OT: Health care struck down

Page 9 of 16  
wrote:

great parody! rush should read this...maybe he'd learn something
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that is being taken away. There is nothing in the law that says employers have to give you more than one option. There is nothing in the law that says the employers has to give the money to go elsewhere yourself. The markets, etc., are not going to be for group policies.

Doubtful: The number of U.S. doctors refusing new Medicare patients has increased to record levels as low government payment rates force them out, statistics show. USA Today notes the doctors' exodus comes just six months before millions of baby boomers begin enrolling in the federal government healthcare program. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/21/More-doctors-refusing-Medicare - patients/UPI-20241277133043/#ixzz1DT9uzkGh

the RATE of increase might slacken. She is still going to pay insurance. The cutoffs for subsidies are low and even then someone has to pay for them.

Yeah, which means now that YOU have concerns, all of a sudden there is a medical insurance problem that the government has to solve for you. Heck the biggest problems you are concerned about are a direct result of government screwing around with healthcare in the first place.

to play with pre-existing conditions for those already insured for years. (Actually that would have probably be a better way to handle in real life for non-group policies.

look around.

the bottom line so there is more of a incentive.

You were the one bringing it up.

insurance viewpoint. After the change, there will be additional costs associated with every job. You'll have to pay money you don't now, whether or not the job is worth it economically. It will probably cut jobs, some now in place, because the jobs just aren't worth the extra money.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Whoa. You're saying the new health care bill is taking away my choice to DECIDE to risk bankruptcy? Since I would never DECIDE to risk bankruptcy (we have DECIDED to pay 25% of my wife's gross pay instead) nothing is being taken away. Perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying.

If you're talking about the new health care law, starting in 2014 (if it survives) those at my income level won't pay more than about 10% of income for insurance. That's 10% versus the current 25%. The economics look good to me.

They''ll get in line to get the business soon enough, especially as more and more people also become uninsured. That's how the marketplace works. Smaller gov money at higher volume - or starve. If they don't get in line the next step - which I see happening anyway - is importation of Chinese, Indian, etc., docs. Happened in my business (IT) when costs got too high. No business is sacrosanct. About 60% of all health care is already government money. Too much moola for the docs to turn aside. They're f**king socialists, just like everybody else. Besides, nobody I know on Medicare has had a bit of a problem finding a doc or hospital. Might be location, or might just be scare tactics.

Uh, I can afford the med insurance. I got money. Good for me. Like I said, she isn't alone. Most her workmates are uninsured because they can't afford it. That's why there's something happening with health care. Lot's of people hurting. Bankruptcies, etc. Current system is failing. But YOU, apparently, are all set. So good for you too.

No pre-existing conditions here. Just 25% of gross to insure against losing our house. All it would take is one serious accident/illness. She's looked around at jobs she would rather do, some even paying less. They didn't offer insurance. Many small companies don't. Why should they if it doesn't fit their business model?

Like I said, nobody knows. Or Rummy would say it's a "known unknown." Raising rates works real good for the bottom line too. Med insurance isn't a "free market" business.

Well, you're talking about the current bill, and I was really talking about universal health care as done in sane countries. Sorry I wasn't clear. Haven't looked closely, but even this bill should offer "portability" or at least unbroken coverage. I do see us going to single-payer or similar eventually. I don't think employers should be involved in health care. They should stick to their core enterprise. Didn't say I was happy with the current bill. But it sure as hell is better for many. Might not survive though, since the "mandate" is clearly unconstitutional. Imagine, the government telling people they have pay the insurance/medical industries and their billionaire bosses directly. Gimme a break. Looks like Massachusetts got away with it though.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, or to pay less for a more bareboned policy if you want to. I was probably (okay definitely) being a little flippant. The government is taking away your right to go without if you want to, that is a very fundamental right.

Hell yes they should. The plan it taking money out of others pockets and putting it into yours. Why shouldn't you like the government mugging someone else to your gain. Lets see how they look to the guy who no longer has a job when the cost of mandatory healthcare is more than the job is economically worth. Lets see how it looks to doc who is suddenly getting his wages cut. The list is much longer.

already taking place) is only 15 minutes. You really think that can be cut back much more. So you are comfortable with the additional dumbing down of medical care so you can save a few bucks.

They don't just get off the plane and go to work. They have to show a certain mastery of English, they have to pass the regular licensing tests, they have to pass extra tests, in many cases they have to redoc their residency. A shrink I worked with (both as a Shrink and as a Psych Tech) took almost 8 years to get ready. Pair that with the vast number of docs that would have been retiring anyway (Baby Boomers, and all) and you don't a have a recipe for quickly replacing docs that leave.

Yeah but the licensing requirements are not remotely the same.

Where does that come from. Most I see, including the annual health care expenditures from the goverment, says only 25%.

scholars and journalism types, so their results are wrong. Is to Guffaw.

times the actual amount of my own pocket as your wife out her income. HI is about 65% of the total expenses for my company every year. BTW: Because I own my own business, I won't be able to get any of the subsidies. In fact, depending on how the IRS comes down on the regs, I might actually lose some of the deductibility.

Pretty much the meat of MY argument.

Yeah, I have argued for years that before we decide free markets don't work we should at least try it. HC hasn't been remotely free market since WWII, indeed most of your concerns can be traced to that lack of free markets.

doesn't have some jobs that aren't there because the taxes to cover health insurance make them untenable? "Sane" countries can't go against economics any more than the US.

implementation.
My REAL concern is what happens if the Court strikes down the mandate but lets the rest of it stay. A REAL confusing "system" would come about.

I have no idea what you mean here. Try again?
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I don't care about that "fundamental right" because I would never leave myself unprotected. Same as the right to commit suicide to me.

You mean like the 25% of my wife's gross pay goes to the business you're in and gets spread among you and your buds' pockets? That kind of mugging? Cry me a river. But your 25% tax on her pay is working for now. I'll keep paying. Fact of life, that's all. Good for me I can pay it. Too bad others can't afford it. Good for you either way, eh? Get it from me via the insurance company bagman, or get it from the gov. You decide who steals the biggest cut from you. And I decide who steals the biggest cut from me. Of course I don't have a choice now.

And quit talking about muggings. My wife and her workmates are the ones getting mugged. Those in the insurance/med industry are rolling in dough. Guess it all depends on who is mugging who. I don't hear answers from you. Just complaints. Well, maybe your answer is low incomes keep paying the 25% or turn to the gov. Don't rightly know.

You sound like an autoworker complaining about the speed of the assembly line. A doc takes the time he needs. There's no dumbing down. My physicals only take ten minutes. Last time the doc asked his questions, did his once over, found a hernia, and wrote a referral to a surgeon all in 10 minutes. Same with my visit to the surgeon. But I don't have complaints. I'm sure those long waits past my appointment time were caused by patients the doc needed more time with. I give the docs more credit to take care of business than you do. But I used to be an autoworker.

Takes long because the medical industry has protected itself well. That can change. Besides, there's probably more need for nurses and techs than docs. I just looked on line at last years billing with Aetna. The lab work was twice what the doc charged for the physical. And everybody either got paid a little over half of what they asked for or less than half. Everybody got paid less than "agreed upon." Total clusterfuck. That's our system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_health_care " Government is increasingly involved in U.S. health care spending, paying about 45% of the $2.2 trillion the nation spent on individuals' medical care in 2004.[3] However, studies have shown that the publicly-administered share of health spending in the U.S. is closer to 60%.[4]"
Take whatever figure you want.

Exactly right. If my personal experience says something, I tend to believe it. Sorry for that. But I'll ask my doc later this year if he's going to drop me when I go on Medicare next year. If so I'll find a different doc.

Too bad. Hope HI doesn't get to about 1/3 of your take home pay, as it is for many.

from the insurance industry. Then it stopped dead after that. There's also all the state regs to contend with.

health care relative to ours. I've looked around enough to know that many do it better. All the info is on the net. Disagree all you want. Call it "socialism" all you want. Different opinions make the world go round.

Massachusetts has mandated health insurance. Mitt Romney's doing.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it causes too much cognitive dissonance to you to think someone not in the insurance biz could actually think Reform is bad idea in its current form, feel free to jump to any conclusion that makes you happy. Again, you are basing your econ assumptions on making sure you are happy.

writing anything for an insurance company (except for a check for 100% of my insurance premium.

have insurance at the current cost instead of a Mustang (like my neice who doesn't get health insurance, even though a pretty good deal from her employer) because it would cost about the same as her car payment. You looked over the costs, and decided that you would rather health insurance than something else.

companies is 3.3% and is ranked 87th among all industries

have some god given right to take money from others to subsidize your health insurance, I haven't heard any ideas from you either.

broke.
Probably, not in real life. Docs have to overbook, much like airlines, and when people actually show up when they say they are going to...

from the big union contracts with really low premiums you paid and really low co-pays (although I put most of this on the heads of the management more than the union who was doing what they are supposed to be doing.) We actually haven't had health insurance (defined as taking a high cost, rate risk and spreading it among many people) since the days of the old major medical.

BIG numbers needed for all. Although the docs are still the ones that actually drive the services.


the one that ends at your nose?

that is all over the place depending on how much I make from year to the next.

You certainly did when you suggested what sane countries do.,
with it though.

insurance, you are really in deep doodoo.
The Wall Street Journal, 07/11/09 For 15 years Massachusetts has imposed guaranteed issue and community rating mandates that allow people to wait until they're sick, or just before they're about to incur major medical expenses, to buy insurance, writes The Wall Street Journal. A useful case study comes from the community-based health plan Harvard-Pilgrim. The company has seen an "astonishing" uptick in people buying coverage for a few months at a time, running up high medical bills, and then dumping the policy after treatment is completed and paid for. Harvard-Pilgrim estimates that between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred about $2,400 per person in monthly medical expenses. That's about 600% higher than Harvard-Pilgrim would have otherwise expected. Massachusetts' individual mandate penalty for not having coverage is only about $900, so people seem to be gaming the Massachusetts system, the Journal writes.
This isn't the only study suggesting that mandated coverage isn't really.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

that's okay with me. I've already said I think mandates to buy private health insurance are unconstitutional. That will worked through the courts. I'll live with the results. The dummies running that show used the mandate to get the balance sheet how they needed it, and to kiss the asses of the insurance industry. Taxing would have been cleaner, but wasn't in the cards.

You gave the impression you were in the medical field. You certainly talk the talk. If I'm mistaken, apologies.

else's pocket. Life is transactions. I consider affordable health care to be a right, or at least a desired goal for any society. You don't. So be it. And I've felt that way forever. When I was working my big salary was paid by minimum wage workers without insurance. That's where money comes from. Other people. I knew that. I didn't like it. I would have accepted higher taxes to provide them health insurance. And if means-testing meant I pay the same 25% of my wife's salary for the same end result, I can live with that. Believe it or not.

What's unavoidable? To me anyway, death, taxes....and health insurance. Hardly a stretch to put HI in the tax bucket. (More below re your niece)

In a sense. The only reason I pay for HI is to keep my house and savings. Same reason I pay my real estate tax. Don't want to lose my house. You can call that voluntary. Mostly for my wife's sake. Feel responsible for her welfare. Without her, I'd be cutting bait on a fishing boat and living in a shack. Drink myself to death in the end, and never see a doctor. Don't know if your niece has any assets, or family dependents, but if so not having HI has dangers. If she needs serious medical care I guess that will come out of my insurance premiums. I certainly have never gotten medical services anywhere near what I pay in premiums. They are implicitly taxed to pay for the care of people like your niece. Rather have that just built into the income tax and your niece covered as a matter of course. Be cheaper for me now that I'm retired, but I always felt that way. Believe it or not. Doesn't matter though, as I can afford insurance anyway. Won't be me who decides. The ball is rolling naturally without any input from me.

When the market is huge - and high cost - 3.3% goes a looooong way. Profits are tallied after payroll, which includes multi-millions for dozens of execs. Poor fellers. But any one of them is worth a hundred gov managers, and they have the bank accounts to prove exactly that. So what's your point here?

My idea is universal affordable health care. I don't much care how we get there as long as isn't wasteful, corrupt, and stupid - like the current system.. We're on the road to that. The current system is unsustainable. Whatever can't be afforded by individuals will be subsidized by taxpayers. The usual poverty rates will apply as to "affordable." The cost will be spread over the usual progressive income tax tables. Pretty much like what is happening, except I'd prefer a Medicare buy in instead of forcing anybody to enrich insurance execs. I'd also like employers entirely free of providing insurance. For Medicare buy in appropriate co-pays are put in place to discourage abuse. Those wanting coverage beyond the essentials are free to purchase private coverage, just as many now buy private supplementals to Medicare. That's a broad outline. Plenty of details to work out. You can do that. Like who is on the death panels. I'm going to nominate Sarah Palin and Chuck Grassley. They've said they won't let grandma die. They want Medicare to keep her alive forever.
All I've seen from you is that you want to keep the current system. Because you don't want other people "stealing" from you. You've called low wage people like my wife and her workmates thieves and muggers if they don't cough up 25% of their gross pay to enrich the insurance and medical industries. That's what you've said. I can only assume their other choice is to forego health care and use the emergency room when necessary. And go bankrupt if hit by a high cost medical event. Does that about sum you up? You're welcome to disabuse me of that notion if I'm wrong.

practice. Down to the exact minute. So you're either holding something back or blowing smoke.

I only go by my doc's nurse calling in patients from the waiting room. Then sometimes no patients are called for a long time, and I finally get in and the doc says, "Sorry Vic, got tied up with a patient." But that's just my personal observation. We know how unreliable that is. We'll go with your idea. He was overbooked, invisible patients were streaming in past my nose, and of course he had to lie to me, otherwise I would know about his invisible patients. I like that.

You mean back in the day when medical care was relatively cheap, and when you went to the hospital you were asked "Do you want a priest?" Times and medicine have changed.

We'll see.

Laugh all you want. Family here in Illinois and family in Florida have no problem getting doctors who take Medicare. Sorry. Of course you can come up with personal examples to prove your point. I'm waiting.

sick. Numbers actually have meaning in the real world. My wife grosses a bit less than $20k and pays $5k for her portion of the insurance. That's how I get 25% of gross. The premiums are a bit less than 1/3 of her take home. She's not happy about that. And here you are all happy to pay 55% of your take home. What a proud little free market capitalist you are! Damn. I bet the insurance tycoons want to pinch your cheek!

I never said Canada was a sane system. Never mentioned Canada. We can do better.

Said I don't like mandated insurance. More than once. Unconstitutional.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Vic Smith wrote:

In the book "Systemantics," one of the empirically derived laws is:
"A large system, designed from scratch, will not work and cannot be made to work. You have to start over with a smaller, working, system."
A companion law states:
"In large systems, improper function, and even total malfuction, may not be detected for a long time, if ever."
The recent health care law is a large system designed from scratch. It will not work and cannot be made to work. After the first hundred failures or so, the "Chinese Horde" technique will be applied to try and fix the problems. These fixes, in turn, will engender more problems. As old problems are fixed, new problems arise in greater numbers.
But the new system will not die. It cannot be allowed to fail. Enormous sums of money will be poured in to keep it limping along.
Now our existing health care system has its flaws, to be sure, but the system we have is the result of over a hundred years of growth, trial and error, and evolution. By now, everybody in the system knows what works and what doesn't. Usually the participants maneuver around the things that don't work.
The new system is one gigantic - and unknown - set of problems to trouble us. The sad truth is that most of the problems of a new, large, system cannot be overcome.
We're screwed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

was grafted on to the current system. There is little here actually addressing the real issues such as the fact that the user of the service (me and thee) are not the payors of the service (employers in most cases) and that healthcare is ALREADY heavily subsidized with all the adherent economic dislocations and perverse incentive therein. Add to that they kept the largely acute disease payment system despite the fact we have evolved into a largely chronic delivery system, and you have an even uglier Frankenstein's monster than before.

If you want to have any real reform that doesn't require large bureaucracies to run and enforce, you have to get the user actually paying for it out of something approaching their own pocket. Interesting that the one area where a defined benefit (here is your money go forth and conquer) might actually be useful is the one area it isn't even discussed.

Largely because the egos of the legislature (on both sides of the aisle) are in play and if there anyone less likely to admit they were wrong and agree to change than a doctor, it is a politician.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is probably the saddest and most disturbing thing I have seen anybody post. You don't care about a "Fundamental Right" because you have yours and it doesn't affect you. So just how many of your fundamental rights are you willing to sell out so cheap?

And you think it will be cheaper in some other system? Could be even more costly but in a different way.

But you seem to want the right to steal it from someone else.

NO, they are not and that is a lie. They are in the same boat as everyone else, trying to survive.

YOU seem to be doing all the complaining, never happy with what you have and want someone else to give you something.

No, it hasn't at all.

Most are trying not to drop existing patients as they enter Medicare but few are willing to take on new Medicare patients. My mother has lost three of her doctors because they pulled out of Medicare. My Mother-in-law has lost two. My wife lost her doctor last year but he group decided to go the reduced practice pay in advance route and we refused to pay the annual fee.

And I can exercise my fundamental right to NOT live in Massachusetts.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And just think, you have been paying for it for over 40 years before you are able to use it too. The problem with all government programs like SS, Medicare, and would occur with a single payer system is that the systems are always doomed to ultimate failure. They are always based on a future forcast of more income than can be actually counted on. Obamacare can only work if they force everyone into the system and also make substantial cuts in Medicare. Both are totally unreasonable assumptions and therefore doom Obamacare from the beginning. Obamacare also depends on pushing much of the ultimate expenses onto the States and Medicaid which is already threatening to bankrupt the states. The Medicare cuts have already been written into law but congress has recinded the cuts every year with the outstanding cuts now postponed yet again adding up to over 25%.
This is not a problem unique to the US. It is already starting to show up in all the socialist countries in Europe and will only get worse over the next 20 - 30 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But it bought so many votes from the masses who believed the government was really looking out for their long term needs. What is really interesting is to go back and read some of the promises that were made when SS was started and follow through until today and see how it has been repeatedly used to try and buy votes. It was like the credit card junkie who uses one credit card to pay off another credit card then repeats that process over and over until one day all the bills come due. Well, the government used the excess funds from Medicare and SS to run the government and now the bills are coming due and the excess is gone.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And Universal healthcare as YOU see it will cut healthcare out of the picture. The options will be rather simple, either hit everyone with an equilivent of a 20-25% tax on their income to pay for this "Universal Healthcare" and/or greatly reduce your access to healthcare. There is no free ride and nobody is going to go into the healthcare field to work for minimum wage. The quality and quantity of care will be forced to drop and rationing will be mandated by the government as is being implemented in many other "socialist" systems now. This falls into that category of "be careful what you ask for, you might get it and regret it forever".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 5 Feb 2011 07:57:09 -0800 (PST), BobR

so prove to me this causes our medical costs to be 70% more than other countries. merely saying you dont LIKE the facts does not CHANGE them
I did work for a radiology group several years

ah. so you're saying you're unaware of how insurance companies spend their money. so, instead of doing RESEARCH, you decided to merely blather about something you dont know about. fair enough. that's what the right does
insurance companies do NOT keep the money under their mattresses. they INVEST IT.
and guess what's happened to investments over the lst few years. yep. insurance companies lost their asses
SO they run to the insurance committees, and to the GOP congress members who they pay quite handsomely, and complain the DOCTORS are putting them out of business when it's actually their own BAD INVESTMENTS that do so
so this is another form of bailout. they lost money on investments. they then require those of us who PAY for health insurance to make up their losses
AND they get folks like YOU to tell us that they're upstanding corporate citizens.
That malpractice insurance for that one

ah bullshit you say
tell you what. you get some facts and c'mon back. you're welcome to thump your chest all you want
chest thumping is not a way to prove your argument is correct. sorry

well...that's a well reasoned argument, isn't it?
we pay 17% of GDP for medical care. no other country does this.
our medical care ISNT better than others. our coverage is WORSE
these are FACTS. see that word? "FACTS"
you? you have bullshit. me? i'll go with the facts.

guess you arent aware that our free enterprise country is in desperate need of more of OUR money to continue providing services
OUR INCREASE in insurance premiums is HIGHER than in other countries
so go ahead tell me how the free market works when, by every MEASURE...see that word MEASURE...
it does not.
even limited and rationed services or that most of those

ah. rationed. the bugbear of the right wing
we already RATION healthcare in this country. the 95 year old who has 1 week to live, gets the best medical care in the world to extend her life by 3 hours.
teh 4 year old kid of the working poor gets no healthcare at ALL because his parents cant AFFORD IT
THAT IS RATIONING!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That does not take into account all the unnecessary tests and procedures doctors do to avoid suits. That number also only takes into account the awards in the suits that succeed, not the defense costs or the costs of unsuccessful suits.
It is funny that you assault the insurance companies for adding useless overhead but leap at the defense of the lawyers who never cured a single person.

A lot of people would disagree with "as good as ours". I will only point to the numbers of Canadian license plates at the specialists I visited in Florida. They are spending "out of pocket" loonies here for something you say they should be getting for free at home. If it is there, why come here? The answer I hear is they are on the list and don't want to wait or that they were denied.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 05 Feb 2011 12:14:58 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

uh...insurance company bad investments are responsible for about half of all health insurance company losses. but the right thinks healthcare consumers should pay for the losses incurred in insurance company losses
the right is always willing to bail out the rich!

and yet you seem to think no one is injured by doctors. and what is the average size of a malpractice settlement? care to tell us?

gee...wouldnt have anything to do with the large number of canadian retirees who live there, would it? funny i dont see that here in PA.
amazing coincidence!! he's discovered people go to the doctor where they live!
I

unfortunately what you hear is wrong. and about 500,000 US citizens go overseas for medical care each year. care to tell usa bout THAT??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bob, just because your fund manager was a moron doesn't mean every other investor lost their ass.

Compare it to a malpractice claim in any of those countries you long for us to emulate. Do you really think the 3d world quacks they hire in these government medicine countries do not make mistakes? The difference is you can't really sue the government in most places.

If they live here they are required to have a Florida tag. These are snow birds or "medical visitors". Why would they pay for elective procedures here if they were available for free at home?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:48:26 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Why not if you have money falling out of your ass? What's a visit to a doc cost, anyway? Besides, if they're snowbirds, doesn't that mean they are living in Florida in the winter months? Seems medical treatment might be required during those months. Seeing as how these Canucks have the money to maintain at least 2 homes, what's the big deal for a few hundred to a doc, especially if he's a golf partner? More likely, they can afford an insurance policy that covers them in the U.S. which is probably what most snowbirds do. And they can get reimbursed for some treatment, though paltry. They probably have read this: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/the-border-guide/article1638881/page1 / They are in Florida for the climate. Doesn't mean they are "medical tourists" or that they don't have medical needs. You should buttonhole some and ask them about it. See if they want their system replaced with the U.S. system. The results will be skewed if more than 1 in 5 says "Yes." Because that's how Canadians feel about it in poll after poll.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 06 Feb 2011 11:50:53 -0600, Vic Smith

The ones at the sports medicine guy I was seeing (John Kagan) said they could not get, what they thought were necessary tests, in Canada. In particular they said MRIs are virtually unobtainable there and they wanted a better answer about their joint problems than "take two Dichloflenac and call me next week". That is really the only doctor who was backed up so badly that I had lots of time to talk to the other people there. That was also where I saw the large number of Canadian tags that prompted my curiosity. They were usually paying out of pocket but I think this guy must have a "cash" rate because he was hosing my insurance company. Even with my insurance, I was out of pocket almost $3000 by the end of my year of medical hell. I really felt I was getting a lot of tests and procedures that were not necessary, In that regard, "rationing" might be a good thing but you will never convince most Americans that they should not be getting everything the medical industry has to offer. I saw the same thing coming from these Canadians.
In the end I decided they were all money hungry quacks who were not going to fix anything anyway so I just live with the pain. The $100 an hour physical therapist did me more good in an hour than $10,000 worth of specialists did in a year.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 2/6/2011 1:30 PM, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

The physical therapist is where the majority of back pain cases should start...
My son, age 38, started having back pain with pain and numbness down his leg. He is healthy, strong and very active. First doc did an MRI, diagnosed a synovial cyst on his spine related to a deteriorated disc. Diagnosis not for certain, but suggested surgery. Okaaaayyyy...we cut before we know for sure? I bugged him to get a second opinion, which after some delay, he did. We can cut, or if you want conservative treatment try physiatrist. Physiatrist wanted to inject. Injections, in some respects, are as invasive as surgery. He was scheduled for an injection when his symptoms disappeared, so he cancelled. Over the several months that this evolved, I did more reading about spinal surgery. I am very, very conservative when it comes to back surgery ... I know there are times that it is the only, very necessary treatment. I have seen dozens and dozens of cases, through managed care and insurance claims, of people with little or no relief after back surgery for disc problems. Most of the lit. that I found said that around 50% of surgeries give SOME relief of pain, although some surgeries actually make it worse. Always the issues of scar tissue, etc., along with folks being in just piss-poor shape and who do not exercise. It is a major cost in our economy, although I personally think that some of the "relief" issues are folks using the diagnosis as the means to get narcotic pain meds.
My son still gets periods of pain, but doesn't let the pain stop him. He is out skiing today. As some managers in re: workers comp cases feel, folks can work in pain as well as they can stay home in pain, we just want to take the financial incentive away - put them on sit-down work pulling out staples or answering phones.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.