Then Critical Mass it is. TAR2 (the American Revolution part II?) _ALL_ of those things need to be changed.
-- Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing. -- Abraham Lincoln
Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is a cost. And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility, I also think that you have to play fair. Why should I get such favorable rates for health insurance (because I work or worked for a company (university) that was generous with benefits), while someone who is freelancing can't get affordable insurance (certainly not if there could be a pre-existing condition)? Is he/she really so much of a greater risk?
While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still the best and most responsive in the world, bar none. If the plan for government review of the medical procedures a person gets, were in effect today when my wife retina torn loss, she would be blind today, as the surgery had to be done within hours not the months it would take the bureaucrats to decide if she should be treated. Check the time frames to get care under the European Socialist systems. You will be shocked. As your European friends on Facebook.
However do you really think a bill that duplicates the FDA, adds taxes on medical devices, and taxes to those who are least able to pay them, is the solution to this dilemma.
With government limits on medical care, do you think any one would have developed the spin off from The Star War program into the laser surgery techniques we use today.
The government regulation has burden the medical industry with a system that takes 10 to 20 years for the FDA to review and approve a new drug. Do you think having two government agencies doing the same review is going to make drugs safer or get new drugs to the doctors faster.
Obamacare took care of the bureaucracies, it added 142 new ones!
It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care and insurance industries.
Amazing is certainly the right heading. The politicians keep telling us we're the richest nation in the world and yet we're the only industrialized nation without some form of national health care.
I'm not thrilled with the Obama solution - I consder it a free gift to the insurance companies. But IMNSHO, it's better than the current (lack of a) plan.
And before you tell me all those "other" countries are in deep financial trouble because of their helth plans, check out Germany, Canada, and Japan.
And the only way to cover pre-existing conditions is to require that you have insurance, otherwise people would get insurance only when they needed treatment.
I do realize this is a waste of bandwidth, but here's one comparison:
"Direct comparisons of health statistics across nations are complex. The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently underperforms compared to the other countries.[33] A major difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health care. The OECD also collects comparative statistics, and has published brief country profiles."
Another study a few years back by the World Health Organization, ranked the US first in amount paid for health care, but 37th in quality. Right behind Costa Rica and ahead of Slovenia.
Could you please reference reputable sources that support your claim of "the best and most responsive in the world"?
Please tell me where a "regular ol' doctors" make 4K a hour. I'll try to convince my wife to move.
She is a family practice physican (about as "regular ol'" as you can get). Her take home averages about $110k a year. Fair money, but no-where near $4K an hour especially when you take into on-call hours.
Please don't confuse primary care doctors with specialist. Specialist make lots more money because, well, they have special skills. I will agree that many of them are perhaps over-paid, but that is the the nature of our 'pay for procedure' (verses "pay for outcome") insurance system.
What you're really saying is that you think the benefits outweigh the detriments. If you want a thing and can afford it, you've probably already got it and don't need to be compelled. If you don't want a thing, why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your expense? And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to force a third party to get it for you at their expense? It makes no difference how laudable the thing is, making it compulsory takes away your freedom. So what you're really saying is that you believe denying me and others our freedom is a good thing.
What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.
The difference is the company pays for your health insurance and the independent does not have a company to pay part of his insurance.
To you this may seem unfair, but the company pays part of your insurance to keep you on the job each day to get the most out of you.
Let start the cost analysis with the cost of government imposed regulations. When I worked in a Pharmaceutical nearly a third of their total staff was devoted to regulatory compliance.
That is just in on the manufacturing side. I have no experience with the providers, but know they are also hit hard with government regulations.
Next let explorer the cost of law suits. The first thing some will do is total the payouts in the current year and say that these cost are insignificant. When considering these cost you have to consider the preventive cost, adult resistant lids, label that say a fire is hot and will burn you, and other nonsense. There are many expenses that a company makes to avoid law suits.
Keith Nuttle wrote in news:jsl1gn$utd$ snipped-for-privacy@speranza.aioe.org:
As a born Dutchman, firstly I have nothing against Social Democrats (most often called socialists over there). I have something against communists, since they are dictatorial, whichtrue socialists aren't. Secondly, the Dutch healthcare system is a single payer type national healthcare system, although there are many companies offering insurance policies
Here in the US, the orthopedist I used for follow-up was amazed at the way the Dutch surgeon had inserted one of the plates by not cutting the leg and placing the plate, but by inserting it under the skin and sliding it in place. Note that I have now full use of the leg, and (so far) no sign of the possible arthritic complications which I was told can happen.
So in my personal experience, the Dutch system was very efficient, highly professional and "modern", and probably quite cheap.
There are things the FDA isn't very good at, and I don't know exactly how it could be better. There is a trade-off between safety, approving new treatments and doing careful followup. The tax on medical devices is
2.3%, I believe, well within the yearly cost increases for healthcare related items. Those least able to pay don't pay at all now, for various reasons. Having them pay something is a conservative's dream.Huh?? Limits on medical care?? What limits? The discussion of what care a person should get, is and should be between the patient and the doctor. The doctor shouldn't have to worry about misplaced malpractice suits, or about getting paid for his services, and the patient should be assured to get the most appropriate medical care. Now, the insurance company might suggest hydrochlorothiazide for high blood pressure (a diuretic costing a few dollars per month) over the latest new blood pressure pill that has all kinds of side effects and costs $60 plus per month. Plus I think (and have said so elsewhere several times), people should ahead of time make their wishes for end of life care known (living will, advanced directives, whatever). That should be in discussions with their loved ones, and in written down, notarized and deposited with their physician formats. And those are difficult questions, that can cause heartache for years afterwards.
I was involved in this area as a researcher, doing preliminary research. I have knowledge of the problems, the bureaucracy and indirectly of the falsifications during the processes. My considered opinion is that the FDA should strive to bring new (really new, not me-too or slight modifications of old drugs) medications and devices to the market place. But there also should be a more formalized and stricter system of follow- up. The Vioxx/Celebrex type anti-COX2 antiinflammatories are an example how a celebrated new class of (expensive) drugs has had minimal effects on treatment (a gross generalization) and some troublesome and still not quite understood side effects. The statins have effects that cannot really be explained by cholesterol-lowering (originally the way they were designed and thought to act), they appear to have side effects for some that are bad, but overall they are (I think) good. I'll have to look up what this new law might do to a corollary of the FDA, because I hadn't really heard about that aspect other than that the FDA is a heap of trouble.
Grants Pass, OR and Concord, CA. My oral surgeon @ $4k and my sister's appendectomy surgeon who got $22k for near-outpatient (no overnight stay) service. Granted, those were the clinic/hospital charges, but CHRIST, $22k for 3 hours work and a change of sheets?
OK. Does "regular ol' surgeons" work better for you two?
-- Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing. -- Abraham Lincoln
Doug Winterburn wrote in news:4fee15f1$0$1474 $c3e8da3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:
Have to look into that. Thanks.
Larry Blanchard wrote in news:jsl52n$6s7$2 @speranza.aioe.org:
Yes, of course, that is why insurance should be compulsory IMO. No dodging allowed.
Frank Stutzman wrote in news:jsl9je$2mu$ snipped-for-privacy@news.kjsl.com:
Well said. Just a little question. Most (I think) physicians, including primary care doctors, nowadays are saddled with an extensive staff of billing agents, transcribers, appointment secretaries etc, etc. So net pay and gross pay are very different. I would dearly like to know how to cut down on those administrative costs. Having reently joined the retired crowd, and now having to deal with Medicare billing, supplemental insurances, deductibles and copays, it is mind boggling and loudly crying for simplification.
And what does one do when they lose their job, get laid off or heaven's forbid, don't work at a job that earns them enough to pay for it in the first place?
Just Wondering wrote in news:4fee2b2c$0$23518$ snipped-for-privacy@usenet-news.net:
Personally, I would be fine with you refusing to pay for healthcare insurance. But how would you then pay for care that you really need or want? So you have no insurance whatsoever. You have an accident and break your leg (like I did). The choice is then of necessity sometimes made for you. It is so bad that unless immediate care is given, it would be more painful, with worse outcome possibilities, and more costly to wait and discuss with you, your loved ones, or whoever, what should be done and who is going to pay. Therefore the rule is now that under certain circumstances care is given, and cost is discussed later. And sometimes then there is nobody able or willing to pay. Should the doctor, hospital, ambulance just take the loss? If you are willing to show a card that says "I am unwilling to pay for medical care until I have given consent" then a law has to be passed to allow medical personnel to let you lie where you fall.
I think Obamacare is better, though not ideal. I think everyone should pay for compulsory, basic and catastrophic medical care, and be given the option to pay for added coverages. Then if a preexisting condition pops up that is discovered before you get it covered by insurance will mean you're shit out of luck. In other words, you gamble you won't get diabetes, so youre fuse coverage for dialysis, kidney transplant, eye diseases, and other consequences of diabetes. Great reduction in premium. You're ahead. But if you then develop diabetes, you should be shit out of luck. Pay full cost for any and all treatments for any result of diabetes. Good luck, buddy. I will get that extra coverage, just in case. I'll eat out less to pay for the premium.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.