1) tort reform. Cap/elimiate punitive damages obviously. but also cap the other as well(a less strigent cap of course). That would save *massive* dollars because physicians wouldn't be ordering 900 dollar ct's for everyone who bumped their head to make sure there isn't a bleed. Or abdominal ct's for everyone who has an upset stomach.
2) Increase medicare reimbursement rates.
3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
4) give individuals who want to buy their own health insurance the same tax breaks as corporations that provide health insurance for their employees.
5) allow physicians and hospitals greater flexibility in aggressively going after deliquent payments from patients
On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the there would be no policies available except ones from those states, and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or just about any national credit card issuer)
On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
> This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to > people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really > happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to > close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the > laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the > there would be no policies available except ones from those states, > and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that > said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South > Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or > just about any national credit card issuer)
yes, lets look at credit card issuers, like my credit union 3 mile from my house. Seems they and thousands of other credit card issuers haven't moved their credit card operation to Delaware.
On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
> This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to > people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really > happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to > close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the > laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the > there would be no policies available except ones from those states, > and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that > said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South > Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or > just about any national credit card issuer)
thinking about this, and your position on nationalizing health care, do you advocate nationalizing credit cards? Everyone, rich or poor, can only get a credit card from the U.S. Government?
On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 2) Increase medicare reimbursement rates.
I can see why you want this, but it's not going to happen. Reimbursement rates are trending downward and are increasingly being tied to patient saftisfaction (HCAHPS).
On Nov 5, 10:37 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> thinking about this, and your position on nationalizing health care, > do you advocate nationalizing credit cards? Everyone, rich or poor, > can only get a credit card from the U.S. Government?
Why does it have to be either/or?
And you'd do well to remember Liberals have given up that fight in regards to health care reform anyway. Public Option != Single Payer. ESPECIALLY weakened ones with 1. negotiated rates 2. opt-outs and worst of all 3. apparently only available tolike at most 10% of the population. "big evil gubament socialist takeover" rhetoric from Orrin Hatch or Michelle Bachmann types doesn't change that.
Also I find it interesting how you framed your question as an either/ or.
If we're talking about credit, i'm pretty sure one can get loans for a mortgage or school from private banks, or from the gubament.
> On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
> > This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to > > people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really > > happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to > > close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the > > laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the > > there would be no policies available except ones from those states, > > and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that > > said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South > > Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or > > just about any national credit card issuer)
> yes, lets look at credit card issuers, like my credit union 3 mile > from my house. Seems they and thousands of other credit card issuers > haven't moved their credit card operation to Delaware.
That's only because the existence of Delaware has forced your state to gut their consumer protections for credit cards to try to keep some of that business in state. Same deal with health insurance, if the cross- state-lines trojan horse passes.
Besides, in health insurance, there are a hell of a lot more citibanks than credit unions. And what was supposed to be the credit unions of health care, Blue Cross and Blue Shield cooperatives, have already shown themselves to be indistinguishable from big corporate insurers once their exectuives and board members decide they want to be paid like their corporate counterparts. Come to think of it, that's already happening in my credit union.
> On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
> > This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to > > people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really > > happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to > > close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the > > laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the > > there would be no policies available except ones from those states, > > and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that > > said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South > > Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or > > just about any national credit card issuer)
> thinking about this, and your position on nationalizing health care, > do you advocate nationalizing credit cards? Everyone, rich or poor, > can only get a credit card from the U.S. Government?
No. Health care is a little bit more important than credit cards. You can get by without credit cards, they are a choice to have or not have (just ask Dave Ramsey). But not without health care. Of course if the GOP gets its way, health care may get its own Dave Ramsey ("I am health care free and happy!!!")
On Nov 5, 9:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to > people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really > happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to > close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the > laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the > there would be no policies available except ones from those states, > and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that > said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South > Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or > just about any national credit card issuer)
So your solution is to move the entire mess to Washington DC?
BillyZoom wrote: > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> 2) Increase medicare reimbursement rates.
> I can see why you want this, but it's not going to happen. > Reimbursement rates are trending downward and are increasingly being > tied to patient saftisfaction (HCAHPS).
We have the best doctors in the world, and a lot of them, and that's a very good thing. I'd be against any policy that tries to save money by scrimping on doctor salaries and thus drive from that profession the best and brightest.
-- "when i visited Aden before collectivization, all the markets were full of fish product. After collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
On Nov 5, 12:53 pm, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
> We have the best doctors in the world, and a lot of them, and that's a > very good thing. I'd be against any policy that tries to save money by > scrimping on doctor salaries and thus drive from that profession the > best and brightest.
But you're apparently OK that we do it with the presidency?
I think the term "doctor" is too generalized. We have specialists, we have surgeons, we have family practioners, we have kickback recipients, we have guys going through the motions, we have basically front-line tech support ("is the computer on") PAs and "doctors" ("did you check to see if you logged in"), etc.
I'm, frankly, very discouraged with our family physician ... well, our family's "practice group." And it's not just then, I can't remember the last time I had a competent, sincere physician. For anything outside of a physical (yeah, you're fine) or a "I know I need an antibiotic and the only way is to go see this guy," my doctor's have been crap the past 15 years or so. Even when we went to see the local, highly-esteemed neurologist a few years ago for my wife, he didn't solve her migraine problems, I did when I figured out that she was dehydrated. The doctors simply pumped her full of masking agents, but they had no clue what was really going on.
So I have no problem with bringing costs down to reasonable levels for what is basically a turnkey operation now. Specialists can make whatever they can, but the majority of "doctors" that are lumped into the sum are not worth the premium.
> BillyZoom wrote: > > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> 2) Increase medicare reimbursement rates.
> > I can see why you want this, but it's not going to happen. > > Reimbursement rates are trending downward and are increasingly being > > tied to patient saftisfaction (HCAHPS).
> We have the best doctors in the world, and a lot of them, and that's a > very good thing. I'd be against any policy that tries to save money by > scrimping on doctor salaries and thus drive from that profession the > best and brightest.
> -- > "when i visited Aden before collectivization, > all the markets were full of fish product. After > collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
> - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
Actually, it's already happening in Primary Care. A lot of doctors are giving up their practices and becoming management.
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:53:41 -0600, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: >BillyZoom wrote: >> On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> 2) Increase medicare reimbursement rates.
>> I can see why you want this, but it's not going to happen. >> Reimbursement rates are trending downward and are increasingly being >> tied to patient saftisfaction (HCAHPS).
>We have the best doctors in the world, and a lot of them,
> On Nov 5, 10:37 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
> > > This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > > > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to > > > people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really > > > happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to > > > close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the > > > laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the > > > there would be no policies available except ones from those states, > > > and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that > > > said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South > > > Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or > > > just about any national credit card issuer)
> > thinking about this, and your position on nationalizing health care, > > do you advocate nationalizing credit cards? Everyone, rich or poor, > > can only get a credit card from the U.S. Government?
> No. Health care is a little bit more important than credit cards. > You can get by without credit cards, they are a choice to have or not > have (just ask Dave Ramsey). But not without health care. Of course > if the GOP gets its way, health care may get its own Dave Ramsey ("I > am health care free and happy!!!")
Okay, how about universal shelter? Why shouldn't the government give everyone a "free" house. Shelter trumps health care when it comes to basic survival.
BTW - no one can legally be denied health care in this country.
> On Nov 5, 9:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to > > people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really > > happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to > > close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the > > laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the > > there would be no policies available except ones from those states, > > and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that > > said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South > > Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or > > just about any national credit card issuer)
> So your solution is to move the entire mess to Washington DC?
> BRILLIANT!!!!
I hope he never has to deal with a social security disability claim and appeals process.
> On Nov 5, 8:19 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 10:37 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
> > > > This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > > > > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to > > > > people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really > > > > happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country to > > > > close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with the > > > > laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years the > > > > there would be no policies available except ones from those states, > > > > and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the fine print that > > > > said that all appeals have to be filed in our home state of South > > > > Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank or > > > > just about any national credit card issuer)
> > > thinking about this, and your position on nationalizing health care, > > > do you advocate nationalizing credit cards? Everyone, rich or poor, > > > can only get a credit card from the U.S. Government?
> > No. Health care is a little bit more important than credit cards. > > You can get by without credit cards, they are a choice to have or not > > have (just ask Dave Ramsey). But not without health care. Of course > > if the GOP gets its way, health care may get its own Dave Ramsey ("I > > am health care free and happy!!!")
> Okay, how about universal shelter? Why shouldn't the government give > everyone a "free" house. Shelter trumps health care when it comes to > basic survival.
> BTW - no one can legally be denied health care in this country.
I'm curious here because I really don't know, but how does one with cancer receive radiation or chemotherapy if they don't have insurance and can't pay out of pocket?
On Nov 5, 1:36 pm, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh Sullivan) wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:53:41 -0600, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote: > >BillyZoom wrote: > >> On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> 2) Increase medicare reimbursement rates.
> >> I can see why you want this, but it's not going to happen. > >> Reimbursement rates are trending downward and are increasingly being > >> tied to patient saftisfaction (HCAHPS).
> >We have the best doctors in the world, and a lot of them,
> ...and more coming from India all the time.
True. My wifes OB/GYN for our first child was from India and was a great doctor...unfortunately she moved and we had to find a new doc, but this new one seems pretty good too.
> On Nov 5, 8:19 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 5, 10:37 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
>> > > This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a >> > > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous >> > > to people who don't put much thought into it, but what would >> > > really happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the >> > > country to close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 >> > > states with the laxest regulation and oversight, and within a >> > > couple of years the there would be no policies available except >> > > ones from those states, and when you get screwed too bad, didn't >> > > you read the fine print that said that all appeals have to be >> > > filed in our home state of South Dakota, in person, under their >> > > nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank o > r >> > > just about any national credit card issuer)
>> > thinking about this, and your position on nationalizing health >> > care, do you advocate nationalizing credit cards? Everyone, rich >> > or poor, can only get a credit card from the U.S. Government?
>> No. Health care is a little bit more important than credit cards. >> You can get by without credit cards, they are a choice to have or not >> have (just ask Dave Ramsey). But not without health care. Of course >> if the GOP gets its way, health care may get its own Dave Ramsey ("I >> am health care free and happy!!!")
> Okay, how about universal shelter? Why shouldn't the government give > everyone a "free" house.
The government should make sure that everyone has shelter. Should they provide it for everyone? No. Should they make provisions for sheltering the worst off among us that can't afford housing? Absolutely.
Dan Bretta wrote: > On Nov 5, 2:38 pm, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> On Nov 5, 8:19 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 10:37 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
>>>>> This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a >>>>> disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous to >>>>> people who don't put much thought into it, but what would really >>>>> happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the country >>>>> to close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 states with >>>>> the laxest regulation and oversight, and within a couple of years >>>>> the there would be no policies available except ones from those >>>>> states, and when you get screwed too bad, didn't you read the >>>>> fine print that said that all appeals have to be filed in our >>>>> home state of South Dakota, in person, under their nonexistent >>>>> rules? (see: Citibank or just about any national credit card >>>>> issuer)
>>>> thinking about this, and your position on nationalizing health >>>> care, do you advocate nationalizing credit cards? Everyone, rich >>>> or poor, can only get a credit card from the U.S. Government?
>>> No. Health care is a little bit more important than credit cards. >>> You can get by without credit cards, they are a choice to have or >>> not have (just ask Dave Ramsey). But not without health care. Of >>> course if the GOP gets its way, health care may get its own Dave >>> Ramsey ("I am health care free and happy!!!")
>> Okay, how about universal shelter? Why shouldn't the government give >> everyone a "free" house. Shelter trumps health care when it comes to >> basic survival.
>> BTW - no one can legally be denied health care in this country.
> I'm curious here because I really don't know, but how does one with > cancer receive radiation or chemotherapy if they don't have insurance > and can't pay out of pocket?
> Dan
Drug companies often comp the drugs and the oncologist comps the time. Then both likely write those off as charity care. You may not get the newest, latest, greatest drugs though, but you may have limited access to those in many single-payer systems.
J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:53:41 -0600, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>> BillyZoom wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> 2) Increase medicare reimbursement rates.
>>> I can see why you want this, but it's not going to happen. >>> Reimbursement rates are trending downward and are increasingly being >>> tied to patient saftisfaction (HCAHPS).
>> We have the best doctors in the world, and a lot of them,
> BTW - no one can legally be denied health care in this country.
Well, first of all, that's false. Nobody is obligated to remove your malignant tumor.
Secondly, to the extent it is true, it only underscores the idiocy of your position. If you want to see a doc, sure, you can head to the local ER and they have to see you. For that, the taxpayers get handed a 4-digit bill (not counting anything after the decimal point). Why do you think it's a good idea to perpetuate such a system?
> > On Nov 5, 8:19 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 5, 10:37 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> > On Nov 5, 6:26 am, xyzzy <xyzzy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > > On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > > > 3) allow people to buy coverage across state lines.
> >> > > This idea is a GOP/insurance company Trojan Horse and would be a > >> > > disaster, not surprising you'd fall for it. It sounds innocuous > >> > > to people who don't put much thought into it, but what would > >> > > really happen is that it would cause every health insurer in the > >> > > country to close their doors and reincorporate in the 1 or 2 > >> > > states with the laxest regulation and oversight, and within a > >> > > couple of years the there would be no policies available except > >> > > ones from those states, and when you get screwed too bad, didn't > >> > > you read the fine print that said that all appeals have to be > >> > > filed in our home state of South Dakota, in person, under their > >> > > nonexistent rules? (see: Citibank o > > r > >> > > just about any national credit card issuer)
> >> > thinking about this, and your position on nationalizing health > >> > care, do you advocate nationalizing credit cards? Everyone, rich > >> > or poor, can only get a credit card from the U.S. Government?
> >> No. Health care is a little bit more important than credit cards. > >> You can get by without credit cards, they are a choice to have or not > >> have (just ask Dave Ramsey). But not without health care. Of course > >> if the GOP gets its way, health care may get its own Dave Ramsey ("I > >> am health care free and happy!!!")
> > Okay, how about universal shelter? Why shouldn't the government give > > everyone a "free" house.
> The government should make sure that everyone has shelter. Should they > provide it for everyone? No. Should they make provisions for sheltering > the worst off among us that can't afford housing? Absolutely.
But they don't, and shelter trumps health care. Especially in the winter.
On Nov 5, 2:04 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> lein wrote, On 11/5/09 2:38 PM:
> > BTW - no one can legally be denied health care in this country.
> Well, first of all, that's false. Nobody is obligated to > remove your malignant tumor.
What is the cancer survival rate in the U.S. compared to the UK or Canada?
Hey, we could just put them on a waiting list and call that "providing care".
> Secondly, to the extent it is true, it only underscores the > idiocy of your position. If you want to see a doc, sure, you > can head to the local ER and they have to see you. For that, > the taxpayers get handed a 4-digit bill (not counting anything > after the decimal point). Why do you think it's a good idea > to perpetuate such a system?
And taxpayers get handed many more bills when Medicare cost shifts its cost to private insurers.
Also, show me evidence that medicare users use the emergency room less than uninsured.
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:11:31 -0600, "TimV" <nos...@nospam.org> wrote: >J. Hugh Sullivan wrote: >> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:53:41 -0600, stephenJ <sjar...@pop.com> wrote:
>>> BillyZoom wrote: >>>> On Nov 4, 10:01 pm, mianderson <mianderso...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>> 2) Increase medicare reimbursement rates.
>>>> I can see why you want this, but it's not going to happen. >>>> Reimbursement rates are trending downward and are increasingly being >>>> tied to patient saftisfaction (HCAHPS).
>>> We have the best doctors in the world, and a lot of them,
>> ...and more coming from India all the time.
>> Hugh
>They are often better doctors too.
>T
2 of 3 of my regular physicians are from India so it's obvious that I don't have a problem.
|
