O/T: Amazing

Page 7 of 10  
On 7/1/2012 12:33 PM, HeyBub wrote:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff#5706819479265001602
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/29/2012 07:03 AM, Swingman wrote:

liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may have well been Marbury'ed ...

Roberts did three things:
- He told the people and the legislature to decide what's good law and not ask SCOTUS to make that decision - he umpired and didn't play the game.
- He showed judicial independence and thereby took away Obama's ability to whine about how the courts are interfering with his reign.
- To your point - he stomped on the brakes to prevent the Congress from its current behavior of using the Commerce Clause to justify every bit of legislative overreach and chicanery. The Commerce Clause is so abused as to make the limits on Federal power irrelevant. That came to a grinding halt yesterday.
My only beef with the whole thing is that Roberts could have and should have thrown out the individual mandate because it is flatly wrong.
The most important thing that happened yesterday is that this ignited the fires and people will now be galvanized to replace this administration.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/29/2012 9:55 AM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Let's just hope that it doesn't take as long as Marbury vs Madison for the cows to come home.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Swingman wrote:

Yep. One commentator opined that the other justices are playing checkers while Roberts is playing chess.
There are several cases scheduled for next term where his rationale in the ACA case will come back to bite the liberals. Chief among these cases are those having to do with voting rights and civil rights.
The bottom line on the ACA case, according to Roberts, is that a LEGISLATIVE solution is the proper path. That looses a massive political effort for the fall.
Hold my beer and watch this!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but they said it with a straight face.
--
G.W. Ross

Freeman's Law: Nothing is so simple
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will be paying for those who do.
-- Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing. -- Abraham Lincoln
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the "charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course).
At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured).
There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while, and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance, period.
Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/29/2012 3:41 PM, Han wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:00:25 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

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"?
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

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

As a born Dutchman, firstly I have nothing against Social Democrats (most often called socialists over there). I have something against communists, since they are dictatorial, whichtrue socialists aren't. Secondly, the Dutch healthcare system is a single payer type national healthcare system, although there are many companies offering insurance policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands).
I broke a leg in an amusement/zoo type park (Dolfinarium) in Harderwijk, a very small city, formerly more a fishing village on the inland sea arm the Zuiderzee. It is also where Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and the system of nomenclature for animals and plants, developed his system <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaeus>. But it had a first-class hospital and trauma surgeon on staff. I broke the leg at 10:30 AM, it took a while for an ambulance to get me to the hospital. I was seen in the ER almost immediately and the trauma surgeon was called in. By 2:30 PM I was back in a hospital bed after surgery to put a couple of plates on the 2 broken bones near the ankle, and a dozen or so screws. I spent 3 nights in the hospital. The total costs for ambulance, surgery hospital stay and doctors was around $9000. The bill for the ambulance was a 1-liner. The bill for the rest was 2 lines. Because I didn't have Dutch (or EU) insurance they asked me to pay the bill, and get the money back from my insurance company (they knew the difficulties dealing with US insurance). It all worked out for me in the end, with not much more than my deductible to be paid by me (they screwed me on the exchange rates).
Here in the US, the orthopedist I used for follow-up was amazed at the way the Dutch surgeon had inserted one of the plates by not cutting the leg and placing the plate, but by inserting it under the skin and sliding it in place. Note that I have now full use of the leg, and (so far) no sign of the possible arthritic complications which I was told can happen.
So in my personal experience, the Dutch system was very efficient, highly professional and "modern", and probably quite cheap.

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.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/29/2012 12:41 PM, Han wrote:

Obamacare took care of the bureaucracies, it added 142 new ones!
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 13:15:21 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

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.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

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

Yes, of course, that is why insurance should be compulsory IMO. No dodging allowed.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Seems there should be a mechanism for unemployed to keep up with the insurance. Probably is in the law. If not, there should be some subsidy to keep you in the system.
There is something wrong with a system that doesn't give you a living wage, and that includes health insurance premiums. Similar to the complaints that "poor" people don't pay taxes, even if they were working. "Welfare" is what they get in the form of tax rebates because of being poor. If people need to pay taxes (and I am in favor of that), then we need to pay them wages that would cover those taxes (and health insurance premiums). Either a recipe for inflation or class warfare, take your pick.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:08:23 -0400, Dave wrote:

From what I read, financial assistance will be provided to low income families and waivers are provided to the truly poverty stricken.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:33:00 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

The subsidies in Obamacare go up to 400% of the poverty level (currently $88K, for a family of four).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
--
Frank Stutzman



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:18:22 +0000 (UTC), Frank Stutzman

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? <wink>
-- Always bear in mind that your own resolution to succeed is more important than any one thing. -- Abraham Lincoln
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can't belive that Grants Pass would be to any significantly way different than Boise, ID (where we are) or White Salmon, WA (where we were).
What you are not seeing in those itemized bills is how much the surgeon is took home. Nor what the the anesthesiologist took home. Nor what the surgical nurse took home. Nor what the vast legions of support nursing staff, medical records clerks, billing clerks, insurance relations staff, administrators and janitors. In the tiny 20 bed hospital in White Salmon I daresay that every surgery was paying the salaries of easily 30 people.
Again, don't heap the entire bill upon the guy doing the actual work. He may be getting a good chunk of it, but to some degree he earned it. After all the lowest of general surgeons spent 4 years as a undergradate education, 4 years of medical school and 5+ years of residency and internship. Thats to say nothing of required annual continuing edation. If I had 13+ years of education, I'd like to be paid a bit more too.
By the way, according to http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Healthcare/Physicians-and-surgeons.htm the median income of physicans and surgeons is about $80 an hour. I used to make more than that doing private computer consulting.
--
Frank Stutzman



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

Related Threads

    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.