complete bull**** is
still complete bull****. the costs are way below that. Try again.

The 10% is higher than the reality. Medicare pays more like 6-7%
OK I will try quoting the article you didn't seem to read.

Chest X ray $283 Medicare $20.44
Troponin Test $199.Medicare $13.64
CBC $157.61 Medicare $11.02
EKG $1200 Medicare $96
The list goes on


Brill says Medicare does pay too much for medical equipment tho.

What the **** is your problem? You said 10%. They don't negotiate.
It's a fixed percentage for each item. You go read the ****ing
article.

I said 10% and it was actually lower than that. You are right, it is
not a negotiation, they just say what they pay and the provider has
the choice, take it or leave it. A lot of providers are "leaving it"
and not taking Medicare patients.

Not many actually. Most take it and do just fine. Read the fricken
article! I thought you were claiming to be well-read and reasonable?

An article about medical costs
 

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:31:42 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 10:05:30 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...

I said 10% and it was actually lower than that. You are right, it is
not a negotiation, they just say what they pay and the provider has
the choice, take it or leave it. A lot of providers are "leaving it"
and not taking Medicare patients.

I laugh when I hear this. They might as well close shop. It's called
"Pricing yourself out of the market." Or maybe "My business would be
profitable if I had any ****ing customers."

We are heading toward a two tier system like they have in UK
There are already doctors who are moving into concierge medicine
where they only court rich customers who pay a premium for better
service.
Everyone else may end up standing in line for a 3d world doctor with
English as a second language

I've seen estimates that 70% of all health costs are charged for elderly
care. Jesus, just look around the provider's waiting room.
Then account for the multiple drugs and procedures the old farts are
getting compared the the young.
Half of all health care money to providers already comes from
government. Health care has been for years the biggest socialist
"business" going, after defense.
It's like Northrop Grumman refusing any more defense contracts.
Difference is Northrop Grumman can't be easily replaced by a hungrier
health care provider.
It's really funny hearing this argument.
Besides that, +50% of ALL Medicare cost is spent to keep what might be
called "vegetables" alive for their last 2 months of life.
I don't take a stand end-of-life care, except for myself.
But the solutions to all of this are pretty simple. Cut costs, or cut
services, or pay up.

Hungrier providers? Like WalMart?

I do tend to agree that we spend too much money on people in the last
6 months of life but when you ask the families, they want that last 6
months with grandma and grandma usually wants it too.
I am a little frustrated by the number of 6 month old artificial hips
we bury.

As soon as you bring this up you start hearing about death panels.

Yeah, yeah, the sky is always falling on the right.

An article about medical costs
 

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:25:24 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:13:30 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:22:34 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:04:30 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 11:08:49 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 08:44:49 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

What in the article on health care costs do you disagree with and why?
Please give examples proving it wrong.

Brill did a lot of good research and I believe the cost numbers he
wrote but I disagree that simply putting everyone on Medicare would
fix anything.
Perhaps if they would actually tell us what the tax increase in your
FICA would have to be to do this, people would understand.
Just to pay what Medicare actually costs for seniors right now, the
tax needs to go up about 4% on your "first dollar" income with no cap
(total, both sides).
We spend well over two times what MC takes in with a 3% tax and the
trend is going more in the red every day

Cause you don't know what the **** you're taking about.. that's why
you "disagree."

Are you trying to say the SSA trustees report is a lie?

I'm saying that when you say this **** "but I disagree that simply
putting everyone on Medicare would fix anything" you're making ****
up.

Do I need to tell you what page of the article we are talking about?

Start with the bold print "The way out of the sinkhole"

So, perhaps you need to read that section??

You mean this:

"I was driving through central Florida a year or two ago," says
Medicare's Blum. "And it seemed like every billboard I saw advertised
some hospital with these big shiny buildings or showed some new wing
of a hospital being constructed ... So when you tell me that the
hospitals say they are losing money on Medicare and shifting costs
from Medicare patients to other patients, my reaction is that Central
Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients and all those hospitals
are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell
me they're losing money ... Hospitals don't lose money when they serve
Medicare patients."

or this:

"If that's the case, I asked, why not just extend the program to
everyone and pay for it all by charging people under 65 the kinds of
premiums they would pay to private insurance companies? "That's not
for me to say," Blum replied.

In the debate over controlling Medicare costs, politicians from both
parties continue to suggest that Congress raise the age of eligibility
for Medicare from 65 to 67. Doing so, they argue, would save the
government tens of billions of dollars a year. So it's worth noting
another detail about the case of Janice S., which we examined earlier.
Had she felt those chest pains and gone to the Stamford Hospital
emergency room a month later, she would have been on Medicare, because
she would have just celebrated her 65th birthday.

If covered by Medicare, Janice S.'s $21,000 bill would have been
deeply discounted and, as is standard, Medicare would have picked up
80% of the reduced cost. The bottom line is that Janice S. would
probably have ended up paying $500 to $600 for her 20% share of her
heart-attack scare. And she would have paid only a fraction of that —
maybe $100 — if, like most Medicare beneficiaries, she had paid for
supplemental insurance to cover most of that 20%.

In fact, those numbers would seem to argue for lowering the Medicare
age, not raising it — and not just from Janice S.'s standpoint but
also from the taxpayers' side of the equation. That's not a liberal
argument for protecting entitlements while the deficit balloons. It's
just a matter of hardheaded arithmetic."

An article about medical costs
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 00:02:13 -0400, wrote:


Yes that is the part I was talking about. He sure sounds like he wants
to extend Medicare to everyone.
He also admits that Medicare under payments are made up on the
non-Medicare customers so if everyone was on Medicare, they would not
be able to maintain that lower pricing.
Do you really think everyone would accept the payroll taxes necessary
to make that happen? Bear in mind, even with Medicare, you still need
to buy more insurance. (the "gap" policy")

There's a big difference between what Brill wants and what he said. He
said, and I believee it, that sharing the cost is beneficial for
everyone. His numbers show it. There's huge support for single payer,
which is fine with me. Is it perfect? Is Medicare perfect? No. Does it
need to be fixed? Sure. But not on the backs of the middle and poor.

The "medicare underpayments" are still OVER what the actual costs are,
and since medicare CANT negotiate, those costs can't be lower. That
would be a good first fix.

An article about medical costs
 

On 3/12/13 10:15 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:25:24 -0400, wrote:


Are you trying to say the SSA trustees report is a lie?

I'm saying that when you say this **** "but I disagree that simply
putting everyone on Medicare would fix anything" you're making ****
up.

Do I need to tell you what page of the article we are talking about?

Start with the bold print "The way out of the sinkhole"

So, perhaps you need to read that section??

You mean this:

"I was driving through central Florida a year or two ago," says
Medicare's Blum. "And it seemed like every billboard I saw advertised
some hospital with these big shiny buildings or showed some new wing
of a hospital being constructed ... So when you tell me that the
hospitals say they are losing money on Medicare and shifting costs
from Medicare patients to other patients, my reaction is that Central
Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients and all those hospitals
are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell
me they're losing money ... Hospitals don't lose money when they serve
Medicare patients."

Cost shifting is the name of *the* game in paying for medical care in
this country. Just about everyone in the game does it, too. Yesterday, I
was running errands and picked up an Rx for a neighbor who has the flu.
He is diabetic and takes insulin in those "handy" pen cartridges. The
full "price" of the Rx for a month's supply (one shot a day, three shots
per cartridge), was $800 and change. His co-pay amounted to about 20%,
and his insurance company paid the rest.

Now, you have to ask yourself, why is insulin so damned expensive? It's
not a new drug, it's been around for a long, long time. It's not the
packaging, the cartridges are no more complicated than a decent Pentel
plastic pen. The needles are sold separately. The answer is that
everyone along the way is making a huge profit off this relatively
simple but life extending drug, and that includes the neighbor's
insurance company.

We do almost nothing in this country to actually control medical costs.
If Medicare "under-reimburses," those "lost profits" are assessed
against someone else, either an insurance company or an individual. The
insurance company covers its "losses" by overcharging its clients. In my
wife's field of psychotherapy, psychiatrists charge about $200 per
patient visit, and what do most of them do during that visit, which,
typically, lasts about 15 minutes? They try to find out if the meds they
are prescribing are "helping." They don't provide any therapy; that is
left to various non-medically-degreed mental health professionals. Ever
paid $20 for a Tylenol in a hospital? Or $15 for a package of facial
tissues? It's cost-shifting.

We need to entirely restructure how we pay for medical care in this
country. I don't see it happening, so we all will continue to be ripped
off by the supply chain...hospitals, drug companies, insurance
companies, and to a lesser degree, direct providers of services.

An article about medical costs
 

On 3/13/2013 8:13 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/12/13 10:15 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:25:24 -0400, wrote:


Are you trying to say the SSA trustees report is a lie?

I'm saying that when you say this **** "but I disagree that simply
putting everyone on Medicare would fix anything" you're making ****
up.

Do I need to tell you what page of the article we are talking about?

Start with the bold print "The way out of the sinkhole"

So, perhaps you need to read that section??

You mean this:

"I was driving through central Florida a year or two ago," says
Medicare's Blum. "And it seemed like every billboard I saw advertised
some hospital with these big shiny buildings or showed some new wing
of a hospital being constructed ... So when you tell me that the
hospitals say they are losing money on Medicare and shifting costs
from Medicare patients to other patients, my reaction is that Central
Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients and all those hospitals
are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell
me they're losing money ... Hospitals don't lose money when they serve
Medicare patients."

Cost shifting is the name of *the* game in paying for medical care in
this country. Just about everyone in the game does it, too. Yesterday, I
was running errands and picked up an Rx for a neighbor who has the flu.
He is diabetic and takes insulin in those "handy" pen cartridges. The
full "price" of the Rx for a month's supply (one shot a day, three shots
per cartridge), was $800 and change. His co-pay amounted to about 20%,
and his insurance company paid the rest.

Now, you have to ask yourself, why is insulin so damned expensive? It's
not a new drug, it's been around for a long, long time. It's not the
packaging, the cartridges are no more complicated than a decent Pentel
plastic pen. The needles are sold separately. The answer is that
everyone along the way is making a huge profit off this relatively
simple but life extending drug, and that includes the neighbor's
insurance company.

We do almost nothing in this country to actually control medical costs.
If Medicare "under-reimburses," those "lost profits" are assessed
against someone else, either an insurance company or an individual. The
insurance company covers its "losses" by overcharging its clients. In my
wife's field of psychotherapy, psychiatrists charge about $200 per
patient visit, and what do most of them do during that visit, which,
typically, lasts about 15 minutes? They try to find out if the meds they
are prescribing are "helping." They don't provide any therapy; that is
left to various non-medically-degreed mental health professionals. Ever
paid $20 for a Tylenol in a hospital? Or $15 for a package of facial
tissues? It's cost-shifting.

We need to entirely restructure how we pay for medical care in this
country. I don't see it happening, so we all will continue to be ripped
off by the supply chain...hospitals, drug companies, insurance
companies, and to a lesser degree, direct providers of services.



Krausie needs to get his facts in order before he makes dumb statements
over the internet. You could help cut down excessive cost shifting if
you would only limit your annual checkups to annually instead of monthly.
Are you some kind of hypochondriac, or what.

An article about medical costs
 

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:02:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

The "medicare underpayments" are still OVER what the actual costs are,
and since medicare CANT negotiate, those costs can't be lower. That
would be a good first fix.

Maybe you are one of those Venus Project people who think we should do
away with money but as long as we have money, you need to pay more
than "cost" just to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
"Cost" for the MRI, still does not pay for keeping the building
running. At a certain point you are cutting the pay and benefits for
the workers who do that.
I agree they over use tests but as long as we have lawyers picking
apart every bad outcome, doctors are going to test everything they
think might insulate them from liability.

So.... You are okay with your insurance being charged $30.00 for a
Tylenol? $25.00 for a blanket which is used and washed to be re-used
over and over and can be bought online for $5.00? You do realize these
VERY excessive costs trickle down to the consumer, right?

An article about medical costs
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:58:20 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:02:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

The "medicare underpayments" are still OVER what the actual costs are,
and since medicare CANT negotiate, those costs can't be lower. That
would be a good first fix.

Maybe you are one of those Venus Project people who think we should do
away with money but as long as we have money, you need to pay more
than "cost" just to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
"Cost" for the MRI, still does not pay for keeping the building
running. At a certain point you are cutting the pay and benefits for
the workers who do that.

Huh? The cost of the building is built into the price that is figured
for making a profit. Hospitals are pushing MRIs that don't need to
happen and they are making huge money on the MRIs they have. Read the
****ing article.

I agree they over use tests but as long as we have lawyers picking
apart every bad outcome, doctors are going to test everything they
think might insulate them from liability.

And, yet again, read the ****ing article. Sure, some tort reform needs
to happen, but it's not the "lawyers" fault for all or most of the
medical cost explosion. It's an aspect, but it's mostly the profit
motive, lack of regulation, and inability to negotiate.

An article about medical costs
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:12:20 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 08:13:26 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 3/12/13 10:15 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 21:25:24 -0400, wrote:


Are you trying to say the SSA trustees report is a lie?

I'm saying that when you say this **** "but I disagree that simply
putting everyone on Medicare would fix anything" you're making ****
up.

Do I need to tell you what page of the article we are talking about?

Start with the bold print "The way out of the sinkhole"

So, perhaps you need to read that section??

You mean this:

"I was driving through central Florida a year or two ago," says
Medicare's Blum. "And it seemed like every billboard I saw advertised
some hospital with these big shiny buildings or showed some new wing
of a hospital being constructed ... So when you tell me that the
hospitals say they are losing money on Medicare and shifting costs
from Medicare patients to other patients, my reaction is that Central
Florida is overflowing with Medicare patients and all those hospitals
are expanding and advertising for Medicare patients. So you can't tell
me they're losing money ... Hospitals don't lose money when they serve
Medicare patients."

Cost shifting is the name of *the* game in paying for medical care in
this country. Just about everyone in the game does it, too. Yesterday, I
was running errands and picked up an Rx for a neighbor who has the flu.
He is diabetic and takes insulin in those "handy" pen cartridges. The
full "price" of the Rx for a month's supply (one shot a day, three shots
per cartridge), was $800 and change. His co-pay amounted to about 20%,
and his insurance company paid the rest.

Now, you have to ask yourself, why is insulin so damned expensive? It's
not a new drug, it's been around for a long, long time. It's not the
packaging, the cartridges are no more complicated than a decent Pentel
plastic pen. The needles are sold separately. The answer is that
everyone along the way is making a huge profit off this relatively
simple but life extending drug, and that includes the neighbor's
insurance company.

You forgot the development/approval cost and the lawyer tax. It
probably cost $50 million just to get through FDA testing on the pen
and the first person to get a bad outcome will be suing for another
$50 million.

Bull****. You prefer to blame everyone except the right wingers and
the money that's in the poliitical system from the med lobby.

I can see the ad on TV "Did you use the insulin pen and suffer
anything bad at all? Call Dewey, Chetum and Howe. We have money for
you"

Your solution is to prevent people from being justly compensated. Why
don't you bring up the McDonnalds hot coffee case if you'd like to
look really stupid.

We do almost nothing in this country to actually control medical costs.
If Medicare "under-reimburses," those "lost profits" are assessed
against someone else, either an insurance company or an individual. The
insurance company covers its "losses" by overcharging its clients. In my
wife's field of psychotherapy, psychiatrists charge about $200 per
patient visit, and what do most of them do during that visit, which,
typically, lasts about 15 minutes? They try to find out if the meds they
are prescribing are "helping." They don't provide any therapy; that is
left to various non-medically-degreed mental health professionals. Ever
paid $20 for a Tylenol in a hospital? Or $15 for a package of facial
tissues? It's cost-shifting.

Some of that is simply the red tape required to meet all of the
compliance requirements. ALL drugs in a hospital have inventory
controls you would expect for tracking plutonium. Some of it is simply
to control theft but, again, a lot of it is to mitigate liability
The nurse can't simply go shake a tylenol out of the bottle and give
it to you. They need an order from a doctor, they log it out of the
pharmacy and track it from there to the patient's mouth.
Unfortunately they have similar BS for everything you get and
virtually nothing can be logged back into the system.
The last time I was in the hospital for an outpatient procedure they
issued me a pee bottle. I gave it back to them, still sealed in the
plastic. They said "keep it, we can't give that to another patient
now" It was about $20.

Yeah, a small part of it.

You accepted that $20 pee bottle without complaint right.. because
your insurance was paying not you. That's part of the problem too.
Read the Brill article again.


We need to entirely restructure how we pay for medical care in this
country. I don't see it happening, so we all will continue to be ripped
off by the supply chain...hospitals, drug companies, insurance
companies, and to a lesser degree, direct providers of services.


Sad but true. Maybe if the Charge master was posted on the hospital
web site so everyone could see it, they might have to explain why it
is what it is.

No. Chargemaster needs to be outlawed. Or, they have to justify in
writing each cost item, not just list their made for TV price.

An article about medical costs
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:48:19 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:39:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:02:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

The "medicare underpayments" are still OVER what the actual costs are,
and since medicare CANT negotiate, those costs can't be lower. That
would be a good first fix.

Maybe you are one of those Venus Project people who think we should do
away with money but as long as we have money, you need to pay more
than "cost" just to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
"Cost" for the MRI, still does not pay for keeping the building
running. At a certain point you are cutting the pay and benefits for
the workers who do that.
I agree they over use tests but as long as we have lawyers picking
apart every bad outcome, doctors are going to test everything they
think might insulate them from liability.

So.... You are okay with your insurance being charged $30.00 for a
Tylenol? $25.00 for a blanket which is used and washed to be re-used
over and over and can be bought online for $5.00? You do realize these
VERY excessive costs trickle down to the consumer, right?

I already said, most of that $30 is bureaucratic red tape to avoid
liability.

Just cause you said it doesn't make it a fact. It's bull****. Read the
article.

That blanket is thrown away. I bought one last month and they told me
I could take it home if I wanted.
I agree the prices are inflated. Brill points out several reasons why.

Yet, you just said it was "bureaucratic". So, bull****.

I have already said the Charge Master should be a public record so
people will know what the prices are. They should also publish what
the various negotiated or Medicare capped prices are.

And I said it should be outlawed. What the **** is it for? It's a
funny number designed to rip people off.

There is nothing in this boondoggle that a little sunshine would not
help. The main problem is that the customer is usually totally
ignorant of what the price is that they pay. Most people never get
much farther than "This is not a Bill" on that explanation of benefits
statement.

No that's not the main problem. The main problem is that the customer
has little choice when they show up in the emergency room. You're
going to shop around for a cardiologist while you're have a heart
attack????

An article about medical costs
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:54:16 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:45:47 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 11:58:20 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:02:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

Maybe you are one of those Venus Project people who think we should do
away with money but as long as we have money, you need to pay more
than "cost" just to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
"Cost" for the MRI, still does not pay for keeping the building
running. At a certain point you are cutting the pay and benefits for
the workers who do that.

Huh? The cost of the building is built into the price that is figured
for making a profit. Hospitals are pushing MRIs that don't need to
happen and they are making huge money on the MRIs they have. Read the
****ing article.

That is 2 different issues. Is it over priced and is it necessary in
the first place.

Two issues same result. Ripped off customers.

When Brill talks about the cost of the various tests he is just
talking about that test, not the total infrastructure that supports
the whole operation.

He talked about infrastructure also. Read the article.

I agree they over use tests but as long as we have lawyers picking
apart every bad outcome, doctors are going to test everything they
think might insulate them from liability.

And, yet again, read the ****ing article. Sure, some tort reform needs
to happen, but it's not the "lawyers" fault for all or most of the
medical cost explosion. It's an aspect, but it's mostly the profit
motive, lack of regulation, and inability to negotiate.

Ask your doctor that question. How many things does he do, just to
protect him from being sued? What is his insurance? What does his
insurance carrier pay in settlements before the suit is even filed?
None of those numbers show up when tort lawyers cite the "cost of
litigation".

Ask him what? He doesn't do anything that's unneeded. He's never been
sued as far as I can tell. He gets five stars in all reviews I've
read. He's a great guy and helpful.

Tort reform is needed but it isn't going to solve much. Small potatas.

An article about medical costs
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 15:06:29 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 09:50:56 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:12:20 -0400, wrote:


You forgot the development/approval cost and the lawyer tax. It
probably cost $50 million just to get through FDA testing on the pen
and the first person to get a bad outcome will be suing for another
$50 million.

Bull****. You prefer to blame everyone except the right wingers and
the money that's in the poliitical system from the med lobby.

There is plenty of blame to go around but you can't deny that the FDA
procedures are part of it. That is why drugs and devices usually show
up in Europe years before they are approved here. It is also why
things can be cheaper there.

Tell that to the people who died because of the lack of oversight of
drug mixing pharmacies. What a load of ****. You actually think we
need fewer regulations when it comes to drug safety?


I can see the ad on TV "Did you use the insulin pen and suffer
anything bad at all? Call Dewey, Chetum and Howe. We have money for
you"

Your solution is to prevent people from being justly compensated. Why
don't you bring up the McDonnalds hot coffee case if you'd like to
look really stupid.

You deny there are ads on TV trolling for customers? Why don't you
accept that the lawyers are a big part of the problem? They are big
business too.

They are PART of the problem, but not the biggest or even close to
biggest. Feel free to **** in the wind complaining about lawyers.

We do almost nothing in this country to actually control medical costs.
If Medicare "under-reimburses," those "lost profits" are assessed
against someone else, either an insurance company or an individual. The
insurance company covers its "losses" by overcharging its clients. In my
wife's field of psychotherapy, psychiatrists charge about $200 per
patient visit, and what do most of them do during that visit, which,
typically, lasts about 15 minutes? They try to find out if the meds they
are prescribing are "helping." They don't provide any therapy; that is
left to various non-medically-degreed mental health professionals. Ever
paid $20 for a Tylenol in a hospital? Or $15 for a package of facial
tissues? It's cost-shifting.

Some of that is simply the red tape required to meet all of the
compliance requirements. ALL drugs in a hospital have inventory
controls you would expect for tracking plutonium. Some of it is simply
to control theft but, again, a lot of it is to mitigate liability
The nurse can't simply go shake a tylenol out of the bottle and give
it to you. They need an order from a doctor, they log it out of the
pharmacy and track it from there to the patient's mouth.
Unfortunately they have similar BS for everything you get and
virtually nothing can be logged back into the system.
The last time I was in the hospital for an outpatient procedure they
issued me a pee bottle. I gave it back to them, still sealed in the
plastic. They said "keep it, we can't give that to another patient
now" It was about $20.

Yeah, a small part of it.

You accepted that $20 pee bottle without complaint right.. because
your insurance was paying not you. That's part of the problem too.
Read the Brill article again.

I did not have a choice. I already bought the bottle when they pulled
it from stock. I didn't even see it until I was leaving and it was in
the bag of crap they sold me.

Tha'ts right. You DIDNT have a choice. That's why the chargemaster
**** has to stop and why the government needs to get involved. It's
not a market driven business when half the market can't make a choice.

I agree most people do not care because insurance covers it ... but I
have been saying that all along

You've been saying lots of **** all along. So much that nobody can
figure it out.


We need to entirely restructure how we pay for medical care in this
country. I don't see it happening, so we all will continue to be ripped
off by the supply chain...hospitals, drug companies, insurance
companies, and to a lesser degree, direct providers of services.


Sad but true. Maybe if the Charge master was posted on the hospital
web site so everyone could see it, they might have to explain why it
is what it is.

No. Chargemaster needs to be outlawed. Or, they have to justify in
writing each cost item, not just list their made for TV price.

Chargemaster is just the price list at full retail. They could change
the name if it would make you feel better but the concept will still
be there. It is like that price on the back of a hotel door.

NO IT ISNT. There's no such thing as "full retail". It's a MADE UP
****ING NUMBER THAT HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY. That was in Brill's
article for **** sake.

An article about medical costs
 

On 3/11/2013 9:02 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:07:39 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 3/11/2013 7:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


Is there no end to hard working taxpayers being shaken down for the
enrichment of those who would rather while away the time until the first
of the month to come around so they can get their benefits.

Mikek

Sure. That's the heart of the problem. Not the billions spent by the
big corporations trying to get every last dime out of some guy who can
barely feed his family. You're really either stupid or a ****.

I think corporations are at least as smart as Willie Sutton. They are
more likely to target those with money.
I don't get people living in the land of plenty and having such a
problem surviving let alone thriving. I've seen immigrants arrive here
not speaking the language and have assets over a million dollars in
twenty years.

North Korea doesn't have those evil corporations, need a plane ticket?
Mikek
PS.
The grim suggestion that North Koreans are turning to cannibalism were
reported by the Asia Press, and published in the Sunday Times.

They claim a 'hidden famine' in the farming provinces of North and South
Hwanghae has killed 10,000 people, and there are fears that cannibalism
is spreading throughout the country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8468781.html

An article about medical costs
 

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 16:14:22 -0500, amdx wrote:

On 3/11/2013 9:02 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 20:07:39 -0500, amdx
wrote:

On 3/11/2013 7:51 PM, jps wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 19:59:44 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 12:10:12 -0700, jps wrote:

Military and health care costs have spiraled out of control because no
one wants to appear anti-defense or take on the huge $ in pharma,
non-profit (cough, cough) hospitals, nor face the wrath of their
campaign finance coffers.

Medicine spends about 4 times as much lobby money into our politicians
as the military industrial complex.

That says where the $ is, doesn't it. Is there no end to Americans
being shaken down for the enrichment of the wealthy?


Is there no end to hard working taxpayers being shaken down for the
enrichment of those who would rather while away the time until the first
of the month to come around so they can get their benefits.

Mikek

Sure. That's the heart of the problem. Not the billions spent by the
big corporations trying to get every last dime out of some guy who can
barely feed his family. You're really either stupid or a ****.

I think corporations are at least as smart as Willie Sutton. They are
more likely to target those with money.

They're in a commodity business... 4 billion hamburgs sold. You think
McD's is tarketing Ronmey lookalikes? If so, you're pretty ****ing
stupid.

I don't get people living in the land of plenty and having such a
problem surviving let alone thriving. I've seen immigrants arrive here
not speaking the language and have assets over a million dollars in
twenty years.

Yeah, you don't get it. Most immigrants end up picking veggies in the
fields for less than minimum wage, with no health insurance, and have
to hide in the shadows. Or, they work in a meat packing family until
either they're hurt of can't stand it any more. The immigrants that
you're talking about typically have some sort of support network when
they arrive, like Indians.

North Korea doesn't have those evil corporations, need a plane ticket?
Mikek

I think I'd be happy to chip in on one for you.

PS.
The grim suggestion that North Koreans are turning to cannibalism were
reported by the Asia Press, and published in the Sunday Times.

They claim a 'hidden famine' in the farming provinces of North and South
Hwanghae has killed 10,000 people, and there are fears that cannibalism
is spreading throughout the country.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-8468781.html


So? What the **** does that have to do with medical costs? You ****ing
slimeball.

An article about medical costs
 

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:39:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 23:02:08 -0700, Urin Asshole
wrote:

The "medicare underpayments" are still OVER what the actual costs are,
and since medicare CANT negotiate, those costs can't be lower. That
would be a good first fix.

Maybe you are one of those Venus Project people who think we should do
away with money but as long as we have money, you need to pay more
than "cost" just to keep the wheels of commerce turning.
"Cost" for the MRI, still does not pay for keeping the building
running. At a certain point you are cutting the pay and benefits for
the workers who do that.
I agree they over use tests but as long as we have lawyers picking
apart every bad outcome, doctors are going to test everything they
think might insulate them from liability.

So.... You are okay with your insurance being charged $30.00 for a
Tylenol? $25.00 for a blanket which is used and washed to be re-used
over and over and can be bought online for $5.00? You do realize these
VERY excessive costs trickle down to the consumer, right?

I already said, most of that $30 is bureaucratic red tape to avoid
liability.

No, it's not.

That blanket is thrown away. I bought one last month and they told me
I could take it home if I wanted.
I agree the prices are inflated. Brill points out several reasons why.

No, it's not. Yes, you could take it home, but hospital soft goods are
washed and re-used.

An article about medical costs
 

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:40:55 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...


That blanket is thrown away. I bought one last month and they told me
I could take it home if I wanted.
I agree the prices are inflated. Brill points out several reasons why.

No, it's not. Yes, you could take it home, but hospital soft goods are
washed and re-used.



The blanket they charge you for comes in a factory sealed bag and once
the bag is opened, they throw it away. These are typically OR supplies
and with the number of infections they get sued for they are not
taking chances. That was straight from the OR nurse who sold me the
blanket.

Nope. Not true at all. I have direct knowledge in this. But, let's just
say that your untrue statement was true. Do you think it's good prudent
financial advice to pay 100 times or more for something that you could
get elsewhere for 100 times less? If so, I have a LOT of things I'd like
to sell you.