$curious$

[JohnJ]

2 minutes ago, T2K said:

 

There has been talk in the past from our representatives to lower the cost of prescription medicines. Talk of a secretive NEW health plan. Nothing has happened. What kind of a fool votes for liars that care nothing about their well being?

brainwashed ones.

Lots of things have been funded and never done.

Here some things have been voted down and the crooks downtown have gone ahead and done it anyway!

 

About a year after I moved back up here `04 I think I was taking a shower one Sunday morning.

The whole house shook, then I heard the rumbling kinda quick explosion.

 

We voted against another new coliseum, just had a 25,000 seat one built in the late 1980s to replace the chrome-dome 13,333 seat one from the 50s.

It was less than five miles from my house.

The dumb-dumbs running this po-dunk town blew it up and built a new small coliseum in the middle of a darn road downtown.

 

idgits!

 

The people in this place voted against doing it and they did it anyhow!

I won't set foot in it until Led Zep comes back to town and plays there.

[joessportster]

10 hours ago, T2K said:

 

There has been talk in the past from our representatives to lower the cost of prescription medicines. Talk of a secretive NEW health plan. Nothing has happened. What kind of a fool votes for liars that care nothing about their well being?

If your not going to vote for liar's who's Left ?  They are all liar's

[tube fanatic]

At meetings of the local medical society there is never discussion about quality of care.  Rather, it's all about how to bill for maximum reimbursement. 

 

Recent visit to the ENT doc to have my wax cleaned out (10 minutes using forceps)- bill to insurance company: $147 for office visit and $498 for "surgery."  Even if he is paid 50% of that amount it is still absurd.  This is happening more and more with the younger practitioners who are in the profession for the money and little else.  My ENT doc friend retired last year at age 74.  He billed for the same service as a minimal office visit.

 

Schu, why weren't you just put on Keflex for 14 days and told to do hot soaks before going to the extreme?  I don't want to get started on what hospitals are getting away with in terms of their billing.

 

 

Maynard

[Zen Traveler]

12 hours ago, oldtimer said:

Redistribution?  Yep.  Redistributed to the insurance companies.  That law opened up their market to people who otherwise would not have bought anything, regardless of their health situation.  Open your eyes.  Amazing when a company pulls out of a market, because they can't compete, and finds the convenient scapegoat.  And the follow on question---what has been made better since?  Remember that?  Better and cheaper?  Derr.

Having a Single Payer System or Insurance companies involved was the dividing line--The ACA was passed along that chasm keeping the Insurance companies but allowing measures by the government to set standards that made it (or tried to) Universal....Insofar as the "better/cheaper" part--We both know the answer to that: "Who wudda thought Healthcare would be so hard." {No emoticon to do that statement justice} 

12 hours ago, oldtimer said:

So what has changed with all the promises?  Nothing.  Who controls what gets written?  The lobbies with a lot of money.  They would rather pay money to politicians than pay the same money to help people.  So what is the answer?  Anyone? Anyone?  Bueller?

One of the things I miss about having the BS documents is that ALL of this was discussed before and if we had the ability to cut-n-paste from them it would add tremendously to the discussion. I learned more from the folks that were posting, which required me to do research and really understand what we were discussing. Actually being able to use the Healthcare system wasn't a partisan issue and paying for it was where the rubber met the road--ACA was going to be paid for with the help of the Mandate and Medicaid Expansion along with a few more taxes on expensive medical gear...The latter was fought immediately and the first two were rescinded with the current administration.

11 hours ago, T2K said:

 

The first step requires immediate attention. Tuesday. Go to your friendly polling place and mark your ballot for anyone other than incumbents.

 

Keith

I voted early. Fwiw, I hope whoever wins that the POTUSA works with them to address the ACA's shortfalls. After all, how cool would it be to have our  President add his name to a successful Universal Healthcare Program?  

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, joessportster said:

If your not going to vote for liar's who's Left ?  They are all liar's

They are not.  I debated supposed, "Lies" and have found when you push people to prove their point by cutting and pasting the supposed offense you will find a lot are convinced by punditry designed to make their viewers think that way---Iow, there is no such thing as "Alternative Facts." Those ARE called lies.

[Zen Traveler]

30 minutes ago, tube fanatic said:

Schu, why weren't you just put on Keflex for 14 days and told to do hot soaks before going to the extreme?  I don't want to get started on what hospitals are getting away with in terms of their billing.

I think he added one too many 0s by mistake.  

[joessportster]

3 hours ago, Zen Traveler said:

They are not.  I debated supposed, "Lies" and have found when you push people to prove their point by cutting and pasting the supposed offense you will find a lot are convinced by punditry designed to make their viewers think that way---Iow, there is no such thing as "Alternative Facts." Those ARE called lies.

Opinions vary..............In my time every politician I have heard has lied many times. Thats local all the way up. when you run on an agenda and fail to make good on same, the world I grew up in calls that a lie. I dont reside in the gray. Either you do what you say or you don't and don't fits my definition of a lie.

[Sam S.]

For some crazy reason, we've come to expect and accept high prices in the U.S., politics aside. Vox summarized these in 15 easy to read charts, showing how insane things are:

 

https://www.vox.com/cards/health-prices

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, joessportster said:

when you run on an agenda and fail to make good on same, the world I grew up in calls that a lie.  

I'm not sure how to respond but, if you "run on an agenda" and obstacles get in your way that are unsurmountable then how can that be classified as a lie? An example would be if you tell your wife you will be home at 10 and then get hit by a bus and miss the engagement is that a lie? I call that an obstacle that got in the way of the stated goal. The same works in politics except there is diplomacy/negotiation involved because usually no one gets %100 of what they want.

 

Quote

 

I dont reside in the gray. Either you do what you say or you don't and don't fits my definition of a lie.

 

To stay topical let's explore several ways to go insofar as Healthcare is concerned. 1) Fix the problems of the ACA. 2) Repeal and Replace the ACA with a Single Payer System 3) Go back to the way it was back in 2008 and start from there. Fwiw, I choose #2 but understand why those that want to keep insurance companies involved wouldn't be for it...Btw, the issue everyone seems to agree upon this election is to keep pre-existing conditions covered and that in itself is something I encourage folks to research to find who is "lying" about this issue because right now the ACA does cover them. 

 

{EDIT: I forgot the question. What happens if one side wins and chooses to go the Single Payer route? Is the other side just supposed to say, "Oh well, we lost the election so let's do it...What if the shoe was on the other foot?}

[JJkizak]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

I'm not sure how to respond but, if you "run on an agenda" and obstacles get in your way that are unsurmountable then how can that be classified as a lie? An example would be if you tell your wife you will be home at 10 and then get hit by a bus and miss the engagement is that a lie? I call that an obstacle that got in the way of the stated goal. The same works in politics except there is diplomacy/negotiation involved because usually no one gets %100 of what they want.

 

 

To stay topical let's explore several ways to go insofar as Healthcare is concerned. 1) Fix the problems of the ACA. 2) Repeal and Replace the ACA with a Single Payer System 3) Go back to the way it was back in 2008 and start from there. Fwiw, I choose #2 but understand why those that want to keep insurance companies involved wouldn't be for it...Btw, the issue everyone seems to agree upon this election is to keep pre-existing conditions covered and that in itself is something I encourage folks to research to find who is "lying" about this issue because right now the ACA does cover them. 

 

{EDIT: I forgot the question. What happens if one side wins and chooses to go the Single Payer route? Is the other side just supposed to say, "Oh well, we lost the election so let's do it...What if the shoe was on the other foot?}

 

Going back to 2008 in my area electrical workers paying 3000 per month for family health care, auto workers the same and both screaming about the cost of health care. Most people don't remember all of the screaming going on then about the cost of healthcare.

JJK

[joessportster]

1 hour ago, Zen Traveler said:

I'm not sure how to respond but, if you "run on an agenda" and obstacles get in your way that are unsurmountable then how can that be classified as a lie? An example would be if you tell your wife you will be home at 10 and then get hit by a bus and miss the engagement is that a lie? I call that an obstacle that got in the way of the stated goal. The same works in politics except there is diplomacy/negotiation involved because usually no one gets %100 of what they want.

 

 

To stay topical let's explore several ways to go insofar as Healthcare is concerned. 1) Fix the problems of the ACA. 2) Repeal and Replace the ACA with a Single Payer System 3) Go back to the way it was back in 2008 and start from there. Fwiw, I choose #2 but understand why those that want to keep insurance companies involved wouldn't be for it...Btw, the issue everyone seems to agree upon this election is to keep pre-existing conditions covered and that in itself is something I encourage folks to research to find who is "lying" about this issue because right now the ACA does cover them. 

 

{EDIT: I forgot the question. What happens if one side wins and chooses to go the Single Payer route? Is the other side just supposed to say, "Oh well, we lost the election so let's do it...What if the shoe was on the other foot?}

We can agree to disagree, this is taking a downward spiral in to a political discussion and that is something I stay away from. You have your beliefs and I have mine. I will be voting tomorrow as I am sure you will. All the best  

[Bosco-d-gama]

 A healthcare episode should not cost one person the equivalent of a new house and the same procedure cost another person nothing. What we have is a system that severely punishes achievers and generously rewards underachievers on the purely emotional premise that ‘everyone’ merits access to services/drugs/etc. Healthcare is expensive because it is complex, labor intensive and to be executed properly must be made available to all in need 24/7/365. It demands highly trained professionals and a massive enterprise to keep ready and prepared. (If doctors earn ‘too’ much then real estate agents should work for free.)

 

And what is expected of our citizenry for this seriously wonderful benefit? Aside from political loyalty, pretty much nothing. People do not need to be health conscious or safety conscious. They are not required to payback or earn any benefit through volunteerism. So why bother to excel? Live your life as a reckless teenager addicted to excesses and thrills. Live on the dole cuz you can spend your entire life serving diligently and paying your own way and for others........ and still be delivered to bankruptcy. Start off bankrupt so you’ll be adequately prepped to live that way.

 

There needs to be accountability in this la-la land realm of selective fairness because it is not in any manner fair. It is our gov’t robbing some and supporting others essentially to buy votes and retain control. ‘Vote’ for me and I will reward you sumptuously. Even then the elected ‘brain trust’ is unable to figure out how to make things run smoothly. The only thing they have done ‘well’ is figure out how to take $$$.

[Zen Traveler]

21 minutes ago, joessportster said:

We can agree to disagree

Sure and I understand. My major point of contention is that where we shouldn't disagree is what the definition of a "liar" is. Not everything that turns out to be untrue is a lie was my point....That said, I already early-voted.  

[Zen Traveler]

37 minutes ago, Bosco-d-gama said:

 A healthcare episode should not cost one person the equivalent of a new house and the same procedure cost another person nothing.

I TOTALLY agree.

Quote

 

What we have is a system that severely punishes achievers and generously rewards underachievers on the purely emotional premise that ‘everyone’ merits access to services/drugs/etc.

That is an interesting way of looking at it and I have never heard it explained this way before....Now that I have, gotta say what you are calling "emotional," I look at it more from a moral and practical point of view. Iow, we don't turn away people from the ER because of our collective morality and the oath healthcare workers take.

Quote

 

Healthcare is expensive because it is complex, labor intensive and to be executed properly must be made available to all in need 24/7/365. It demands highly trained professionals and a massive enterprise to keep ready and prepared. (If doctors earn ‘too’ much then real estate agents should work for free.)

Agreed.

Quote

 

And what is expected of our citizenry for this seriously wonderful benefit? Aside from political loyalty, pretty much nothing. 

Again, not sure where you are coming from on this one.

Quote

 

People do not need to be health conscious or safety conscious.

Of course they do. The object of living a healthy lifestyle is so you don't have to go to the doctor or get sick as much. Otoh, shit happens that is totally unexpected to the healthy as well, especially as they get older.

 

Quote

 

They are not required to payback or earn any benefit through volunteerism. So why bother to excel? Live your life as a reckless teenager addicted to excesses and thrills. Live on the dole cuz you can spend your entire life serving diligently and paying your own way and for others........ and still be delivered to bankruptcy. Start off bankrupt so you’ll be adequately prepped to live that way.

 

There needs to be accountability in this la-la land realm of selective fairness because it is not in any manner fair. It is our gov’t robbing some and supporting others essentially to buy votes and retain control. ‘Vote’ for me and I will reward you sumptuously. Even then the elected ‘brain trust’ is unable to figure out how to make things run smoothly. The only thing they have done ‘well’ is figure out how to take $$$.

Sorry  Bosco. I tried to follow you but this last paragraph make me think you are concerned about something other than our Healthcare discussion, unless you are espousing only rich people should have healthcare. I disagree and the industry wouldn't make it on that limited number.

[T2K]

2 hours ago, Bosco-d-gama said:

There needs to be accountability in this la-la land realm of selective fairness because it is not in any manner fair.

 

I can't speak to every case Bosco but I can speak to one case that I know of personally. I've known this person for over 40 years doing only what was required of them, contributing as little as this person could get away with. This person experienced pain for months before learning they had a terminal disease. This person has received care duplicative of their contribution. This person may get the care they need eventually, if they live long enough.

 

Keith

 

[garyrc]

I am thankful for the ACA.  You and I helped an individual I know (who was making about $7 per hour) pay for ambulance and ER.  I say you and I because she was a new Medicaid recipient in an Enlightened state, early in the history of the ACA, when the Feds were paying $100%.   If it hadn't been for that, it would have been Uber and a Boy Scout.    No, not really, the institutions involved would have given her a discount, but it still would have been very hard for her, given rent, student loans, etc.  I agree with Ted Kennedy on this.  He said he would settle for everyone getting the medical coverage members of the Senate got.  Of course, members of Congress who, as a matter of conscience, are against the government (you and I) providing their health care can opt-out.  JFK didn't take a salary as president, nor did Arnold Schwarzenegger as governer.

 

I understand there may be partial justifications for the prices listed in this thread. 

 

I remember:

• In 1992, the head of the Hospital Corporation of America, was on the front cover of Business Week, as the highest earning CEO in the nation that year, earning $127,000,000.00 in total compensation.  If we figure a 40 hour week (he worked more, I certainly hope), 52 weeks per year, that's over $63,000.00 per hour.  In attack of conscience, I presume, possibly encouraged by needing to work out a settlement between the federal government and his newly merged company around Medicare Fraud, he took a salary of just a few thousand dollars, then retired.  He came back later to help oust a successor in what may be the largest medicare fraud in history.   http://www.faireconomy.org/press_room/1999/a_decade_of_executive_excess_the_1990s     Since then, cost cutting has made the salaries much more reasonable ordinary.   By 2012, the CEO of the American Hospitals Association got only $3,331,000.00 total reportable compensation.  That's only about $1,600.00 per hour.  I hope he or she can limp along on that.   I hope all the nurses who work their butts off, and yes, even the physicians (median $197,000.00 per year, $95.00 per hour), when they are soaking their feet after a long shift, meditate on that.  I guess it's O.K. with the corporations that the CEO gets about 17 times what the doctors get, and I imagine it's O.K. with society that that CEO makes about 160 times what the helpful guys at the bookstore or the vitamin shop get --- and also about 160 times what a drug counselor with a BA/BS gets.  But the USA doesn't have a drug problem, so it's fine, right?   https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/compensation-issues/5-biggest-earners-within-the-american-hospital-association.html
• In 1971 my doctor charged $15 for a complete physical, when the going rate was $50.
• In about 1968, a group of young doctors at a convention (AMA?) chanted,

        Hip Hip Hippocrates

Up with service

         and down with fees!

 

 

[oldtimer]

Thanks for the perspective.  It is not unique to any industry really, but health care is not something you can boycott either, when you need it.

[Bosco-d-gama]

How to reconcile the dilemma is challenging. If we reduce the argument perhaps we can enlighten the basic differences. Assume that all healthcare is free but that facilities and manpower are limited. Who gets treated 1st if all the needs are the same (no one person is the sickest)? Do we treat the youngest 1st because they have the most to gain? Do we treat the oldest 1st because they have virtues/wisdom only achieved with experience? Do we treat the doctor 1st because curing the doctor is value added, they will then be able to treat others? Where on the priority list do we place the sloth who has done little all their lives and will likely offer little in the future? What about the veteran? What about the criminal? What about the noncitizen?

 

We all agree that healthcare is out-of-control expensive. Is this poor management of the systems, greedy professionals or due to the overburden of seriously unhealthy people unable or unwilling to pay their own shares, or whatever???? Yes, as we get older we all will experience the greatest of care needs. This is a given. Is the answer deaths panels? Should we voucher healthcare events? Should each person be allowed only 5 or 10 major ailments/interventions? No country could afford to provide free care to the entire planet of sickly souls. There has to be some limits. 

 

 

[Zen Traveler]

1 hour ago, Bosco-d-gama said:

How to reconcile the dilemma is challenging. If we reduce the argument perhaps we can enlighten the basic differences. Assume that all healthcare is free but that facilities and manpower are limited. Who gets treated 1st if all the needs are the same (no one person is the sickest)? Do we treat the youngest 1st because they have the most to gain? Do we treat the oldest 1st because they have virtues/wisdom only achieved with experience? Do we treat the doctor 1st because curing the doctor is value added, they will then be able to treat others? Where on the priority list do we place the sloth who has done little all their lives and will likely offer little in the future? What about the veteran? What about the criminal? What about the noncitizen?

Imo, you are framing the argument like it's a "who gets to go on the lifeboat?" Instead of how do we work as team (i.e., Americans) to fix the vessel and go on to enjoy the cruise (Life).The only reason we have limited resources is because government is fighting (and then not even addressing)  instead of providing solutions. 

Quote

 

We all agree that healthcare is out-of-control expensive. Is this poor management of the systems, greedy professionals or due to the overburden of seriously unhealthy people unable or unwilling to pay their own shares, or whatever????

If you are asking genuinely, a big part of the problem is that the insurance companies need to be involved and their very mission in a capitalistic society is to make a profit--If Medicare and Medicaid weren't provided by the Government (and tax payers) we would have a lot of people dying WAY before their time and sickness would run rampant. Fwiw, the Healthcare industry gets a lot of funds through those programs and it sustains many jobs.

Quote

 

Yes, as we get older we all will experience the greatest of care needs. This is a given. Is the answer deaths panels? Should we voucher healthcare events? Should each person be allowed only 5 or 10 major ailments/interventions? No country could afford to provide free care to the entire planet of sickly souls. There has to be some limits. 

 

 

Again, you've lost me and what you consider as "a given" most young people don't even consider until that time is upon them and the next generation will also need safety nets. That is also why most countries in the Western world have addressed the issue of Healthcare and to them it's been a moral issue throughout a longer history than ours.

[Bosco-d-gama]

Zen...... you are sidestepping the discussion. It is a hypothetical that poses tough ethical/moral questions. Yeah, it can be framed in other ways too: who gets the parachute? You choose to vilify the ‘capitalistic’ insurance industry. What we have also seen elsewhere is that when our govt gets involved with an enterprise for some reason costs skyrocket. In this case the authors of the ACA essentially was the insurance industry so voila. The govt spends what we earn (and they can leverage) and has a habit of not being very thrifty. 

 

Back to the question. Who gets care when care is limited? Personally when I saw the costs of my care ($130,000 +) I was shocked and asked myself, are you worth this level of expenditure? And I am asking genuinely. It is called brain storming. Justify a choice logically. We need a system able to provide a sustainable level of care. Many countries have universal care usually with some necessary limits. Cuba’s care is exceptional....... but Cuba would never allow millions of migrants to flood that system. You seem to demand idyllic care for everyone, as in anyone from anywhere. Nice idea. How can that work?