O/T: Amazing

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:29:53 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>>> What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
>>> exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
>>> and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.
>>
>> Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from
>> crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts
>> of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies
>> gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical
>> community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a
>> small part of it all.
>
>Agreed.
>
>You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense
>they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how
>to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their
>own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.

It is also spent on advertising the drugs they went out of their way
to produce, to make people think they had some new disease, which the
drug in question just happens to cure.

Pharmaceutical advertising is in the tens or hundreds of billions
annually, depending on your scope.

--
If you're trying to take a roomful of people by
surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets
if you don't yell going through the door.
-- Lois McMaster Bujold

Han wrote:
> "Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:7556$4ff1c5ec [email protected]:
>
>> Han wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
>>> society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount,
>>> and worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and
>>> altruistic, but it leaves out the problem when there is no money
>>> available to pay for that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for
>>> hospital costs to help pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax
>>> or penalty on people with the foresight to have insurance, or able
>>> to pay without, so that the indigent can be cared for. I like the
>>> proposed system where everyone is urged to be responsible and get
>>> insurance much better.
>>
>> And the difference is... what? The difference is in name only.
>
> I don't think it is. Now everyone will pay insurance premiums. For
> some they will go up (mine, I think), for others they will go down:
> the individual not currently able to get group insurance, not being
> able to pay those rates, and therefore going bareback. The premium
> will go down so now he's able to afford, or else <grin>. I think the
> system will (should) get more equitable.

The cynic in me says that nothing designed and managed by the US Government
will ever be more equitable. The point though is that both systems - that
of hospitals surcharging to cover the care of indigents, and more affluent
Americans covering the insurance costs of the less capable, boil down to the
same thing. Just because you can now call it insurance is simply a matter
of semantics. Nothing is going to change except for the cost of
adminsitering this nightmare.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 7/4/2012 7:43 AM, Han wrote:

> I had hoped to find some better result, because I think tort reform,
> combined with more punishment of offending doctors, hospitals etc, should
> help lowering costs ...

Lawyers write the laws, lobbyist' tell them what to say, and politicians
go to the bank.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Han wrote:

>
> This morning, my haircutter girl at the neighborhood new Great Clips
> made a mistake in entering data into the cash register. Now she had
> to pull out the calculator to subtract $7.01 from $14.00. I'm just
> saying ...

Why did you have to go there Han? Now it's my turn... I bought something
at a local cash and carry type store. The total came to something like
$7.20. I gave the girl $20.20. Didn't even throw her a curve ball by
giving her a twenty and a quarter - straight up $20.20.

She screwed somethin up on her "think for me"-cash register and had to ask
another cashier for a calculator to figure out my change. I was so baffled,
I didn't even come up with a smart ass comment...

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 6/30/2012 8:10 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:32:23 -0700, "CW"<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>
>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they can't
>> afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate blood
>>from a turnip.
>> =======================================================================
>> It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the point in the
>> first place and made it illegal to be poor. It should work at least as well
>> as this clustrefuck we have now.
>
> Right. Require that the homeless buy a house. Simple!

You are probably are more right than not on that comment. The housing
bubble that started this latest mess in 08 was because people that could
not afford houses were qualifying for loans to buy them since the
government was guaranteeing the loans. And then the government had the
nerve to blame the banks for the whole mess.

Had the government not guaranteed the loans this would not have
happened. And yes the lenders did twist the qualification thresholds
but the government expected them to do so, why else would they have
guaranteed the loans. No need to guarantee loans for applicants that
actually have the means to pay the money back!

Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>On 7/2/2012 1:41 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>> On 7/2/2012 11:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
>>>> "me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
>>>> individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
>>>> him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
>>>> resort is a government program.
>>>
>>> I disagree Keith. And - I'm one who has no problem at all in blaming
>>> socialists for a lot of ills. Socialism and "me"ism are at odds with
>>> each
>>> other to a very large degree. I believe that the me-first attitude
>>> enabled
>>> the onslaught of socialistic thinking.
>>>
>> As I read what you read, I believe our disagreement is a chicken and
>> egg issue of which came first? "me"ism caused socialist think OR
>> socialist thinking caused "me"ism.
>>
>>
>>
>Socialism promotes and encourages "me" ism, but "me"ism is an integral
>component of human nature.
>

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership
and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management
of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.

There is not a single politician in the United States that advocates the
above, nor is social security, safety nets, welfare, common defense,
or medicare 'socialism' in any sense of the word.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:18:33 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services, but I
>can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is accomplished
>(hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.

Of course, it always makes sense to develop a friendship with your
doctor.

I don't know what it's like down in the US, but up here in Canada,
there are areas that are under served by doctors and some people have
a great deal of trouble finding one that will take them on as regular
clients. Guess that's part and parcel of living away from the cities.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:03:13 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 6/28/2012 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>
>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>
>It's entirely plausible that Roberts may have done more future damage to
>the liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may have
>well been Marbury'ed ...

Obamacare may be the blunt instrument which causes the American masses
to finally come to Critical Mass. Stock water, food, supplies, and
ammo, boys and girls.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

Just Wondering wrote:

> What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
> exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
> and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from crazy
malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts of the
companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies gobble up
every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical community. Lots of
areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a small part of it all.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 23:45:32 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:16:04 -0400, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>>To fix the "problem", first you have to take away the homeless' right to live
>>as they wish.
>
>
>Or unfix the fix from a few years ago. Many people were in
>institutions, but that was deemed harsh and an infringement on rights.
>It was for some, but others were incapable of caring for themselves
>and found a worse fate

That's the "fix" I was referring to when I said "take away the homeless' right
to live as they wish".

On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:58:56 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
wrote:



>> >> On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
>> >>> I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
>> >>> doctor visit . . .


>> OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but
>> often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.
>
>However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are
>being pedantic about the definition.
>
>For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and
>sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out
>that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.

Call it what you want. The OP said he goes when his cold get bad. If
he wants to expand the definition of his illness, fine, but doctors
can't cure colds yet.

Take two aspirin . . . . .

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 08:44:19 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 6/30/2012 5:17 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:29:53 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>>>> What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
>>>>> exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
>>>>> and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from
>>>> crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts
>>>> of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies
>>>> gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical
>>>> community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a
>>>> small part of it all.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>> You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense
>>> they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how
>>> to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their
>>> own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.
>>
>> It is also spent on advertising the drugs they went out of their way
>> to produce, to make people think they had some new disease, which the
>> drug in question just happens to cure.
>>
>> Pharmaceutical advertising is in the tens or hundreds of billions
>> annually, depending on your scope.
>
>Yeah, a far twenty third place behind the ads for tennis shoes,
>ambulance chasers, campaign ads, greeney ads, etc

So what? I opt out/boycott/don't buy the exotic tennies, rent
speaking weasels, donate to corrupt politicians, or support tree
huggers. But when I need meds, I want them to be reasonably priced.
The fact that our own pharmceutical companies sell the exact same
drugs to Europe and the rest of the world at 1/5 (or less) the price
they gouge us for, to me, is unconscionable. I can't opt out of
needing meds, though losing weight is doing as much for my high BP as
the Lisinopril. Luckily, it's one of the $4/mo drug prescriptions. The
cost of one month's worth of HIV drugs exceeds the annual income of
citizens from most other nations.

The medical community has put itself on pedestals which we can no
longer afford to ignore or condone.

--
If you're trying to take a roomful of people by
surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets
if you don't yell going through the door.
-- Lois McMaster Bujold

On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>
> Now let the fun and games begin.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they can't
afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate blood
from a turnip.

On 06/29/2012 12:41 PM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>>
>>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>>
>>> What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
>>> health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
>>> they said it with a straight face.
>>
>> I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
>> be paying for those who do.
>
> I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until
> now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you
> are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course
> you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the
> "charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need
> to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same
> treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the
> insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need
> databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide
> where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course).
>
> At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay
> for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that
> insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured).
>
> There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get
> insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have
> benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while,
> and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance,
> period.
>
> Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system
> would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it
> would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful
> which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare
> personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless
> bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more
> than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on
> the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the
> quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would
> like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should
> be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of
> proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.
>
>

Obamacare took care of the bureaucracies, it added 142 new ones!


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 06/29/2012 01:15 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On 29 Jun 2012 19:41:47 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lew
>>>>>
>>>> What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
>>>> health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
>>>> they said it with a straight face.
>>>
>>> I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
>>> be paying for those who do.
>>
>> I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until
>
> I believe that universal health coverage is a good thing, but I
> believe there are a helluva lot of reasons that Obamacare cannot work.
> When regular ol' doctors make $4k an hour, something is very, very
> wrong. (An oral surgeon made $915 off a 14 minute job in my mouth.)
> Heart surgeons make 40x that much money. Ditto hospitals. Attorneys
> drive up costs immensely for no good reason.
>
>
>> now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you
>> are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course
>> you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the
>> "charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need
>> to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same
>> treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the
>> insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need
>> databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide
>> where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course).
>>
>> At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay
>> for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that
>> insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured).
>>
>> There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get
>> insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have
>> benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while,
>> and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance,
>> period.
>
> A few things in Obamacare are actually good things. Removal of the
> pre-existing conditions clause, but look at the added costs involved
> in all the other clauses in the 2,471 page Obamacare library! Billions
> of dollars in increases. Crikey, Satan is alive and well and living
> in Barack's body.
>
>
>> Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system
>> would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it
>> would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful
>> which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare
>> personnel,
>
> Competitive wages, yes, but so many of the wages are elevated only
> because of the word "medical" in the description that it's ridiculous.
> Ditto the cost of items deemed "medical devices". My neighbor just
> paid $189 for a goddamned porta potty for his bedside. I think this
> one's overpriced http://tinyurl.com/7s7lfgx but John's has a drop arm.
>
>
>> but currently much of the costs are associated with needless
>> bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more
>> than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on
>> the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the
>> quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would
>> like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should
>> be made.
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>> I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of
>> proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.
>
> Yes, but I need to update it. It's 6 years old and they're only good
> for 5. BTW, I'm donating my body to science fiction. I do -not- wish
> to be kept alive at all costs, or if I'm a vegetable, etc.

I signed up with medcure.org. A real price performer.

>
> --
> Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
> succeed is more important than any one thing.
> -- Abraham Lincoln
>



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 6/29/2012 1:41 PM, Han wrote:
> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>>
>>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>>
>>>> Lew
>>>>
>>> What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
>>> health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
>>> they said it with a straight face.
>> I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
>> be paying for those who do.
> I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing.

What you're really saying is that you think the benefits outweigh the
detriments. If you want a thing and can afford it, you've probably
already got it and don't need to be compelled. If you don't want a
thing, why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
expense? And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to
force a third party to get it for you at their expense? It makes no
difference how laudable the thing is, making it compulsory takes away
your freedom. So what you're really saying is that you believe denying
me and others our freedom is a good thing.

On 6/29/2012 2:51 PM, Larry W wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> G. Ross <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>
>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
>> health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
>> they said it with a straight face.
>>
> It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the
> primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care
> and insurance industries.
>
>
What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

On 06/29/2012 06:45 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:54:08 -0700, Doug Winterburn
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 06/29/2012 01:15 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On 29 Jun 2012 19:41:47 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lew
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
>>>>>> health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
>>>>>> they said it with a straight face.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
>>>>> be paying for those who do.
>>>>
>>>> I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until
>>>
>>> I believe that universal health coverage is a good thing, but I
>>> believe there are a helluva lot of reasons that Obamacare cannot work.
>>> When regular ol' doctors make $4k an hour, something is very, very
>>> wrong. (An oral surgeon made $915 off a 14 minute job in my mouth.)
>>> Heart surgeons make 40x that much money. Ditto hospitals. Attorneys
>>> drive up costs immensely for no good reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>> now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you
>>>> are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course
>>>> you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the
>>>> "charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need
>>>> to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same
>>>> treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the
>>>> insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need
>>>> databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide
>>>> where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course).
>>>>
>>>> At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay
>>>> for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that
>>>> insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured).
>>>>
>>>> There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get
>>>> insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have
>>>> benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while,
>>>> and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance,
>>>> period.
>>>
>>> A few things in Obamacare are actually good things. Removal of the
>>> pre-existing conditions clause, but look at the added costs involved
>>> in all the other clauses in the 2,471 page Obamacare library! Billions
>>> of dollars in increases. Crikey, Satan is alive and well and living
>>> in Barack's body.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system
>>>> would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it
>>>> would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful
>>>> which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare
>>>> personnel,
>>>
>>> Competitive wages, yes, but so many of the wages are elevated only
>>> because of the word "medical" in the description that it's ridiculous.
>>> Ditto the cost of items deemed "medical devices". My neighbor just
>>> paid $189 for a goddamned porta potty for his bedside. I think this
>>> one's overpriced http://tinyurl.com/7s7lfgx but John's has a drop arm.
>>>
>>>
>>>> but currently much of the costs are associated with needless
>>>> bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more
>>>> than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on
>>>> the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the
>>>> quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would
>>>> like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should
>>>> be made.
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of
>>>> proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.
>>>
>>> Yes, but I need to update it. It's 6 years old and they're only good
>>> for 5. BTW, I'm donating my body to science fiction. I do -not- wish
>>> to be kept alive at all costs, or if I'm a vegetable, etc.
>>
>> I signed up with medcure.org. A real price performer.
>
> I'm signed up via the driver's license. But I like the "Feed the
> fishies" cremation option with medcure.

I think of it as the "Travel the World" option. Once they dump you in
the drink, you'll get washed up on all kinds of exotic shores - or go to
the feed trough.

>
> --
> Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
> succeed is more important than any one thing.
> -- Abraham Lincoln
>



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 06/29/2012 09:12 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2012 02:03:18 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>>
>> Having reently joined the
>> retired crowd, and now having to deal with Medicare billing, supplemental
>> insurances, deductibles and copays, it is mind boggling and loudly crying
>> for simplification.
>
> Plan F. No deductible, no co-pay, no paperwork. Most expensive option
> though. Has some coverage for foreign travel too. Varies by state
> and insurance but my cost is $230/month.
>
> For those of you nearing Medicare time, a given plan, Plan F, Plan C,
> etc are all the same no matter who the provider is. Rates may vary,
> but the plan is the same.
>

And add about $30/month for plan D (drugs).

Not a bad deal, but with Obamacare, certain to go up drastically. The
biggie for retired folks is the half trillion bucks that will come out
of medicare to help pay for Obamacare. That will make the supplementals
go up in price to cover the difference,

The biggie for the younger generation is the ten years of taxes to pay
for 6 years of benefits. The next ten years after that will be a real
shocker.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 06/30/2012 09:47 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>
>> If you don't want a thing,
>> why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
>> expense?
>
> Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?

State or local as it should be. Read the 10th amendment.

>
>> And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to force a
>> third party to get it for you at their expense?
>
> They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free treatment
> they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the difference?

Non federal government. Read the 10th amendment.

>



--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 06/30/2012 12:12 PM, Han wrote:
> Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 06/30/2012 09:47 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you don't want a thing,
>>>> why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
>>>> expense?
>>>
>>> Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?
>>
>> State or local as it should be. Read the 10th amendment.
>>
>>>
>>>> And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to
>>>> force a
>>>> third party to get it for you at their expense?
>>>
>>> They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free
>>> treatment they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the
>>> difference?
>>
>> Non federal government. Read the 10th amendment.
>
> If I get charged an 8.5% surcharge (even if the insurance company pays
> it, I ultimately pay via my premiums), it is immaterial whether it is a
> federal or local charge. It is money out my pocket.
>
>

It's very material unless you believe the Constitution is immaterial.
Again, read the 10th amendment.

It would be best for all those who wish the federal government to be
involved in all aspects of life to start a movement to repeal the 10th
rather than just ignoring it.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 06/30/2012 04:19 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:26:30 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> It's very material unless you believe the Constitution is immaterial.
>> Again, read the 10th amendment.
>
> I do believe the Civil War (among other things) more or less ignored the
> 10th amendment. The Constitution, or at least the literal interpretation
> of it, was on life support even before that.
>
> Do you really believe that health care even entered the founders minds,
> considering its primitiveness at the time? See death of G. Washington.
>

I believe the founders were intent on limiting the power of the federal
government. That is exactly the reason for the 10th and the remainder
of the bill of rights. They were not about to have the same issues in
the new government that they fought to escape from.

Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the
feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution
or the intended power of the federal government.

A refresher of "enumerated powers" may help to enlighten.

--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On 6/30/2012 6:32 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>
>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
> The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they can't
> afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate blood
> from a turnip.
> =======================================================================
> It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the point in
> the first place and made it illegal to be poor. It should work at
> least as well as this clustrefuck we have now.

The "individual mandate" was one of the biggest sticking points about
Obamacare. What it amounted to was, either buy insurance or pay the
feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For people
who don't already have insurance because they can't afford it, it
amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going, Barack Hussein.

On 6/30/2012 2:35 PM, Frank Stutzman wrote:
> Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Well said. Just a little question. Most (I think) physicians, including
>> primary care doctors, nowadays are saddled with an extensive staff of
>> billing agents, transcribers, appointment secretaries etc, etc. So net
>> pay and gross pay are very different.
> Absolutely. My father-in-law was also a general practitioner (doctoring tends
> to run in my wife's family). He ran his clinic with just a nurse and a
> front desk person who also handled the business operation. Very low overhead
> and, thusly, very low costs to his patients.
>
> On the other hand, it was a cash only business. He did his patient notes in
> his own shorthand on 3x5 cards, owned the building he worked in, and ended
> up marrying his nurse.
>
> Now days just nagging insurance companies to pay (either Medicare or private)
> takes a staff of and least 2 full time employees per practitioner.
>
>

There are former doctors who quit being doctors because they couldn't
afford the $100,000 a year or more the insurance companies demanded for
malpractice premiums.

On 6/30/2012 7:10 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 17:32:23 -0700, "CW" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>
>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they can't
>> afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate blood
> >from a turnip.
>> =======================================================================
>> It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the point in the
>> first place and made it illegal to be poor. It should work at least as well
>> as this clustrefuck we have now.
> Right. Require that the homeless buy a house. Simple!

And impose a "homeless tax" on those who can't afford to buy.

On 7/1/2012 11:06 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
>> Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the
>> feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution
>> or the intended power of the federal government.
> As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the
> founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays level
> of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.
>
There were houses, food, clothing, and education back then. The
founders didn't consider those things to be "rights."

On 7/1/2012 12:25 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 7/1/2012 1:06 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>>
>>> Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things
>>> the
>>> feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the
>>> Constitution
>>> or the intended power of the federal government.
>>
>> As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the
>> founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays
>> level
>> of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.
>>
>> They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some of
>> their principles (reached after much compromising) are still
>> applicable -
>> others need adjustments for reality.
>>
> If they thought health care was a right they would have said PROVIDE
> for the common welfare, NOT PROMOTE the general welfare.
>
No, they would have said something specific about health care itself.

On 7/2/2012 7:52 AM, m II wrote:
> Classic Canuck view from Seattle.
>
> -----------
> "Dave" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
> they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
> Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
> completely indigent.
>
Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
lie about it?

On 7/2/2012 1:41 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 11:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
>>> "me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
>>> individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
>>> him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
>>> resort is a government program.
>>
>> I disagree Keith. And - I'm one who has no problem at all in blaming
>> socialists for a lot of ills. Socialism and "me"ism are at odds with
>> each
>> other to a very large degree. I believe that the me-first attitude
>> enabled
>> the onslaught of socialistic thinking.
>>
> As I read what you read, I believe our disagreement is a chicken and
> egg issue of which came first? "me"ism caused socialist think OR
> socialist thinking caused "me"ism.
>
>
>
Socialism promotes and encourages "me" ism, but "me"ism is an integral
component of human nature.

On 7/2/2012 12:30 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Han wrote:
>
>>
>> This morning, my haircutter girl at the neighborhood new Great Clips
>> made a mistake in entering data into the cash register. Now she had
>> to pull out the calculator to subtract $7.01 from $14.00. I'm just
>> saying ...
>
> Why did you have to go there Han? Now it's my turn... I bought something
> at a local cash and carry type store. The total came to something like
> $7.20. I gave the girl $20.20. Didn't even throw her a curve ball by
> giving her a twenty and a quarter - straight up $20.20.
>
> She screwed somethin up on her "think for me"-cash register and had to ask
> another cashier for a calculator to figure out my change. I was so baffled,
> I didn't even come up with a smart ass comment...
>
It hasn't gotten any better, and most certainly has gotten worse. Some
thirty years ago I bought something at a store, gave the young clerk a
twenty, and she looked at me very apologetically, as if to say "I'm
sorry, I don't know how to calculate your change." I had to coach her
through the process, and when done, she then did say "Sorry it took so
long." During the incident, I could sense that she was realizing that
either her schooling had failed her, or she had failed her schooling.
Never saw her again.

Matt

On 7/2/2012 3:54 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 7/2/2012 1:41 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2012 11:42 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>>> Keith Nuttle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The socialist elements have created an environment that promotes
>>>>> "me"ism. Before the socialist programs, as a last resort each
>>>>> individual knew that he HAD to depend on family and the people around
>>>>> him. With the socialist programs this has changed, and now the last
>>>>> resort is a government program.
>>>> I disagree Keith. And - I'm one who has no problem at all in blaming
>>>> socialists for a lot of ills. Socialism and "me"ism are at odds with
>>>> each
>>>> other to a very large degree. I believe that the me-first attitude
>>>> enabled
>>>> the onslaught of socialistic thinking.
>>>>
>>> As I read what you read, I believe our disagreement is a chicken and
>>> egg issue of which came first? "me"ism caused socialist think OR
>>> socialist thinking caused "me"ism.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Socialism promotes and encourages "me" ism, but "me"ism is an integral
>> component of human nature.
>>
> Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership
> and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management
> of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system.
>
> There is not a single politician in the United States that advocates the
> above, nor is social security, safety nets, welfare, common defense,
> or medicare 'socialism' in any sense of the word.

That's only one definition. Socialism is also a political system where
the government controls the means of production. Every step that
government takes to regulate or control any part of the economy is a
step in the direction of socialism. Obamacare is a great big fat step
toward socializing the U.S. health care system.

On 7/2/2012 4:48 PM, Dave wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:01:26 -0600, Just Wondering
>> Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
>> situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
>> lie about it?
> Really? I wonder how you'd feel admitting to your friends that you
> were poor? Shame, embarrassment, difficulty surviving with dignity?
> However you want to describe it, I've never ever met anyone that liked
> being poor.
>
> Admitting you're poor to anyone is the unsaid suggestion that you
> weren't smart enough to earn a decent living.
>
>
Is not. It the unsaid statement that you're going through hard
financial times. There could be a hundred reasons why; lack of
intelligence is only one of them. Divorce is another, as is being laid
off from a financially troubled company through no fault of your own.

"Scott Lurndal" wrote:


> Socialism is an economic system characterised by social
> ownership
> and/or control of the means of production and cooperative
> management
> of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a
> system.
>
> There is not a single politician in the United States that advocates
> the
> above, nor is social security, safety nets, welfare, common defense,
> or medicare 'socialism' in any sense of the word.

-------------------------------------
Careful Scott, don't want to confuse those with preconceived views
with facts.<G>

Lew

On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
> I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
> doctor visit . . .

What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
than you can yourself with OTC remedies?

On 7/3/2012 8:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 18:42:56 -0600, Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 7/2/2012 4:48 PM, Dave wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:01:26 -0600, Just Wondering
>>>> Actually, what they'd have to do is tell the truth about their financial
>>>> situation. There's no shame in being poor. Would you rather have them
>>>> lie about it?
>>> Really? I wonder how you'd feel admitting to your friends that you
>>> were poor? Shame, embarrassment, difficulty surviving with dignity?
>>> However you want to describe it, I've never ever met anyone that liked
>>> being poor.
>>>
>>> Admitting you're poor to anyone is the unsaid suggestion that you
>>> weren't smart enough to earn a decent living.
>>>
>>>
>> Is not. It the unsaid statement that you're going through hard
>> financial times. There could be a hundred reasons why; lack of
>> intelligence is only one of them. Divorce is another, as is being laid
>> off from a financially troubled company through no fault of your own.
> It's usually because you've not planned ahead, whether it be not planning for
> a decent job, spending every dime you've ever made, or even putting all your
> eggs in one basket. "No fault of your own" is, in the vast majority of cases,
> a lie.
It's amazing, the number of unproven assumptions you're willing to make
to support your position.

On 7/4/2012 6:59 AM, Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
>>> doctor visit . . .
>> What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
>> than you can yourself with OTC remedies?
>>
> I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e. antibiotics)
> and ergo, an office visit.
>
>
That's what confuses me. You said colds. Colds are caused viruses.
Antibiotics are for bacterial infections; they don't work on colds and
other viral infections.

> And those that can't afford that and or the illegals will still pay
> nothing resulting in our government going farther into dept. =A0All that
> at a cost to buy votes form the growing population of the ignorant.- -
>


The fed govt will pick up the tab for the first 5 yrs, then the burden
of cost will be placed on the states, which most are already budget
crunching. Managing the system will become a nightmare, I predict,
and no one knows what the insurance companies have in store to add to
the confusion (and mismanagement?).

Sonny

Han wrote:

>
> Obamacare is one possible response to a malfunctioning healthcare
> insurance system. Any other system that would achieve equitable
> premiums and equitable risk stratification would be worth looking at.

So Han - take those meaningless words and translate them into something
tangible. What does equitable premimums really mean? What does equitable
risk stratification mean? Nice to throw out junk, but what in the hell are
you really trying to say?

> One (just one) of the problems in achieving equitable <fill in> is
> that people would like to get something for nothing.

Totally bullshit statement.


>
> "I'm not sick now, why pay for health insurance I don't need?"

Now - as good as it may make you feel to say that, just how often do you
suppose that really happens? Let's just look at the average corporate
health insurance option. How many employees do you really believe opt out
of health insurance just because they don't feel sick just now? How about
this - NONE. Han - you are showing yourself to be a guy who makes more
statements based on what you want to believe to be true, than what may
really be true. Maybe you should re-ground your thinking.


> Fine, but then institute a system where you would get penalized in
> person if you then do need it. And none of that I'll pay later
> stuff, or my family or friends will pay. Cash in advance of
> treatment, and fast.

Maybe you should pay that same sort of thing with your own insurance. That
would keep down the cost for your peers in your pool and would prevent you
from making unecessary trips to the DR. You know - for those runny noses,
and those little irritants from working out in your wood shop...


>
> There is somewhat of an analogy. In some areas, fire protection is by
> subscription. Sometimes, people with little means cannot afford
> $50/year (or whatever) to pay. Then, when their trailer catches
> fire, the fire truck comes and stands by to protect people next door
> who did pay, and watch the trailer burn out.

Oh, for Christ's sake. Please post a credible reference to this sort of
thing. And please - do not post a link to a friend of a neighbor's
girlfriend's live-in boyfriend's web site.


> I believe there was in
> instance where the firemen even refused to help out when immediate
> payment of arrears where offered.

I believe you are full of bullshit on this stuff. I'm sure that somewhere
in a country of 300 million people, just about anything can happen, but to
suggest this as in any normal is just plane stupid.


> This type of story is why I think
> that the municipality should offer fire protection and bill through
> property taxes for the costs of keeping fire fighting equipment.

Oh god - you need a government to protect you Han. Really - you do...



--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Larry Jaques wrote:
>
> So what? I opt out/boycott/don't buy the exotic tennies, rent
> speaking weasels, donate to corrupt politicians, or support tree
> huggers. But when I need meds, I want them to be reasonably priced.
> The fact that our own pharmceutical companies sell the exact same
> drugs to Europe and the rest of the world at 1/5 (or less) the price
> they gouge us for, to me, is unconscionable. I can't opt out of
> needing meds, though losing weight is doing as much for my high BP as
> the Lisinopril. Luckily, it's one of the $4/mo drug prescriptions. The
> cost of one month's worth of HIV drugs exceeds the annual income of
> citizens from most other nations.
>
> The medical community has put itself on pedestals which we can no
> longer afford to ignore or condone.

It's called Mutual Assured Destruction. Canada, for example, goes to Pfizer
and says: "We'll pay your cost of production plus ten percent for your new
miracle drug."

Pfizer says: "Not by the hair of our chinney-chin-chins!"

Canada comes back with "Then we'll abrogate our treaty on mutual patent
protection under the rubric of saving lives. The World Court and everybody
else will be on our side."

"We'd be more comfortable at 12.5%..."

On 01 Jul 2012 11:23:58 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:



>
>It underwent revolutionary changes in Holland in ~2006. It works in
>Canada (ask Robatoy), and it is working just fine in Massachusetts.

Working, yes. Working just fine? Debatable.

Rates keep going up even with everyone insured. Where is the big
savings promised?

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 22:16:04 -0400, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:



>
>To fix the "problem", first you have to take away the homeless' right to live
>as they wish.


Or unfix the fix from a few years ago. Many people were in
institutions, but that was deemed harsh and an infringement on rights.
It was for some, but others were incapable of caring for themselves
and found a worse fate

Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 15:12:15 +0000, Han wrote:
>
>> Seems some of that exists for Medicare plans and the much ballyhooed
>> supplementals. If all that can be standardized across the country,
>> then things become much more easily comparable.
>
> I've suggested all along to gradually expand Medicare till it covers
> everyone. But there wasn't a chance in hell of getting that past all
> the special interests and through congress.

I'd agree with the concept, but I have to ask what all of the special
interests are that you refer to?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Han wrote:

>
> The true problem is that if you get sick or have an accident, we as
> society have ordained that caring for that individual is paramount,
> and worrying about the costs secondary. That is very well and
> altruistic, but it leaves out the problem when there is no money
> available to pay for that care. Currently, there is a surcharge for
> hospital costs to help pay for those indigent. If you will, a tax or
> penalty on people with the foresight to have insurance, or able to
> pay without, so that the indigent can be cared for. I like the
> proposed system where everyone is urged to be responsible and get
> insurance much better.

And the difference is... what? The difference is in name only.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Dave wrote:

> It should be obvious just by reading some of the opinions voiced here
> on this forum. Criticism of people without health insurance. Criticism
> of people getting social assistance. Criticism of people just trying
> to survive. No one first wonders why people got into that situation.
> The first inclination is to think ill of someone.

Ya know - when I first read this I was going to reply that it was pure
bullshit, and then I finished reading the first paragraph. The very last
sentence is the one that really caught my attention. It really encapsulates
so much of what goes on here. Too many pseudo-experts, to many hairy
chested opinions, too many thoughts that simply attempt to deride others.
Ok - I realize that I'm getting too warm and fuzzy for a conservative, but
Dave is onto something here...

>
> You see a street person begging for money. No one first thinks they
> may be there because they got laid off and their luck spiraled down
> until they wound up on the street. Instead the average person just
> wants them to be somewhere else, anywhere else except begging money
> from them. That's reality.

And then of course, there is the ever-present commentary from those who have
not YET been subjected to those very circumstances, which pride themselves
on babbling on about how they would never be caught in such a dilema.

>
> If you believe the average person walking along the street seeing a
> street person first thinks they may be there because they got laid
> off, then you're completely deluded.

I have to admit that I do not. To a very large degree, most street people
are not there for that reason. The ones that are, are an insignificant
minority - BUT, your point still stands. Our current economy is turning out
families and people that are more like those of the 30's than ever before.
It's way to easy to sit back and talk about how others get into situations,
until your own sorry ass finds itself on the street one day. Way too many
people who have been very successful in their careers are now among the
ranks of the insufficiently funded (how's that for a new term?...), for the
proud wisdom of the internet to have any real meaning.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 20:18:33 -0600, HeyBub wrote
(in article <[email protected]>):

> Bruce wrote:
>>
>> If you had a medical issue and faced no extra financial burden
>> between the choice of seeing a doctor now (ER) versus waiting a month
>> what would you do? As for me, I have insurance and if I get a cold
>> serious enough to warrent a doctor visit, I would have to wait
>> several weeks to a month to see my primary or go to the ER and pay a
>> $200 co-pay plus all the other costs.
>>
>> A big advantage for medicaid over traditional insurance no?
>>
>
> You need a different primary care doctor!


Where I live (rural), we don't have a choice. Best bet is for me to get one
out of town (100 miles one way).

-BR

>
> I can get an appointment with my internist usually for the next day. If I
> just drop in to his office, he'll see me within the next two hours. Maybe
> briefly, but he'll see me.
>
> Now I don't abuse the privilege and I take him and his office staff little
> gifts (a book for him, a HUGE box of chocolates for the staff on Valentine's
> day...).

Hmmm, perhaps a chicken or two 8^)

-BR
>
> My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services, but I
> can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is accomplished
> (hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.
>
>

basilisk wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 07:33:27 -0500, HeyBub wrote:
>

>>
>> To my knowledge, we in the U.S. have nothing like a physician
>> writing "LCP" on the patient's chart. ("DNR" is a completely
>> different critter.)
>
> Maybe not exactly, but in practice.
> During the recent passing of my wife, she was moved to comfort care
> which involved no medical care other than I could request pain meds
> if needed, no monitoring, no oxygen, no IV.
>
> The physician didn't make this decision, it was offered as an an
> option and I made the decision.
>
> There was also a DNR issued, but it is a seperate concern than
> witholding all treatment.
>
> basilisk

With all due respect to the loss of your wife - and that is not a token
statement, what you experienced is not relevant to the previous point.
Condolences to your experience.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>
>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
>health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
>they said it with a straight face.

I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
be paying for those who do.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

On 6/29/2012 11:26 AM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
> On 6/29/2012 9:57 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:03:13 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/28/2012 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>>
>>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>
>>> It's entirely plausible that Roberts may have done more future damage to
>>> the liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may have
>>> well been Marbury'ed ...
>>
>> Obamacare may be the blunt instrument which causes the American masses
>> to finally come to Critical Mass. Stock water, food, supplies, and
>> ammo, boys and girls.
>>
>> --
>> Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
>> succeed is more important than any one thing.
>> -- Abraham Lincoln
>>
> Our financial adviser told us a couple of years ago that financial
> planning should include a plot of land, a garden, some chickens and a
> shotgun to defend it. I think he was joking at the time he told us
> that but it is becoming less of a joke.

Problem is, the plot of land is subject to punishing property taxes;
Monsanto has a lock on the seeds for your garden; your HOA/Municipality
won't allow you to raise chickens; and your shotgun is under tremendous
pressure to be confiscated.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Swingman wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>
>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>
> It's entirely plausible that Roberts may have done more future damage
> to the liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may
> have well been Marbury'ed ...

Yep. One commentator opined that the other justices are playing checkers
while Roberts is playing chess.

There are several cases scheduled for next term where his rationale in the
ACA case will come back to bite the liberals. Chief among these cases are
those having to do with voting rights and civil rights.

The bottom line on the ACA case, according to Roberts, is that a LEGISLATIVE
solution is the proper path. That looses a massive political effort for the
fall.

Hold my beer and watch this!

Exactly, and an interview with an insurance CEO said that the middle
aged would pay higher rates to cover the older people who can't afford
the higher rates.

So double whammy.


We can't afford national healthcare and we can't afford Obama care.
We need to get our house in order.
The best way to do that is vote out the bastards.

On 6/29/2012 2:25 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>
>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>>
> The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they can't
> afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate blood
> from a turnip.
>

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>
> Now let the fun and games begin.
>
> Lew
>
>
>
The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they can't
afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate blood
from a turnip.
=======================================================================
It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the point in the
first place and made it illegal to be poor. It should work at least as well
as this clustrefuck we have now.

On 6/29/2012 5:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>
>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
>
> Roberts brought up the "tax" or penalty of 1% if you have no
> insurance. If you are in the higher income bracket, you probably have
> coverage either through your employer or you can afford it.
>
> On the lower end, you have to make a big decision. If you are trying
> to raise a family on $30k, you can either pay a penalty of $300 or you
> can buy insurance for maybe $8000 to $12,000.

And those that can't afford that and or the illegals will still pay
nothing resulting in our government going farther into dept. All that
at a cost to buy votes form the growing population of the ignorant.

steve robinson wrote:
>>>
>> Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to
>> get the poor subscribed without taxing them.
>
> Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

Giggle.

I wouldn't say "it works" in the UK. We frequently see reports on the
ghastly consequences, so much that physicians actually prescribe water for
their hospitalized patients so they won't die of dehydration!

Here's the biggest difference: In the U.S., virtually all health care
providers have a financial incentive to keep their patients alive. If alive,
they live to be treated another day.

In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor, nurse,
or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report claimed that upwards
of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from non-treatment or poor
treatment.

tiredofspam wrote:
> Exactly, and an interview with an insurance CEO said that the middle
> aged would pay higher rates to cover the older people who can't afford
> the higher rates.
>
> So double whammy.
>
>
> We can't afford national healthcare and we can't afford Obama care.
> We need to get our house in order.
> The best way to do that is vote out the bastards.
>

There are 21 new taxes imbedded in the ACA. They range from 10% surcharge on
tanning salon patrons to over $2000 per year for some families.

Dave wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:18:33 -0500, "HeyBub" <[email protected]>
>> My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services,
>> but I can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is
>> accomplished (hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.
>
> Of course, it always makes sense to develop a friendship with your
> doctor.
>
> I don't know what it's like down in the US, but up here in Canada,
> there are areas that are under served by doctors and some people have
> a great deal of trouble finding one that will take them on as regular
> clients. Guess that's part and parcel of living away from the cities.

You raise a good point.

In Texas, it is claimed that medical tort reform saved the state from a
medical crisis. Before 2003, when the reforms were put in place, Texas
ranked 49th out of 50 in physicians-to-population ratio.

"... in the decade from 2002 to 2012, the Texas population went from
21,779,893 to 26,403,743 - a 21% increase - and the number of Texas
physicians rose by 15,611 - a 44% increase..."

At the micro level, ten counties in the state (out of 254) now have at least
one obstetrician where before the reform regimen was instituted, they had
none.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:34:57 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:
>
> > Health care, retirement, sexual orientation and all the other things the
> > feds are now in the middle of are not in the purview of the Constitution
> > or the intended power of the federal government.
>
> As I said, there *was* no health care back then. Why do you assume the
> founders would have not considered it as a possible right if todays level
> of care existed? I don't assume they would have, but it's possible.

They did not seem to see the government's role as being to steal from
the rich and give to the poor. They didn't include a right to food or
water or a job, so why would they include a right to medical treatment?

> They did the best they could for an agrarian low tech society. Some of
> their principles (reached after much compromising) are still applicable -
> others need adjustments for reality.

The adjustment that is needed is Constitutional amendment that
establishes the rules of interpretation far more narrowly than the
courts have done.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 08:32:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:
>
> > Before the government got involved the family with the help of the
> > community handle problems where the family could not afford health care.
>
> No family? No friends, or at least none better off than you? To the
> poorhouse! Which, BTW, was run by the local/county/state government.
>
> Now it's federal. Why? Because the state politicians figured out it was
> safer to blame taxes on the feds so they wouldn't be responsible.
>
> When I was a child, we had a name for the homeless - we called them
> "escapees from the insane asylum" - want to go back to that?

If you want them to stop being homeless you don't have much choice.
People are not in general homeless because nobody wants to help them,
they are homeless because they resist the efforts of those who are
trying to help them. The only way you are going to get a roof over the
head of someone who resists your best efforts to put one there is to
lock him under it. If you aren't willing to do that you shouldn't bleat
about the homeless.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 06:59:02 -0600, Bruce <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
> >(in article <[email protected]>):
> >
> >> On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
> >>> I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
> >>> doctor visit . . .
> >>
> >> What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
> >> than you can yourself with OTC remedies?
> >>
> >
> >I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e. antibiotics)
> >and ergo, an office visit.
>
> OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but
> often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.

However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are
being pedantic about the definition.

For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and
sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out
that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 17:58:56 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> >> On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
> >> >>> I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
> >> >>> doctor visit . . .
>
>
> >> OK, but that is not a cold. Antibiotics are a wonderful thing, but
> >> often over prescribed to make a patient happy even if it does no good.
> >
> >However there are bacterial illnesses that resemble a cold. You are
> >being pedantic about the definition.
> >
> >For most people if their head is stopped up and they have a cough and
> >sore throat, it's a "cold" until they get to the doctor and find out
> >that it's throat cancer complicated by tuberculosis and pneumonia.
>
> Call it what you want. The OP said he goes when his cold get bad. If
> he wants to expand the definition of his illness, fine, but doctors
> can't cure colds yet.
>
> Take two aspirin . . . . .

How does the OP know that it's a cold before he sees the doctor? Is he
a virologist with a home laboratory?

Bruce wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 00:45:45 -0600, Just Wondering wrote
> (in article <[email protected]>):
>
>> On 7/3/2012 8:02 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a
>>> doctor visit . . .
>>
>> What sort of doctor do you go to, who is able to treat a cold better
>> than you can yourself with OTC remedies?
>>
>
> I was thinking of something that requires a prescription (i.e.
> antibiotics) and ergo, an office visit.
>
> I'm fortunate in that I've only been to the doctor twice in the past
> 30 years for blood test followups. At work we get biannual 'clinics'
> where they do basic blood tests and check basic health parameters.
>

Not "ergo." An office visit for a prescription is not required. My doctor
trusts my self-diagnosis and honors my request for prescriptions. I usually
fax the request, outlining my symptoms and virtually always his staff calls
back in a few hours to tell me the prescription has been called in to the
pharmacy.

For example, my last fax was some months ago and quite simple:

"I've got my once-every-five-years bout of sinusitis and need an appropriate
antibiotic."

Here's my basic rule: "When I was younger, I went to the doctor when I got
sick. In my elder years, I go to the doctor to keep from getting sick." In
your case, you should have your doc review your semi-annual blood tests to
verify these tests are complete enough for you.

For example, do they test for venereal diseases? Chastic fibrosis (a disease
usually found in foxes)? He my suggest some supplementary inquiries.

Larry Jaques wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:03:05 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 01:25:55 +0000, Han wrote:
>>
>>>> In the UK, if a patient lives or dies, it's no biggie - the doctor,
>>>> nurse, or hospital janitor gets paid the same. A recent report
>>>> claimed that upwards of 130,000 people die each year in the UK from
>>>> non-treatment or poor treatment.
>>>
>>> How many of those people chose palliative treatment rather than
>>> aggressive "life"-saving treatment?
>>
>> He also forgot to mention that around 200,000 die each year in the US
>> from medical mistakes - and that apparently doesn't include
>> non-treatment.
>
> I read something that put it closer to a million a year. Gary Null
> says 480k from adverse drug reactions/medical errors.
> http://www.whale.to/a/null9.html

Right. Shit happens.

But bad drug interactions and mistakes are not DELIBERATE.

That's the difference I was trying to demonstrate.

Classic Canuck view from Seattle.

-----------
"Dave" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
And what did the poor do for health care before? The answer is that
they would be forced to go on Medicaid. And, being forced to go on
Medicaid meant that they had to declare themselves and in effect be
completely indigent.

Tax on the poor versus being completely indigent. That's some choice!

Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>
>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
>>health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
>>they said it with a straight face.
>
> I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
> be paying for those who do.

I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until
now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you
are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course
you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the
"charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need
to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same
treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the
insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need
databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide
where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course).

At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay
for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that
insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured).

There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get
insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have
benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while,
and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance,
period.

Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system
would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it
would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful
which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare
personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless
bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more
than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on
the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the
quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would
like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should
be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of
proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is a cost.
And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility, I also think that
you have to play fair. Why should I get such favorable rates for health
insurance (because I work or worked for a company (university) that was
generous with benefits), while someone who is freelancing can't get
affordable insurance (certainly not if there could be a pre-existing
condition)? Is he/she really so much of a greater risk?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 6/29/2012 3:41 PM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lew
>>>>>
>>>> What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could
>>>> furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made
>>>> sense, but they said it with a straight face.
>>>
>>> I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
>>> be paying for those who do.
>>
>> I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing.
>> Until now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed
>> expense, you are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare
>> provider. Of course you could negotiate to get what you need for
>> less than half of the "charge", and sometimes you might be
>> successful, but usually you'd need to pay twice or more of what the
>> insurance company pays for the same treatment. Now everyone pays the
>> same in healthcare insurance, and the insurance companies negotiate
>> with the providers. We "only" need databases to find out actual
>> amounts paid for each condition to decide where a certain treatment
>> is most economical (and best, of course).
>>
>> At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help
>> pay for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge
>> that insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and
>> uninsured).
>>
>> There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to
>> get insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't
>> have benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a
>> while, and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more
>> insurance, period.
>>
>> Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance
>> system would cut out most of the duplications in administering
>> insurance, but it would also cut what little competition there is
>> left, so it is doubtful which is worse. I am all in favor of good
>> wages for healthcare personnel, but currently much of the costs are
>> associated with needless bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art"
>> care that doesn't help more than regular exercise, and I could go on.
>> Let's focus on that, and on the question how much end of life care
>> should cost, in comparison to the quality of life. I know I tread
>> perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would like to submit that at that
>> time, insurance and treatment choices should be made. I have a
>> living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of proper
>> instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.
>>
>>
> While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still
> the best and most responsive in the world, bar none. If the plan for
> government review of the medical procedures a person gets, were in
> effect today when my wife retina torn loss, she would be blind today,
> as the surgery had to be done within hours not the months it would
> take the bureaucrats to decide if she should be treated. Check the
> time frames to get care under the European Socialist systems. You will
> be shocked. As your European friends on Facebook.

As a born Dutchman, firstly I have nothing against Social Democrats (most
often called socialists over there). I have something against
communists, since they are dictatorial, whichtrue socialists aren't.
Secondly, the Dutch healthcare system is a single payer type national
healthcare system, although there are many companies offering insurance
policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands).

I broke a leg in an amusement/zoo type park (Dolfinarium) in Harderwijk,
a very small city, formerly more a fishing village on the inland sea arm
the Zuiderzee. It is also where Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and the
system of nomenclature for animals and plants, developed his system
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaeus>. But it had a first-class
hospital and trauma surgeon on staff. I broke the leg at 10:30 AM, it
took a while for an ambulance to get me to the hospital. I was seen in
the ER almost immediately and the trauma surgeon was called in. By 2:30
PM I was back in a hospital bed after surgery to put a couple of plates
on the 2 broken bones near the ankle, and a dozen or so screws. I spent
3 nights in the hospital. The total costs for ambulance, surgery
hospital stay and doctors was around $9000. The bill for the ambulance
was a 1-liner. The bill for the rest was 2 lines. Because I didn't have
Dutch (or EU) insurance they asked me to pay the bill, and get the money
back from my insurance company (they knew the difficulties dealing with
US insurance). It all worked out for me in the end, with not much more
than my deductible to be paid by me (they screwed me on the exchange
rates).

Here in the US, the orthopedist I used for follow-up was amazed at the
way the Dutch surgeon had inserted one of the plates by not cutting the
leg and placing the plate, but by inserting it under the skin and sliding
it in place. Note that I have now full use of the leg, and (so far) no
sign of the possible arthritic complications which I was told can happen.

So in my personal experience, the Dutch system was very efficient, highly
professional and "modern", and probably quite cheap.

> However do you really think a bill that duplicates the FDA, adds taxes
> on medical devices, and taxes to those who are least able to pay them,
> is the solution to this dilemma.

There are things the FDA isn't very good at, and I don't know exactly how
it could be better. There is a trade-off between safety, approving new
treatments and doing careful followup. The tax on medical devices is
2.3%, I believe, well within the yearly cost increases for healthcare
related items. Those least able to pay don't pay at all now, for various
reasons. Having them pay something is a conservative's dream.

> With government limits on medical care, do you think any one would
> have developed the spin off from The Star War program into the laser
> surgery techniques we use today.

Huh?? Limits on medical care?? What limits? The discussion of what
care a person should get, is and should be between the patient and the
doctor. The doctor shouldn't have to worry about misplaced malpractice
suits, or about getting paid for his services, and the patient should be
assured to get the most appropriate medical care. Now, the insurance
company might suggest hydrochlorothiazide for high blood pressure (a
diuretic costing a few dollars per month) over the latest new blood
pressure pill that has all kinds of side effects and costs $60 plus per
month. Plus I think (and have said so elsewhere several times), people
should ahead of time make their wishes for end of life care known (living
will, advanced directives, whatever). That should be in discussions with
their loved ones, and in written down, notarized and deposited with their
physician formats. And those are difficult questions, that can cause
heartache for years afterwards.

> The government regulation has burden the medical industry with a
> system that takes 10 to 20 years for the FDA to review and approve a
> new drug. Do you think having two government agencies doing the same
> review is going to make drugs safer or get new drugs to the doctors
> faster.

I was involved in this area as a researcher, doing preliminary research.
I have knowledge of the problems, the bureaucracy and indirectly of the
falsifications during the processes. My considered opinion is that the
FDA should strive to bring new (really new, not me-too or slight
modifications of old drugs) medications and devices to the market place.
But there also should be a more formalized and stricter system of follow-
up. The Vioxx/Celebrex type anti-COX2 antiinflammatories are an example
how a celebrated new class of (expensive) drugs has had minimal effects
on treatment (a gross generalization) and some troublesome and still not
quite understood side effects. The statins have effects that cannot
really be explained by cholesterol-lowering (originally the way they were
designed and thought to act), they appear to have side effects for some
that are bad, but overall they are (I think) good. I'll have to look up
what this new law might do to a corollary of the FDA, because I hadn't
really heard about that aspect other than that the FDA is a heap of
trouble.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in news:4fee15f1$0$1474
[email protected]:

> I signed up with medcure.org. A real price performer.

Have to look into that. Thanks.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Larry Blanchard <[email protected]> wrote in news:jsl52n$6s7$2
@speranza.aioe.org:

> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:15:21 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
>
>> A few things in Obamacare are actually good things. Removal of the
>> pre-existing conditions clause, ...
>
> And the only way to cover pre-existing conditions is to require that you
> have insurance, otherwise people would get insurance only when they
> needed treatment.

Yes, of course, that is why insurance should be compulsory IMO. No dodging
allowed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Frank Stutzman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I believe that universal health coverage is a good thing, but I
>> believe there are a helluva lot of reasons that Obamacare cannot
>> work. When regular ol' doctors make $4k an hour, something is very,
>> very wrong. (An oral surgeon made $915 off a 14 minute job in my
>> mouth.) Heart surgeons make 40x that much money. Ditto hospitals.
>> Attorneys drive up costs immensely for no good reason.
>
> Please tell me where a "regular ol' doctors" make 4K a hour. I'll try
> to convince my wife to move.
>
> She is a family practice physican (about as "regular ol'" as you can
> get). Her take home averages about $110k a year. Fair money, but
> no-where near $4K an hour especially when you take into on-call hours.
>
> Please don't confuse primary care doctors with specialist. Specialist
> make lots more money because, well, they have special skills. I will
> agree that many of them are perhaps over-paid, but that is the the
> nature of our 'pay for procedure' (verses "pay for outcome") insurance
> system.

Well said. Just a little question. Most (I think) physicians, including
primary care doctors, nowadays are saddled with an extensive staff of
billing agents, transcribers, appointment secretaries etc, etc. So net
pay and gross pay are very different. I would dearly like to know how to
cut down on those administrative costs. Having reently joined the
retired crowd, and now having to deal with Medicare billing, supplemental
insurances, deductibles and copays, it is mind boggling and loudly crying
for simplification.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 6/29/2012 1:41 PM, Han wrote:
>> Larry Jaques <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lew
>>>>>
>>>> What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could
>>>> furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made
>>>> sense, but they said it with a straight face.
>>> I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
>>> be paying for those who do.
>> I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing.
>
> What you're really saying is that you think the benefits outweigh the
> detriments. If you want a thing and can afford it, you've probably
> already got it and don't need to be compelled. If you don't want a
> thing, why should someone else have the right to make you get it at
> your expense? And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be
> able to force a third party to get it for you at their expense? It
> makes no difference how laudable the thing is, making it compulsory
> takes away your freedom. So what you're really saying is that you
> believe denying me and others our freedom is a good thing.

Personally, I would be fine with you refusing to pay for healthcare
insurance. But how would you then pay for care that you really need or
want? So you have no insurance whatsoever. You have an accident and
break your leg (like I did). The choice is then of necessity sometimes
made for you. It is so bad that unless immediate care is given, it would
be more painful, with worse outcome possibilities, and more costly to
wait and discuss with you, your loved ones, or whoever, what should be
done and who is going to pay. Therefore the rule is now that under
certain circumstances care is given, and cost is discussed later. And
sometimes then there is nobody able or willing to pay. Should the
doctor, hospital, ambulance just take the loss? If you are willing to
show a card that says "I am unwilling to pay for medical care until I
have given consent" then a law has to be passed to allow medical
personnel to let you lie where you fall.

I think Obamacare is better, though not ideal. I think everyone should
pay for compulsory, basic and catastrophic medical care, and be given the
option to pay for added coverages. Then if a preexisting condition pops
up that is discovered before you get it covered by insurance will mean
you're shit out of luck. In other words, you gamble you won't get
diabetes, so youre fuse coverage for dialysis, kidney transplant, eye
diseases, and other consequences of diabetes. Great reduction in
premium. You're ahead. But if you then develop diabetes, you should be
shit out of luck. Pay full cost for any and all treatments for any
result of diabetes. Good luck, buddy. I will get that extra coverage,
just in case. I'll eat out less to pay for the premium.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 6/29/2012 3:59 PM, Han wrote:
>> Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is a
>> cost. And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility, I also
>> think that you have to play fair. Why should I get such favorable
>> rates for health insurance (because I work or worked for a company
>> (university) that was generous with benefits), while someone who is
>> freelancing can't get affordable insurance (certainly not if there
>> could be a pre-existing condition)? Is he/she really so much of a
>> greater risk?
>>
> The difference is the company pays for your health insurance and the
> independent does not have a company to pay part of his insurance.
>
> To you this may seem unfair, but the company pays part of your
> insurance to keep you on the job each day to get the most out of you.

Yes, the benefits are what kept me in the job for far longer than I
really wanted at times (and I was scared of failing to find a stable job
with kids who wanted college). What is unfair is that the company also
gets a tax break on those premiums, it's not just a freebie to you.
Freelancers don't get that break, plus they have difficulty getting into
a group with reduced premiums.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 30 Jun 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Yes, of course, that is why insurance should be compulsory IMO. No
>>dodging allowed.
>
> And what does one do when they lose their job, get laid off or
> heaven's forbid, don't work at a job that earns them enough to pay for
> it in the first place?

Seems there should be a mechanism for unemployed to keep up with the
insurance. Probably is in the law. If not, there should be some subsidy
to keep you in the system.

There is something wrong with a system that doesn't give you a living
wage, and that includes health insurance premiums. Similar to the
complaints that "poor" people don't pay taxes, even if they were working.
"Welfare" is what they get in the form of tax rebates because of being
poor. If people need to pay taxes (and I am in favor of that), then we
need to pay them wages that would cover those taxes (and health insurance
premiums). Either a recipe for inflation or class warfare, take your
pick.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>

>> What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
>> exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really
>> goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.
>
> Let start the cost analysis with the cost of government imposed
> regulations. When I worked in a Pharmaceutical nearly a third of
> their total staff was devoted to regulatory compliance.

The compliance regulations and the time it took to comply with the nonsense
(changing every 3 months) is what drove me to retirement. No miore faldera
for me!

(much snipped)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 6/29/2012 10:28 PM, Han wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 6/29/2012 3:59 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is a
>>>> cost. And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility, I
>>>> also think that you have to play fair. Why should I get such
>>>> favorable rates for health insurance (because I work or worked for
>>>> a company (university) that was generous with benefits), while
>>>> someone who is freelancing can't get affordable insurance
>>>> (certainly not if there could be a pre-existing condition)? Is
>>>> he/she really so much of a greater risk?
>>>>
>>> The difference is the company pays for your health insurance and the
>>> independent does not have a company to pay part of his insurance.
>>>
>>> To you this may seem unfair, but the company pays part of your
>>> insurance to keep you on the job each day to get the most out of
>>> you.
>>
>> Yes, the benefits are what kept me in the job for far longer than I
>> really wanted at times (and I was scared of failing to find a stable
>> job with kids who wanted college). What is unfair is that the
>> company also gets a tax break on those premiums, it's not just a
>> freebie to you. Freelancers don't get that break, plus they have
>> difficulty getting into a group with reduced premiums.
>>
>
> Why should the company not get a tax break on the insurance that it
> buys for its employees. Employees are part of the manufacturing
> system upkeep of that system is a cost of producing the item being
> manufactured. If a machine breaks the cost of the repair is a tax
> deduction. If it hires an outside contractor to repair the machine,
> the contractor is a business expense and is a deduction. As an
> employee you are part of the manufacturing system. The insurance the
> company buys to cover you is an outside contractor that gets deducted.
>
> With out tax breaks for maintenance of the production system the cost
> of the item to the consumer would be significantly higher.
>
> I believe what people fail to realize is the cost of benefits for an
> employee. I worked for a small company in the 90's and at that time
> the benefit package was calculated into our budgets at 40% of the
> employee's salary or hourly rate. A big chunk of that was insurance.
> It probably is a larger percent to day with obamacare and all of the
> other government regulation covering an employee.

All true, but it leaves out the sole proprietor, small businessman and
the freelancer. They don't get the tax deduction and/or the favorable
group rates. In a market economy I'd consider that unfair. In a state-
controlled system, well, all bets are off.

Level the rates, level the tax treatment, and make sure the buyer
bewares.

Oh, yes, at Cornell Medical College there were yearly determinations of
the costs of fringe benefits. Because postdocs were getting much less in
benefits, there benefit cost was much less than the technicians' and the
professional staffs', which was generally around 30% IIRC.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 6/29/2012 10:28 PM, Han wrote:
>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 6/29/2012 3:59 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>> Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is a
>>>>> cost. And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility, I
>>>>> also think that you have to play fair. Why should I get such
>>>>> favorable rates for health insurance (because I work or worked for
>>>>> a company (university) that was generous with benefits), while
>>>>> someone who is freelancing can't get affordable insurance
>>>>> (certainly not if there could be a pre-existing condition)? Is
>>>>> he/she really so much of a greater risk?
>>>>>
>>>> The difference is the company pays for your health insurance and
>>>> the independent does not have a company to pay part of his
>>>> insurance.
>>>>
>>>> To you this may seem unfair, but the company pays part of your
>>>> insurance to keep you on the job each day to get the most out of
>>>> you.
>>>
>>> Yes, the benefits are what kept me in the job for far longer than I
>>> really wanted at times (and I was scared of failing to find a stable
>>> job with kids who wanted college). What is unfair is that the
>>> company also gets a tax break on those premiums, it's not just a
>>> freebie to you. Freelancers don't get that break, plus they have
>>> difficulty getting into a group with reduced premiums.
>>>
>>
>> Why should the company not get a tax break on the insurance that it
>> buys for its employees. Employees are part of the manufacturing
>> system upkeep of that system is a cost of producing the item being
>> manufactured. If a machine breaks the cost of the repair is a tax
>> deduction. If it hires an outside contractor to repair the machine,
>> the contractor is a business expense and is a deduction. As an
>> employee you are part of the manufacturing system. The insurance the
>> company buys to cover you is an outside contractor that gets
>> deducted.
>>
>> With out tax breaks for maintenance of the production system the cost
>> of the item to the consumer would be significantly higher.
>>
>> I believe what people fail to realize is the cost of benefits for an
>> employee. I worked for a small company in the 90's and at that time
>> the benefit package was calculated into our budgets at 40% of the
>> employee's salary or hourly rate. A big chunk of that was insurance.
>> It probably is a larger percent to day with obamacare and all of the
>> other government regulation covering an employee.
>
> All true, but it leaves out the sole proprietor, small businessman and
> the freelancer. They don't get the tax deduction and/or the favorable
> group rates. In a market economy I'd consider that unfair. In a
> state- controlled system, well, all bets are off.
>
> Level the rates, level the tax treatment, and make sure the buyer
> bewares.
>
> Oh, yes, at Cornell Medical College there were yearly determinations
> of the costs of fringe benefits. Because postdocs were getting much
> less in benefits, there benefit cost was much less than the
> technicians' and the professional staffs', which was generally around
> 30% IIRC.

That's what was billed to the granting agencies. Of course, there was
also a general "overhead" of 70% of total.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 6/30/2012 8:51 AM, Han wrote:
>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 6/29/2012 10:28 PM, Han wrote:
>>>> Keith Nuttle <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> On 6/29/2012 3:59 PM, Han wrote:
>>>>>> Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is
>>>>>> a cost. And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility,
>>>>>> I also think that you have to play fair. Why should I get such
>>>>>> favorable rates for health insurance (because I work or worked
>>>>>> for a company (university) that was generous with benefits),
>>>>>> while someone who is freelancing can't get affordable insurance
>>>>>> (certainly not if there could be a pre-existing condition)? Is
>>>>>> he/she really so much of a greater risk?
>>>>>>
>>>>> The difference is the company pays for your health insurance and
>>>>> the independent does not have a company to pay part of his
>>>>> insurance.
>>>>>
>>>>> To you this may seem unfair, but the company pays part of your
>>>>> insurance to keep you on the job each day to get the most out of
>>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the benefits are what kept me in the job for far longer than I
>>>> really wanted at times (and I was scared of failing to find a
>>>> stable job with kids who wanted college). What is unfair is that
>>>> the company also gets a tax break on those premiums, it's not just
>>>> a freebie to you. Freelancers don't get that break, plus they have
>>>> difficulty getting into a group with reduced premiums.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why should the company not get a tax break on the insurance that it
>>> buys for its employees. Employees are part of the manufacturing
>>> system upkeep of that system is a cost of producing the item being
>>> manufactured. If a machine breaks the cost of the repair is a tax
>>> deduction. If it hires an outside contractor to repair the machine,
>>> the contractor is a business expense and is a deduction. As an
>>> employee you are part of the manufacturing system. The insurance the
>>> company buys to cover you is an outside contractor that gets
>>> deducted.
>>>
>>> With out tax breaks for maintenance of the production system the
>>> cost of the item to the consumer would be significantly higher.
>>>
>>> I believe what people fail to realize is the cost of benefits for an
>>> employee. I worked for a small company in the 90's and at that time
>>> the benefit package was calculated into our budgets at 40% of the
>>> employee's salary or hourly rate. A big chunk of that was
>>> insurance. It probably is a larger percent to day with obamacare and
>>> all of the other government regulation covering an employee.
>>
>> All true, but it leaves out the sole proprietor, small businessman
>> and the freelancer. They don't get the tax deduction and/or the
>> favorable group rates. In a market economy I'd consider that unfair.
>> In a state- controlled system, well, all bets are off.
>>
>> Level the rates, level the tax treatment, and make sure the buyer
>> bewares.
>>
>> Oh, yes, at Cornell Medical College there were yearly determinations
>> of the costs of fringe benefits. Because postdocs were getting much
>> less in benefits, there benefit cost was much less than the
>> technicians' and the professional staffs', which was generally around
>> 30% IIRC.
>>
>>
>
> If the tax account does his job properly sole proprietor and small
> businessman can be considered an employee and the company can get the
> same benefits.

That assumes they get the same preferential treatment of their premium
from the insurance company as a big company does. Rather presumptious
and naive (I think, but I haven't checked it out).

> The freelancer is an independent contractor and have their own
> deductions. Such as deducting that new computer you want and say it
> is needed to conduct your freelance business.

That is separate from health insurance, right?


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 06/30/2012 09:47 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't want a thing,
>>> why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
>>> expense?
>>
>> Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?
>
> State or local as it should be. Read the 10th amendment.
>
>>
>>> And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to
>>> force a
>>> third party to get it for you at their expense?
>>
>> They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free
>> treatment they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the
>> difference?
>
> Non federal government. Read the 10th amendment.

If I get charged an 8.5% surcharge (even if the insurance company pays
it, I ultimately pay via my premiums), it is immaterial whether it is a
federal or local charge. It is money out my pocket.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Frank Stutzman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Now days just nagging insurance companies to pay (either Medicare or
> private) takes a staff of and least 2 full time employees per
> practitioner.
>

and that need just pisses me off (at the insurance companies).

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 6/30/2012 6:32 PM, CW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>>>
>>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>>>
>>> Lew
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they
>> can't afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate
>> blood from a turnip.
>> ======================================================================
>> = It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the point
>> in the first place and made it illegal to be poor. It should work at
>> least as well as this clustrefuck we have now.
>
> The "individual mandate" was one of the biggest sticking points about
> Obamacare. What it amounted to was, either buy insurance or pay the
> feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a tax. For
> people who don't already have insurance because they can't afford it,
> it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor. Nice going, Barack
> Hussein.

Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to get
the poor subscribed without taxing them.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"steve robinson" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>> Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>> > On 6/30/2012 6:32 PM, CW wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> >> "Just Wondering" wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> > >
>> >> On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> >>> Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
>> > > >
>> >>> Now let the fun and games begin.
>> > > >
>> >>> Lew
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> >> The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they
>> >> can't afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't
>> legislate >> blood from a turnip.
>> >>
>> ======================================================================
>> >> = It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the
>> point >> in the first place and made it illegal to be poor. It should
>> work at >> least as well as this clustrefuck we have now.
>> >
>> > The "individual mandate" was one of the biggest sticking points
>> > about Obamacare. What it amounted to was, either buy insurance or
>> > pay the feds a penalty. SCOTUS has now upheld the penalty as a
>> > tax. For people who don't already have insurance because they
>> > can't afford it, it amounts to a tax on the poor for being poor.
>> > Nice going, Barack Hussein.
>>
>> Seems people are "forgetting" that there appear to be mechanisms to
>> get the poor subscribed without taxing them.
>
> Its worked in the UK for years called national insurance

It underwent revolutionary changes in Holland in ~2006. It works in
Canada (ask Robatoy), and it is working just fine in Massachusetts.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid