Almost 1 out of 3 Physicians May Leave Medicine
From a survey of physicians conducted by The Medicus Firm in December 2009, and appearing in the latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine:
"If health reform passes without the public option, 7.4% of physicians stated that they would quit practicing medicine, unless they were nearing retirement, in which case an additional 21.8% of the responsdents said they would retire early, bringing the total loss of physician workforce to nearly one-third of physicians leaving medicine.
"What many people may not realize is that health reform could impact physician supply in such a way that the quality of healthcare could suffer," states Jim Stone, Managing Partner at The Medicus Firm's Dallas office. "Based on the physicians' responses to the survey, health reform could significantly intensify the effects of the physician shortage. Depending upon which version of the health reform bill passes, the reality is that there may not be enough doctors to provide quality medical care to all of these newly insured people."
Over 50% of physicians who responded predict that health reform would cause the quality of medical care to deteriorate in America. When asked how health reform could affect the quality of medical care, 40.7% stated it would "decline or worsen somewhat," while another 14.4% stated that the quality of medical care would "decline or worsen dramatically". If a public option is implemented as part of health reform, 64.1% of physicians predict that the quality of medical care in general will decline."
119 Comments:
Carpe, isn't this kind of "quality control" argument the kind made by every conspiracy in restraint of trade? Have you written anything about the anticompetitive effects of physician unionism in promoting, e.g., restrictive definitions of what counts as medical practice; barriers to entry of foreign physicians, of new medical schools. Now that am at it, why would any libertarian tolerate physician licensing in any form?
Well, he'd tolerate it if he was a physician, like I am.
It's true, licensing restricts competition. And if there was a level playing field, and fair rules, and if I could run my business like any other business, I'd be all for getting rid of "anti-competition".
But that's not the case. The game is so skewed, I can't play without protection. Bug or feature? Well, that's an argument for those on the outside.
Rid the world of Medicare and insurance, and I could make it work fine -- better, even. But in my market area, I can't just do that -- patients would run, since they are not patients after all -- they are "covered lives."
Covered lives aren't interested in fee-for-service, since it's all out of network. For them, it's like having a ticket to an all-you-can-eat buffet, and then I come along and try to sell them the same things as is on the buffet for a seperate, additional price.
I don't think I can make that work.
The Democrat party are asking us to believe that if the Demand is increased (insure an additional 20MM), and if we remove incentives for Supply (price & product regulation), then the Price will drop. When did they stop requiring basic economics as part of an undergraduate degree?
ObamaCare has nothing to do with Health, Care or Reform. No POTUS of reasonable intelligence would bet his/her Presidency on reforming ANY program. Obama wants to reshape the relationship between a big government and a shrinking citizen.
I'm a bit confused by the choice of data in the post... unless it's to show either way the reform falls, we're screwed. The survey shows 21.8% would leave if a public option is not included, but it also shows that 45.7% would quit if a public option is included.
Bruce, yes, Professor Perry's posted several times on the cons of "licensing" professionals, and the AMA's attempts to prevent Nurse Practioners from seeing patients in in-store clinics like those at Wal-Greens and Wal-Mart.
Must be nice to have made so much money practising medicine that one could just quit.
Gee, do you suppose that barriers to entry and government money together have made doctors relatively rich?
True, Obama's reform does ot address thes issues. Nor are they addressed now.
Doesn't take a poll of physicians to figure this out.
Don't forget that one way to fund the subsidies is a tax surcharge on high incomes. Many doctors are actually going to be funding some of their increased workload.
Doctors would have to see more patients to keep the same amount of income. That alone will push some into the retirement pool.
But add all the new treatment guidelines set up by bureaucrats and lower Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements and there's going to be many more who throw in the towel. Plus the attempt to control Medicare/Medicaid waste and fraud is going to annoy legitimate providers in order to catch the cheaters.
All I can tell you is that I paid insurance premiums for 35 years. then when I needed insurance I didn't have it (because I was sick enough to lose my job).
Subsequently, I could not buy insurance because of a pre-existing condition.
I bought a policy for my wife, but it was rescinded after she paid premiums for 18 months.
Only when I recovered enough to get a full time job with benefits, could I get coverage.
I might like to start my own business, but as an individusl I cannot get insurance.
I might like to retire early, before myhealth deteriorates again, but I cannot get insurance.
No matter how bad Obamacare is, if it fixes denial of service, recission, and pre-isting conditions, it will be worth whatever it costs.
@Anon 3/16/2010 7:04 PM
Your post points out how ridiculous this whole scheme is. You're willing to basically screw over the majority of the population for your needs.
Yet it should not take those extreme measures for you to have some coverage. It's just that the choice has been set up as it has to be this scheme or nothing else. That's because there are many more effective reforms out there that would work and once those reforms worked, a control scheme like this would never come up again.
I guess I missed the part about why I'm supposed to feel sorry for people who can simply retire early because of changes to their industry. I'm sure millions of Americans wish they could do the same. But they can't, so they continue to work regardless of what changes befall their respective industries. Poor, poor doctors. How sad that they might take early retirements. My heart might bleed for them, but -- egads -- my cardiologist took early retirement, so that's not an option.
"No matter how bad Obamacare is, if it fixes denial of service, recission, and pre-isting conditions, it will be worth whatever it costs"...
Well I can imagine that YOU would say that it would be worth the cost since you'll be leeching off those who will be paying for this new form extortion...
How can anyone support someone who's so stupid to say the following?
"Now, so let me talk about the third thing, which is my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government. So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today -- I already said this -- would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent -- that’s not my numbers, that’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says -- for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace. How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise. (Applause.)"...
Well, to those who constantly complain about their inability to obtain health insurance I say you are full of BS. I worked 50 years, was fired, laid off, rehired and you know what I never lacked health insurance for me or my family.
Those who do not have insurance are mostly those who are too dam lazy to either work or would rather spend their money on partying and expect someone else to pay their bills.
Absolutely ridiculous. Canada has a public health care system (although we should have a co-pay, premium or user fee to prevent the sometimes frivolous abuse of it), and our physicians enjoy a good income, a good lifestyle and prestige commensurate with their abilities. The scare tactics regarding wait lists are way overdone. A friend of mine was diagnosed with a coronary artery blockage ten days ago in our rural community, was referred to one of several major teaching hospitals in our province for insertion of a cardiac stent, and I bumped into him yesterday at the post office - hale, hearty and relieved. Let your physicians threaten to quit or retire early (or even come to Canada to practice!), but when the rubber hits the road they'll cave.
Anon said: "I guess I missed the part about why I'm supposed to feel sorry for people who can simply retire early because of changes to their industry. "
Not the point.
The point is supply of medical personnel will decrease. Further, why would anyone go into medicine when becoming a lawyer pays so much better. Especially when they can then become lifetime politicos or union stooges..
Of course you don't have to believe me on the diminishing supply of medical care, see what the "father of socialized medicine" in Quebec says:
http://michigantaxes.com/wordpress/michigan-and-other-border-states-to-be-hit-by-socialized-medicine/
In conjunction with the nurse practitioner movement its clear that over time primary care will migrate there. As medicine becomes more procedure oriented and checklist oriented, it will no longer require 8 years of post bs education for most primary care. Physicians will become interchangeable, as they sort of are at a lot of college health centers. For most things best procedures will be defined and be followed with exit points to higher skill levels as needed. For example most childhood illness does not need the skill of a pediatrician nor a lot of adult check ups. So the physician patient relationship will be replaced by defined proceedures to reduce costs and wait times. This is the inevitable result of moving to evidence based medicine. Its interesting that several studies recently have shown that aggressive treatment doesn't lead to better results than less aggressive treatment, but of course it does deprive the medical community of income.
"Canada has a public health care system" that was started by a raving socialist Thomas C. Douglas...
"our physicians enjoy a good income, a good lifestyle and prestige commensurate with their abilities"...
So much so that the extent of the doctor drain to the United States. One in nine Canadian-trained doctors -- including one in five specialists -- is now practicing in the United States. We suspected the number was high, but not that high. No wonder there is a shortage of doctors in Canada, and nearly two million of us are without a family physician...
"A friend of mine was diagnosed with a coronary artery blockage ten days ago in our rural community, was referred to one of several major teaching hospitals in our province for insertion of a cardiac stent"...
Well dang! I wished I'd have been wearing my fishing waders before I tackled that nonsense...
Well I can offer up an anecdote too...
One of your fellow citizens living in Saskatchewan had to come to St. Louis, Mo for an MRI because the waiting list in her province was in excess of six months...
This was a couple of years ago...
Yet, four decades later, it was Castonguay that declared that the Canadian healthcare system was in “crisis.” Things weren’t as rosy as he first thought they might be...
For those with pre-existing condition concerns... there are many states that have already solved this problem. For example, NH has a state plan that provides for catastrophic care. http://www.nhhealthplan.org/
In the end, many still complain because the basically don't want to pay.
ObamaCare has has little to do with Health, Care or Reform. It is about redefining the relationship between the citizen and the strong central authority. This is why Obama is willing to risk it all.
Let's face it, a new generation is entering the voting booth that is so insecure, they are willing to give away their liberty for care and feeding by the central authority. A general review of American History reveals that we left Europe to escape what many now want to embrace. Obama wants us to be like Sweden. But, now Sweden wants to be like America. Age of Idiocy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENDE8ve35f0&fmt=22
All I can tell you is that I paid insurance premiums for 35 years. then when I needed insurance I didn't have it (because I was sick enough to lose my job).
Almost every state in the country requires COBRA and that the insurer that was covering you while you were employed offer you an individual policy without medical review. Unless, you fail to pay your premiums.
Your story doesn't add up on any number of levels.
It was funny a couple years ago when a Canadian woman from big old Calgary had to come down to little Great Falls, Montana to deliver her quadruplets. It seems they weren't set up to handle her there, but Great Falls did so easily. Calgary has a population of over one million, while Great Falls has only about 60,000 residents.
How to make health care more affordable:
1. Increase competition to reduce costs and prices through efficiencies, which may increase profits.
2. Shift money throughout the economy and into health care.
The goal should be more health care, either through efficiencies or less of everything else. More health care will not materialize out of thin air.
An alternative is less health care, e.g. through taxing some and subsidizing others.
21% of physicians near retirement say they would take early retirement. Of the remaining physicians, 8% would quit. You can't add those two numbers and get close to 1/3. Anyone who took high school math knows that. The total is somewhere between 21% (if all physicians are close to retirement) and 8% (if none are close to retirement). My faith in higher education is severely shaken.
Steve: Sorry it wasn't clear, I have updated the post to clarify that AN ADDITIONAL 21.8% would retire early. You can find that information at the Medicus Firm website that is linked in the post. Have some faith.
Thanks for the update, however, it still is just 30% of those near retirement age who we would lose, not 1/3 of all doctors. Say 20% of all doctors are near retirement age and 30% of them retire early. That is 6% of all doctors. Add 7% of the other 80% who are not near retirement age and that is another 5.6% of all doctors, bringing the total to 11.6%, not nearly 1/3. Am I understanding this right?
Steve: I have clarified the post again to reflect that:
1. 7.4% of physicians stated that they would "retire early."
2. An additional 21.8% of respondents stated that they would quit practicing medicine, even though they are nowhere near retirement.
7.4% + 21.8% = 29.20%, which is close enough to 33.33% to say that "nearly 1/3" or "almost 1/3."
No matter how bad Obamacare is, if it fixes denial of service, recission, and pre-isting conditions, it will be worth whatever it costs.
Here's how that's going to work. You will not be denied "coverage". You will be denied treatment and you will not have the option of joining a company that provides health insurance for your pre-existing condition to obtain this treatment. How does that sit with you?
The government will have to extract the payments for your care from the largely healthy public by taxing away the fruits of their labour. So, that discourages people from labouring and every tax increase will lead to a reduction of tax revenue to pay for your condition. The lesson? Nobody except you and your family is willing to slave away for your health.
Lucky for us, unlike public healthcare in most European countries, we won't have the option of supplemental private insurance that covers the stuff government won't cover (if there's a 1 year wait list for chemo for your cancer and you'll be bumped down the list in favour of every celebrity and politician with a hangnail, we can pretty much consider that denial of treatment for you). The "insurance exchange" makes that impossible. Every detail of the insurance schemes we will be FORCED to purchase must be determined by government, not you.
Do you really think political self interest is more noble than economic self interest?
I have been a healthcare consultant to physicians for almost two decades and the cry of doctors leaving medicine if the government passes such and such bill has always been around. Also, the threat of loss of quality has always been threatened.
In reality, it has never happened. Physicians don't retire or quit in mass and the quality of care has never suffered.
I will grant you that this time may be different, but lets attack healthcare reform for what it really is, class warfare. Why should a physician who sacrificed to go to 8 years of college followed by an average of 4 to 5 years of low paid internshipbe paid 3 to 10 times as much as the average 4 year college graduate? Because the physician made the sacrifice!!!
We do not need healthcare reform. Our healthcare is great. What is not great is the economics of healthcare. So what we need is healthcare financial reform. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Thanks for the additional clarification. However, I still don't see how you can add those numbers together. It is still 7% of one group and 22% of those that remain. The same doctor can't be counted as one who quit and one who retired early to result in losing two doctors.
In any case, we agree that the supply of physicians will decrease at the same time demand increases leading to a shortage. BTW, Medicare denies 6% of claims compared to only 3% for private insurance companies. Seems like we would be better off with more people going to private insurance.
Here is my health care reform plan. Eliminate government regulation except for truth in advertising and liability for errors. Allow anyone to practice medicine as long as their qualifications are made public along with a record of patient outcomes, similar to Ebay seller ratings. When competition is present, prices drop and quality improves. The AMA and government has controlled health care and naturally, everything about it is set up for the advantage of doctors.
In reality, it has never happened. Physicians don't retire or quit in mass and the quality of care has never suffered.
It has never happened because the public option has never been passed before.
Specialists will probably be able to handle some cuts, but internists can't.
The good ones will simply refuse insurance. The ones who can't build a private pay only practice will simply decide that working this hard and taking this much risk isn't worth the reduced compensation.
The bottom line is that it will become virtually impossible to get an appointment with your primary care physician IF YOU CAN GET ONE IN THE FIRST PLACE. You won't be able to get treatment. Unless you pay out of pocket. But then, what's the point of paying so much money for all this "insurance"?
nice article on only some of the problems with obamacare. If you now see a MD/OB almost 1/2 of the fee goes to cover their insurance (100K/yr). How many people shop for a doctor based on fee? We are now paying more to have our auto serviced at a dealership than we pay for a doctor visit. If the admistration wants to lower cost start with tort reform and then allow patent medicine to have a longer life (maybe 30 years instead of as little as 7 years to recover their investment). Pre- existing contition? If someone abuses their body for many years by smoking, excessive eating, drugs, etc. why shoud I pay for their medical? I'm all for paying for the person who contracts an unpreventable illness.
The government trying to put the blame on the insurance companies is wrong. The profits of the insurance industry is quite low and their executives are not among the highest paid. check out microsoft, coke, pepsi, disney if you are looking for $$$$.
I agree, this is the only area that healthcare reform should be tackling: denial of service, recission, and pre-isting conditions; but, it is not worth whatever it costs.
Good doctors are hard to find; if you've ever seen a foreign doctor watch out, they are scary. Their knowledge base is lower than US trained physicians. As physician compensation is continually lowered, while workload is increased, quality healthcare delivery will go down. It is ECON 101. "You can't get more for less"; even all this borrowing from CHina to finance our current US life style and foreign war-waging will have it's repercussions.
"Well I can imagine that YOU would say that it would be worth the cost since you'll be leeching off those who will be paying for this new form extortion..."
Well, Juandos, that's an interesting statement to make considering you work for the airline industry. How much money has that industry picked off the government tab from the past years, leech?
Expect more of it to get handed out in the years ahead as fuel prices go up...
that's an interesting statement to make considering you work for the airline industry. How much money has that industry picked off the government tab from the past years, leech?
Why? If the government creates rents, people will seek them. Why wouldn't they? Eventually, of course, so much rent is extracted from the population that the whole thing collapses as it did in Russia and as it will soon in the EU. Then, everyone pays and nobody gets anything. Except the politicians - which is pretty much their goal.
Too many parasites kill the host.
I view Obamacare as a net positive to the economy, particularly the unemployed. Obamacare ay be the most important part of the jobs package.
"Almost every state in the country requires COBRA and that the insurer that was covering you while you were employed offer you an individual policy without medical review. "
My Cobra policy was over $900 a month (15 years ago). tough to pay when you don't have a job and you are flat on your back in bed, needing total care.
I was lucky, I could afford it, but eventually cobra ran out, and then I was uninsured for almost three more years before I was wll enough (and lucky enough) to get a job with health insurance.
My story is not a lie, it is all true despite how you may characterize it, but what it taught me was how lucky I was compered to the many many more, who will simply be ruined and thrown on the dole.
To me, the cost of healthcare looks cheap by comparison.
Short of that, just give me ten minutes alone with the CEO of any of the (several) insurance companies that have cheated me over the years.
+Good doctors are hard to find; if you've ever seen a foreign doctor watch out"
xxxxxxxxx
Most of my doctors are foreign. Foreign is not a valid discriminator on quality of care.
On the other hand, I have some foreign frineds who work in the US for companies that do not provide health insurance, and at their salry level, all but the most restrictive are unaffordable.
All three of them point out the same thing: they can fly home (to a foreign doctor) and get health care that is already paid for.
Under their system, no one is a leech; everyone pays and everyone has the same access. It is not perfect, but they seem to like well enough.
"Here's how that's going to work. You will not be denied "coverage". You will be denied treatment and you will not have the option of joining a company that provides health insurance for your pre-existing condition to obtain this treatment. How does that sit with you?"
----------------------------
You are an idiot.
How is that any worse than what already happened to me?
The scenario you offered is no worse than what already happened to me under the present plan.
The insurance company simply refused to talk to me or correspond. No redress whatever.
So I go to the state insurance commissioner who (in my state) is basically run by the insurance companies. In her words "they have the rights and yo have none."
But at least the state responded to my letters. And I can vote to fire the state adinsitrators, if enough people get screwed as I did.
But most people have no idea how big a screwing you can get, because it has not happened to them, yet. Thatis why you get stats that say most people are happy with their coverage.
The fedeal bureaucracy will not be responsive, but I'm willing to bet it will be better than either my insurance company or my state was.
If I pay the feds for 35 years, i suspect I will get SOMETHING which is way better than I got from my insurance company. If I pay the feds for 35 years I doubt they will suddenly cancel my citizenship, whichis pretty much what my insurance company did.
I don't trust the government any more than you do, but they have never cheated me the way my insurance companies have.
@Anon 3/16/2010 7:04 PM
Your post points out how ridiculous this whole scheme is. You're willing to basically screw over the majority of the population for your needs.
==================================
Where does that come from? Given what I know now, I'd be willing just to get my 35 years of premiums back. (20-20 hindsight, I still would not be willing to make that bet up front.)
I'm the one that paid and got nothing. I'd be willing to bet the you have gotten a medical bill covered by one of my insurance companies.
If so, you are the leech, the one doing the screwing over, not me.
there are some things the government can do that I can't do because they are bigger than me.
They can protect me from foreign armies and they can protect me from insurance companies that do not insure.
Insurance is the only product I ever paid for that I had to sue to get. They are crooks and need to be regulated.
Now, my disability insurance worked as promised: it kicked in when I lost my job and the premiums stopped.
Lets make health insurance the same way. As long as you have a job, you pay your own health costs, but if you get sick enough to lose your job, you are covered. I would have been money ahead under that plan.
it got so bad I figured I could vacaton in Switzerland for two weeks, buy my drugs for a year over there, and be money ahead.
Only problem was I couldn't so much as roll over, let alone get out of bed. And before you jump to any self-reliance or self-responsibility assumptions, up till i wa sudenly struck down, I lived an active healthy lifestyle.
I just had a little bad luck that could happen to anyone who thinks they have insurance.
That's fresh. A moron calling me an idiot.
How is that any worse than what already happened to me?
let me spell it out for you: You could pay the doctor out of pocket (I know, weird that you should have to pay for your own health instead of robbing me to do it). This bill prevents you from paying out of pocket to the same doctor who accepted you under insurance. They've expanded that bit of nastiness from medicare and medicaid. You can also still get another job and get full insurance that DID pay for your condition. Under this bill, all of the healthcare exchange crap available to you will cover you in name only. You will NOT get treatment unless you pay out of pocket at a private clinic. EVER. That's a big difference.
The insurance company simply refused to talk to me or correspond. No redress whatever.
You could sue. If this bill passes, you can't. You have literally NO recourse at all.
So I go to the state insurance commissioner who (in my state) is basically run by the insurance companies. In her words "they have the rights and yo have none.
Again, you could sue. BTW, do you think that this regulatory capture will be better if this bill passes? You could get another job. You could fricking pay for COBRA. Why didn't you take the 18 month COBRA option while looking for a that new job that gave you health insurance to cover your condition again?
But at least the state responded to my letters. And I can vote to fire the state adinsitrators, if enough people get screwed as I did.
Keep dreaming. Even if you achieve this, the replacements will be as bad as the ones you got rid of. And under this bill, moving to another state won't help you.
The fedeal bureaucracy will not be responsive, but I'm willing to bet it will be better than either my insurance company or my state was.
Really? Well, I was fighting a deadly illness (literally at death's door, given a time line and everything) under just such a system and I can assure you that the only way I survived is because I had a lot of high up contacts. The state bureacracy gave me a giant "F*ck you" until the muscle showed up on my behalf. Are you well connected? I hope so, because it'll be sick guys like you who get killed off first because you'll actually rely on these guys who don't give a damn about you to do what's best for you. More likely, you'll croak or you'll go bankrupt seeking treatment out of pocket.
If I pay the feds for 35 years, i suspect I will get SOMETHING which is way better than I got from my insurance company. If I pay the feds for 35 years I doubt they will suddenly cancel my citizenship, whichis pretty much what my insurance company did.
Oh, you'll get something. A nice shiny spot on the 2-year wait list for treatment of your aggressive cancer - after it takes 1 year for you to obtain a diagnosis, at which point your cancer has progressed to stage four. Enjoy. Believe me, unlike you, I've been there.
I don't trust the government any more than you do, but they have never cheated me the way my insurance companies have.
Really? You seem like a guy who pays taxes. So, you think they haven't wasted all the money that they've wrested from your hardworking fist? Betcha you could have paid out of pocket for your condition if you didn't have to pay so much of your dough in taxes.
Finally, consider this: healthcare will now be rationed by political fiat. Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler than economic self-interest?
There are ways to fix the problem you had with your insurance company - namely, insurance portability. Lack of portability creates all kinds of insurance breaks that allow insurance companies to claim "pre-existing condition" only because you change your policy from group to individual. But, the Dems aren't interested in this quick and effective solution that is actually better for the consumer. Why do you suppose that is? Because they want you to be at their mercy. How is it better to be at the mercy of politicians than to be able to keep your coverage as long as you continue to pay premiums?
Under their system, no one is a leech; everyone pays and everyone has the same access. It is not perfect, but they seem to like well enough.
I'm assuming they are from European countries.
In Europe they have a largely unregulated private insurance market and doctors who take only private patients. This gives them the flexibility to subsidize their national health schemes and can get around wait lists where they exist. Keep in mind also that we're talking about countries with tiny populations, more healthy populations compared to the United States.
This legislation outlaws such a private market. All insurance will be basically uniform and must be purchased through the exchanges and every detail of those policies is dictated by government.
To me, the cost of healthcare looks cheap by comparison.
If you think never being able to get treatment without paying for it out of pocket is cheap, then I'll agree with you.
Your whole post could basically be restated thusly: "I want someone else to foot the bill". That will never happen.
Nobody is going to work the incremental minute and take time away from their family for the incremental dollar to be taxed away to pay for your treatment. Nobody cares about you as much as they do about their own kids.
You're going to be left to die.
If Obamacare ever becomes law, doctors will have some very good reasons for leaving medicine. If roughly 30% of physicians leave the practice, how will government reduce costs and improve quality? They will do neither. But they will institute some type of rationing.
30% of doctors will retire if health care reform passes? Eh, we're going to see a huge doctor shortage in the future no matter what: it's called the Baby Boomer reason. We're especially going to have problems with general practitioners, the boring (at least compared to other doctor professions) but nevertheless important gate keepers to health. That's because most of them currently in the profession went to med school in the '60s and '70s when tuition was lower; today, because costs are so goddamn high, many who go to med school opt to become higher-paying specialists.
It's really too bad that this country's best and brightest students opted for law and finance, rather than science and math careers. The years ahead are going to hurt...
The training to be a doctor is extremely grueling. The tuition is exorbitant, which means lots of student loans that need to be paid back. Then you have to re-certify every so many years if you want to stay board certified.
It's way easier to go into banking, law or engineering. I know many doctors who say if they could know then what they know now, they would never do it again.
Being a doctor in the 1960s was easy. Today it's much harder, because there is a lot more complex information to understand and retain.
METHINKS is right on the mark.
Politicians can't be trusted.
The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves if they saw the power that congress now has to tax and spend.
Anyone who grew up in the 1950s/60's and before grew up with out health insurance. You just paid the doctor in installments if you had surgery or something severe.
We have put ourselves at the mercy of our expensive technologies that didn't exist 50 years ago (medications, cat scans, cardiac catherizations etc..etc...etc...).
Your whole post could basically be restated thusly: "I want someone else to foot the bill". That will never happen.
==============================
That is not true, you obviously did not read the post.
What I want is to get what I paid for.
I have yet to get that from an insurance company, unless they were forced to pay by the government.
My experience is difernt from yours, but it is the same as many others.
You should take it for what it is worth rather than dismiss it out of hand, just because it does not meet your ideological expectations.
I'm a fiscal conservative. Health care is broken. Republicans had their chance to fix it, and thay gave us the donut hole.
We can do better. Maybe this isn't it, but this is what we have got: as 5% increase in costs vs a 5% chance you will go totally broke in you last four years of life.
Nobody is going to work the incremental minute and take time away from their family for the incremental dollar to be taxed away to pay for your treatment. Nobody cares about you as much as they do about their own kids.
You're going to be left to die.
================================
Good Republcan Sales pitch. No one will do anything for anybody, especially us.
Make me want to run right out and vote for one.
This legislation outlaws such a private market. All insurance will be basically uniform and must be purchased through the exchanges and every detail of those policies is dictated by government.
================================
Where dos it say you are required to buy from the exchanges?
All the insurance will go through publicly owned insurance companies, what is not private about that?
How did we get here anyway? Because you ame clowns that are comlaining about the current plan didn't like an all government plan.
On one hand you are basically saying that insurance companies cannot pay out more than they take in, but on the other hand you think that individual savings plans will work.
The only differenc is that we all hang together or we all hang separately.
Eventually, we will each run out of rope, but I'd at least like to get the rope I paid the insurance company for.
I got nothing. I was lying on my back dying, every detail of what help I got dictated by an insurance company that refused to speak or write to me.
I've been there already. Nothing the governmentis likely to do will be any worse.
Really? You seem like a guy who pays taxes. So, you think they haven't wasted all the money that they've wrested from your hardworking fist?
===============================
Nope, not all of it. Government is inefficient and stupid sometimes.
So am I. I could run my business better if I were perfect.
You tell me, if you have order to find and hire the best airplane pilot available, where do you go?
U. S. Air Force.
When the light turns green, the government makes sure the other side is red.
When I come to a sign that says state maintenance ends here, the road gets worse, not better.
Now, the insurance company, on the other hand, wasted ALL of my hard earned money.
The state bureacracy gave me a giant "F*ck you" until the muscle showed up on my behalf.
===============================
My point exactly. You were able to find and apply muscle. But it was the state that got you help, not the insurance company.
What kind of muscle would you have applied direct to the company?
What I want is to get what I paid for.
And I want you to get what you pay for. Don't you get it? This has nothing to do with Republican/Democrat. If the Democrats were not making it WORSE, I wouldn't waste my time blogging about it.
I have yet to get that from an insurance company, unless they were forced to pay by the government.
Anon...think about it. Who wrote the regulations and laws that give Insurance companies the right to create all these breaks in your coverage so they can wiggle out of their obligations. The government. Republican, Democrat, their incentives are the same.
I appose this bill because it cuts your choices even more, makes healthcare most expensive for the sickest and puts you at the mercy of people who are significantly worse than the private insurance companies
We can do better. Maybe this isn't it, but this is what we have got: as 5% increase in costs vs a 5% chance you will go totally broke in you last four years of life.
That's what I'm trying to get through to you. What we've got in the this bill is WORSE than what we've got without it. You're not going to go broke in your last four years of life. You'll go broke way before that with this bill. Also, you'll pay the higher cost (which will be more than 5%) and you'll STILL either have to go bankrupt or die if you get sick.
Why are you not demanding better from this government you trust so much?
Where dos it say you are required to buy from the exchanges?
In the bill. Read it. It also REQUIRES you to buy insurance. You can't opt out.
All the insurance will go through publicly owned insurance companies, what is not private about that?
If a company is private in name only but is not forced to compete and all of its products are designed by government, what's private about that? It's private in name only and you get no choice. What's the benefit to you? Imagine how much better off you'd be if insurance companies had to compete for your business. They don't know thanks to....government regulation.
My point exactly. You were able to find and apply muscle. But it was the state that got you help, not the insurance company.
Uh, no. I was very very well connected already and I had money to pay out of pocket. My pre-existing connections had to do with my parent's position in the society in the country in which I lived. I wasn't the child of some ordinary citizen with no access to such connections. The connections called in favours from DOCTORS. The state provided nothing. We paid the doctors (who wouldn't see us without the request of our connections). But, we could afford it. You just said you can't. The state provided me only with a death sentence.
Good Republcan Sales pitch. No one will do anything for anybody, especially us.
Make me want to run right out and vote for one.
That's your best you can do? I assure you that I won't work one more second and forgo time with my family if enough of the dollar I earn will be taken from me for you. I neither know you nor care about you, but I know and love my family. I'd rather spend that time with them instead of working for you.
That's the way socialism works in practice.
comlaining about the current plan didn't like an all government plan.
This is single payer by proxy and a huge invasion of your privacy.
On one hand you are basically saying that insurance companies cannot pay out more than they take in, but on the other hand you think that individual savings plans will work.
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
The only differenc is that we all hang together or we all hang separately.
Nope. The rich and the connected won't hang. They'll get the healthcare you paid for and they'll get what they can't get here somewhere else. You won't.
I got nothing. I was lying on my back dying, every detail of what help I got dictated by an insurance company that refused to speak or write to me.
I hope you enjoyed that experience. That's what's coming with this law. Well, except that you'll also be paying an army of bureaucrats to churn out letters to you denying coverage or informing you how many years the wait list is. I hope that communication will make you feel better and you finally believe that you're getting what you pay for.
Good luck. You're going to need it.
Anonymous said...
@Anon 3/16/2010 7:04 PM
Your post points out how ridiculous this whole scheme is. You're willing to basically screw over the majority of the population for your needs.
==================================
Where does that come from? Given what I know now, I'd be willing just to get my 35 years of premiums back. (20-20 hindsight, I still would not be willing to make that bet up front.)
Where does that come from? How about where you said "it will be worth whatever it costs." Which I assume doesn't mean "whatever it costs" you but rather whatever it costs others.
There is no reason your problem needs to be fixed by such overkill as the "reform" bill. In fact it forces people into exactly the same type of insurance that you had. The system where someone collects large premiums and then spends the money on other participant's day to day medical care.
There most certainly should be reform. But it should focus on cost reductions through the right economic incentives. For example, obese people should bear more costs though perhaps everyone having higher deductibles. Yet they instead generally get more benefits than fitter participants. Cutting the obesity rate would probably free up billions of dollars each year.
Methinks:
When push came to shove, you turned to the government.
All I wanted is what I paid for too. I did not get it (and I gather you didn't either, until you got government help.) So now the only option I can see (bolstered by your own experience) to improve that is to get help from the power government can wield.
You were able to maqke that happen through money, power and influence, but at least you got it done.
What would you have done working directly with the insurance company?
I rest my case.
Sooner or later we will all get to the point where the technology to prolong our life is unavailable or not worth the price. As my father said to his dentist, "What do you mean, $25,000 dollars?, I'm 83 years old." Government cannot change that,but it doesn't mean governmentcannot get help for sopme people, like yourself.
There is a difference between paying for someone else's care and sharing the risk that something we cannot afford will happen to us. Yes, I pay taxes. maybe a penny or so wound up inthe pocket of the bureacrat who finally deigned to help you out.
Unlike you, I don't begrudge it.
I don't delude myself that my taxes are wasted on this and my taqxes were wated on that and my taxes paid for a carrier. I don't pay that much tax so there is no point worrying about where taxes I never paid are "wasted".
I'll agree with you this much. if every person who identified their pet "critical need" pig got an earmark from me worth a dollar, I'd be broke in a week.
We need to set priorites and spend our money wisely. But that isn;t the same as never spending on anything. there are some things government can do that I cannot do, and some things work to its advantage. Government has power of scale (even if it hasn't caught on to economy of scale): it can do big things that even private enterprise cannot. Government has longevity, so it can plan long term, or at least longer than the next quarter. Government can borrow cheaper than I can.
We have govenment for a reason, so it has to be paid for at some level. Now we argue about the level.
We both agree that government should be minimized, but a primary purpose of government is to protect people and their property.
I paid for insurance and didn't get it. Insurance companies stole my property. Now I want government help to protect my property, same as you got help. I want it to be a matter of law, instead of special privilege as you had.
I'm willing to pay a litle more to get a little more protection. It won't ever be perfect. I got mugged by a street thug once, but government eventually caught him, incarcerated him and made him pay my money back. I got lucky: I might have died in that attack and many do.
Now I'd like the government to catch the insurance thugs. I don't mind paying to spread the risk, because If I'm really lucky, next time, they'll catch the thugs in an attack on you, instead of me.
By your argument, you cae about no one outside your family, which is OK if you expect help from no one outside. But you have already admitted that isn't the case.
I care less about other people than my family, but I'm not willing to take that to zero. I give help when I can and take it when I need it.
You and I both survived, but you got more help than I did. Now I figure you owe some.
Not all obese people are obese through fault of their own.
How do you discriminate between obesity as a disease and obesity as a life style?
" Which I assume doesn't mean "whatever it costs" you but rather whatever it costs others."
You are putting words in my mouth.
I don't expect more insurance than I pay for. Insurance means spreading the risks, but the peculiar fact of health insurance is that we all eventually die. That is what we have life insurance for.
We have health insurance to spread health risks, not death risks. Therfore that peculiarity in health insurance means that we cannot expect to spread ALL the risks, forever.
Anyone who recognizes that is then deemed to be a member of the Sarah Palin Death committee.
You seem to prefer to share no risk, apparently, but any actuary could show you that is a bad idea.
Suppose you paid insurance for 5 years and then had an illness that consumed all the premiums you paid, plus fifteen percent. Should you be thrown to the wolves or t do we share the risk and assume you will pay more premiums later ?
How about the same scenario,but you paid for ten years before you got ill?
20 years? 40? When do we stop paying out, and betting on future payements? When do we tell you to collect your life insurance instead?
I'm not asking others to pay because I do not expect to avoid all risk, only to share it. Preferably at the point where we maximise benefits and minimize costs.
We know that is not in the US system because other dountries ahve similar health outcomes at lower cost. Within the US some state have lower health care costs than others, and worse health outcomes as weel, or not.
We can work towards a better price to outcome ratio. You are arguing with scare tactics on the one hand: "someone else will determine your outcome, someone faceless and evil." and on the other hand youare arguing we cannot afford to pay to eliminate all risk.
I don't see how you can have it both ways.
We have ultimate risk which is unavoidable and expensive and intermediate risk which is cheap and often avoidable.
Our present system isn't addrssing the problem, and neither are you.
What would you propose, if simply opposing was prohibited?
So far I hear a big republican nothing. Too bad, I used to like them till this happened. What I don't get is that health insurance is the biggest impediment to small businees. Why haven't republicans figured that out?
What part of "I did not turn to the government for help" Did you not understand?
We had socialized healthcare and no other options. When I went the government healthcare route, I got no treatment. I can't get any clearer than that.
Look, I'm perfectly healthy and likely to stay that way. You, on the other hand, are apparently very sick. So, if it makes you feel better not to get what you pay for from government rather than from an insurance company, I can't help you.
It is rather disgusting that you don't pay tax, but you want healthcare on my dime. So you don't want what YOU paid for. You want what I paid for. That's the ugly truth about leeches.
The rest of your post is deluded rubbish working off an incorrect premise. Like I said, good luck. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about and my time is wasted responding to you.
anon @ 3/17/2010 10:47 AM whines foolishly: "Well, Juandos, that's an interesting statement to make considering you work for the airline industry. How much money has that industry picked off the government tab from the past years, leech?"...
None you silly bastard and the simple use of a search engine would've give you that answer if you had bothered to check it out...
Airlines were deregulated back in '76 and that's when government money stopped...
Anonymous said...
Not all obese people are obese through fault of their own.
How do you discriminate between obesity as a disease and obesity as a life style?
I don't and I don't think there's reason to differentiate. Trying to decide what diseases are or aren't someone's fault is ridiculous. Even someone who's obese through no fault of their own has to eat more calories than their body uses.
The point is that trying to insulate everyone from financial responsibility for medical treatment gives the wrong incentive. Which the "reform" bill does to the extreme with caps on deductibles, wide open enrollment, and financial subsidies.
If a drug user fries their liver, should everyone else be on the hook for their lifetime of dialysis treatment, and their substance abuse treatment? What about a skateboarder who's constantly needing emergency treatment for broken bones and cat scans for head injuries?
How about a paranoid parent who rushes their kid to urgent care for every little cut or runny nose?
There's nothing wrong with financial assistance and safety nets. But they should be safety nets and not help people detach the consequences from the behaviors.
I'm surprised you didn't connect this to all the evidence that the rise in medical expenses is tied to an overabundance of physicians and no agency to hold their surplus services in check. In this light it would seem to be an indication that Obamacare WILL reduce medical expenses.
It would also be interesting to see how often "I'll take my ball and go home" has actually been put in to practice by its threateners.
I was sick, Iam now well. I have health insurance now, only because I ave a job and my emploer has a group. When I was sick I paid for Cobra for 18 months, before it ran out. Then I paid the doctors (and every other bill) out of my own savings.
Then I finally got well, but if it had gone on much longer I would have beenn broke, bankrupt, on the dole. Most people would have hit that point long before I would have.
On a private basis, no insurance company will ever sell me insurance, not at any price, because I have a chronic, but controllable consition. Portability is of no use if they simply refuse to sell to you. I'd start my own business, but I can't do it because I cannot get health insurance on my own.
A similar thing happened to my auto insurance once. I changed jobs and moved. My auto insurance did not issue in my new state, so they canceled me. Because I had been canceled, no other insurance company would sell to me. I wound up in the state sponsored high risk pool, although I had never had an accident or a ticket.
Or worse, the sell to you and then take it back. Ralph is simply wrong, or maybe he lives in a different state than I do. Despite what he says it is possible to be simply shut out of the system. He got lucky. There is no company in my state that will accept me as a private customer, even though I am now healthy enough to work full time and farm part time.
I'm not trying to leach off of anyone, but I think I should have gotten my share of what I already paid for. What is the point of insurance that stops paying you when you get sick, ESPECIALLY if you are too sick to work?
No, I could not sue. For most people, how could youeven think about doing that, if you are out of work? besides that, what the insurance compan(ies) did was perfectly legal.
They are allowed to have you fill out an application, accept youas a customer, issue a policy and have you send them payments. Then, if you have a claim or two, or even if you do not, they can change their mind and terminate your policy retroactively, pull back all the payments they made, refund your premiums (without interest), and now you are stuck with all the bills - at the full retail rate - not the discounted, negotiated insurance company rate. I complained, my state investigated and found in favor of the insuror. In my state I had no rights.
At the same time, the state of Maryland was suing an insuror of=ver similar practices. the state of Maryland can afford to sue an insuror, but most people cannot. The one time I did sue, and won, it took nine years to collect, for insurance I already paid for. So, once again, it took intervention by the state to get me paid.
I'm not asking for anybody else to pay my bills, despite the mischaracterization of Methinks. but once I buy something, I want it protected. protection of people and their property is a legitimate, minimalist responsibility of government. As far as inurance goes, the government has abbdicated taht responsibility, and it needs to be fixed.
I was sick, Iam now well. I have health insurance now, only because I ave a job and my emploer has a group. When I was sick I paid for Cobra for 18 months, before it ran out. Then I paid the doctors (and every other bill) out of my own savings.
Then I finally got well, but if it had gone on much longer I would have beenn broke, bankrupt, on the dole. Most people would have hit that point long before I would have.
On a private basis, no insurance company will ever sell me insurance, not at any price, because I have a chronic, but controllable consition. Portability is of no use if they simply refuse to sell to you. I'd start my own business, but I can't do it because I cannot get health insurance on my own.
A similar thing happened to my auto insurance once. I changed jobs and moved. My auto insurance did not issue in my new state, so they canceled me. Because I had been canceled, no other insurance company would sell to me. I wound up in the state sponsored high risk pool, although I had never had an accident or a ticket.
Or worse, the sell to you and then take it back. Ralph is simply wrong, or maybe he lives in a different state than I do. Despite what he says it is possible to be simply shut out of the system. He got lucky. There is no company in my state that will accept me as a private customer, even though I am now healthy enough to work full time and farm part time.
I'm not trying to leach off of anyone, but I think I should have gotten my share of what I already paid for. What is the point of insurance that stops paying you when you get sick, ESPECIALLY if you are too sick to work?
No, I could not sue. For most people, how could youeven think about doing that, if you are out of work? besides that, what the insurance compan(ies) did was perfectly legal.
They are allowed to have you fill out an application, accept youas a customer, issue a policy and have you send them payments. Then, if you have a claim or two, or even if you do not, they can change their mind and terminate your policy retroactively, pull back all the payments they made, refund your premiums (without interest), and now you are stuck with all the bills - at the full retail rate - not the discounted, negotiated insurance company rate. I complained, my state investigated and found in favor of the insuror. In my state I had no rights.
At the same time, the state of Maryland was suing an insuror of=ver similar practices. the state of Maryland can afford to sue an insuror, but most people cannot. The one time I did sue, and won, it took nine years to collect, for insurance I already paid for. So, once again, it took intervention by the state to get me paid.
I'm not asking for anybody else to pay my bills, despite the mischaracterization of Methinks. but once I buy something, I want it protected. protection of people and their property is a legitimate, minimalist responsibility of government. As far as inurance goes, the government has abbdicated taht responsibility, and it needs to be fixed.
You won't be able to get treatment. Unless you pay out of pocket. But then, what's the point of paying so much money for all this "insurance"?
=====================
Same as now, pay out of pocket and submit the bill to your insuror. of course, you won;t get the insurors "negotiated" rate.
You can also still get another job and get full insurance that DID pay for your condition.
Right, idiot.
How do you do that when, the reason you lost your job, and insurance in the first place is because you got sick?
You can get another job when you get well, as I did, but now I don't need payments from the einsurance company.
What a great deal, only sell a product to people who can't use it.
"Really? Well, I was fighting a deadly illness (literally at death's door, given a time line and everything) under just such a system and I can assure you that the only way I survived is because I had a lot of high up contacts. The state bureacracy gave me a giant "F*ck you" until the muscle showed up on my behalf. Are you well connected? I hope so, because it'll be sick guys like you who get killed off first"
-----------------------------
"What part of "I did not turn to the government for help" Did you not understand?
We had socialized healthcare and no other options. When I went the government healthcare route, I got no treatment. I can't get any clearer than that.
Look, I'm perfectly healthy and likely to stay that way."
================================
OK, which is it? You were on deaths door or you are healthy and likely to stay that way (Actually you are not likely to stay that way, uless you are luchy enough to have a sudden collapse)
Which is it? You got help with high up msucle in the state, or you got no treatment?
What state were you in that has socialized medicien with no options?
Your arguments are full of mischaracterizations and contradictions.
All I now for certain is what happened to me, and that should not happen to anyone.
This isn't about d it is about laws we don;t have that we need.
And lets remember, some of the initiatives you mention were already tried by the Republicans when they had control of the presidency and congress.
They could not even get them past their own party, same problem the Dems have today.
I'm a conservative leaning Republican, as a rule, but they are wrong on this, and they have lost all respect I ever had for them.
When the docots leave medicine, they can always become plumbers. They will make more money.
What state were you in that has socialized medicien with no options?
You should really learn to spell. It might help you stay employed
I was not in the United States, you idiot. I was in one of those Utopias you have rattling around in that empty head of yours.
I can't even bother to skim the rest of your idiocy. The only thing you've accomplished here is to show how stupid people can be.
"I'm not trying to leach off of anyone, but I think I should have gotten my share of what I already paid for. What is the point of insurance that stops paying you when you get sick, ESPECIALLY if you are too sick to work?"...
Hmmm, interesting situation...
Still the idea of using Uncle Sam to extort more dollars from working citizens to cover your problems seems a bit twisted to me...
Yet that still won't cover your own Catch 22 situation if medicare history is anything to go by you'll still be screwed...
The way this whole situation is playing out politically none of us may be alive by the time its finally settled...
We'll all be dead of old age, accident, or whatever before anything at all happens...
I think, everyone should be covered by health insurance, similar to home and auto insurance. Also, perhaps, everyone should have life insurance. However, many people don't understand how excessive government intervention has lowered overall living standards, either by raising costs and prices, while lowering profits, or by decreasing quantity and quality (moreover, there's a "free rider" problem from U.S. improvements in health care that benefit foreigners).
Anonymous seems to be under the mistaken impression that each premium--for 35 years--aggregates and symbolizes an ever-increasing benefit for him. In reality, health insurance does not operate in that fashion...neither does automobile insurance.
skh.pcola
"Anonymous seems to be under the mistaken impression that each premium--for 35 years--aggregates and symbolizes an ever-increasing benefit for him. In reality, health insurance does not operate in that fashion...neither does automobile insurance."
I realize that. It is part of the problem. You pay a monthly premium to mitigate the risk for that month. The risk is is shared among everyone who has insurance, that month. There is no guarantee for next month.
The result is that if you get sick and lose your (employer group) insurance, then you have no insurance just when you need it most.
Disability works just the opposite, you pay premiums until you get disabled, then you stop paying gthem and they pay you. health insurance needs to be restructured this way, and that is how the Chiese traditionally worked: you pay your doctor every month. If you get sick, you stop paying him. That way he has an incentive to keep you well.
Insurance companies have not made this change so we are going to have to make that change for them. Will it cost more? Yep, but at least you will have insurance when you need it.
If that isn't enough, most most businesses reward ciustomerloyalty. For thity five years I helped cover other peoples medical costs throeugh my insurance, but when my turn came to need the reciprocal consideration, I was excised from the system. Not because my bills were higher than other peoples bills that I may have helped cover,but only because of a temporary technicality.
It is idiotic to link health insurance with employment. And the reason we have it is an accident of history: companies originally offered health insurance as a perk after the war in competition to attract workers.
I am under no mistaken impression, but what we have needs to be fixed.
I think, everyone should be covered by health insurance, similar to home and auto insurance. Also, perhaps, everyone should have life insurance.
================================
Your most important insurance is disability insurance.
If you die, you are someone else's problem for maybe a couple of weeks, after that, they are on their own.
One out of three adults will be disabled for more than six months during his working years. I was bedrirdden for a year, completely disabled. then housebound for a year 85% disabled, then in rehab for a year.
Nothing is worse than lying in bed utterly dependent on someone else for everything. Unless it is knowing that you are helping to ruin them financially.
I was lucky. I had a friend who suffered brain damage in a fall. he had just enough intelligence left to understand how he had failed his wife and three children by not paying the (relatively minor) disability premium. The five of them wound up being supported by her parents.
My disability insurance is my one good insurance story. it worked as promised, and when I was able to start working part time, there was a sliding scale so i did not lose all coverage as soon as I earned my first dollar.
"However, many people don't understand how excessive government intervention has lowered overall living standards, either by raising costs and prices, while lowering profits, or by decreasing quantity and quality..."
Yep. We have lots of so called safety standards that are nothing but protectionsism for large established businesses.
What is the point of insurance that stops paying you when you get sick, ESPECIALLY if you are too sick to work?"...
Hmmm, interesting situation...
========================
Interesting my A___. You try it for a couple of years.
I willing to listen to any practical solution.
Suppose you pay in for six months before you are eligible to collect, and then you can collect for six months aftr you stop paying in? Or suppose your coverage has a ramp up and ramp down feature.
What I'm not willing to listen to is a bunch of crap about how someone else is paying for me, after I paid for them for 35 years.
What I'm not willing to listen to is that nothing can be done and government has no place in our lives.
No, I don't like needless, expensive, government meddling either. But I have also seen enough broken people, people trapped in circumstance notof their making to know that an overblown dependence on some kind of macho self-reliance is a joke.
In the real world things work that way for a while, but eventually someone is going to have to change your diapers and wipe your drool.
Unless we decide people aren't worth keeping. If that happens, then we probably can have private health insurance that works.
Yet that still won't cover your own Catch 22 situation if medicare history is anything to go by you'll still be screwed...
============================
Medicare primarily supports older people. it isn't entirley correct to extend what is happening there to health care at large.
Still, even older people are living longer than before, and needing more health care as a result. This affects medicare and social security.
Changes need to be made, but we can have some kind of system that works. starting withthe argument that it Cannot Work, Ever, no matter what, is not helpful, nor is it intellectually innovative.
All I can tell you is that I had to go to a soial security disbility counselor when I was ondisability (combined insurance and social security disability). He was Canadian, and after hearing my insurance problems he suggested I move to Canada, and he indicated he would go back if/when he gets sick.
What state were you in that has socialized medicien with no options?
You should really learn to spell. It might help you stay employed
================================
When I'm being paid, I take my time, pay more attention and use a spell checker. Don't confuse my typos for stupidity: we are arguing ides here,not typing skills.
I apologize if my typing makse the ideas hard to follow.
My disease is warping my fingers and making them hard to control. They still feel the same to me, but they do not always travel where they used to go.
When I was in high school I tried to sign up for typing, but I was refused because it was for girls only. I took a private class, but I was never a world class typist.
However, I excelled in logic, math, science, statistics, and finance.
I'm truly very sorry about your fingers. However, I think your disease may be affecting more than just your typing skills.
You don't understand how insurance works and how government has screwed you. I suggest you reread the responses to your post and think about them more deeply for your own sake.
I was not in the United States, you idiot. I was in one of those Utopias you have rattling around in that empty head of yours.
I can't even bother to skim the rest of your idiocy.
==============================
You did not make that very clear by referring to it as a state, rather than as a country. You never did explain whether you were sick or not, and whther you got help through influence or not. As a result of apparently conflicitng statements, I have to discount the rest of your comments as equally irrational.
Methinks will never accept any facts that offend his preconeived ideology, so he isn't worth arguing with.
For what it is worth I don't think any of those places with health care are utopias, lest of all this one. Don't put words in my mouth.
Unlike you, I am willing to entertain any option for improvement that is reasonably fair. I'm willing to look and see what works and what doesn't. We can argue about how outcomes are measured in different places, but the differnces in cost are so great that it is hard to believe that there isn't maybe some little piece of utopia we missed.
Right now, we only have one option currently open. Republicans had plenty of time to advance their ideas and they didn't and couldn't.
I'm in favor of medical coops and sales across state lines etc., but for the rest of Republican "ideas: they are nothing but thinly veiled obstructionism.
They have no intention of doing anything, now or when they regain power. If Obama gave them every single thing they complain about, they would still be opposed to this bill.
I play a little head game where health care is my broken tractor. Then I make analogies to the republican ideas on how to repair it to see if they make sense. Its a good thing I don't have a Republican mechanic, today, or it would never run again.
Based on my experience their position is unsupportable, on any level except sheer mean hatred. I'm not interested in going to that party.
My ideas are pretty simple.
I'm a government minimalist. I think government's primary job is to protect people and their property. As a start, I tend to evaluate government actions by how well it protects people's property.
I don't (necessarily or ideologically) have a problem with government taking a dollar from me, if they give me two dollars worth of useful benefit.
I realize that does not often happen, but then the problem is to see that it does, not to eliminate taking the dollar. After all, what does it gain me to give up two dollars worth of useful goods or services to save one dollar?
OK, MAYBE, If I'm smart I can invest it in something else and get three dollars, but there is risk involved in that, and I'm still giving up the two dollars worth of goods or services I might have had. Not much of a payback.
I can argue that government is providing a service that I don't want, need, or care about (I'm healthy and likely to stay that way). But there are other services that I do use. Some of those are worth far more than I pay, and they are only available because many band together and contribute to make it work. (How long would you, individually, have to drive on the interstate before you paid as much in taxes as the highway saved you?)
As a result, I recognize but discount the argument that "They are taking my money." It is not a strong argument to me because I am not entirely discontent with what I get. As a result, when somone goes too far with that argument, I have to discount them as selfish and irrational. It has become a popular refrain, but like the idea that lower taxes increas revenue, it fails at the limit. Reduction to the absurd.
The other argument is that government is so corrupt and so wasteful that nothing it spends money on is worth anything to me. Government will always waste my money.
Well, government will always be here, and I won't. We often have a warped or limited perspective on what amounts to a waste. And we hold government to a standard of perfection most of us could not meet.
I doubt government made a profit on the Hubble, but I'm glad I did not have to wait until it could be built and flown at a profit, in order to see the pictures. It was private enterprise the screwed up that mirror. Government should have caught the problem and corrected it sooner.
Just like health insurance.
You don't understand how insurance works.
===============================
No, but i understand perfectly ho it does NOT work, and that is what I'm focused on.
Maybe you can come up with a plan that works, but so far all I can see is self contradicting arguments. What we have isn't really broken and anything else we ever try is doomed to fail like every other government or non-government plan in operation.
I disagree. The government has allowed insurance companies to steal from me, and lie to me, and otherwise avoid the (mutual) obligations most of us would regard as fair compensaton for services performed.
An employment based health insurance plan is also a self contradiciton: if you are healthy enough to work youdon;t need it or need very little. If you are not healthy enough to work you can't get it and can't afford it anyway. If you had it for no matter how long and lose it, you are instantly out of luck.
That is simply crazy.
If I could get my hands on one of those cheating, lying, rude, obnoxious, supercilious SOB's I'd gladly rip his lungs out with my bare hands. That isn't going to happen, so the next best thing is to have the government arrest themm and make restitution like they would any other common thug or gang member.
I'm sorry you are so wrapped up in no new taxes, etc. That you can't see it that way, but from my point of view you are merely defending the thugs.
Normally I would be pro-business and pro-republican, but not this time.
Anon, I'm glad you agree. Government, rather than reforming what's left that works well in health care for patients, should reform over 99% of its 130,000 pages of regulations and hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes each year.
"The government has allowed insurance companies to steal from me, and lie to me, and otherwise avoid the (mutual) obligations most of us would regard as fair compensaton for services performed."
I'm glad we agree that the Govt is incompetent. So, no, they can't run healthcare.
How many insurance companies do you have? And after the first few lied and stole from you, why did you continue to allow that? Who's responsible for your stupidity?
Healthcare is not a right. No one is obligated but you.
Airlines were deregulated back in '76 and that's when government money stopped...
LOL! You must have been pretty stoned the past decade! Whatever it is you do, don't load my luggage, help me with customer service or (gasp!) fly me to Minnesota (nap time?).
Hmmm... since the taxpayers have been so nice about helping out the airlines, maybe you guys should return the favor by taking the axe to your health care benefits - whaddya say there, leach?
The airline welfare queens can anticipate more assistance to come. With expected fuel price hikes in the future, you can count on it.
I'm glad we agree that the Govt is incompetent. So, no, they can't run healthcare.
How many insurance companies do you have? And after the first few lied and stole from you, why did you continue to allow that? Who's responsible for your stupidity?
Healthcare is not a right. No one is obligated but you.
Boy! There's some real stupid people commenting on this blog! You bet, tough guy - health care's not a right! You eat those words well if your insurance company ever drops your coverage when you're victimized by cancer; you take it like a man if your family (if you have one) frets about unpaid bills.
That's right, government-run health care doesn't work anywhere - just ask the Germans, Japs, French, Swedes that have better life-expectancies than us. They've got gulags and forced-labor camps all over.
Ok, Canada's system sucks, but the world's a big place. Stupid socialist bastards - taxing the rich is the same as taxing you or me: pure quantum physics. Why, we would have never tried that in this country, expect for the... '50s and '60s... when top tax rates were over 70%? (And we had better economic growth than what we've had since Saint Ronnie?)
Speaking of thoroughly stupid people anon @ 3/18/2010 11:15 PM whines: "Boy! There's some real stupid people commenting on this blog! You bet, tough guy - health care's not a right! You eat those words well if your insurance company ever drops your coverage when you're victimized by cancer; you take it like a man if your family (if you have one) frets about unpaid bills"...
Well smart boy why don't you show us where in the Constitution that health care is a right, where its right to steal from the productive so that the parasitic like yourself can get their alledged rights...
Yet another pathetically foolish anon @ 3/18/2010 10:54 PM (or is it the same one?) bables: "Hmmm... since the taxpayers have been so nice about helping out the airlines, maybe you guys should return the favor by taking the axe to your health care benefits - whaddya say there, leach?"...
Hmmm, is the sky blue on your planet when the sun shines?
Obviously your grasp of what's happening in the airline industry is slightly more tenuous than your grip on reality is...
Sadly you whine on without any credible information to link to so that you have something supporting your inane comments...
I can you are yet another great reason to do away with public schools...
It just rips off the taxpayers...
Thanks for playing though...
What is a right":
A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies.
So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights.
What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good.
Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.
A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.
It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery
I'm glad we agree that the Govt is incompetent. So, no, they can't run healthcare.
I'm not expecting them to run healthcare. I'll get that from a doctor. I am expecting them to protect me from theft by the insurors. And allw the insurors to get a fir profit for their services.
Government did not properly regulate the health insurors because they did not have the laws in place.
We have plenty of examples of things the government does competently, so that is a false argument, even if we agree that governmet does screw up. Speeding laws do not have to be enforced perfectly in order to work. Government could enforce speeding laes better, but the fact tht they do not doesn't mean they are incompetent. Hopefully, government spends no more money enforcing speeding laws than it makes sense to. No sense in spending the next $1000 in enforcement if it nets you $1 in fines.
Everyone pays for music, shop, and home economics in school whether our child studies those subjects or not. I would argue for all private schools so that would not happen, but we would have vouchers to help pay for schools, otherwise some would get no schooling. Any way you look at it, someone will be paying for something they are not using (at the moment). (I'm not sick and likely to stay that way).
Well, when you are sick you will be treated by someone who most likely had a public education, whether you pay, your insuror pays, or the government pays.
Sure, we all like to feel independent, but the argument that I don't need to pay because I don;t use the service is a dumb idea that ignores the reality that we are social beings that depend on each other.
Some people think we need more dependence and more sahring of costs and others less. but even the most minimalist agree we need SOME government, so the idea that I should pay nothing is moot.
There's nothing wrong with financial assistance and safety nets. But they should be safety nets and not help people detach the consequences from the behaviors.
==============================
OK, what is the difference between a Pigovian Tax and a sin tax?
There is plenty of sin around. If you want less of it, tax it.
We are spending too much on health care, we have too much health care, so tax it and youwill have les spending on health care.
It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare.
=================================
No? What if the government had irrefutable evidence that you are better off as a result of their welfare than you would be without it?
Government is being charitable to you, with your ownd money.
Government has no business doing anything that does not result in a net benefit. I don't wan't to be annoyed by thugs, and beggars, and insane people every time I venture out, so I don't mind paying the government to care for those people and keep them out of my face. but I also don't want government spending $50 for evey $10 worth of service.
Ideally, the government would not only supply a net benfit, they would also distrbute the benefit such that the winners benefits are reduced enough to compensate the losers. If we reduce or eliminate building along th erivers we all benefit from lower flood emergency and insurance costs, but people on the river lose property value. if there is enough benefit, we can buy them out and still be "charitable" to ourselves.
The argument against the current bill is that there is no net benefit, and no attempt to distribute the costs fairly.
The CBO study suggests there is a net benefit, we should take it and then argue further about how to allocate the costs.
How about this? We assume that every time you go to the doctor it prolongs your life. You then owe a ten cent tax for every day you live subsequent to your visit to the doctor. The tax is additive, so if you go frequently the taxes add up. The money collected is used to reduce the income tax.
In this way, the winners from health care (those that use the services) pay back the losers, those that don't.
anon @ 3/19/2010 10:16 AM claims: "We have plenty of examples of things the government does competently, so that is a false argument, even if we agree that governmet does screw up"...
Name one example of something the federal government does right....
"I would argue for all private schools so that would not happen, but we would have vouchers to help pay for schools, otherwise some would get no schooling"...
Hmmm, still with the socialist mantra of getting the productive to pay for the parasitic, eh?
Is there ANY room in your philosophy for something called, "personal responsibility"?
"Sure, we all like to feel independent, but the argument that I don't need to pay because I don;t use the service is a dumb idea that ignores the reality that we are social beings that depend on each other"...
Even more of that thoroughly socialist nonsense...
This is a truly sad attempt to rationalize why its apparently 'good & just' for the government to extort major amounts of the citizens' earnings...
How many insurance companies do you have? And after the first few lied and stole from you, why did you continue to allow that?
I don't enforce the laws concerning stealing. That is the governments job.
Why did you continue to allow that?
I don't "allow" muggers just because I continue to walk on the street. However, once I recognize a bad place, I'm unlikely to go there again.
The last time I got mugged it was in a place I thought was (almost) perfectly safe.
The last time I got robbed by an insurance company it was because they claimed I had not disclosed a previous illness. One which I never had, and even if I did I no longer have. This had nothing to do with any claims I might have now, but they wanted to avoid claims I might have in the future, so they drummed up an excuse to claim that I had lied on my application.
Why would they bother to do that? Well, because my doctor ordered a colonoscopy, and all they could see coming was claims for rectal cancer, which I never had.
But they avoided that by claiming I had failed to disclose asthma on my (one page) application, which I also never had. But, buried in the doctors notes to himself, (not in his diagnosis tome) somehwere on a visit sheet from 20 years ago for a chest cold there was sure enough a note that described "some asthmatic sounds".
As you point out, I could have sued them, but it would very likely cost me a lot more than the $9000 it cost me when they cancelled my coverage.
And I would have lost because, under the law ANY insurance comapny can do that in this state.
There is no safe neighborhood to walk in the insurance world, and so I am demanding more enforcement from the government, because as Peak Trader points out, I have the basic right to travel. I have the right to be protected in my person and my property.
To do that government needs to reform the laes on health insurance.
The rules and taxes on health care are a separate matter. I don't think any more than anyone else here that a pedicurists needs a medical license.
"Now this is unseemly, exploitative, an 11-year-old boy being forced to tell his story all over just to benefit the Democrat Party and Barack Obama," Limbaugh said on March 12,
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/03/18/1536332/boys-story-of-mothers-death-angers.html#ixzz0ieCf2lHC
================================
Well, now all Limbaugh ha to do to counteract this is trot out a ten year old whose mother was saved by one of the Republican policies.
Name one example of something the federal government does right....
They train Air force pilots.
Turn the red light red when the green one turns green. you pretty much take that one for granted, right?
Does the governmnet screw up sometimes? That's a different question. but don't claim there is nothing they do right.
Is there ANY room in your philosophy for something called, "personal responsibility"?
It is called the golden rule. I hold myself personally responsible for treating everyone else the same way I expect to be treated.
I don't expect to be cheated by insurance companies, and I don't expect to allow anyone else to be cheatd by insurance companies.
I imagine that you own at least some kind of insurance. Why do you do that? Prcisely so that you will not be held persoanlly responsible for whatever happens.
Hmmm, still with the socialist mantra of getting the productive to pay for the parasitic, eh?
How is supporting the idea of all private schools socialist? and what has that got to do with any argument for reform of health insurance regulations.
we are social beings that depend on each other"...
Even more of that thoroughly socialist nonsense...
================================
I suppose you live alone and get absolutely nothing from anyone else. Find me someone that fits that bill, and I will happily retract my statement.
Until then it is neither nonsense nor rationalization.
You and I have equal rights. that means you have to give up some things to respect my rights and I yours. That makes us social beings.
This is a truly sad attempt to rationalize why its apparently 'good & just' for the government to extort major amounts of the citizens' earnings...
no.
Your statements are a poor excuse to rationalize mean and bitter selfishness as if it was truly conservative thought.
Health Care is a basic right that is contained in the US Constitution. The Constitution was thought of by the Founding Fathers as a living document that could be adapted to changing times, much like the British Common Law. Jefferson and the rest of the founders recognized that times would change and that people would do things different than they would today. They also realized that their work was not complete and that it was not the final say. Thus, they wrote the Constitution in a way that would allow for great flexibility for future generations.
The first thing to keep in mind is the Ninth Amendment. It states that rights are not restricted because they are not specifically covered in the Constitution. This was designed to prevent future tyrants from saying that since a right was not specifically covered in the Constitution that they could take away our liberties.
anon @ 3/19/2010 1:31 PM whines: "Your statements are a poor excuse to rationalize mean and bitter selfishness as if it was truly conservative thought"...
Hmmm, coming from someone who is both a person of questionable honesty and a lazy thief and apparently doesn't believe in 'personal responsibility' wants the government to do his (her?) stealing for him...
"Health Care is a basic right that is contained in the US Constitution. The Constitution was thought of by the Founding Fathers as a living document that could be adapted to changing times, much like the British Common Law"...
You of course have a credible source we can all link to for this bizzare progressive sales pitch, right?
Personally I go with the wisdom and knowledge of a Supreme Court Justice: Scalia At Texas Tech: 'Constitution Is Not A Living Document'
I'll leave you with your asinine Thurgood Marshall fantasies...
"They train Air force pilots"...
Wrong again sporty!
Pilots train pilots and it happens everyday thankfully without government intervention for the most part...
"Turn the red light red when the green one turns green. you pretty much take that one for granted, right?"...
Nope!
"Your statements are a poor excuse to rationalize mean and bitter selfishness as if it was truly conservative thought"...
Thanks again for proving that you are a parasite...
I earned and all your whining not withstanding you've yet to prove that you have a right to any of it...
Anon, if all MDs quit, because they refuse to be slaves, then where's your health care "right?"
Hmmm, is the sky blue on your planet when the sun shines?
Obviously your grasp of what's happening in the airline industry is slightly more tenuous than your grip on reality is...
You're an idiot if you think we've been sleeping at the wheel. Where was the industry's personal responsibility after 9/11, when the government doled out $15 billion to what was a previously ailing industry?
Nice, empathetic comments to those in trouble and can't help themselves. Remember those words well if your insurance company ever leaves you hanging with a $50,000 bill garnered from a critical surgery. Better yet, the next time Uncle Sam has to pull industry's britches up, maybe you guys can ease the tax-payers' burden by forfeiting some of your health care benefits...
Juandos,
Actually, it appears there's another anon who made comments about the government training anons. Just so you know you're dealing with the real anon here, and not a lesser one, I'll give myself a calling card.
Billy Mays from the dead!
Pilots train pilots and it happens everyday thankfully without government intervention for the most part...
Actually, I am going to intrude on this one. Hate to tell you this, buster, but the government's dole is what pays for those fly boys joy stick skills, it buys those high-tech planes they fly, and it's under the consolidated management of a gargantuan organization - the Pentagon. That big building in DC is not a Super Walmart.
Cripes. The air force is a government program!? That completely explains our debacles in Iraq and 'Stan. No wonder our jets have been dropping nothing but forks and spoons during bombing runs; no wonder they carry t-shirt launchers instead of missile launchers. Our defense is run by commies!
You guys need to get that concept in your head... right after you learn to read beyond the first three words in the 6th Commandment.
Mr. Oxiclean
"You're an idiot if you think we've been sleeping at the wheel. Where was the industry's personal responsibility after 9/11, when the government doled out $15 billion to what was a previously ailing industry?"...
Trying to recover from government incompetence that resulted in faulty security...
"Remember those words well if your insurance company ever leaves you hanging with a $50,000 bill garnered from a critical surgery"...
Gee! If your life is such a series of miseries you should've just kissed it off and spared the rest of the planet your whinings that are result of your inability to get a grip on reality...
Just think of how many people you'll leave happy...
Trying to recover from government incompetence that resulted in faulty security...
Pfftt...!!! Airline service is as about as high-grade as a White Castle 'beef' turd. Four hours on the tarmac? Been there. I love the latest lightening rod: a 14-hour flight from LA to NY. For what's suppose to be private enterprise, it sure doesn't operate like one.
Gee! If your life is such a series of miseries you should've just kissed it off and spared the rest of the planet your whinings that are result of your inability to get a grip on reality...
Just think of how many people you'll leave happy...
I actually don't have a problem with difference in opinion. I don't have a problem with Mark's blog, nor anyone of a differing opinion on the subject who can discuss the matter in a civilized, intelligent manner. What I have a problem with is idiot brick heads like yourself who chew out good, compentant people left hanging mercilessly by the system; people who've paid into the system their whole lives, then, when they need their insurance the most, they get left hanging with a massive bill, and a herd of Neanderthals who scold them and call them parasites.
Just remember your own words, tough guy, if you ever get cancer and an insurance company that leaves you hanging dry. Don't go around ballin', because I've heard a few of you tough guy-types call into radio programs before: saying they used to laugh at those whose insurance coverage was dropped, but now they know what it feels like because their coverage ditched them after a daughter's surgery. They're practically balling the whole time.
So do everyone a favor by not crying if you land in the same predicament. Because no one likes a hypocrite - right, welfare queen?
I am a physician surgeon and I will quit immediately if this bill is passed as a matter of principle.
1) doctors deliver care not insurance companies.
2) gov fee fixing is a slippery slope argument. What profession do they fix next?
3) Politicians that are giving you this crap are all exempt from it with their own lifetime unlimited PPO.
4) This insane bill removes all state malpractice caps across the nation.
5) If you like FMG (foreign medical graduates) you can have em. Life is real cheap to middle eastern doctors.
6) So tomorrow may be my last day in Medicine capping a stellar career in the emergency trauma center. I have a bottle of champagne and will toast the lives I have saved, pray for those I could not save, and turn my back on a nanny state gone mad and never look back. As for your health care... its not my problem anymore. Call harry reid, pelosi or obama if you sick. Maybe they can hook you up with some Kenyan witch doctor.
The real problem is not health care. It is insurance companies.
Insurance companies charge too much, interfere too much and generally ruin the practice of medicine by telling doctors how much to charge, what procedures are allowed, denying coverage, etc, etc, etc.
And THEN there is the insurance the doctors are required to carry and that's a whole new issue!
We don't need HEALTHCARE reform. We need INSURANCE reform.
Why isn't that obvious to everyone?
On another note...
Some of these arguing comments are rediculous. You guys are just working out old issues through each other and aren't even listening to each other very well at all.
One guy was dying and is now better. The insurance industry AND the LAWS that allow it screwed him over.
The other guy couldn't go through regular channels, but still had big shots in the gov use their influence to save his life.
In BOTH instances the actual gov did little to help. As it was the laws in both countries that allowed what happened to happen.
You are both mad and disillusioned about what happened, and have different view points because of it. Deal.
By the way State and country mean EXACTLY the same thing. Go look it up in the dictionary. Puts a whole new spin on the Constitution doesn't it?
Anonymous clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Sounds like he should go back to school and learn how to spell, along with Eco.101. Why waste your time arguing with stupidy?
"Pfftt...!!! Airline service is as about as high-grade as a White Castle 'beef' turd"...
So do the airlines a favor and walk to your destination...
The last whine of a clueless parasite?
Elena says: "The real problem is not health care. It is insurance companies.
Insurance companies charge too much, interfere too much and generally ruin the practice of medicine by telling doctors how much to charge, what procedures are allowed, denying coverage, etc, etc, etc."...
Hmmm, do you think any of this behavior by the insurance companies is in part driven by government interference in the insurance marketplace?
Juandos! Trying to be a sneaky bastard, eh?
"So do the airlines a favor and walk to your destination...
The last whine of a clueless parasite?"
I should walk, huh? Ha! You sound like a cranky government employee - are you sure you don't have a padded PO pension waiting for you?
I've got a better idea. As we watch China and other emerging rock stars chow down on more oil, thus put more pressure on prices, how about we force you guys to make the hard choices instead of another band aid? That way, maybe the industry will clear out some old bones and actually act like a privatized industry, instead of an 'ol Soviet kleptocracy.
Or we could also lay down some more railroad track, too. Boston's subway hardly has problems being expeditious.a
http://www.minicare.org/
MiniCare's Mission and Objectives
MiniCare is a 501C3 designated as a public charity. Its mission is simple; provide low cost ($22) primary care to millions of Americans who cannot afford to see a doctor.
MiniCare is unlike any other health care provider. It does not require or accept any type of insurance. Instead, it offers one low fixed cost of $22 to anyone
who walks in the door. Its clinics will treat both acute and chronic conditions falling within its scope of practice. MiniCare's low cost operation is primarily
due to its ability to reduce administrative cost through the use of patient self registration kiosks and full use of electronic records. Many MiniCare patients
are expected to qualify for the various free prescription drug programs currently available through the pharmaceutical industry, while others will be
provided with generic prescriptions where applicable.
MiniCare's first clinic is located at 3838 Meadows Lane in Las Vegas and set to open shortly. MiniCare expects to open an additional six clinics within the Clark County area followed by hundreds more across the nation.
Our current clinic includes:
· 9 examination rooms
· Reception area
· Consultation Room
· Patient registration area
· Each clinic is estimated to see 105,000 patient visits per year.
· To maintain a staff of qualified health care professionals.
· To issue magnetic code membership cards that provide access to members medical and treatment records at any MiniCare clinic.
· To raise additional funds through grants, donations as well as corporate sponsorships.
· To maintain a network of labs and specialty physicians willing to
provide reduced cost to our member referrals.
· To endorse and encourage a "healthy lifestyle" for optimal health.
Patients will register and pay via a credit/debit card or check utilizing MiniCare's electronic kiosk. A receptionist will always be on duty to help anyone who needs assistance. All records will be kept in full compliance with
all HIPPA regulations.
Examinations and assessments will be provided by a licensed physician, nurse practitioner or a physician's assistant. Patient evaluations and satisfaction
ratings will be used to assess our effectiveness and quality of care.
MiniCare can grow to nationwide scale much like any other business or organization – one market at a time. Proven success of the 7 proposed MiniCare clinics in the Las Vegas area will be used as the model to bring the MiniCare
concept to other cities and towns.
Small business owners who perhaps cannot afford health insurance for their employees would be able to subscribe to MiniCare's "Corporate Membership". The individual business would be charged an annual fee based on the number of
employees along with a deposit allowing pre-designated employees and their families' access to any MiniCare clinic based on the prepaid amount remaining.
Future plans call for the issuance of a "Gold Card Membership" allowing for unlimited visits at a fixed monthly cost.
(and all donations are tax deductible)
call:(702) 220-8293
This comment has been removed by the author.
By the way State and country mean EXACTLY the same thing
--------------------------
Yes I realize that. In the U.S. we usually make the distinction of using one word for one purpose and one for another.
As in this dictionary definition:
"One of the more or less internally autonomous territorial and political units composing a federation under a sovereign government: the 48 contiguous states of the Union."
it was an honest mistake, not realizing the other commentor was a foreigner with an extraordinary interest in how we manage our insurance companies.
I can spell and think, but I have a typing disability.
If you have a problem with my logic, why not respond to that instead of attacking me personally?
Such behavior is childish and indicative of poor education and bad manners.
"One guy was dying and is now better. The insurance industry AND the LAWS that allow it screwed him over. "
Right. and that is why I support changing the laws.
The new laws may not work, either.
I recognize that, but I also recognize that our air is cleaner due to the clean air act.
New regulations might work and the old ones didn't.
I'll take the chance.
I'd still like five minutes alone with the CEO to explain to him in considerable detail how I feel about liars and cheaters.
Post a Comment
<< Home