How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 Oh, those Little Details!!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ]
 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Oh, those Little Details!!

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


50 posted 08-02-2009 09:53 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

My co-pay now to doctors is $15 per visit, $25. for specialist, nothing for procedures and hospitalizations. And only $14. is deducted from my pay.

If/when this bill is passed, as a city employee, I will be forced into the public option and will have to contribute 4% of my gross pay. Sounds like I'll be one of the ones getting screwed in this deal.

And if a compnay doesn't opt to continue private coverage they don't get the government audit. I wonder which way most employers will go?

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


51 posted 08-02-2009 01:27 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
And only $14. is deducted from my pay.

Do you really believe, Denise, that you're getting decent insurance for only $14?

I used to play a lot of poker when I was in the service. I had a guy, once, after winning several hands in a row, gleefully announce he was now playing with my money. I felt like telling him, if it was my money I wanted it back. I didn't, though, because I knew with that attitude it really would be mine again soon enough.

People get funny ideas about money.

The total cost of your insurance program, Denise, is your money the instant it leaves your employer's hands. So is the employer contribution to FICA, your retirement, and any other funds they spend to keep you working for them. All of these contributions and deductions exist because someone somewhere doesn't trust you to manage your own money wisely enough to not become a burden on society. If your employer didn't give someone that money to take care of for you, he'd be giving it directly to you. It's your money.

If you want to avoid comparing apples to oranges, you have to realize that you're currently spending far more than $14 for insurance. Is it more or less than four percent of your gross pay? I have no idea, of course, but statistically we know you're almost certainly paying more than you should. Fifteen years ago, the insurance industry paid ninety-five cents of every premium dollar towards your medical expenses. Today, that has dropped to eighty cents. We know, without absolutely any doubt, they are making HUGE profits.

Those profits aren't coming from your employer, Denise. They're coming right out of your pocket.

That guy who was playing cards against me with "my" money? He gave it all back, of course. He also gave me a good portion of "his" money, which instantly became MY money once it exchanged hands. People get funny ideas about money, and it invariably costs them dearly.

It certainly has cost this country dearly.

It irks me to no end that everyone is talking about medical care as if it's the same thing as medical coverage. People in this thread, and throughout government and the media, keep using the term medical care incorrectly. Your insurance company doesn't provide medical care. They just make it so you don't have to manage your own money wisely enough to avoid becoming a burden. They provide a false sense of security that your medical bills will be covered.

Ultimately, the insurance industry encourages you, albeit inadvertently, to get some funny ideas about money.

When was the last time you bought a car or major appliance and didn't bother to even ask how much it was going to cost? When was the last time you laid out more than a month's wages and didn't at least try to negotiate a better price? Or look around for one? That's capitalism, my friends. It's fueled by supply and demand, which in turn is fueled by a realistic valuation of our exchange currency. When you start playing the game as if you're "playing with someone else's money," capitalism doesn't work so well any more. Denise, you can tell me right off the top of your head how much money is deducted from your paycheck every week. Can you tell me how much the entire insurance policy is costing? Can you tell me how much your last major medical procedure cost? Or are those irrelevant to you because they're someone else's money?

The cost of medical care in this country is sky-high because YOU (the collective you, not picking on Denise), the consumer, stopped caring how much it cost. Someone else is paying for it, right? That someone, however, has very limited negotiating power with your doctor or hospital. Why? Because when they try to negotiate better deals (HMO and all the other things tried over the years), YOU shop around for an insurance policy you like better. Their inevitable response? The market forces them to give you what you want and then raise their rates to cover the escalating cost of medical care. Duh? (Oh, and while we're at it, since the consumer doesn't seem to give a damn any way, let's increase our juice from five to twenty percent.)

Government sponsored programs work, in countries like Canada and Sweden, precisely because they remove consumer choice. You don't get to shop around for different insurance policies any more. That gives your insurance provider (the government) more power to negotiate equitable medical costs. It's certainly not something we should be happy to see. But you didn't do it when you had the chance? It's going to be a little hard to complain, I'm afraid, when your government steps in to glue capitalism back together again.

Insurance, in its current guise, is the greatest economic evil this society has ever faced. It drives a wedge between supply and demand, emasculating the very principals that make capitalism work. Medical coverage is NOT medical care, and this country is never going to get its head screwed on right until it recognizes the difference.

We need to get rid of these funny ideas we have about money and realize it's impossible to play (or pay) with someone's else's cash. Whether it flows through your employer or your government, through private or public insurance, the money that goes into your doctor's pocket always comes out of yours.

Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


52 posted 08-02-2009 02:44 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

The city pays for my health coverage, minus my contribution of $14 per pay or $28. per month. The last estimate that I heard was that the coverage that I have cost around $350. per month. That is one of my benefits of employment, the employer contribution to my health insurance coverage. So I guess it can be looked at as their money or my money. Perhaps salaries would be higher if insurance weren't in the equation at all, but if we decline coverage we don't get additional money in our paychecks.

4% of my gross salary will be much more than I am paying now, and for that I will be put onto the government public health insurance plan.

I've never had a major medical procedure to date, so I can't answer that one.

The point remains that as damaging as insurance companies have been, I don't think having the government step in to be the insurer is preferable, and I don't agree that things are working out so well in Canada & Sweden by removing consumer choice. I'd rather retain choice of an insurer than give up my accessibility to treatment, which seems to be the by-product of the government keeping the costs of medical care low.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


53 posted 08-02-2009 03:04 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The point remains that as damaging as insurance companies have been, I don't think having the government step in to be the insurer is preferable ...

Actually, Denise, I completely agree.

A much better solution would be for you to take your $378 a month and put it in the bank for a rainy day. If you had done that for the past 30 or 40 years, with accumulated interest, you'd likely be able to pay for about any medical procedure you might need. And when you did have to pay for one? With the money coming straight out of your own bank account, I'll bet you'd be mighty interested in how much it cost and whether an equally good doctor could do it for a little less. That's good ol' capitalism at work.  

Unfortunately, most people don't save money for rainy days any more. And people who haven't had time to save, the young adults, they get sick, too, and the days of family helping each other over those humps have long since passed. Family is too busy not saving for those own rainy days, I guess.

Private insurance, however, doesn't work. It never has and never will. Capitalism simply doesn't operate efficiently when you allow someone to get between supply and demand. Consumers end up shopping around for insurance instead of shopping around for the best (cost/benefit ratio) medical treatment. Even now, even today, all the conversations in these forums, across the Internet, in Congress, the Senate, and the White House, testify to the loss of focus where it should be.

The government certainly isn't the best solution. Not by a long shot. It's just the only one we haven't completely botched up yet.  


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


54 posted 08-02-2009 06:58 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


• Sec. 123, Pg. 30 - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE deciding what treatments and benefits you get.

Not true.

There will however be a private/public Health Benefits Advisory Committee who will recommend the minimum benefits that must be supplied by every scheme. The panel will be made up of medical and other experts and will represent all sections of the health industry including consumers.


• Sec. 142, Pg. 42 - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your benefits for you. You have no choice!

Not true.

The Commissioner will be responsible for ensuring that the health care schemes available contain the minimum standards. Suppliers of health schemes are free (in fact encouraged) to supply coverage above the minimum standards.

• Sec. 152, Pg. 50-51 - HC will be provided to ALL NON-US citizens.

Not true

This section stops insurance suppliers from discriminating against people who have personal characteristics that make them more inclined to require future medical treatment.

If eight generations of your family had heart problems this section protects you against being denied cover. If you're obese, a smoker, have a current and ongoing medical condition this section ensures that you'll still get cover.


• Sec. 163, Pg. 58-59 beginning at line 5 - Government will have real-time access to individual’s finances & a National ID health care card will be issued!

Not true

The government will not have access to your finances; this section is basically a list of amendments to the current Social Security Act to allow standardization of electronic and paper data and medical records.

There is a section that mentions the possibility of a national ID card similar to the National Insurance Card issued to everyone in the UK. However this bill does not allow the implementation of such a card, it simply mentions them as a possible mechanism to allow easy access to services at the point of need.


• Sec. 163, Pg. 59, Lines 21-24 - Government will have direct access to your bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

Not true.

This section allows standardised electronic transfer of funds between health care providers insurers and consumers to speed up payments and delivery of services,

• Sec. 164, Pg. 65 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in unions & community organizations (ACORN).

Not true.

This is to stem the drop in retiree benefits supplied by employers and to stop insurers hiking the premiums of any employer offering retiree cover. It ensures that the employer will be paid 80% of any claim over $15000 but less than £90000 where the claimant has retired but is over 55 but less than 65. It's a safety net to ensure those people who retire early maintain the cover they've paid for.

• Sec. 201, Pg. 72, Lines 8-14 - Government is creating an HC Exchange to bring private plans under government control.

Not true.

The Health Insurance Exchange will be similar to the stock exchange, a place where participating insurance suppliers will be able to trade their wares. If you think of it as one of those comparison web sites offered for other services you won't be far from the concept.

I hope that helps Denise. Feel free to ask any questions if anything isn't clear.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


55 posted 08-02-2009 07:03 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Ron,

Just curious, how would those who couldn't save for a rainy day fund their health care requirements if all insurance schemes, both public and private didn't exist?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


56 posted 08-02-2009 07:54 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

You should run for Congress Ron. I like the idea of the money and the power and the decisions being put in the hands of the people where they belong. People being the way they are though I think we do need insurers. But we should take it out of the workplace and give people the same benefit that employers now get, the availability to pay for health insurance with pre-tax dollars. It would truly make it a free market system and drive down the costs. Quite a few of the Republicans have come up with similar plans.

Thanks for going through some of the points Grinch. There will be a commission though to implement the cost/benefit analaysis in deciding what care will be allowed and what will not be allowed. It may not have been one of these points but it is in there somewhere in the 1,000 plus pages. Obama didn't deny it at the last town hall he did when he told that woman that perhaps a pain pill would be the better route to take than the pacemaker.

And if I am the consumer and I am in the public option, something over which I will have no choice, the government will be my insurer and so they will have access to my checking account. I wouldn't want a private insurer having that access either. That is absolutely unacceptable to me. Mistakes can be made, your checks could start bouncing because of it, and it could take months or years before something is corrected/reimbursed, especially if you are dealing with impersonal and/or inept bureaucrats. If I owe them anything they should wait for me to send them a check and vice-versa.

I also don't like the idea of centralizing all the medical data. Privacy can be compromised easily that way. Even young kids have been known to hack into databases.

I don't trust the government with this much power in our lives.

Shouldn't you be asleep by now, Grinch? What's it like close to 2 AM over there?  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


57 posted 08-02-2009 10:36 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/research/obamacare-one-pill-two-pill-red-pill-blue-pill/
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


58 posted 08-03-2009 08:26 AM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

“One particular provision in the Democratic bill has seniors worried, and rightly so. A new “Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation” could ration access to medicines and treatments based on the government’s assessment of the value of a human life and the “cost-effectiveness” of treatment.

This became abundantly clear when Senator Mike Enzi  (R., Wyo.) introduced an amendment designed to ensure that the new center could not put a value on life-saving treatment by using “quality of life” and “cost-effectiveness” measures “for the denial of Medicare benefits to patients against their wishes.” Because Democrats rejected the amendment in a party-line vote, the proposed new entity would be able to impose restrictions on access to treatment, as is common in European countries with socialized medicine. Elderly, disabled, and medically dependent patients would be at greatest risk of being denied necessary care.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NDNiNDIzOTBlMzQ4YjE4MmYwZDc2YTNjNjQyYjBiNGY=

.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


59 posted 08-03-2009 10:01 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Good reply, Ron. I do have a problem with a couple of points, though. Yes, people could put aside their own money for those rainy days. They could do the same with car insurance, property insurance, life insurance and all of the other insurances. Car insurance we are forced to carry to be able to drive. Homeowner's insurance we are requires to have to get a loan. Now we could all wait and save our pennies to buy our vehicles and houses in cash, I suppose, but how many people will be able to do that? And if your house burns down and the sparks happen to burn down  the house next to yours due to YOUR fire, did you set aside enough money for a rainy day for THAT? And, if you happen to have a heart attack while driving, and kill someone else will your rainy day fund cover that? As far as health insurance is concerned, even 20 year old can get sick with major diseases or have accidents that require major medical care. Maybe they didn't have enough rainy day time to prepare. Does one say...too bad? We don't live in a world now where, if your barn burns down, the neighbors all come over for a barn raising party and help you build a new one. Unions are simply another insurance company. "Pay us so much a month and, if the company tries to screw you over, we go to bat for you". The people could simply set money aside in case something happened to their job. So then, I'm setting aside money to buy a house, buy a car, pay for my burial should I die, have a fund to get me through in case I lose my job, pay others for any damages any accident of mine may cause...I better have one heck of a salary to handle all of those rainy day fund deposits.

Insurance is not evil. It's like A.R. said about cash.."Money is not evil - it's the love of money that is". Insurance is a rational vehicle for protection. What the insurance companies have  done to it, though, have created an abomination. What the lawyers have done to cause (or give insurance companies an excuse to) insurance rates to go sky high is also an abomination. What doctors have had to pay to get the insurance coverage that is required to pay lawsuits is another one. THOSE are the problems with our health coverage.

Are those things mentioned in Obama's plan for his universal health care? I would think they must be but I see no mention of tort reform or anything like it in the papers or political conversations on tv or even coming from Obama himself in his town meetings. Just the last couple of days the White House machine has begun a campaign against the evil insurance companies. One has to wonder, though, if they are sincere about it or just throwing out a boogy man fro the populace to join the government in squashing....still nothing about lawyers and tort reform.

When you get a flat tire, you change it. You don't junk the car. When your health care system has a flat tire or two, you change them. You don't junk the system, which many, including those in other countries, will claim is the greatest in the world. SOmeone sincere about making the health care system work more efficiently and able to cover more people will go after the non-medical facets of it that are not allowing that to happen. When I hear Obama, or any president, saying he is going after insurance companies and lawyers to normalize the health care system - and actually does it - then I will believe and support them. That's not what Obama wants, however. He simply wants government control of it in the same way he wants government control of basically everything in our lives. That is what drives him and the Democratic leadership behind him and he will trash the system we have now to get it, even if it brings on inferior care to the populace. He has underestimated the American people this time, though, into thinking that his smooth rhetoric and foretelling of gloom and destruction (once again) will persuade them to support yet another government takeover, His attempt to get it past the radar before they could react has failed and he has a tougher road ahead than he thought to be able to pull it off. Let him go after the regulation of the insurance companies and lawyers and leave the medical system out of it and he has my support. Won't see that happening, though. Insurance companies have lobbyists and Congress is contructed mainly of lawyers. It would be nice if he could put as much effort into cleaning up Washington as he is trying to do with health care...but we won't see that, either.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


60 posted 08-03-2009 10:31 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

They certainly underestimated us in Philly yesterday!
http://panzramic.com/index.php?q=node/341
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


61 posted 08-03-2009 11:28 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Very interesting, Denise. I especially like the part where the lady in the wheelchair asked about the Community Choice Act, to which Sebilius responded that Specter had told her it was in the Senate draft and, when one audience member called out that it was not, Specter had to take the mike and say, "Well, it isn't now but we plan on putting it in later", and received catcalls and boos. deservedly so. One has to almost feel sorry for Specter and the rest. They are trying to sell a bill they really know nothing about and haven't even read.

...and this is from the city of Brotherly Love! Wait till they get to the tough spots!

When Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius and Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA) came to the National Constitution Center to answer questions about health care reform, they were greeted by an overflow crowd of approximately 400 people, the majority of whom were supporters with legitimate questions.

Unfortunately, though, a well-organized, belligerent and loud group of right-wingers stood in the aisles and across the back and disrupted the town meeting throughout.
Gee, what a surprise coming from the Huffington Post. I saw no majority of supporters but I did see people with legitimate questions, which were not answered. Apparently that makes them belligerant....how about angry at the snow job Spector and the others have been sent out to do? There was one chant that hit the mark...READ THE BILL!!!  Now THAT would be novel...
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


62 posted 08-03-2009 11:45 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     I think Grinch has addressed the issues Huan Yi has brought up relating to the health care bill in his write up above.  There is another issue related to this, however, that pertains to evaluations of treatments and outcomes that should be mentioned because I don't believe anybody has brought it up as yet, and it is to the point.

     Folks are going with the assumption that more treatment is better treatment.  This may not be necessarily so.  Take for example, the case of hysterectomies.  The percentage of hysterectomies performed tend to vary greatly from area to area.  Some areas show a much higher instance of hysterectomies than other areas, and certain hospitals and physicians in those areas show the majority of those cases.  Research on the necessity of these operations may show that the number of hysterectomies, at least in some places, is way too high, and that they may be performed much more than necessary.  

     When I was a child, tonsillectomy was very common.  Among the kids I knew, almost all of them had had the operation done.  Today, one scarcely hears of it.  I would be interested in knowing if there had been a regional difference in the number of those operations performed;  I don't know if there's data available.  It seems reasonable, however, to imagine that there may be cheaper more effective treatments available that out to be tried first, unless the situation presents itself as an emergency.  It seems reasonable to see if the same were true for hysterectomies.

     Doctors depend on such research to tell them whether in a particular case a cancer requires a radical mastectomy or a lumpectomy and have developed a procedure that is an effective test for helping them make that decision.  These are things you want to know about procedures as a patient.  These are things your insurance company wants to know now, and if the government is smart, they will want to continue to know things like this if they get involved in evaluating health care insurance.

     It turns out that this sort of research may be very closely linked to malpractice insurance costs as well.    
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


63 posted 08-03-2009 11:49 AM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Yep, that would be novel, Michael!

Actually the crowd estimate was closer to 1,000. That is a huge hall, and it was standing room only. But the liberal blogs and media are always underestimating our total turnouts. And the breakdown by those on hand was approximately 60/40, 60 being the regular folks and 40 being the Acorn/SEIU plants.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


64 posted 08-03-2009 01:33 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
Just curious, how would those who couldn't save for a rainy day fund their health care requirements if all insurance schemes, both public and private didn't exist?

I don't know, Grinch, the same thing we do with people who can't save enough to put food on the table or a roof over their heads in between pay checks?

There are a lot of people in this world who have no choices. I know that, and I honestly think we have to help them, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it's in everyone's best interest. Most people, however, have choices. They just continue to make unwise ones. In either case, however, I don't think a system that disrupts the mechanisms of free enterprise for everyone else is the best answer.

quote:
I better have one heck of a salary to handle all of those rainy day fund deposits.

Put that way, Mike, it really does sound onerous. Perhaps even impossible?

Which, I guess, is why the insurance companies are all going broke? I mean, that's what they're doing isn't it? Putting aside your money for a rainy day? And, for their troubles, keeping not just the investment interest, but twenty percent of the principal?

Buying insurance for your car, your house, your medical coverage, all of it, is no different than buying insurance at the blackjack table in Vegas. The mathematical odds are known, verifiable, and overwhelmingly against you. If you're going to gamble, you might as well spend your money on lottery tickets instead and gamble big.

quote:
When you get a flat tire, you change it. You don't junk the car.

Agreed, Mike.

And when you have smoke rolling out from under the hood, you don't get out of the car and ploddingly change one of the tires. Won't do no good.

There seems to be a lot of evidence, Mike, and even a lot of bipartisan agreement, that American has problems that far exceed a simple flat tire. Even the Republican Strategy drafted by Frank Luntz recognizes that.

quote:
When I hear Obama, or any president, saying he is going after insurance companies and lawyers to normalize the health care system - and actually does it - then I will believe and support them.

He can't say that, Mike, not any more than Bush can safely characterize military action as a crusade.

If you read between the lines of the bill, however, you should discover you're going to get your wish. Insurance companies will no longer be able to over-charge for under-coverage, and the lawyers will have extensively fewer grounds for frivolous law suits. They're both going to end up making a lot less money (which explains why both are fighting the bill tooth and nail). And that money they don't make is going to end up in OUR pockets.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


65 posted 08-03-2009 03:07 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Ron,

quote:
There are a lot of people in this world who have no choices. I know that, and I honestly think we have to help them, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it's in everyone's best interest.


Those were the people I was talking about.

As far as people who can but make the choice not to I'm 100% with you. I don't have private health insurance, despite my company offering, what most people would call, a very good scheme. Instead I save my money, and if and when I need to, I pay for any additional treatment I need. Of course over here there's always the NHS, my preference would be to opt out of that if I could.

When contemplating a system without health insurance though I always get stuck on the genuine "have nots". The only answer I ever come up with is a central fund raised through taxes that supplies services only to those in real need based on "means testing", a much maligned system, at least in the UK but one proposed by Ross Perot in 1992 as a possible answer to rising social security cost. A system I think should be looked at again.

I think eventual it will come; rising costs will naturally force a reduction in eligibility for all social systems including health care until the only people it'll cover are those it has to cover. Until then this bill is, in my opinion, a good answer to the wrong problem.

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


66 posted 08-03-2009 03:33 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Thanks for going through some of the points Grinch.


Err.. I thought I went over ALL of your points Denise.



If you have any more though fire away, I'll be happy to read the relevant section of the bill and get back to you if you supply the details.

quote:
There will be a commission though to implement the cost/benefit analaysis in deciding what care will be allowed and what will not be allowed. It may not have been one of these points but it is in there somewhere in the 1,000 plus pages.


I honestly haven't come across anything like that, I'll Google the claim though and try to find the relevant page and section that supposedly says that.

I'm guessing that it isn't true, but we'll see.



EDIT..............
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2009/07/whats-in-healthacre-bill.html

I think I found the fruitcake making the inane claims.

Are there any you want me to shoot holes in Denise?

.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


67 posted 08-03-2009 04:04 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

I just gave a sampling of the entire list, that's why I said some...not some of the sampling, some of the entire list.

It's in there somewhere Grinch because Obama was talking about cost/benefit at the town hall and probably a pill instead of a pacemaker is the better route as well as the blue pill vs. red pill example.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


68 posted 08-03-2009 06:22 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Denise,

          See my posting # 62.

Bob Kaven
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


69 posted 08-03-2009 06:57 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

Ah!

You mean comparative analysis Denise.

I thought I'd nailed that one in post 42

quote:
As I understand it the comparative analysis and cost analysis suggested is to compare types of treatment not to rate the requirement and eligibility of individuals. This goes back to our pacemaker conversation, if you compare the minimum $12,000 cost of a pacemaker against the $3 pain pill the pain pill wins in a cost/benefit analysis in 30% of the 200000 + cases of pacemakers fitted last year.


What you're talking about is on page 502 - section 1181

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically.

They look at the cost of the blue pill and the cost of the red pill and if they both offer the same benefit they go for the one with the lower cost.

They look at the 30% of pacemakers that didn't need to be fitted and find an alternate and more cost effective treatment.

That's just common sense Denise and if the administration doesn't do it they deserve to be hung from the nearest lamppost, I mean, who wants to pay more for something when there's a cheaper alternative?

  

Is there anything else on the list you want me to check?

I've had a quick look and I think i can show that none of them hold much water.
.
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


70 posted 08-03-2009 07:07 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

     "I think Grinch has addressed the issues Huan Yi has brought up relating to the health care bill in his write up above"


The write up is by a U.S. senator.

"Sam Brownback is a U.S. senator from Kansas and the ranking Republican on the Joint Economic Committee."

.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


71 posted 08-03-2009 07:14 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Huan,

The Senator is wrong.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


72 posted 08-03-2009 08:05 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

quote:



     "I think Grinch has addressed the issues Huan Yi has brought up relating to the health care bill in his write up above"


The write up is by a U.S. senator.

"Sam Brownback is a U.S. senator from Kansas and the ranking Republican on the Joint Economic Committee."





Dear Huan Yi,

          The statement is by you.  You are using the quote to advance a point of view.  Had the statement not been by you and had it not been to make a point, it would not have appeared in these pages, would it?  Because it certainly wasn't actual hard news or information.   It was opinion.  

     You are the one who brought those issues up to us.

     Similarly, had you wished to distance yourself from ownership of those particular words, you had the option of saying, "As Sam Brownback, our ranking Republican senator from Kansas said. . ."  You chose not to do that.  Only your usual, The National Review.  

Yours, Bob Kaven

    
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 10-12-2004
Posts 6334
Waukegan


73 posted 08-03-2009 08:18 PM       View Profile for Huan Yi   Email Huan Yi   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Huan Yi

.

"The Senator is wrong."

Yet now, isn’t that a tiny bit scary?

Just who is it that knows?

.
nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


74 posted 08-03-2009 08:29 PM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

"They look at the cost of the blue pill and the cost of the red pill and if they both offer the same benefit they go for the one with the lower cost."

Grinch ...hoping this is what will happen ...since I cannot afford health insurance at the moment and have been pretty healthy up until recently needing now to lower my blood pressure...

Why is it the Dr. precribes for me (knowing I am someone without health insurance and needing to pay the full cost of a prescription and visit in cash) a medicine that will cost me $70.00/ month when there are generic $4 ones that every one lines up for at the pharmacies and will do the same thing?

This one is a new one I guess that the salesman for the pharmaceutical company decided to try to get Drs to use and so the Dr gave me a few weeks first of the samples which did work...but

tomorrow I will have to go back to the dr
(without an appointment because that would cost me over $120 for the visit just to ask him a question) so I will  drop by the office desk and ask if the DR can call in a generic  prescription, hoping he will ok it.

that to me is an example of wasteful spending of my money on  medicine when I am trying to  come up with  enough money to have some form of health insurance which $70/month would be better used towards, although it will take closer to $300 a month for  insurance and I will still have a $5000.00 deductible that unless I  have  some major illness I will never reach in a year's time.

And it isn't that I don't work, although for the summer I am off. A substitute teacher, even long term, does not qualify for any benefits and  isn't even offered the chance to pay into any plans that the teachers and other county employees have, even if working every single school day in a year.


just relating my present situation ~~
M

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> Oh, those Little Details!!   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors