Maker Pro
Maker Pro

We Only Use 100% NATURAL Logarithms

J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
On 3/4/2013 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]

I am not the guy who said the sky is falling. AFAIR that was Obama who
said the sequester will be disastrous, and now said it won't be so bad.
Great, huh?
What you don't get is that doctors who don't take Medicare and Obamacare
patients will find they don't have many patients. Why do you think they
take Medicare patients now? They don't like sitting around waiting for
people to come in the door.

My prediction is this: first we will see a lot of complaining from
doctors who find there are a lot more people who will have insurance to
get care, but the reimbursements are lower. Then the costs of insurance
will rise as the ever higher costs are passed on until the insurance
starts to become unaffordable. Then everyone can see the problem isn't
insurance, it is the inflated cost of medical care. ...


Now you have described the implosion I meant.

... Ultimately the prices will be managed by the government in some way.

Some people say that is the real goal for the dems: Single payer. That
will mean mediocre health care, waiting lists, and deaths on those
waiting lists. All you have to do is look north to see how that ends.
Right now they send the cases they can't deal with to the US. In a few
years that may be over. Then what?

In Japan they regulate the price of medical care and physicians get
about the same wage as engineers or maybe a little less... yet, they
still get quality care. In England they have nationalized health care
and no one goes bankrupt from medical costs... and yet they still get
quality care.

ROFL!

Here is a dose of reality:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/10/nhs-waiting-time-increases-may-cost-lives

Quote "NHS data shows that while in May 2010, 337 patients had waited
beyond six weeks for a colonoscopy, that had risen to 2,313 in May this
year". This can mean the difference between treatable and death. I knew
someone for whom it was too late :-(

In the US medical care is broken, but only for the ones who can't afford
it, ...


No. In this area the folks on welfare get excellent care, on our nickel.


which includes ones who are too poor to pay at all as well as those
with insurance but a major illness exceeds the cap on their coverage and
wipes out their finances. This is largely because medical care in this
country is a big, big business and run for the profit of doctors, not
the care of patients. Eventually this will change. I just hope to live
long enough to see it.

Or did on a waiting list. We will all have that chances, soon :-(
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
On 3/4/2013 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]

I am not the guy who said the sky is falling. AFAIR that was Obama who
said the sequester will be disastrous, and now said it won't be so bad.
Great, huh?
What you don't get is that doctors who don't take Medicare and Obamacare
patients will find they don't have many patients. Why do you think they
take Medicare patients now? They don't like sitting around waiting for
people to come in the door.

My prediction is this: first we will see a lot of complaining from
doctors who find there are a lot more people who will have insurance to
get care, but the reimbursements are lower. Then the costs of insurance
will rise as the ever higher costs are passed on until the insurance
starts to become unaffordable. Then everyone can see the problem isn't
insurance, it is the inflated cost of medical care. ...


Now you have described the implosion I meant.

This isn't caused by insurance. It will be brought to the attention of
everyone whereas now only those without insurance see the problem.

The cost of medical care has been rising steadily for 20 years. It is
only in the last 10 that the cost of insurance has become noticeably
high and even without universal health care the problem will eventually
become... well, a problem.

Some people say that is the real goal for the dems: Single payer. That
will mean mediocre health care, waiting lists, and deaths on those
waiting lists. All you have to do is look north to see how that ends.
Right now they send the cases they can't deal with to the US. In a few
years that may be over. Then what?

I have no interest in divining people's "real goals". Single payer will
mean everyone gets the same level of care. Why would that be any worse
than it is now for those who have insurance coverage?

You seem to think the Canadians have terrible health care, but you are
mistaken.

ROFL!

Here is a dose of reality:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/10/nhs-waiting-time-increases-may-cost-lives

Quote "NHS data shows that while in May 2010, 337 patients had waited
beyond six weeks for a colonoscopy, that had risen to 2,313 in May this
year". This can mean the difference between treatable and death. I knew
someone for whom it was too late :-(

Uh, have you had a colonoscopy? Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure! Sounds to me like the UK gets
the job done more quickly than here.

What will you do if your insurance company won't pay for a given
treatment? You are in the same boat as the UK, just a different seat.
Don't you see that? You are at the mercy of those who hold the purse
strings just as in the UK, Canada, etc.

No. In this area the folks on welfare get excellent care, on our nickel.

Jeeze, they get the absolute minimum. I don't see how it is *your*
nickle. It is the Government's nickle and we *all* have an equal say in
how that money is spent.

which includes ones who are too poor to pay at all as well as those

Or did on a waiting list. We will all have that chances, soon :-(

Ok, you clearly aren't interested in facts. The articles you quote are
sensational items with little actual info. The people they quote are
either not really informed or are in the political battle.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
rickman said:
On 3/4/2013 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]

I am not the guy who said the sky is falling. AFAIR that was Obama who
said the sequester will be disastrous, and now said it won't be so bad.
Great, huh?
My prediction is this: We will see a rising number of patients, first
from Medicare and then from Obamacare, who will face increasing
difficulty finding a doctor that will take them. I personally know
Medicare patients who have already experienced that trend. Then, longer
term, this whole new "health system" will implode.

What you don't get is that doctors who don't take Medicare and Obamacare
patients will find they don't have many patients. Why do you think they
take Medicare patients now? They don't like sitting around waiting for
people to come in the door.

My prediction is this: first we will see a lot of complaining from
doctors who find there are a lot more people who will have insurance to
get care, but the reimbursements are lower. Then the costs of insurance
will rise as the ever higher costs are passed on until the insurance
starts to become unaffordable. Then everyone can see the problem isn't
insurance, it is the inflated cost of medical care. ...


Now you have described the implosion I meant.

This isn't caused by insurance. It will be brought to the attention of
everyone whereas now only those without insurance see the problem.

Same thing. Premiums go super-inflationary, people who had good coverage
pre-Obamacare are financially forced out -> poof.

The cost of medical care has been rising steadily for 20 years. It is
only in the last 10 that the cost of insurance has become noticeably
high and even without universal health care the problem will eventually
become... well, a problem.



I have no interest in divining people's "real goals". Single payer will
mean everyone gets the same level of care. Why would that be any worse
than it is now for those who have insurance coverage?

To sum that up in two words: Waiting lists.

You seem to think the Canadians have terrible health care, but you are
mistaken.

No, I am not. I have personally met Canadians who had to come to the US
to get decent and most of all timely care. Why do you think many
Canadians quietly take out Mayo Care insurance?
Uh, have you had a colonoscopy? ...

Yup.


... Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure! Sounds to me like the UK gets
the job done more quickly than here.

You are joking?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17717

Quote "According to data provided by hospitals to the National Treatment
Purchase Fund (NTPF), which manages public hospital waiting lists, there
are now 1,073 people waiting more than three months for a colonoscopy"

That is government health "care" at its finest. Want worse? Here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0423/116620-cancer/

Quote "A new HSE report has revealed waiting times of two years or more
for colonoscopies, a check which should be performed within four weeks
to look for cancer and other conditions".

What will you do if your insurance company won't pay for a given
treatment? You are in the same boat as the UK, just a different seat.
Don't you see that? ...


No, not with my current health plan. Which has a high chance of
death-spiraling in 2014.

... You are at the mercy of those who hold the purse
strings just as in the UK, Canada, etc.

Sure. But if a governm,ent agency holds the purse string getting
anything to move there is like kicking a gigantic oak tree. All you get
is pain and a black toe. BTDT, trying to help a cancer patients fight
exactly such a system in Europe. The way the authority behaved was
appalling.

Jeeze, they get the absolute minimum. I don't see how it is *your*
nickle. It is the Government's nickle and we *all* have an equal say in
how that money is spent.

I am a taxpayer so it is my nickel, so I have a say in that.

Ok, you clearly aren't interested in facts. The articles you quote are
sensational items with little actual info. The people they quote are
either not really informed or are in the political battle.

Read the links above. They cite government agencies as the _source_ and
it doesn't get any clearer. Sticking the head in the sand about it is
not helpful.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joerg said:
rickman wrote:
[...]
Uh, have you had a colonoscopy? ...

Yup.


... Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure! Sounds to me like the UK gets
the job done more quickly than here.

You are joking?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17717

Quote "According to data provided by hospitals to the National Treatment
Purchase Fund (NTPF), which manages public hospital waiting lists, there
are now 1,073 people waiting more than three months for a colonoscopy"

That is government health "care" at its finest. Want worse? Here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0423/116620-cancer/

Quote "A new HSE report has revealed waiting times of two years or more
for colonoscopies, a check which should be performed within four weeks
to look for cancer and other conditions".

Oh, and by the way, when mine came up it was like this: "Sir, how about
Tuesday 3:30pm?" ... "You mean tomorrow?!" ... "Yes. If you start the
laxative right now you'd be ready by then". And no, there was no
suspicion of cancer or anything, just a routine precautionary scan.

[...]
 
J

John Devereux

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joerg said:
rickman wrote:
[...]
... Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure! Sounds to me like the UK gets
the job done more quickly than here.

You are joking?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17717

[...]

You know .ie (republic of Ireland) is not the UK, right?

I had one within 2-3 weeks, even though the doctor said there was very
little chance of anything being wrong.

[...]
 
What is the point of that quote?  Of course people have "concerns".
That does not equal "harm".  If the mining operation satisfies the
various government departments, which they have to do regardless of who
the neighbor is, the mine will go through.

Another local story is about some folks who bought new houses in the
county near a pig farm... so I need to tell you how that turned out?
Pig farms smell!!!  The new owners didn't realize how bad it could be
and complained loudly.  But as long as the farmer met regulations there
wasn't much to be done.  Of course there was a lot of scrutiny by the
county, but they didn't exert undue pressure I believe.  They just made
sure the farm was inspected regularly.

As long as the mine did not require changes to the county zoning, the
farmer in your case bought his farm knowing how the neighboring land was
zoned.  He may have never expected a mine, but that was a possibility.
If the county made zoning changes to accommodate the mine then there
would be a clear case of loss of value to the farmer.



I don't know what you mean by "easy in court".  If there were no zoning
changes then how would the neighbors have any cause?



Pretty much.  I have a major beef with the city in the way they have
changed the entire downtown.  They are pushing to make it attractive to
tourists and draw visitors to a new downtown core including much higher
density construction along with the attendant traffic congestion.  When
I was a kid there was adequate parking on the street.  Now there are
five parking decks.  I was upset enough at one point that I created a
blog called "The Frederick Curmudgeon".  Not that it has any impact.
This is one of those situations where it is all about the money it
brings to the town and how it raises property values.

Interestingly enough this was in full speed in the first half of the
last decade.  They were even buying up some of the slummier part of
downtown to make it upscale housing.  We all know how it ended.  The
bubble burst and someone was left holding some very expensive condos in
what is still the "wrong side of the tracks".  One place may well have
never sold a single condo!

I will be moving out as soon as I can get Obama care in states other
than Maryland.



The sad part is that no one seems to care.  The people who watched it
happen are the old school locals who have always felt it is pointless to
try to intervene in politics.  The new comers, who outnumber the old
schoolers now, don't realize what this place used to be like.  They are
mostly from more urban areas and expect everything to change to be more
like what they came from.

The odd thing is that you're unwittingly doing the same thing with
Obamacare--a sort of uncompensated urban renewal--yet don't see the
parallel.
 
I have trouble feeling sorry for most doctors, at least not financially.
  The greatest single cause of bankruptcy is medical bills

That's a lie (not yours). The claim arises from a finding that most
people (62%) who go bankrupt also don't pay their doctors (i.e. have
medical bills), along with their other creditors. The number bankrupt
*because* of medical bills is a small fraction of that.

The lie has been widely disseminated until it has become an accepted
truth--it even appears in the biggest lie of all, Obamacare itself.
(sect. 10106(a)).

Of course that number would be even less if Congress hadn't already
run up the cost of medical care with their idiocies.

If your point is that even a small fraction is unacceptable, that even
one life saved is worthwhile, then I agree--let's assign four police
officers 24/7 to protect each child. If one life's saved, it's worth
it.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
John said:
Joerg said:
rickman wrote:
[...]
... Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure! Sounds to me like the UK gets
the job done more quickly than here.
You are joking?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17717

[...]

You know .ie (republic of Ireland) is not the UK, right?

I know, but AFAIK the health system is comparable.

I had one within 2-3 weeks, even though the doctor said there was very
little chance of anything being wrong.

Sometimes it works. It's just that I'd like to have some sort of
guarantee that it won't take many weeks on a waiting list for important
stuff like this. At least with my HMO, if they have the slightest
inkling they want you to start fasting and laxatives immediately and do
the procedure prontissimo. Not in 2-3 weeks.
 
Bad idea. One of the cops would see the kid "reaching for her
waistband" and they'd all empty their Glocks into her.

Oh stop being logical, before you're accused of being anti-children.

These guys--libertarian surgeons--are great:
http://www.ocpathink.org/videos/264

They made their own surgery center. There they do the same procedures
they used to do at the hospital for 1/4 or less, with prices on the
web. Doctors and patients love it. That's what health care could
be. If it cost half of what it costs today just about everyone could
afford it, and whatever problems that remained would be made
considerably less/easier to solve.

The government bs is mostly why medical care's expensive here--they
wrecked it. It's like an auto body shop that charges outrageous
prices, then points to their own not-working, outrageous prices as
proof they need more government support.

You had some pretty good ideas too.

I know an awful lot about Obamacare--I've studied the damn thing. I
wish I hadn't.
 
Joerg said:
John said:
rickman wrote:
[...]
                       ... Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure!  Sounds to me like the UKgets
the job done more quickly than here.
You are joking?
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17717
[...]
You know .ie (republic of Ireland) is not the UK, right?
I know, but AFAIK the health system is comparable.

Well, don't worry, I am sure you can find plenty of negative articles
about the NHS (UK public health service). But there are very few here
who would want it scrapped in favour of an american / private type
system.

Likewise, you might consider that most of the hype you hear about the
American system is...hype.

The president constantly repeating falsehoods doesn't help. For
example, doctors don't amputate feet because it pays better than
preventive care, and insurance companies can't cancel your insurance
because you're sick--that's illegal and always has been. Neither of
those was true.
ALL political parties take great pains to emphasise that they
want to strengthen the NHS etc.

Naturally. I'd just rather have my options strengthened by free
market competition among smart people striving to please me, not dim-
witted federal bureaucrats who get paid excessively no matter what.

(Oh, and don't forget--there's pretty good evidence that our
bureaucrats are of much lower caliber than yours. Ours get in by
entitlement and connection, not competitive examinations.)
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
rickman wrote:
On 3/4/2013 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]

I am not the guy who said the sky is falling. AFAIR that was Obama who
said the sequester will be disastrous, and now said it won't be so bad.
Great, huh?


My prediction is this: We will see a rising number of patients, first
from Medicare and then from Obamacare, who will face increasing
difficulty finding a doctor that will take them. I personally know
Medicare patients who have already experienced that trend. Then, longer
term, this whole new "health system" will implode.

What you don't get is that doctors who don't take Medicare and Obamacare
patients will find they don't have many patients. Why do you think they
take Medicare patients now? They don't like sitting around waiting for
people to come in the door.

My prediction is this: first we will see a lot of complaining from
doctors who find there are a lot more people who will have insurance to
get care, but the reimbursements are lower. Then the costs of insurance
will rise as the ever higher costs are passed on until the insurance
starts to become unaffordable. Then everyone can see the problem isn't
insurance, it is the inflated cost of medical care. ...


Now you have described the implosion I meant.

This isn't caused by insurance. It will be brought to the attention of
everyone whereas now only those without insurance see the problem.

Same thing. Premiums go super-inflationary, people who had good coverage
pre-Obamacare are financially forced out -> poof.

It is happening already. Obamacare makes it happen faster because
everyone is on board. Nearly all companies have shifted from paying
100% of health insurance premiums to only paying a portion making users
aware that there is a problem. But they look around to see what is
going on and the first thing they see is stuff that has nothing to do
with it. Up until now they just blame the government because that is
what they always do. Now they have Obamacare to blame. No difference.
But sooner rather than later it will become apparent that the cause is
not the government, but the cost of medical care itself.

To sum that up in two words: Waiting lists.

You are phobic based on a lot of FUD you read. You have done nothing to
actually find out the truth. Ask the Brits or the Canuks what they prefer.

No, I am not. I have personally met Canadians who had to come to the US
to get decent and most of all timely care. Why do you think many
Canadians quietly take out Mayo Care insurance?


You are joking?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17717

Quote "According to data provided by hospitals to the National Treatment
Purchase Fund (NTPF), which manages public hospital waiting lists, there
are now 1,073 people waiting more than three months for a colonoscopy"

That is government health "care" at its finest. Want worse? Here:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2009/0423/116620-cancer/

Quote "A new HSE report has revealed waiting times of two years or more
for colonoscopies, a check which should be performed within four weeks
to look for cancer and other conditions".

Ok, you like finding spot problems with other's health care. What are
the spot problems with US health care?

No, not with my current health plan. Which has a high chance of
death-spiraling in 2014.

No, what? I asked what you will do if your insurance company denies
coverage for a life threatening condition like cancer? That happened to
my friend who has since died of Leukemia. They cut off her care when it
was working. After a six month wait it no longer was effective and she
died a few months later. That could be you next.

Sure. But if a governm,ent agency holds the purse string getting
anything to move there is like kicking a gigantic oak tree. All you get
is pain and a black toe. BTDT, trying to help a cancer patients fight
exactly such a system in Europe. The way the authority behaved was
appalling.

And how much leverage do you have with the insurance companies? Ha!

I am a taxpayer so it is my nickel, so I have a say in that.

No, you have no real say. It is not yours anymore. All you can do is
complain... just like you can complain to the insurance company when
they deny you coverage.

Read the links above. They cite government agencies as the _source_ and
it doesn't get any clearer. Sticking the head in the sand about it is
not helpful.

You are finding spot problems. The system as a whole works and it works
better than ours does.

How long will you have to wait for a colonoscopy if you have no
insurance and you can't afford it. You think this will never happen to
you, but it can... it can.
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
You and AlwaysWrong should get together. You clearly have common interests.

Dude, that was uncalled for! What is going on with you?
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
Joerg said:
John Devereux wrote:
Joerg<[email protected]> writes:
rickman wrote:

... Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure! Sounds to me like the UK gets
the job done more quickly than here.
You are joking?

You know .ie (republic of Ireland) is not the UK, right?
I know, but AFAIK the health system is comparable.

Well, don't worry, I am sure you can find plenty of negative articles
about the NHS (UK public health service). But there are very few here
who would want it scrapped in favour of an american / private type
system.

Likewise, you might consider that most of the hype you hear about the
American system is...hype.

The president constantly repeating falsehoods doesn't help. For
example, doctors don't amputate feet because it pays better than
preventive care, and insurance companies can't cancel your insurance
because you're sick--that's illegal and always has been. Neither of
those was true.

They don't cancel your insurance because you are sick, they raise your
rates to the point you can't pay. I know this happens because I know
people it has happened to. It has also been documented on TV.

Naturally. I'd just rather have my options strengthened by free
market competition among smart people striving to please me, not dim-
witted federal bureaucrats who get paid excessively no matter what.

Obamacare gives you that free market competition for the medical care.
It simply makes it possible for (and mandates) everyone to have insurance.
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
That's a lie (not yours). The claim arises from a finding that most
people (62%) who go bankrupt also don't pay their doctors (i.e. have
medical bills), along with their other creditors. The number bankrupt
*because* of medical bills is a small fraction of that.

The lie has been widely disseminated until it has become an accepted
truth--it even appears in the biggest lie of all, Obamacare itself.
(sect. 10106(a)).

I looked up the primary report behind these stories from the Harvard Law
School. Yes, in the 2001 study one of several criteria that would
qualify a bankruptcy as "medically bankrupt" is having more than $1000
of uncovered medical expenses in the prior two years. I agree that this
is a bit too open and the authors do too. They changed the criterion to
$5000 for 2007 other than for the time trend analysis. This only
changed the 2007 numbers 7%. Just as importantly, the number rose from
46% to 69%.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/petrie-flom/workshop/pdf/warren.pdf

The numbers will never be exact and will always be disputed. But I
think the result of this study is still valid.
 
John Devereux wrote:

rickman wrote:

[...]

... Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure! Sounds to me like the UK gets
the job done more quickly than here.

You are joking?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17717

[...]

You know .ie (republic of Ireland) is not the UK, right?

I know, but AFAIK the health system is comparable.

Well, don't worry, I am sure you can find plenty of negative articles
about the NHS (UK public health service). But there are very few here
who would want it scrapped in favour of an american / private type
system.

Likewise, you might consider that most of the hype you hear about the
American system is...hype.

The president constantly repeating falsehoods doesn't help. For
example, doctors don't amputate feet because it pays better than
preventive care, and insurance companies can't cancel your insurance
because you're sick--that's illegal and always has been. Neither of
those was true.

They don't cancel your insurance because you are sick, they raise your
rates to the point you can't pay.

Bullshit. As long as you keep that insurance policy...
I know this happens because I know
people it has happened to.


Some of my best friends are..."
It has also been documented on TV.

Good grief, shit-for-brains, even the TV networks don't believe the TV
networks.
Obamacare gives you that free market competition for the medical care.

You fookin' nuts!
It simply makes it possible for (and mandates) everyone to have insurance.

Nonsense. But do try to learn something and then come back and play
again.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
rickman said:
On 3/4/2013 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 3/4/2013 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]

I am not the guy who said the sky is falling. AFAIR that was Obama who
said the sequester will be disastrous, and now said it won't be so bad.
Great, huh?


My prediction is this: We will see a rising number of patients, first
from Medicare and then from Obamacare, who will face increasing
difficulty finding a doctor that will take them. I personally know
Medicare patients who have already experienced that trend. Then,
longer
term, this whole new "health system" will implode.

What you don't get is that doctors who don't take Medicare and
Obamacare
patients will find they don't have many patients. Why do you think
they
take Medicare patients now? They don't like sitting around waiting
for
people to come in the door.

My prediction is this: first we will see a lot of complaining from
doctors who find there are a lot more people who will have
insurance to
get care, but the reimbursements are lower. Then the costs of
insurance
will rise as the ever higher costs are passed on until the insurance
starts to become unaffordable. Then everyone can see the problem
isn't
insurance, it is the inflated cost of medical care. ...


Now you have described the implosion I meant.

This isn't caused by insurance. It will be brought to the attention of
everyone whereas now only those without insurance see the problem.

Same thing. Premiums go super-inflationary, people who had good coverage
pre-Obamacare are financially forced out -> poof.

It is happening already. Obamacare makes it happen faster because
everyone is on board. ...


Yeah, it's forcing people out of insurance. And that's sick. Pretty soon
there will only two groups who can "afford" it: The highest income class
and the lower income classes. The latter get it subsidized by the middle
class who may get stiffed.

[...]
You are phobic based on a lot of FUD you read. You have done nothing to
actually find out the truth. Ask the Brits or the Canuks what they prefer.

Read my links again. Those contain information from government source.
The Canadians I met in US hospitals had not very nice things to day
about their system. Because they had to travel to the US for treatment.
Ok, you like finding spot problems with other's health care. ...


Waiting lists are "spots"?

... What are the spot problems with US health care?

Lots. A major one is tort law and Obamacare fixed nothing about that.
For obvious reasons. Sticking the head in the sand about it won't make
that problem go away.
No, what? I asked what you will do if your insurance company denies
coverage for a life threatening condition like cancer? That happened to
my friend who has since died of Leukemia. They cut off her care when it
was working. After a six month wait it no longer was effective and she
died a few months later. That could be you next.

You can force it via the courts. When the government runs it that option
is realistically gone. In countries with socialized medicine people then
have one choice: If they are rich they go to countries such as the US
and pay out of pocket. If they are not rich they usually do not have any
more options, it's the end of the rope.

And how much leverage do you have with the insurance companies? Ha!

The millisecond the first letter from an attorney arrives via certified
mail they will give you a ton of attention. A government agency OTOH
will generally not give a hoot.
No, you have no real say. It is not yours anymore. ...


I do not subscribe to that sort of strange thinking.

... All you can do is
complain... just like you can complain to the insurance company when
they deny you coverage.

BT. It is much easier than going against some agency. Although I've done
that, too.
You are finding spot problems. The system as a whole works and it works
better than ours does.

Waiting lists are not spot problems. People die on waiting lists and the
very existence of those lists is corroborated by government data.

How long will you have to wait for a colonoscopy if you have no
insurance and you can't afford it. You think this will never happen to
you, but it can... it can.

With Obamacare it sure can. That is one of very many reasons I am
against Obamacare. Not against all aspects of it but against most of them.
 
R

rickman

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
rickman wrote:
On 3/4/2013 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 3/4/2013 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]

I am not the guy who said the sky is falling. AFAIR that was Obama who
said the sequester will be disastrous, and now said it won't be so bad.
Great, huh?


My prediction is this: We will see a rising number of patients, first
from Medicare and then from Obamacare, who will face increasing
difficulty finding a doctor that will take them. I personally know
Medicare patients who have already experienced that trend. Then,
longer
term, this whole new "health system" will implode.

What you don't get is that doctors who don't take Medicare and
Obamacare
patients will find they don't have many patients. Why do you think
they
take Medicare patients now? They don't like sitting around waiting
for
people to come in the door.

My prediction is this: first we will see a lot of complaining from
doctors who find there are a lot more people who will have
insurance to
get care, but the reimbursements are lower. Then the costs of
insurance
will rise as the ever higher costs are passed on until the insurance
starts to become unaffordable. Then everyone can see the problem
isn't
insurance, it is the inflated cost of medical care. ...


Now you have described the implosion I meant.

This isn't caused by insurance. It will be brought to the attention of
everyone whereas now only those without insurance see the problem.


Same thing. Premiums go super-inflationary, people who had good coverage
pre-Obamacare are financially forced out -> poof.

It is happening already. Obamacare makes it happen faster because
everyone is on board. ...


Yeah, it's forcing people out of insurance. And that's sick. Pretty soon
there will only two groups who can "afford" it: The highest income class
and the lower income classes. The latter get it subsidized by the middle
class who may get stiffed.

Ok, we'll see.

Read my links again. Those contain information from government source.
The Canadians I met in US hospitals had not very nice things to day
about their system. Because they had to travel to the US for treatment.

Many of the links you have posted in this have *no* information content,
just opinion from people with a clear bias. The last couple of links do
indicate facts, but they don't condemn the entire health system. Just
as our system has flaws, the British system has flaws. No, it's not
perfect, but it is a lot better than ours if you don't have insurance
and is pretty comparable even if you do have insurance. You were able
to get a colonoscopy in a day, but that is very atypical. If it were
common that would imply that we have resources sitting around waiting
for patients and that is expensive, just the sort of thing that drives
up health care costs, rather than Obamacare as you claim.

If Obamacare is causing insurance cost increases, what has been causing
it for the last several decades?

Waiting lists are "spots"?

<shaking head>

You shake your head when I point out that this is one small problem in a
huge health care system.

Lots. A major one is tort law and Obamacare fixed nothing about that.
For obvious reasons. Sticking the head in the sand about it won't make
that problem go away.

You don't respond to my challenges to this claim. In Maryland they
passed a law limiting damages for medical claims to $250k. That should
solve the problem, no? But still medical costs rise steadily.

You can force it via the courts. When the government runs it that option
is realistically gone. In countries with socialized medicine people then
have one choice: If they are rich they go to countries such as the US
and pay out of pocket. If they are not rich they usually do not have any
more options, it's the end of the rope.

Courts! By then you are DEAD! People from this country go overseas for
medical care so they can afford it! ONLY the very rich come to this
country.

The millisecond the first letter from an attorney arrives via certified
mail they will give you a ton of attention. A government agency OTOH
will generally not give a hoot.

BS! Insurance companies will give you "attention", but that doesn't
equal care. My friend is dead with a pretty clear link to the denied
coverage for her cancer treatment. She may have died anyway, but the
insurance company made that certain.

I do not subscribe to that sort of strange thinking.

Strange? I suppose you consider the money to give to Walmart to still
be yours as well?

BT. It is much easier than going against some agency. Although I've done
that, too.

Sure, you can complain all day to the insurance company. It won't get
you care. If you get it put on national TV they *might* do some good.
I do know of a doctor who was a leukemia researcher. He developed the
very sort of disease they were working on and took the experimental
treatment his lab had developed. The other researchers chipped in to
pay for the first month or two of treatment which worked. In the mean
time they were able to convince the insurance company to pay for
continued care. I don't know of any other examples like this. But this
was clearly done for the publicity.

Waiting lists are not spot problems. People die on waiting lists and the
very existence of those lists is corroborated by government data.

Waiting lists that impact health are the exception rather than the rule.
That is a function of how much money is spent on health care. That is
what is going to change in this country because the costs are rising so
absurdly. You like your doctors? You can continue to pay them. I will
prefer it when the rates are managed as well as the care.

With Obamacare it sure can. That is one of very many reasons I am
against Obamacare. Not against all aspects of it but against most of them.

Ok, this is my last post on this unless something changes. We are just
going in circles and you won't discuss any facts other than the waiting
list.
 
J

Joerg

Jan 1, 1970
0
rickman said:
rickman said:
On 3/7/2013 3:51 PM, Joerg wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 3/4/2013 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 3/4/2013 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:

[...]

I am not the guy who said the sky is falling. AFAIR that was Obama
who
said the sequester will be disastrous, and now said it won't be so
bad.
Great, huh?


My prediction is this: We will see a rising number of patients,
first
from Medicare and then from Obamacare, who will face increasing
difficulty finding a doctor that will take them. I personally know
Medicare patients who have already experienced that trend. Then,
longer
term, this whole new "health system" will implode.

What you don't get is that doctors who don't take Medicare and
Obamacare
patients will find they don't have many patients. Why do you think
they
take Medicare patients now? They don't like sitting around waiting
for
people to come in the door.

My prediction is this: first we will see a lot of complaining from
doctors who find there are a lot more people who will have
insurance to
get care, but the reimbursements are lower. Then the costs of
insurance
will rise as the ever higher costs are passed on until the insurance
starts to become unaffordable. Then everyone can see the problem
isn't
insurance, it is the inflated cost of medical care. ...


Now you have described the implosion I meant.

This isn't caused by insurance. It will be brought to the
attention of
everyone whereas now only those without insurance see the problem.


Same thing. Premiums go super-inflationary, people who had good
coverage
pre-Obamacare are financially forced out -> poof.

It is happening already. Obamacare makes it happen faster because
everyone is on board. ...


Yeah, it's forcing people out of insurance. And that's sick. Pretty soon
there will only two groups who can "afford" it: The highest income class
and the lower income classes. The latter get it subsidized by the middle
class who may get stiffed.

Ok, we'll see.

By then it's too late.
Many of the links you have posted in this have *no* information content,
just opinion from people with a clear bias. The last couple of links do
indicate facts, but they don't condemn the entire health system. Just
as our system has flaws, the British system has flaws. No, it's not
perfect, but it is a lot better than ours if you don't have insurance
and is pretty comparable even if you do have insurance. You were able
to get a colonoscopy in a day, but that is very atypical. If it were
common that would imply that we have resources sitting around waiting
for patients and that is expensive, just the sort of thing that drives
up health care costs, rather than Obamacare as you claim.

If Obamacare is causing insurance cost increases, what has been causing
it for the last several decades?

I told you but you won't believe it: Tort law, and in consequence
serious over-prescribing of procedures, among other such consequential
costs.
You shake your head when I point out that this is one small problem in a
huge health care system.

What? To me people dying on waiting lists is not a small problem. It's a
huge problem.
You don't respond to my challenges to this claim. In Maryland they
passed a law limiting damages for medical claims to $250k. That should
solve the problem, no? But still medical costs rise steadily.

Capping will not solve anything as long as there are ambulance chasers
that are fed by the system. The only thing that solves it is this: The
party losing the suit must pay any and all legal fees of the defendant.
Courts! By then you are DEAD! People from this country go overseas for
medical care so they can afford it! ONLY the very rich come to this
country.

The "med-tourist" Canadians I met were middle class, poeple just like
us. Some had to dig deep into their savings because their own health
care system has let them down.

I rather have a fighting chance than none at all. Fighting an agency is
often a lost cause to begin with. Not so with insurance companies and I
speak from experience here (both cases, and I've live in more than one
country).
BS! Insurance companies will give you "attention", but that doesn't
equal care. ...


In the cases where I helped it did, and prontissimo.

... My friend is dead with a pretty clear link to the denied
coverage for her cancer treatment. She may have died anyway, but the
insurance company made that certain.

How did you or others fight for her?
Strange? I suppose you consider the money to give to Walmart to still
be yours as well?

No.

a. Walmart does not force me to hand it over. I get exactly what I want
in return.

b. The government does. It squanders a lot of it.
Sure, you can complain all day to the insurance company. It won't get
you care. ...


As i said, in my cases it did.

... If you get it put on national TV they *might* do some good. I
do know of a doctor who was a leukemia researcher. He developed the
very sort of disease they were working on and took the experimental
treatment his lab had developed. The other researchers chipped in to
pay for the first month or two of treatment which worked. In the mean
time they were able to convince the insurance company to pay for
continued care. I don't know of any other examples like this. But this
was clearly done for the publicity.

Often a letter in "legalese" will get their attention. But it takes effort.

Waiting lists that impact health are the exception rather than the rule.

ROFL!


That is a function of how much money is spent on health care. That is
what is going to change in this country because the costs are rising so
absurdly. You like your doctors? You can continue to pay them. I will
prefer it when the rates are managed as well as the care.



Ok, this is my last post on this unless something changes. We are just
going in circles and you won't discuss any facts other than the waiting
list.

Because they kill people and that bothers me. I cannot understand anyone
who would not be bothered by that.
 
J

josephkk

Jan 1, 1970
0
John Devereux wrote:

rickman wrote:

[...]

... Here you have to wait six weeks to get
the appointment where you are told of the risks about the procedure and
another four weeks to get the procedure! Sounds to me like the UK gets
the job done more quickly than here.

You are joking?

http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=17717

[...]

You know .ie (republic of Ireland) is not the UK, right?

I know, but AFAIK the health system is comparable.

Well, don't worry, I am sure you can find plenty of negative articles
about the NHS (UK public health service). But there are very few here
who would want it scrapped in favour of an american / private type
system.

Likewise, you might consider that most of the hype you hear about the
American system is...hype.

The president constantly repeating falsehoods doesn't help. For
example, doctors don't amputate feet because it pays better than
preventive care, and insurance companies can't cancel your insurance
because you're sick--that's illegal and always has been. Neither of
those was true.

They don't cancel your insurance because you are sick, they raise your
rates to the point you can't pay. I know this happens because I know
people it has happened to. It has also been documented on TV.

Naturally. I'd just rather have my options strengthened by free
market competition among smart people striving to please me, not dim-
witted federal bureaucrats who get paid excessively no matter what.

Obamacare gives you that free market competition for the medical care.
It simply makes it possible for (and mandates) everyone to have insurance.

That simply is a bad mis-interperation of the actual text of the law, sold
to you by Obummer, Pelosi and Reid. Try reading the actual law.

?-)
 
Top