RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Loki45 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 2:49:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CallaFirestormBW
And if 5 days in a hospital bed in a room with 3 other people in it didn't run $95,000 (ok, admittedly, it was the ICU, which does make a difference because the nurse-patient ratio is 1:3 instead of 1:9 or 1:10, so they have to pay more staff), then we might be able to -afford- to pay for our own medical care and wouldn't -need- insurance. Hell, my monthly medications, without insurance, are over $700 a month -- that's almost more than I pay in -rent-. I would have to go off my meds, which would, without a doubt, mean that I could no longer work...


Exactly. I covered that on page one when I said:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Me
Here on the news, a girl had epilepsy. Her medicine for it cost over $1,000 per month. Some middle-management insurance scrub decided it would 'save money' to use the generic form of the drug, without discussing it with the doc, without notifying the patient. She picked up her meds like usual with no clue it had been switched. The next day she had a major seizure. It seems that some generic meds don't give the full dosage into the blood stream as their brand-named counterpart.

She could have died, because some schmuck in middle-management wanted to save a buck. In Canada? Same meds - free. The DOCTOR says what the patient gets and the patient gets it. Sure, we can point to 'extreme' cases of people waiting long periods for a visit, but that happens even here. A caller to a radio show here told how a family member had to go to Central America for a procedure which cost $40,000 here, but only $12,000 there. Without it, she would have been crippled for life. She had two weeks to make the choice and could not afford it here. Her insurance company deemed it un-necessary despite the doc saying that if she didn't have it in 2 weeks, she'd never walk again.





DedicatedDom40 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 2:49:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gift4mistress

I wouldn't sit down yet. Obama can control health care through other means such as getting a bill passed that allows the government to regulate health care companies further.



When we passed the prescription drug bill in 2003 (yet another benefit only for the 65+, big fucking surprise there), that legislation had a non-negotitation clause inserted into it, mandating the government buy drugs for this new senior entitlement and not actually have to bargain or dicker on the prices, leaving competition out of the process.  Thats neither capitalism or a healthy healthcare system.  Its a rigged system.

I agree that there is plenty that can be accomplished in the "Bust the Trusts" department.






Mercnbeth -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 3:12:48 PM)

quote:

Which is why people HAVE insurance in the first place. If we could pay for our own care, we wouldn't be at the mercy of some middle-management fuckwad trying to save a dime at the cost of our health.
All these points are irrelevant to any health care proposal. None of this will change. On top of all the budgetary management they'll be another layer of government bureaucracy. Think that will help?

You're talking about access in combination with cost. Which one changes with the passage of this Bill? There isn't any cost savings for anything included in the Bill being considered. Will 5 days in the hospital all of a sudden be discounted? Will you be able to walk in without a gate-keeper; government bureaucrat or insurance company "middle management fuckwad"?

No matter what insurance you have until you need to use it, you'll never know if you have 'good' or 'bad' coverage. It does matter and you are better off to have choices; not a government program, which should always be considered as a last, worst case, resort.
quote:

guess you have to get a terminal illness to be unhappy with the way things are and you'd be unhappy regardless of who was in charge, because everyone wants to save a buck.
Everybody has a "terminal illness" except the majority of us don't know what it is yet, or sometimes die for other reasons before becoming terminal.

Access to all extraordinary life saving medical procedures, regardless of cost, is NOT a Constitutional guarantee, and won't be one if this Bill becomes law. You are only going to have another source of frustration if you think that is the case. With the government dictating the budgets and assigning specific costs for specific procedures getting treatment will be less likely versus more likely to be effective.




Loki45 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 3:22:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
All these points are irrelevant to any health care proposal. None of this will change. On top of all the budgetary management they'll be another layer of government bureaucracy. Think that will help?

You're talking about access in combination with cost. Which one changes with the passage of this Bill? There isn't any cost savings for anything included in the Bill being considered. Will 5 days in the hospital all of a sudden be discounted? Will you be able to walk in without a gate-keeper; government bureaucrat or insurance company "middle management fuckwad"?

No matter what insurance you have until you need to use it, you'll never know if you have 'good' or 'bad' coverage. It does matter and you are better off to have choices; not a government program, which should always be considered as a last, worst case, resort.

Everybody has a "terminal illness" except the majority of us don't know what it is yet, or sometimes die for other reasons before becoming terminal.

Access to all extraordinary life saving medical procedures, regardless of cost, is NOT a Constitutional guarantee, and won't be one if this Bill becomes law. You are only going to have another source of frustration if you think that is the case. With the government dictating the budgets and assigning specific costs for specific procedures getting treatment will be less likely versus more likely to be effective.


For those who currently can't afford insurance, at least they will get the chance to have some middle-management person deny them care. As it stands now, they don't even go to hospitals because they know they can't afford it. When I worked as a waiter 3 years ago, I went to a doctor *one* time because my voice was gone totally (you kinda need that to take an order from someone) and because I couldn't stop coughing. I paid $200 for a doctor to say "well, you don't have strep...I don't know what the problem is." And that's where it ended for me. I didn't (and don't ) have insurance so getting another doc or a specialist wasn't even an option. I had to wait it out and hope it got better.

So you asked "Think that will help?" Well, since your friend is under a goverment plan and Calla is under an insurance plan and they're both getting fucked or have the capacity to be fucked, it can't hurt. It's just trading one person fucking you for another, right? Seems that the ones that will be helped are the ones who can't even get 'fucked' right now because they have no 'plan' to speak of.




Mercnbeth -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 3:49:04 PM)

quote:

I paid $200 for a doctor to say "well, you don't have strep...I don't know what the problem is."
Sounds like you were a great customer for the Doctor. You paid $200 and didn't get a diagnosis nor any drugs? Where was this? You got robbed! Why did you pay at all? What other things to you pay and accept a similar result?

quote:

It's just trading one person fucking you for another, right?
Which should generate the more obvious question - why do it at all? Why not think outside either non-solution?

You first have to determine the goal. Is it access? Is it care? What about the qualifiers - 'good' and 'timely'? Told that beth had a lump in her breast and, with insurance, I was told I had to wait about 2 months for a mammogram. I guess, like you when you spent $200 for nothing, I could have said "well gee okay", worried and waited. Instead I got on the phone with enough people to get it done in a week. What I was going to pay, or my ability to pay, or wondering how I'd pay any extra expense, wasn't a consideration. Funny, but pay wasn't a consideration to the vendor either - it was simply access; "good" & "timely" access. I'm confident I have the ability to get similar access now - I have no faith that the insurance company is working in my best interest, even though sometimes it works out that they do. The difference is based upon every experience, I KNOW the government is NOT working in my best interest.




Loki45 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 4:07:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Sounds like you were a great customer for the Doctor. You paid $200 and didn't get a diagnosis nor any drugs? Where was this? You got robbed! Why did you pay at all? What other things to you pay and accept a similar result?


It was one of those 'doc-in-box' places that are popping up everywhere. She gave me an anti-biotic prescription, but the visit was all I could afford. Supposedly the $200 was for the strep 'test.' I had no money left for the anti-biotics. No shit I got robbed. As do many who can't afford even the most basic health care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Which should generate the more obvious question - why do it at all? Why not think outside either non-solution?


I answered this question already. The plan proposed seems to me to have more to do with those who are not currently able to afford health care or insurance. If it only swaps "who's doing the fucking" for those who have insurance, and it adds coverage for those needing it...where's the problem? (Other than it prevents some from allowing their own, chosen insurance companies fuck them. But they're still getting fucked, right?)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
You first have to determine the goal. Is it access? Is it care? What about the qualifiers - 'good' and 'timely'? Told that beth had a lump in her breast and, with insurance, I was told I had to wait about 2 months for a mammogram. I guess, like you when you spent $200 for nothing, I could have said "well gee okay", worried and waited. Instead I got on the phone with enough people to get it done in a week. What I was going to pay, or my ability to pay, or wondering how I'd pay any extra expense, wasn't a consideration. Funny, but pay wasn't a consideration to the vendor either - it was simply access; "good" & "timely" access. I'm confident I have the ability to get similar access now - I have no faith that the insurance company is working in my best interest, even though sometimes it works out that they do. The difference is based upon every experience, I KNOW the government is NOT working in my best interest.


The problem with the "access" argument is that those who like to point out the 'timeliness' or lack thereof in canada fail to acknowledge that a large part of that is how many doctors they have there. I saw a piece on it where one doctor they inteviewed worked like 90 hours a week. They just don't have the staff there. Here we do. Or at least we have more than they do there. There's still a wait here, and we're not on their plan. So how would that change if we were on a plan like Canada? It doesn't sound to me like it would change very much, except that people like me, who couldn't afford the prescription the doc gave me for my 'non-strep' could get their prescriptions for free.





tazzygirl -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 4:17:47 PM)

a sobering thought. those we are telling to suck it up because government shouldnt pay for anything... will be those who will be taking care of most of us when we can no longer take care of ourselves.




Mercnbeth -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 4:23:06 PM)

quote:

The plan proposed seems to me to have more to do with those who are not currently able to afford health care or insurance.
"Affordable" is always subject to personal perspective. You can solve the problem without a Bill by simply allowing all uninsured individuals access to the military system currently in place. If access where the goal - QED - it's done without the need of 1000 pages. Expand the existing military system if necessary. Makes you wonder than why its taken 1000 pages and its implementation was attempted to be forced by the artificial August 1st deadline. What was the reason for that attempt? Notice any resulting "crisis" since August 1st came and went without a Bill in place?

quote:

They just don't have the staff there. Here we do. Or at least we have more than they do there.
Where did you get that idea? Also, as was pointed out somewhere earlier, a regular part of Doctor's training involves 20 hour shifts at emergency wards. It was cited as a cause of problems, not a solution of them. We may have more doctors per 1000 citizens, but they include many doing work outside the realm of any GP.

With either the insurance company gate-keepers, or the potential of the government replacing them with a bureaucracy, anyone going to Medical school is crazy. "Mindless Bureaucrat" - has replaced the 60's reference of "plastics" as the buzz-word pointing to a 'successful' future for college graduates.




Loki45 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 4:42:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Where did you get that idea? Also, as was pointed out somewhere earlier, a regular part of Doctor's training involves 20 hour shifts at emergency wards. It was cited as a cause of problems, not a solution of them. We may have more doctors per 1000 citizens, but they include many doing work outside the realm of any GP.


I got the idea from the documentary piece where the Canadian doctor flat-out said it. She said she simply doesn't have enough hours in the day or week to see all the patients who need to be seen by her. If there were more of her, it would be better, but there isn't. Even with our larger population, our ratio of doctors to patients is still better than theirs.

Access is why they come here. Cost is why we go elsewhere. I have no clue how to fix either problem. But if the bill trades one problem for another and still grants access to many who don't currently have it, where's the problem?




tazzygirl -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 4:51:58 PM)

no Merc. many are still working the same 30 - 36 hours.

Patient Safety and Quality
Extended resident work hours jeopardize both resident health and patient safety
In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated a maximum 80-hour work week for medical residents, restricted continuous on-call shifts to 30 hours, and insisted that residents have 1 day off per week. However, flexibility in meeting these standards has largely permitted a continuation of the status quo in most hospitals. Very little data support the scheduling of medical trainees to work shifts longer than 24 hours, according to researchers at the Harvard Work Hours Health and Safety Group. In a recent paper, they reviewed the physiological principles underlying fatigue, as well as the results of a series of studies by the Group which quantified the negative effects of extended work shifts on resident health and patient safety.

For example, a nationwide survey by the Group found that residents who had worked 24 hours or longer were 2.3 times more likely to have a motor vehicle crash following that shift than when they worked less than 24 hours. Also, the monthly risk of a crash increased by 16 percent after each extended duration shift. A randomized trial by the Group showed that interns working a traditional on-call schedule (which routinely included shifts of more than 30 hours) slept nearly 6 fewer hours per week, had twice as many attentional failures on duty overnight, made 36 percent more serious medical errors, and made nearly 6 times more serious diagnostic errors than when working on a schedule that limited continuous duty to 16 hours.

In contrast, an intervention study by the Group found that restricting residents to 16 hours of scheduled continuous duty increased sleep duration outside work, improved attentiveness on duty overnight, and reduced the rate of medical errors. These improvements occurred despite the addition of a fourth resident to the team and an increase in the number of hand offs between physicians. This suggests that the perceived risk of changing continuity of care due to shortened shifts is less than the risk of error due to sleep deprivation. Eliminating these extended duration shifts outright is likely to have a much greater impact of resident health and patient safety than attempting to achieve an arbitrary work-hour limit of 80 hours per week, conclude the researchers. Their work is supported in part by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HS12032, HS15906, and HS13333).

See "When policy meets physiology," by Steven W. Lockley, Ph.D., Christopher P. Landrigan, M.D., M.P.H., Laura K. Barger, Ph.D., and Charles A. Czeisler, Ph.D., M.D., in the August 2006 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 449, pp. 116-127.

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/jan07/0107RA7.htm

even the New IOM recommendations are just that.. recommendations, not law.




Mercnbeth -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 5:12:48 PM)

quote:

access to many who don't currently have it
Take cost out of the equation and everyone in the USA has "access" right now. Nobody can be denied coverage at any health care facility. If that's your issue - there is no issue. Is that the best way to get treated, or the most cost/resource efficient? Absolutely not, but your case for access is eliminated.

You want to sell me, convince me by illustration one properly implemented and maintained government program, especially a medical program. Why put your faith in something that has never shown the ability to solve any problem its attempted to address? The income tax was originally a temporary 1% tax to help fund a War. Social Security was designed for people to not have to worry about their old age. Medicare, and Medicaid were supposed to breach the gap of private insurance coverage and insure access and availability of services. Any of these something you would point to and say; "I want this new health care program to be just like that!"

Look no further to Congress as a guide. They don't participate in SS or any other government medical or retirement program, and they wrote those Bills! It would be like going to a restaurant and thinking its great knowing the chef has food delivered from another source. The information is there to be seen as well as the expectation of result.

quote:

no Merc. many are still working the same 30 - 36 hours.
Thanks for providing the documentation for the belief I had in the fact that there are NOT enough doctors to expect timely access to medical services.

I have no idea why such a practice continues, especially in light of the litigation exposure it generates. I've heard that it's the equivalent of a Doctor's "right of passage"; a hazing that the profession requires because everyone coming before you has done it. Doesn't seem to make sense, but if it is not the reason, I'd like to hear one.




tazzygirl -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 5:19:21 PM)

Its pretty much just that. " I got fucked to get mine, now, I am going to fuck you before you get yours" sorta deal.

As far as enough, i worked in a teaching hospital. more damn residents and interns than you can shake a stick at, the attendings were never to be seen. most were on the golf course or the "office" that typically was in hospital. residents get shitted on because its historically the norm, not because there arent enough Drs.




Loki45 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 5:27:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
Take cost out of the equation and everyone in the USA has "access" right now. Nobody can be denied coverage at any health care facility. If that's your issue - there is no issue. Is that the best way to get treated, or the most cost/resource efficient? Absolutely not, but your case for access is eliminated.


You can't take cost out of the equation. For many cost 'is' access. If they can't afford it, they haven't the access to it. Sure, 'technically' they can go see any doc they want. But as soon as they hear "do you have insurance,  how will you be paying" that's the end of it. Why is it you hear stories about fundraisers for people who can't afford a pricey, life-saving procedure that their insurance won't cover? Because without the money, or an insurance carrier's coverage of the cost, they don't do the procedure. Yeah, I can go to the ER right now if I break my arm. But if they find that I'm dying of heart disease, they won't just 'give me' a free heart transplant. And if I can't afford it, I don't even get put on the waiting list for a new heart.




servantforuse -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 8:15:31 PM)

There is a 4 year old boy in a hospital in Milwaukee right now that is getting all the care he needs. He was saved by two off duty fire fighters when his moms suv flipped and started on fire. They have no insurance and he is getting all of the best care. They didn't throw him to the streets...




Loki45 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 8:44:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse
There is a 4 year old boy in a hospital in Milwaukee right now that is getting all the care he needs. He was saved by two off duty fire fighters when his moms suv flipped and started on fire. They have no insurance and he is getting all of the best care. They didn't throw him to the streets...


Yes and that was addressed under the "ER" comment I made earlier. Now wait a year, have him go back and find out he needs a heart transplant. He won't even get on the waiting list before the money situation is settled.




DedicatedDom40 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 9:53:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

no Merc. many are still working the same 30 - 36 hours.

Extended resident work hours jeopardize both resident health and patient safety
In 2003, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education mandated a maximum 80-hour work week for medical residents, restricted continuous on-call shifts to 30 hours, and insisted that residents have 1 day off per week. However, flexibility in meeting these standards has largely permitted a continuation of the status quo in most hospitals.

(snip)

even the New IOM recommendations are just that.. recommendations, not law.




Yes, its the healthcare industry attempting to police itself, which obviously will offer wiggle room.

Its not a situation bound by Federal Law, like this is   http://jaysworks.com/1637/fra/hos.html






DedicatedDom40 -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/17/2009 10:02:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: servantforuse

There is a 4 year old boy in a hospital in Milwaukee right now that is getting all the care he needs. He was saved by two off duty fire fighters when his moms suv flipped and started on fire. They have no insurance and he is getting all of the best care. They didn't throw him to the streets...



Yes, the family is from Tennessee, a state that is loaded with working poor and uninsured, and who voted 70% for McCain over religion issues. A state represented by "Toyota Republicans", who let Spring Hill wither because its GM/union, and instead chase after non-union foreign manufacturers because they offer jobs with lower wages and reduced benefits.

Who will pay this kid's bill?  The McCain's of the world?  You and I?  The educated who have insurance?

Proof that poverty uses the voting booth to constantly re-create itself, while someone else, many who broke out of that cycle, get stuck paying the bill.






Brain -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/18/2009 3:32:04 AM)

Dick Armey retreats!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#32424387




Brain -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/18/2009 3:36:57 AM)

It's corporate welfare.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DedicatedDom40

quote:

ORIGINAL: gift4mistress

I wouldn't sit down yet. Obama can control health care through other means such as getting a bill passed that allows the government to regulate health care companies further.



When we passed the prescription drug bill in 2003 (yet another benefit only for the 65+, big fucking surprise there), that legislation had a non-negotitation clause inserted into it, mandating the government buy drugs for this new senior entitlement and not actually have to bargain or dicker on the prices, leaving competition out of the process.  Thats neither capitalism or a healthy healthcare system.  Its a rigged system.

I agree that there is plenty that can be accomplished in the "Bust the Trusts" department.








rulemylife -> RE: RETREAT: TEAM OBAMA DROPS 'PUBLIC OPTION' (8/18/2009 7:24:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

You know that's what I thought too, except I wasn't such an ass to contradict the man going through the process. I got involved, and guess what - it is EXACTLY what occurred. I have no idea how your father's situation has any relevance. Maybe he doesn't have this form of cancer, or this group of doctors assigned, or doesn't appreciate the discussions going on around him.

In our friends case - you are flat out wrong - First hand, was there with him and his wife - it is the was it was, and is. Sorry to burst your bubble about a government solution. It is an example of what to expect from any government bureaucracy. Fortunately, I've never considered going to the government to help me in my life, but speaking for the people who do - nobody has favorable reviews regarding their experience with anything from housing to child welfare.

There are only about 50 people who confirmed the story and were ready to mobilize to help him. However I'll pass on your your call of "bullshit" about how he represented his situation, and tell him that per your vast knowledge and expertise on government controlled health care pertaining to Veterans, he's a lying sack of shit who doesn't deserve better. Maybe you can also tell him and his wife how they were lying to us about not being allowed to get a proper diagnosis and access to an MRI from his government care provider, because the MRI was too expensive and was only given after 6 months of trying other alternative remedies. It's obviously his fault that the government let those six months go by, thinking that he just had a touch of jaundice and his diet caused the problem instead of pancreatic cancer.


Nope, still doesn't sound right.

I'm sorry for your friend's condition, but either you are not telling the whole story or your friend is not telling the whole story to you.

Seriously, do you want us to believe that your friend was told that the VA did a cost-benefit analysis on his treatment options and told him that he was being denied because that analysis didn't work out in his favor?

I've been in this situation, and at no time was cost of treatment EVER mentioned.

What was discussed were the options available, including hospice, and the decision was left to the patient and family.


quote:



I suggest you're better off rationalizing what happened in 1945. At least many of those around at the time, won't be able to provide a first hand reference of exactly how wrong you are.


Interesting.

Weren't you just advocating on another thread that by nuking Iraq and Afghanistan we would save the lives of American troops?




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875