# Healthcare cost a crime



## LilOlLady (Apr 26, 2012)

*HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
against humanity.*


I went into ER with a temperature of 102 with a bladder infection. I was given a urinalysis, a chest X-ray (?), IV antibiotics and sent home with Vicodin (I did not ask for) and received a copy of charges to Medicare for $3,965.50. I had to take Remsa, I live a block away from the hospital and the charges was $1000. I noticed these costs had gone up about 25% in the last few years. 
I went to a hospital affiliated doctor which is part of a hospital network of doctors and Medicare was charged $288.00 for a urinalysis and was told I still had the infection and I had to go back to the hospital infusion center and receive 10 days of IV antibiotics. I wanted a second opinion and had another urinalysis and it came out negative. 
Am I being charged for medical care Illegal Aliens get from this hospital and not paying? *Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance is paying for medical care for Illegal Aliens?* How much is it costing for hospital to deliver anchor babies? Illegal Aliens need to be deported to bring down the cost of medical care and save Medicare and Medicaid.
If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot. Works for Mass. And Illegal Aliens deported. How are we going to pay for healthcare amnesty will bring.? Otherwise Medicare and Medicaid is really screwed. *And if doctors want to opt out they can move their practice to Mexico or go to work at Wal-Mart. I got the feeling they will join in and take a cut in pay instead of no pay at all*. Medicare and Medicaid is a big part of their paycheck and they will not be able to survive on *private insurance unless they raise their rates *and their *clients will not go for that *and *join universal healthcare*. 
What do we care more about? *Private insurance companies staying in business or affordable healthcare for all Americans*?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot.



are you a liberal or socialist? Do you have the IQ to understand Republican capitalism?? The Chinese just switched to it are getting rich rather than starving  to death. Its been in all the papers.


Imagine if the Chinese leaders had your IQ and said, the only way to make things affordable in all industries is to have universal goods and services for all.

Liberals are liberal because they have a low IQ.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2012)

Essiential services like education, energy and healthcare are exempt from the law of supply and demand.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 26, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> against humanity.*



So what brings costs down?  More competition or more government monopolies?  The answer is clear.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Essiential services like education, energy and healthcare are exempt from the law of supply and demand.



perfectly stupid and perfectly liberal. You mean the more oil and energy they can supply the more expensive it will be? 

See why we are 100% a liberal will  be slow?


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> ...



Well the more competition option is clearly out since the big concerns have a long history of buying up the smaller competing concerns.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



that happens in most industries like computers but prices always come down thanks to capitalism. Now you know why China just switched to capitalism. Its been in all the papers


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



Okay, so what is stopping new start up companies from competing?  I would suggest it's a combination of huge government-imposed barriers to entry and flat out cronyism between those big companies and their central planning buddies in Washington, which helps tremendously to keep potential competitors at bay.  So I say again, if you want prices to drop, that means doing what is necessary to allow competition to thrive.  Will you be supporting more government oversight of the healthcare industry or less?  You hopes for driving costs down rests with that decision.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Then why has healthcare been growing at near double digit rates for the past couple of decades?

Yep and computer stuff moved to China.  How will it work to move our healthcare to China?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> against humanity.*
> 
> 
> ?



then liberals are criminals since they made competition illegal in health care!!

Why not make liberals illegal as the Constitution intended?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Then why has healthcare been growing at near double digit rates for the past couple of decades?



because libtards made competition illegal.


Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competiton and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it? Is that really over a liberal's head??


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> ...



Please explain how liberals made competition in healthcare illegal.
This should be interesting.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Yep and computer stuff moved to China.  How will it work to move our healthcare to China?



Who on earth wants to move it to China????


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Then why has healthcare been growing at near double digit rates for the past couple of decades?



Notice how that increase coincides with increased government meddling in the healthcare industry, at both the state and federal level?  That is not a coincidence.  Government-sponsored monopolies and cronyism always causes costs to raise in excess of normal inflation.  It is no surprise what we've seen in healthcare costs.  More government involvement will only get you higher costs, worsening results, and more cronyism.  Free markets will get you exactly the opposite.


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > Yep and computer stuff moved to China.  How will it work to move our healthcare to China?
> ...



from your post which I replied to:
"

that happens in most industries like computers but prices always come down thanks to capitalism. Now you know why China just switched to capitalism. Its been in all the papers
"


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 26, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



so????? who wants to move health care to China?????


----------



## Political Junky (Apr 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Government	Nominally MarxistLeninist single-party state[5][a]


----------



## uscitizen (Apr 26, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



You idiot that is why the rules of supply and demand and globalization, etc do not apply to health care.

We have outsourced much of our drug components and manufacturing offshore though.
I believe China is our largest supplier of prescription medicine ingredients.

And for some strange reason even though offshored our pharma costs up to 100X as much here for the medicine made overseas as it does just accross our borders.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Apr 30, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> You idiot that is why the rules of supply and demand and globalization, etc do not apply to health care.



you mean in health care people don't care what things cost or providers don't care to be competitive??

As a liberal you lack the IQ to know what the laws of supply and demand are.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Apr 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > You idiot that is why the rules of supply and demand and globalization, etc do not apply to health care.
> ...


Yes you not knowing anything about health care means others have low Iq's


----------



## starcraftzzz (Apr 30, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot.
> ...



Clearly you do not have toe IQ to understand the fact that every socialized health care system is more efficient then non socialized ones but dont let reality get in the way of you being a retard


----------



## whitehall (Apr 30, 2012)

Anecdotal accounts of medical treatment notwithstanding, the Founding Fathers said it is a crime for the federal government to require a citizen to purchase goods or services. Lefties have been at war with the Constitution for the last hundred years.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Apr 30, 2012)

whitehall said:


> Anecdotal accounts of medical treatment notwithstanding, the Founding Fathers said it is a crime for the federal government to require a citizen to purchase goods or services. Lefties have been at war with the Constitution for the last hundred years.



Is that why Washington required everyone to buy a gun?
Furthermore the health mandate doesn't require you to get insurance it just increases your taxes if you dont


----------



## honitel (May 8, 2012)

Education, healthcare are essential services that are exempt from the law of supply and demand.


----------



## eflatminor (May 9, 2012)

honitel said:


> Education, healthcare are essential services that are exempt from the law of supply and demand.



Only three posts and already one of the stupidest statements ever...unless I'm missing the cynicism?


----------



## Political Junky (May 9, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> against humanity.*
> 
> 
> ...


Easy, private insurance companies staying in business.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 9, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



We have gone the free trade/free market route with healthcare.  Are you telling me that the cost has come down?  Being the conservative genius that you are, please explain how that has worked? 

Oh, let me give you a hint.  Removing everyone from the system who cannot afford to pay for it is not an answer.  In fact, lowering the number of users would only inflate the cost even more.  But please do have a go at it.


----------



## auditor0007 (May 9, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> honitel said:
> 
> 
> > Education, healthcare are essential services that are exempt from the law of supply and demand.
> ...



Actually education is not exempt.  Costs would most likely come down if all education was privatized.  The problem is that those who could least afford it would get really crappy educations.  On the healthcare side, it is a different story.  We have already proven that the free market model does not work unless you withhold services from a large group of people.  If that is what you want, then we are going to have to make it a different argument.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 9, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> Actually education is not exempt.  Costs would most likely come down if all education was privatized.



so true, now they spend 13k per child or $400,000 per classroom. The teacher gets 50k and they waste the rest. Privatize it and the cost would drop 75% and you'd double the education. The liberal crime of making our kids the dumbest in the civilized world would be ended.




auditor0007 said:


> The problem is that those who could least afford it would get really crappy educations.



why?? it would be cheap to have a limited voucher system if you had capitalism. Plus if the poor had to pay for education we wouldn't have the perverse situation where the poor have more kids than the rich.





auditor0007 said:


> On the healthcare side, it is a different story.  We have already proven that the free market model does not work




if you have proof of this I'll pay you $10,000.Bet or admit to being a silly liberal


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 9, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Clearly you do not have toe IQ to understand the fact that every socialized health care system is more efficient then non socialized ones but dont let reality get in the way of you being a retard



Of course if true you would not be so afraid to provide your best example of each!!

What does your fear tell you???


----------



## eflatminor (May 9, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> We have gone the free trade/free market route with healthcare.



You're joking right?  Healthcare, especially healthcare insurance, has been one of the most over regulated industry in the history of this country.  Yours is an incredibly ignorant statement.  Monumental...


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 9, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> We have gone the free trade/free market route with healthcare.



 an absolutely  perfect example of the liberal IQ.

A liberal will lack the IQ not know that Medicaid Medicare VA Schip and illegal interstate health insurance competition is not free trade/free market.

What can one say in the face of such perfect liberalism?


----------



## beagle9 (May 9, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> against humanity.*
> 
> 
> ...


I just had an Equine Vet come out (25 miles trip one way) and float my elderly horses teeth, also gave her her vacinations, did some blood work and basically just did a good physical on her. Do you know what it cost for this living breathing creature to have this important work done on her ? It cost 271.00 dollars total for the trip services and all....That is great isn't it ? Now think about it this way for a second - is a horse more valuble a creature than a human being is now while standing upon this earth, and if so, then how did we arrive at this conclusion within our society these days ? Are we no better than a horse, that we are charged extreme charges for our health and well being, where as many just die over time as a result of their illnesses because of these extreme charges and cost these days), and yet a horse gets the same treatment and care for a mere $271.00 dollars as oposed to what you just went through when dealing with the medical industry for humans these days ?  It is really a shame what has taken place in all of this that is going on in the human world right now today as we know it, and this as opposed to the animal world as we also know that world to be, and do care for it also.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > You idiot that is why the rules of supply and demand and globalization, etc do not apply to health care.
> ...



I see so when you are bleeding out you will go to the doctors and ask them the price and cost to make sure they are not over priced and if they are you will then prorly leave to go find another doctor to safe your live.....
thanks for again showing are stupid/ignorant you are


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly you do not have toe IQ to understand the fact that every socialized health care system is more efficient then non socialized ones but dont let reality get in the way of you being a retard
> ...



Ive posted htis shit a dozen times to you perhaps the problem here is that you are a retard who cannot read.

The Relative Efficiency of Public and Private Health Care | Angry Bear - Financial and Economic Commentary
==Government spending increases health outcomes more than private spending

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/tables.pdf
==Medicare costs per beneficiary since 1970 have been 1.1% less than the private market.
==If the private markets cost inflation equaled that of Medicare private insurance would cost 44% less than it does today.
^This is despite medicare having better health outcomes 

Private Medicare Plans Do Not Offer Better Health Outcomes || CMA
^Medicare private advantage plans have around 7-38% lower health outcomes then regular Medicare

Pressure builds for further slashes to Medicare Advantage spending - amednews.com
^Medicare advantage costs 18% more than regular Medicare

Veterans Pan McCain's 'Veterans Care Access Card' Plan | ThinkProgress
In An Attempt To Criticize Health Reform, Coburn Smears Veteran Health Care As 'Untenable To Most Americans' | ThinkProgress
^3 studies show VA has better care than private hospitals, and costs less even though it treats older, sicker patients. 
^VA health care delivers about 30% better quality care than private health care.
^VA Costs 40% less than private health care.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/Shea_hltsysperformanceselectednations_chartpack.pdf
Core Health Indicators
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34175_20070917.pdf
OECD Health Data 2011 - Frequently Requested Data
==Academic standards show America has worse healthcare then other countries.
USA compared to government health care. (all statistics are per capita).
Despite Ameircan spending 150% more than OCED countries
1) America has 50% more Medical errors. 
2) America is worst in preventable deaths. If America was like government health care 200,000 people would be saved a year.
3) America has 2 million more medical bankruptcies compared to 0.
4) America has 26% less doctors.
5) America has 4% less nurses.
6) America has 46% less hospital beds.
7) America saw half the life expectancy change than countries who changed to government health care.
8) Infant mortality rates are 17% higher in America.
9) America has 100% less Psychiatric care beds.
10) America has 20% less people who go to hospitals.
11) America has 26% more years of life lost due to medical reasons.
12) America has 40% more Respiratory deaths
13) US Tuberculosis treatment success is 10% less
14) 50% more infant deaths
15) 30% more asthma deaths
16) 40% more years lost due to medical conditions
17) 100% more diabetes deaths
15) 50% more deaths by children taken to a hospital for a medical reason


----------



## eflatminor (May 10, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> I see so when you are bleeding out you will go to the doctors and ask them the price and cost to make sure they are not over priced and if they are you will then prorly leave to go find another doctor to safe your live.....



Personally, I would arrange insurance for such circumstances beforehand.  A lack of proper planning on your part does not necessarily constitute an emergency on my part.

Of course, since the vast majority of medical aliments are not immediate life-or-death situations, shopping for the best combination of service and price would be perfectly acceptable...if we had anything approaching a free market in healthcare that is.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 10, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > I see so when you are bleeding out you will go to the doctors and ask them the price and cost to make sure they are not over priced and if they are you will then prorly leave to go find another doctor to safe your live.....
> ...



Yes me getting shot or T-bone by a drunk driver is total a lack of planning on my part. Dumbass.
Every example of free market health care has failed, adn every reform to make it more free market fails, meaning you're insane


----------



## eflatminor (May 10, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Straight to vulgarities and ad hominem attacks.  You know, I have a friend with an eight year old boy that acts similarly when he's frustrated and just can't use his grown up words.  Anyway, good luck dealing with all that.

To your "points".  Yes, you should plan on the possibility of getting shot or T-boned by buying health insurance.  That's what it's for.

Lastly, there is NO example of free market health care, not for many, many decades at least.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 10, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Every example of free market health care has failed,



If so why are you so afraid to provide us with your best example of free market failure???

What does your fear tell you???


----------



## beagle9 (May 10, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


What if you cannot afford the plan, just as so many have been shut out of this market place now ? 

Then what ?

So then you go to the emergency room, where you will literally die waiting on a doctor to see you.. Remember the videos of people actually dying in the emergency room, before being seen ?

Why should people be subjected to this as an alternative to their poorer job status in life, while others are treated like kings due to their fortunes in life, even when we don't really know how those fortunes were made or even if they were made legal in the process or other? What if I had been an honest good hardworking citizen in my country, but yet I didnot have the mental capacity to be everything that another person could be in their life, and so I found myself living just beneath the poverty line in the range that was suited for me, my status and training in which suited my mental capacity in life, where as I was not able to qualify for any assistance of any kind, because of being just out of qualification range for these programs, nor did I want them if I didnot have to have them.  Then a turn of events happens, where I become sickened, and so I make my own way to the hospital where I am checked in to the emergency waiting room, and then I am asked to sit down and wait, and this all because I was looked at as a second class citizen due to having no insurance for one example of, where I was then pushed to the back of the line because of not showing that I am somebody important through having better credentials in life, and this is all according to the staff and their training on such matters. Next I die because I was told to take a seat, when something bad was wrong with me, but they didnot recognize that in the situation, nor did I have any medical records to show a possible dangerous condition, because I couldn't afford insurance in order to go to a regular doctor for a full documentation of my health over time, and this along with the preventive measures granted in order to help my condition.

This has happened or is happening across this nation to it's citizens, and this is why reforms have to be continued in order to learn how to help every American citizen to have the chance at life in which they deserve as human beings, just like we help our animals, so shall we help that of our own kind.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 10, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> reforms have to be continued in order to learn how to help every American citizen to have the chance at life.




60 million Chinese slowly starved to death before capitalism gave them a chance to live!! So why do liberals want them and us to go back to liberal socialism??

Is it because liberals are stupid or just like en masse starvation?? What other explanation is possible?? Seriously??


----------



## beagle9 (May 10, 2012)

Is this how it all rolls ?

1. The government gets involved, as the poor are many and have no way to pay for their services most of the time when they fall ill now, and this is where the government kicks in and pays for them right ? 

2. The hospitals and Doctors know all to well that the government is a sea of money with no end to it, and that it is mis-managed to the hilt as well, all due to it's huge size and confusion created where as (the left branch knows not what the right branch is doing most of the time), and that is (perfect) for the hospitals and doctors right (sometimes even getting paid twice for the same bills) when no one is looking of course ?

3. The hospitals then charge the government extreme high prices for those who have no coverage, and can't afford any, for example they charged $62,000 dollars for a stay of 4 days in the hospital, in which amounts to what $15,000 dollars a day for one person? We know a woman that this just happened to, so yes this is reality & truth speaking here. This bill was submitted on her behalf, and the government paid it all for her.

4. Now the hospitals and doctors don't want to show inconsistancy by what they bill right, so if a person comes in to have the same thing done (but they have insurance), well what to do, what to do is what they (the hospitals and doctors) must say right? They then charge the insurance company the extreme bill as well, because they don't want the government to think they are killing them while walking softly with the private carriers now would they ?

5. Now the private carriers see this problem of extreme charging, so they have meetings with the doctors billing offices and hospital billing offices, in order to protest these high and unrealistic charges on behalf of their clients and their bottom lines for what is being charged them, but they lose most of the time but why? It's because the hospitals and doctors are not going to risk not getting their extreme payments from the government who is not subjected to the private markets and it's up's and down's that are found so volital within the markets, so they stick with the charge to the private insurance carrier at all cost, in order to show consistancy with the government charges in which they had charged the government for.

6. Now what does the private insurance carrier do next ? They do the only thing they can do, and that is to roll that cost down upon their clients in higher premiums, deductibles, monthly rates and so on, in hopes that they will handle it all somehow, because they can't compete against a cash cow government, who is flooding the healthcare market with taxpayer money at extreme levels that are being paid out in regards to those now who donot have health insurance, and are yet using the industry with no hopes of paying at all in most cases, especially without government assistance of some kind being involved.

7. Ok, so (IMHO) we are not handling it as a people or a workforce (these charges), so government needs to join with the private carriers in learning what is right to pay, and what is not right to pay when it comes to these hospitals and doctors, in which have become use to sucking off of the governments tit for their milk now, and without any or much feed back from the cash cow they have been sucking off of anymore (the government).

The private industry has been crippled by this situation I'm thinking, and is still being crippled more and more by it, so instead of the government seeing it's wrong, and then somehow correcting it, they would rather gobble up the private industry, and then control it all, but then where will this leave the tax payers who will be footing the entire bill in the end ??? Will the hospitals and doctors yell hip hip hooray in the end ?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 10, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Will the hospitals and doctors yell hip hip hooray in the end ?



dear, at this point we don't even know if BO care will be repealed in the end. But, we do know that under capitalism doctors have to post their prices and face customers shopping with their own money. That would not make them yell hooray.

Over your head, liberal??


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 10, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> I see so when you are bleeding out you will go to the doctors and ask them the price and cost to make sure they are not over priced and if they are you will then prorly leave to go find another doctor to safe your live.....
> thanks for again showing are stupid/ignorant you are



dear, in a capitalist system prices are posted well in advance of your need to make a purchase decision. Could a car company hide its prices and then decide what to charge based on how badly you needed the car?

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow? what other explanation is possible?


----------



## Flopper (May 10, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> against humanity.*
> 
> 
> ...


I think my doctor will survive, however he might have to sell his Porsche.  The doctors I know, are not that opposed to the new healthcare law.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 10, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot. Works for Mass.



Actually universal socialism makes things so expensive no one can afford anything.

Did you notice that the second China switched to capitalism they stopped starving to death and could afford everything?

A liberals will lack the IQ to notice the most obvious things even when they are in the papers everyday.


----------



## eflatminor (May 10, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> What if you cannot afford the plan...?



Tell your elected representatives in Washington and the bureaucrats in your state's Department of Insurance to STOP meddling with the healthcare and health insurance industries.  The reason insurance plans are so expensive is because of all the required coverage forced upon insurers by the do-gooders, the obscene regulations foisted upon the healthcare providers, and the cronyism benefiting attorneys, allowing them to file all kinds of lawsuits without every having to worry about paying anything if they lose.  Healthcare and health insurance are possibly the most over regulated, priced controlled...centrally planned...industries in the country.  This limits competition, minimizes creativity and innovation, keeps new competitors from entering the market, and crushes any attempts to meet customer demand without all the bells and whistles politicians think are required.  THAT is why it's so expensive.


----------



## beagle9 (May 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Will the hospitals and doctors yell hip hip hooray in the end ?
> ...


You wish that you knew me, but you havn't a clue, and I like it like that... B )


----------



## beagle9 (May 10, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot. Works for Mass.
> ...


China switched to capitalism eh? They are no longer communist eh?

That's a good one!


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 11, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Every example of free market health care has failed,
> ...



Lets see Medicare advantage, Medicare part D health care from 1990-2010; deregulation of rate paying schemes.. so forth and so forth there has been zeo examples of free market reforms in health care working


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 11, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > If we ever going to get the cost of healthcare down we will have to go universal healthcare where everyone put in the pot. Works for Mass.
> ...



Is that why socialized health care costs 150% less, socialized utilities cost 25% less, socialized retirement costs 25% less, socialized insurance costs 40% less, socialized prisons cost 5% less I could go on but the point is proven. So plz come back when you can say something other then "you have a low IQ, socil;izm is bad"


----------



## Flopper (May 11, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...


Extremist on the Right and Left see the choice is between Socialism and Capitalism, however the correct choice should be both.  Most segments of an economy function well as capitalist enterprises provided there is adequate regulation but some segments work best if operated by or controlled by the government.  This is how 99% of the economies of the world function.


----------



## eflatminor (May 11, 2012)

Flopper said:


> ...but some segments work best if operated by or controlled by the government.



I could not disagree more with that statement.  It is true that certain functions in society must be provided by government as required by the Constitution (military, courts, etc).  However, there is no segment of the economy that works "best" operated by government.

Like all monopolies or near monopolies enforced by law, government controlled segments of the economy have no impetus to innovate, no competition keep them sharp, and therefore no reason to keep costs to a minimum and no concerns about poor results.  Central planning must take place where the Constitution requires it.  Outside of those enumerated powers, central planning should ONLY be considered where it increases competition..."operated or controlled by the government" NEVER increases competition and for that, customers and taxpayers suffer.  Just look at the out of control costs and crap results in those segments of the economy in which the government is most involved and compare those to segments where more of a free market reigns.  There is no comparison.

As a last example, I can't understand how anyone could call for government control after what we learned from deregulation of the airline industry.  It's so much better after the feds go out of the way.  The same would be true of education, healthcare, insurance, etc.


----------



## Douger (May 11, 2012)

After reading all of this it appears murkins all have low I.Q.'s.


----------



## Douger (May 11, 2012)

Here's what your owners pay these misfits.

Average Surgeon Salary Information plus Job, Career Education & Unemployment Help


----------



## Douger (May 11, 2012)

How Much Do Doctors in Other Countries Make? - NYTimes.com


----------



## Douger (May 11, 2012)

General Physician Average Salary Income - International Comparison


----------



## beagle9 (May 11, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > ...but some segments work best if operated by or controlled by the government.
> ...


Non-government control for most of the sectors in our system is good, where as yes of course I would definitely agree with this for sure, but government regulation or the enforcement of laws against bad capitalism is always a must, where as the government should only operate as a top cop, and then back off once the problem is resolved, where as if abuse is present and/or running wild, then address that abuse, remedy it, and then back off. 

The problem with the government, is that it over extends it's stay in a situation, and thus it begins to bring about or breed dependency once this happens, where as it is looked to by the dependents created out of such a situation as an eternal safehouse, that is easily abused due to it's overgrown size and mostly un-managable rediculous enept and ignorant approach to running anything outside of it's own limited skill sets.

The government is power hungry, just like any other, and it is up to us as citizens to control it because of that respect, and not let it begin to control us in that respect.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 11, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> but government regulation or the enforcement of laws against bad capitalism is always a must, .



capitalism changed 10 million years of history in 200 because it is self regulating with 300 million regulators. If someone is selling a bad product 300 million consumers will figure it out and spread the word. If one bureaucrat is in charge  and cant figure it out the entire nation of 300 million gets the bad product. 

This is why everything was bad in the USSR and Red China and Cuba still. Freedom, responsibility and capitalism work. Too bad a liberal will lack the IQ to understand these basics


----------



## beagle9 (May 11, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > but government regulation or the enforcement of laws against bad capitalism is always a must, .
> ...


Yes, but the self regulating ingrediant has been lost amongst many who did choose to self regulate, just as they want it to remain this way always, and I agree with that yes, but they are sadly losing their morals and turning to greed (upsetting the apple cart), and doing it in an immoral & greedy way more and more these days, instead of remaining the way that it used to be amongst these freedom fighting self regulators in the past, where as we all agreed that self-regulation was and should be always the best way, but due to the fall of self regulation in so many ways now, the government becomes more and more involved as a result of this fall in which it has seen amongst these people. People who are supposed to be leaders and stewarts of their gains in a more balanced and decent manor (sharing the wealth more wisely), so who is to blame other than the greedy that had infiltrated the entire roost these days, and sadly so wrecklacely as to hap hazzardly breaking as many eggs as they could in the process along the way, and sadly leaving the roost in total disaray after all is said and done ?


----------



## Ariux (May 11, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> Essiential services like education, energy and healthcare are exempt from the law of supply and demand.



You are so stupid that I hope no one ever hands you a loaded gun and tells you it's a lollipop.


----------



## Ariux (May 11, 2012)

Woman, why did you go to the ER for a modest fever?  Couldn't you have popped some Tylenol and gone to a clinic in the morning?  Is Remsa an ambulance?  Why didn't you drive yourself the one block distance?   Why did you consent to a chest x-ray?  You could have asked for an antibiotic injection instead of the IV.

Okay, let's assume that you thought you were moments from death, with your bladder infection.  You're right, $4G is a crime.  But, you have to pay for those who don't pay.  You have to pay the high costs of liability (for those billion-dollar medical settlements).   And, you have to pay the premium for receiving a service so heavily regulated that there's no competition.  

Fever=infection=antibiotic.  For $0.83, you could have bought a package of aquarium antibiotics, at Walmart, and snorted it.  But, I guess the ambulance doesn't take people to Walmart.



LilOlLady said:


> *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> against humanity.*
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Flopper (May 11, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > ...but some segments work best if operated by or controlled by the government.
> ...



The justification for privatization is the old argument that private companies do everything better and more efficiently than government, and will find ways to cut costs.  Over and over we hear that companies do everything for less cost than government. But it never seems to sink in that private companies dont do things unless the people at the top can make a bundle of cash; if the CEO isnt making millions, that CEO will move the company on to something else. 

Take the post office for example.  Close down the post office and let UPS and FEDX take care of the services and all services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public.  Sell our national parks and national forest to private enterprises and see how fast they close down and sell the least profitable to developers.  If you privatize all public schools, kids from poor families who have no money for tuition or their parents choose not to pay it, get no education creating even greater social problems than we have now.  Because a service is not profitable does not mean it's not needed.

Yes, deregulation of airlines was successful because it just removed government control of fares, routes, and market entry, but that doesn't mean all deregulation will be.  If the financial industry was allowed to disclose to investors only what they chose to disclose, conduct insider trading, and manipulation markets, investor confidence would quickly erode as would investments in US capital markets.  If we totally deregulated the pharmaceutical industry, there would be no assurance that any drug is either safe or effective; there would no limitation as to claims companies could make about their products.


----------



## Flopper (May 11, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> The reason insurance plans are so expensive is because of all the required coverage forced upon insurers by the do-gooders, the obscene regulations foisted upon the healthcare providers, and the cronyism benefiting attorneys, allowing them to file all kinds of lawsuits without every having to worry about paying anything if they lose.



So the fact that we demand three times as many medical services as we did 20 years ago has no effect on cost?  We are treating diseases today that 10 years ago, had no effective treatments.  High end medical equipment sales are growing at a 15% rate. Over the last decade, Knee replacements are up by 70%, Kidney transplant rates up by 31%, Liver transplant rates up by 42%, Statin drug usage up nearly tenfold,...  Government and law suites are certainly a part of healthcare cost, but it is not the primary cause of cost increases.

http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/hrm/UNH-Health-Care-Costs.pdf


----------



## Ariux (May 12, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Take the post office for example.  Close down the post office and let UPS and FEDX take care of the services and all services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public.  Sell our national parks and national forest to private enterprises and see how fast they close down and sell the least profitable to developers.  If you privatize all public schools, kids from poor families who have no money for tuition or their parents choose not to pay it, get no education creating even greater social problems than we have now.  Because a service is not profitable does not mean it's not needed.



You bash private enterprise because of CEOs who make a lot of money. They only make a lot of money because the government is damping the free market.  In your socialist utopia, the rich CEOs are replaced with rich government bureaucrats and friends, but without any of the desire to please the public.  They don't have to please the public because they have a gun to the public's head.  Literally.

The poor can still get welfare (vouchers) to send their children to private schools.  The government can still mandate that children be educated, even if schools are private. 

Without the post office, everyone would still get mail.  You can send a UPS package anywhere.  Why do you think mail would be different?  It's good for business for shippers not to have to worry if UPS will deliver to their customers.

Private conservation groups would be very effective at taking care of national forests.  Private doesn't have to mean commercial.   Probably the government would do a better job of preserving forests.  But, only because your desire to preserve forests is unrelated to providing anyone with a personal service. 

Government is why healthcare costs are a crime.  Every idea that our politicians have regarding medical care necessarily raises the costs of medical care.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 12, 2012)

Ariux said:


> The poor can still get welfare (vouchers) to send their children to private schools.  The government can still mandate that children be educated, even if schools are private.


Yes but private schools cost a lot more and have lower test scores...



Ariux said:


> Without the post office, everyone would still get mail.  You can send a UPS package anywhere.


Yes but in most rural areas you can only send a UPS package because the post office deliveries UPS packages



Ariux said:


> Private conservation groups would be very effective at taking care of national forests.


Why would they be now suddenly be effective when they weren't for the past 300 yeras?




Ariux said:


> Government is why healthcare costs are a crime.  Every idea that our politicians have regarding medical care necessarily raises the costs of medical care.


All govt run health care programs cost less then private health care despite delivering higher health outcomes


----------



## Political Junky (May 12, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Take the post office for example.  Close down the post office and let UPS and FEDX take care of the services and all services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public.  Sell our national parks and national forest to private enterprises and see how fast they close down and sell the least profitable to developers.  If you privatize all public schools, kids from poor families who have no money for tuition or their parents choose not to pay it, get no education creating even greater social problems than we have now.  Because a service is not profitable does not mean it's not needed.
> ...


Wait until you find out how much it will cost you to send a letter by private carrier.


----------



## beagle9 (May 12, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > The poor can still get welfare (vouchers) to send their children to private schools.  The government can still mandate that children be educated, even if schools are private.
> ...


How about this look at it star ?

Is this how it all rolls maybe ? Let me know what you think of this major part of it all... Could it be that government is the problem or has become the problem ?

1. The government gets involved, as the poor are many and have no way to pay for their services most of the time when they fall ill now, and this is where the government kicks in and pays for them right ? 

2. The hospitals and Doctors know all to well that the government is a sea of money with no end to it, and that it is mis-managed to the hilt as well, all due to it's huge size and confusion created where as (the left branch knows not what the right branch is doing most of the time), and that is (perfect) for the hospitals and doctors right (sometimes even getting paid twice for the same bills) when no one is looking of course ?

3. The hospitals then charge the government extreme high prices for those who have no coverage, and can't afford any, for example they charged $62,000 dollars for a stay of 4 days in the hospital, in which amounts to what $15,000 dollars a day for one person? We know a woman that this just happened to, so yes this is reality & truth speaking here. This bill was submitted on her behalf, and the government paid it all for her.

4. Now the hospitals and doctors don't want to show inconsistancy by what they bill right, so if a person comes in to have the same thing done (but they have insurance), well what to do, what to do is what they (the hospitals and doctors) must say right? They then charge the insurance company the extreme bill as well, because they don't want the government to think they are killing them while walking softly with the private carriers now would they ?

5. Now the private carriers see this problem of extreme charging, so they have meetings with the doctors billing offices and hospital billing offices, in order to protest these high and unrealistic charges on behalf of their clients and their bottom lines for what is being charged them, but they lose most of the time but why? It's because the hospitals and doctors are not going to risk not getting their extreme payments from the government who is not subjected to the private markets and it's up's and down's that are found so volital within the markets, so they stick with the charge to the private insurance carrier at all cost, in order to show consistancy with the government charges in which they had charged the government for.

6. Now what does the private insurance carrier do next ? They do the only thing they can do, and that is to roll that cost down upon their clients in higher premiums, deductibles, monthly rates and so on, in hopes that they will handle it all somehow, because they can't compete against a cash cow government, who is flooding the healthcare market with taxpayer money at extreme levels that are being paid out in regards to those now who donot have health insurance, and are yet using the industry with no hopes of paying at all in most cases, especially without government assistance of some kind being involved.

7. Ok, so (IMHO) we are not handling it as a people or a workforce (these charges), so government needs to join with the private carriers in learning what is right to pay, and what is not right to pay when it comes to these hospitals and doctors, in which have become use to sucking off of the governments tit for their milk now, and without any or much feed back from the cash cow they have been sucking off of anymore (the government).

Could it be that the private industry has been crippled by this situation in which I am thinking in these terms maybe, and is still being crippled more and more by it, so instead of the government seeing it's wrong, and then somehow correcting it, they would rather gobble up the private industry, and then control it all, but then where will this leave the tax payers who will be footing the entire bill in the end for the government ??? Will the hospitals and doctors yell hip hip hooray in the end, if the government wins it all ?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> against humanity.*
> 
> 
> ...



So you think that having ALL of us paying collectively for out of control health care costs instead of doing it on our own is going to fix the problem?

Sorry, Lil...but that isn't going to happen.  One of my major beefs with ObamaCare is that it didn't address costs...which was what Americans really wanted when they called for health care reform.  We didn't get that however...instead we got legislation that simply changed who it was that was going to pay the bill.

Your ER bill was so high in large part because we do pay for the health care of illegals and that cost is passed along to everyone else.  ObamaCare didn't address that cost whatsoever.  Our politicians are so afraid of offending the Hispanic voting block that they won't touch that issue with a ten foot pole.

As for doctors taking a pay cut?  I've got news for you...there is a shortage of doctors already and we're about to add millions of people to the system through ObamaCare.  What you're going to see is doctors opting out of taking Medicare and Medicaid patients and only seeing those people that can still afford private health care plans.  ObamaCare is going to result in wealthy people still having access to quality health care while everyone else fights to be seen by the few doctors who WILL accept Medicare.  It's going to get ugly.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 12, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> So you think that having ALL of us paying collectively for out of control health care costs instead of doing it on our own is going to fix the problem?
> 
> Sorry, Lil...but that isn't going to happen.  One of my major beefs with ObamaCare is that it didn't address costs...


Yes cutting 500billion in wasteful govt health spending isn't addressing costs. Moving to a more efficient payment system that reduces costs isn't addressing costs lowering drug costs, etc etc
Anaylsis of Obamacares cost cutting show that despite exanding health care to 35million people total health care costs will be decreased by the bill



Oldstyle said:


> which was what Americans really wanted when they called for health care reform.  We didn't get that however...instead we got legislation that simply changed who it was that was going to pay the bill.


That is because you have noi clue what was int he bill


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > So you think that having ALL of us paying collectively for out of control health care costs instead of doing it on our own is going to fix the problem?
> ...



I'm curious, Star...does it hurt when you pull statistics like those out of your nether regions?

In case you haven't been paying attention...the COSTS of ObamaCare keep getting revised and it isn't downward.  The truth is...the progressives played fast and loose with their accounting when they made those projections only going out ten years and front loading the analysis with several years of collecting taxes without paying out benefits.  What's truly frightening is that the costs are already being inflated and we haven't even gotten to the point when they're going to explode.

You talk a big game...how about you provide me with a current study that shows how ObamaCare has lowered health care costs for Americans?  Once you've done that?  Show me how it is we're going to pay for this plan fifteen years from now when the real cost comes due?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 12, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


See this is the problem you are so ignorant that when some states facts you think it is bullishit


Oldstyle said:


> In case you haven't been paying attention...the COSTS of ObamaCare keep getting revised and it isn't downward.


This is also the problem you are so stupid that you think Obamcare costing more in 20 years then it will in 10 years means the costs increased. According to the CBO over the same time period Obamacare will cost 50billion less then they first estimated



Oldstyle said:


> You talk a big game...how about you provide me with a current study that shows how ObamaCare has lowered health care costs for Americans?  Once you've done that?  Show me how it is we're going to pay for this plan fifteen years from now when the real cost comes due?



Heres one
Ezra Klein - Does health-care reform bend the cost curve up?

and another
The Impact of Health Reform on Health System Spending

and another
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/pdf/system_spending.pdf

and another
CBO: Health reform to cut deficit by $50 billion more than we thought - The Washington Post

So plz come back when you aren't 100% ignorant ont eh topic


----------



## Againsheila (May 12, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> *HEALTHCARE COST A CRIME
> against humanity.*
> 
> 
> ...



We have the best medical care money can buy.  Unfortunately, it's only provided to the wealthy, those who can pay for it.  Even insurance companies decrease the value of care you receive.  I sometimes think we were better off before insurance.


----------



## Greenbeard (May 12, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> 3. The hospitals then charge the government extreme high prices for those who have no coverage, and can't afford any, for example they charged $62,000 dollars for a stay of 4 days in the hospital, in which amounts to what $15,000 dollars a day for one person? We know a woman that this just happened to, so yes this is reality & truth speaking here. This bill was submitted on her behalf, and the government paid it all for her.



What are you referring to here? Medicare, for instance, hasn't operated like that since the '70s. Instead, they operate under an inpatient prospective payment system (prospective in that prices are determined in advance, before anyone gets checked into the hospital), with payments for different cases/procedures adjusted according to set rules based on a number of factors. 

Hospitals don't just get to bill whatever they want, they accept payment according to the formulas Medicare uses. State Medicaid programs similarly tend to rely on prospective payment fee schedules in their dealings with hospitals. You don't often hear the argument that Medicare and Medicaid make "exorbitant" reimbursements, since it's pretty well-known that they pay less than private payers.

You can find a brief overview of Medicare's method for reimbursing hospitals here: "Paymentbasics: Hospital Acute Inpatient Services Payment System"



beagle9 said:


> 4. Now the hospitals and doctors don't want to show inconsistancy by what they bill right, so if a person comes in to have the same thing done (but they have insurance), well what to do, what to do is what they (the hospitals and doctors) must say right? They then charge the insurance company the extreme bill as well, because they don't want the government to think they are killing them while walking softly with the private carriers now would they ?



As I just mentioned, private insurers are well aware that they pay more than Medicare. However, since they don't compete with Medicare for enrollees that fact offers them no leverage when they go to negotiate reimbursements with a hospital. If I'm enrolled in Blue Cross Blue Shield but I have the option of dropping them and choosing  to enroll in Medicare as my insurer and pay them monthly premiums to cover costs, then BCBS can use that leverage in its dealings with hospitals: _"Unless our reimbursements are closer to Medicare's (lower) rates, our enrollees are going to drop us and defect to Medicare. Then your hospital revenues are going to take an even larger hit as Medicare's market power grows than they would if you just offered us, BCBS, rates that are somewhere between their current levels and Medicare levels."_

But of course that's not how Medicare works. Since BCBS enrollees can't defect to Medicare, that's not a credible argument that BCBS can make to negotiate lower reimbursement rates with hospitals. But that scenario was, of course, the rationale for creating a public health insurance option that would've competed directly with private insurers like BCBS.

Anyway, you might also try to argue that hospitals don't want to show inconsistency between private insurers, who actually _do_ compete against one another. To a degree, that's true. But that doesn't lead to uniformity of reimbursement rates across insurers, it leads to secrecy. As Uwe Reinhardt notes in his excellent, must-read overview of private-sector hospital pricing, "The Pricing Of U.S. Hospital Services: Chaos Behind A Veil Of Secrecy":



> Whatever an insurer&#8217;s base for paying hospitals might be, the dollar level of payments is negotiated annually between each insurer and each hospital. Under a DRG system [similar to what Medicare uses], for example, the item to be negotiated is the monetary conversion factor for the year and, possibly, some of the DRG weights. These actual dollar payments have traditionally been kept as strict, proprietary trade secrets by both the hospitals and the insurers.



So Insurer A doesn't necessarily know what Insurer B is paying for a given service at a hospital because that's generally not public information. Except in the case of public payers, but the private payers aren't competing against them anyway so that knowledge does them little good.



beagle9 said:


> 5. Now the private carriers see this problem of extreme charging, so they have meetings with the doctors billing offices and hospital billing offices, in order to protest these high and unrealistic charges on behalf of their clients and their bottom lines for what is being charged them, but they lose most of the time but why? It's because the hospitals and doctors are not going to risk not getting their extreme payments from the government who is not subjected to the private markets and it's up's and down's that are found so volital within the markets, so they stick with the charge to the private insurance carrier at all cost, in order to show consistancy with the government charges in which they had charged the government for.



You're kind of track here, though again you're off-base about the "extreme payments" you believe providers are getting from the government insurers.

Private insurers do lose quite a bit in the negotiations. The reason is that they lack--or are reluctant to use--leverage against providers. I just put up a thread on this last week: http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...health-insurers-need-to-stop-being-wimps.html

This is an area where some sort of policy intervention (and there are various options) is needed.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 12, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



When I asked you to show me some studies that show that ObamaCare will lower health care costs I didn't think you'd be stupid enough to cite three that were from 2010.  The revisions to the cost of ObamaCare were made THIS year...which happens to be 2012.  So toss out the first three that you provided (I won't even comment on how worthless anything ThinkProgress provides is...) and then lets look at the third...

If you read Klein's comments you'll see that he's still including the CBO estimates that include tax increases and cuts that are PROPOSED but haven't actually been implemented.  That's the thing about ObamaCare that progressives don't really want to address...namely they can't get the taxes past the GOP controlled House and haven't been able to do so since 2010...and that they haven't actually voted for the cuts to Medicare providers yet that are already included in the CBO's estimates and don't seem to be in any hurry to do so.  You'll also notice that they include billions of dollars in "savings" that supposedly will be saved from eliminating fraud in Medicare and Medicaid.  That savings hasn't been realized either.

The fact is...CBO estimations are totally controlled by the numbers that they are GIVEN to work with.  If they are told that a tax will be implemented that hasn't, nor appears likely to ever be passed, and include that tax in their calculations then what use is the final number?  The old saying is...bullshit in...bullshit out.  The Obama Administration fed the CBO a bunch of bullshit figures citing cost cutting that hasn't occurred and taxes that haven't been passed.  That's bullshit in...and so we got bullshit out.

How about "you" come back when you're not quite so naive on this topic?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 12, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I'm sorry for not adhering to your stupid standard that we only use studies done in certain years



Oldstyle said:


> The revisions to the cost of ObamaCare were made THIS year...which happens to be 2012.  So toss out the first three that you provided (I won't even comment on how worthless anything ThinkProgress provides is...) and then lets look at the third...


Yes so according to you revisions that hshow that costs of been lowered means studies that find Obamacare reduces costs before those revisions means Obamacare increase costs...


Oldstyle said:


> If you read Klein's comments you'll see that he's still including the CBO estimates that include tax increases and cuts that are PROPOSED but haven't actually been implemented.


How silly of Klein to analysis what Obamacare will do.


Oldstyle said:


> That's the thing about ObamaCare that progressives don't really want to address...


Its sad that Republicans are so stupid that they think we need to address pure ignroance with more ignorance


Oldstyle said:


> namely they can't get the taxes past the GOP controlled House and haven't been able to do so since 2010...
> and that they haven't actually voted for the cuts to Medicare providers yet that are already included in the CBO's estimates and don't seem to be in any hurry to do so.


ROTFL so according to you obamcare increase costs  because the GOP will vote to increase health care costs


Oldstyle said:


> The fact is...CBO estimations are totally controlled by the numbers that they are GIVEN to work with.  If they are told that a tax will be implemented that hasn't, nor appears likely to ever be passed, and include that tax in their calculations then what use is the final number?  How about "you" come back when you're not quite so naive on this topic?


Yes you claiming that Obamacare will not reduce spending because in the future congress will vote to increase spending is me being naive
Come back when your IQ goes above 60



Oldstyle said:


> The old saying is...bullshit in...bullshit out.  The Obama Administration fed the CBO a bunch of bullshit figures citing cost cutting that hasn't occurred and taxes that haven't been passed.  That's bullshit in...and so we got bullshit out.


This is also part of the problem. YOu are so ignorant that you don't realize that the CBO came up with those numbers


----------



## Greenbeard (May 12, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> When I asked you to show me some studies that show that ObamaCare will lower health care costs I didn't think you'd be stupid enough to cite three that were from 2010.



Some observations from March of this year: Slower Growth in Medicare Spending &#8212; Is This the New Normal?



> But there are indications that Medicare spending growth has slowed. One highly visible gauge of Medicare spending trends is the standard monthly Part B premium, which is set by the Medicare actuary to cover one quarter of total Part B spending. In August 2011, the actuary projected that the Part B premium for 2012 would be $106.60, but the actual premium was set in November at only $99.90. A much broader indicator of a slowing trend is the fact that growth in Medicare outlays per enrollee in 2010 and 2011 was roughly in line with growth in the economy (see graphExcess Medicare Spending Growth.). And in January 2012, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) made a $69 billion downward revision to its 10-year Medicare spending projection &#8212; a technical correction that reflects emerging data showing surprisingly slow growth in outlays. Similar slowing trends have led to positive earnings surprises for publicly traded insurers.





> Moreover, the DRA and MIPPA were only pale previews of the payment-rate cuts in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA permanently slows the growth in Medicare payment rates for almost every category of provider other than physicians and makes additional targeted cuts to home health agencies and some other providers. As a result, the CBO projects that over the next decade Medicare spending per enrollee will grow substantially more slowly than the overall economy, even if there is a permanent SGR &#8220;fix.&#8221; Negative excess growth in Medicare is not as implausible as it might first sound &#8212; such a trend occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s in the wake of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.





> The framers of the ACA perceived broad provider-payment reform as the best prospect for slowing the long-term spending trend. But they needed scoreable savings, and they could ill afford to alienate backers by forcing through major payment reforms at the same time. The ACA planted the seeds for accountable care organizations (ACOs), bundled payment for episodes of care, patient-centered medical homes, and incentives for reducing readmissions. Now those seeds offer a way forward.
> 
> *In site visits and interviews conducted for our ongoing qualitative research, the Center for Studying Health System Change found strong provider interest in payment reform and efforts to prepare for it, with the prospect of increasing constraint on Medicare payment rates cited as motivation. We see a combination of reformed delivery of care and broader units of payment as having the potential to allow providers to generate savings through steps that are less threatening to quality of care and access than are cuts in payment rates.* More concretely, payment on the basis of shared savings or partial capitation can reward providers for delivering care more efficiently. This approach is preferable to merely paying providers less and less for business as usual.
> 
> ...



Providers are beginning to change the way they do business to improve the cost picture without compromising quality. The recent Medicare and Medicaid reforms offered carrots for these improvements and, through Medicare, the looming threat of some big sticks on the horizon. The notion that the ACA didn't focus on costs is a talking point, not a reality.

See for instance: What We're Doing | Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation


----------



## beagle9 (May 12, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > 3. The hospitals then charge the government extreme high prices for those who have no coverage, and can't afford any, for example they charged $62,000 dollars for a stay of 4 days in the hospital, in which amounts to what $15,000 dollars a day for one person? We know a woman that this just happened to, so yes this is reality & truth speaking here. This bill was submitted on her behalf, and the government paid it all for her.
> ...


There was a hospital in the southern states called "Toumey Hospital", that had a huge lawsuit upon it not long ago, initiated by the federal government, in which also insnared some doctors and such as well in the suit, and this was for defrauding the government on medicare, double billing and so on and so forth I'm thinking it all was about.. Now you were saying..

No telling how wide spread this stuff was going on across this nation.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 12, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> No telling how wide spread this stuff was going on across this nation.



when its somebody elses money there is little incentive to save money, when it is 100% your money there is great incentive. One big reason government fails and private enterprise wins.


----------



## Flopper (May 12, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Take the post office for example.  Close down the post office and let UPS and FEDX take care of the services and all services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public.  Sell our national parks and national forest to private enterprises and see how fast they close down and sell the least profitable to developers.  If you privatize all public schools, kids from poor families who have no money for tuition or their parents choose not to pay it, get no education creating even greater social problems than we have now.  Because a service is not profitable does not mean it's not needed.
> ...


It&#8217;s big business that&#8217;s eliminating competitors, not big government.  Deregulation of the financial and telecommunications industry, and the deregulation of the regulators themselves have encouraged the mega-corporation to gobble up competition.  30% of our smaller banks have been bought out in the last 20 years.  20 years ago, there were over 75 cell phone carriers.  Today there are 8. Four, soon to be 3, control 85% of the market.

Private schools like any business will follow the money and the money is not in poor and lower middle class neighborhoods.  The wealthy will have the best schools and best teachers because they can afford the high tuitions.  Those with lower income will have the poorer schools and teachers because they can&#8217;t afford to pay the tuition.  This is how the free market works and there&#8217;s no reason to think it would work any different in education.  Vouchers for the poor do not solve the problem. They would make it possible for the low income parents to send their kids to school, poor schools.

If we really wanted to improve our schools, we should make private schools illegal, and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.  If suddenly CEOs' children, diplomats' children, and the children of our nation's leaders were attending public schools, I guarantee we would soon have a system of high quality schools in which every child would get an excellent education.

You can not send UPS packages, or for that matter Fedx packages, anywhere.  These companies delivery where it's profitable to delivery.  They do not deliver to P.O. boxes because most p.o. boxes are too small for most packages, however for many people that's the only way they receive mail.  UPS delivers only to RFD boxes that can be easily reached.  They do not delivery to APO addresses.  Congress should allow the post office to make the necessarily cuts to eliminate it's deficit.  The need for postal services will decrease with time and as they do, the post office should be allow to cut back services.  Eventually the post office will disappear because there will be no need for it.

Government is not the primary cause of higher healthcare costs.  The major cause is the increase in demand for healthcare.


----------



## eflatminor (May 13, 2012)

Flopper said:


> ....services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public.



Well I for one am ever so grateful we have you to tell everyone else what the public needs.  You are a true planner, a hall monitor that thinks he knows what's best for others.  That cannot be fixed, only defeated.  

I do appreciate your candor in this discussion.  Knowing one's enemy is important.


----------



## Greenbeard (May 13, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> There was a hospital in the southern states called "Toumey Hospital", that had a huge lawsuit upon it not long ago, initiated by the federal government, in which also insnared some doctors and such as well in the suit, and this was for defrauding the government on medicare, double billing and so on and so forth I'm thinking it all was about.. Now you were saying..



I assumed you were talking about the legitimate, if predatory (but legal), way providers bill and payers pay. Fraud is a bit different because, aside from being illegal, it's not baked into the crust of our payment system and thus present in every single transaction across the entire industry--as the things I was describing are. It's more a pervasive nuisance than a fundamental structural deficiency (no more than any kind of theft or crime is a fundamental structural flaw in any market relationship or interaction)

A quick googling seems to indicate that the example you're talking about was a Stark law violation, which is more about conflicts of interest in physician referrals. But certainly there is also outright fraud out there with phantom billing, upcoding, etc. And it costs money, no doubt. 

Though if your argument was that private insurers are aware of being defrauded and tolerate it (following "meetings with the doctors billing offices and hospital billing offices, in order to protest these high and unrealistic charges"), I'm not sure I follow you. There are legal remedies available to them in that situation--remedies not available when an insurer is getting screwed legally in the kind of ordinary payment negotiation I was referring to in my post.


----------



## Ariux (May 13, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> There was a hospital in the southern states called "Toumey Hospital", that had a huge lawsuit upon it not long ago, initiated by the federal government, in which also insnared some doctors and such as well in the suit, and this was for defrauding the government on medicare, double billing and so on and so forth I'm thinking it all was about.. Now you were saying..



It's the rule, not the exception, that 3rd-party payers are bilked (and the costs passed on to the consumers).


----------



## Flopper (May 13, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > ....services that don't meet profit expectations would be dropped regardless of their impact on the public.
> ...


I'm just saying private enterprise will meet the needs of society only when it can do so profitably.


----------



## Ariux (May 13, 2012)

Flopper said:


> I'm just saying private enterprise will meet the needs of society only if it can do so profitably.



Where there is need there is always profit to be made.


----------



## Wry Catcher (May 13, 2012)

Greenbeard said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > There was a hospital in the southern states called "Toumey Hospital", that had a huge lawsuit upon it not long ago, initiated by the federal government, in which also insnared some doctors and such as well in the suit, and this was for defrauding the government on medicare, double billing and so on and so forth I'm thinking it all was about.. Now you were saying..
> ...



Mitt Romney: Medicare fraud allegations and &lsquo;Blood Money&rsquo; - The Washington Post


----------



## beagle9 (May 13, 2012)

Flopper said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Yep, and when it comes to health care in a nation gone mad with greed that is being found in so many ways these days, do we really want to keep our health care subjected to the profits of a corporation, verses the needs of us as human beings ??

This is what concerns me greatly with this one aspect of our private industry and/or set up these days, as it has a tendency to pick winners and losers for profit margins, and that is not exceptable when it comes to ones health in life, and whether or not one lives or dies as a result of.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 13, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> This is what concerns me greatly with this one aspect of our private industry and/or set up these days, as it has a tendency to pick winners and losers for profit margins,.



a liberal will lack the IQ to understand profit. Imagine a society that allocated resources based on lossess rather than profits. 

A drug company would invest in a new cancer drug that didn't work and so made no profit, but would still keep investing in the drug that didn't work rather than in another drug  that did work , did make profit, and did save millions of lives. 

See why we are 100% sure that liberalism is based on pure ignorance? Is any other conclusion posiible??


----------



## Ariux (May 13, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Private schools like any business will follow the money and the money is not in poor and lower middle class neighborhoods.  The wealthy will have the best schools and best teachers because they can afford the high tuitions... If we really wanted to improve our schools, we should make private schools illegal, and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.



What's wrong with the rich having better schools, as long as they're paying for those schools themselves?  All of society benefits when people are better educated, even if the better educated person isn't you and that ball of shit in your skull.  Besides, your liberalism makes you blind to this fact: the cost of education plays very little role in the quality of education.  If the rich want to buy fancy school uniforms for the kids instead of fancy fur coats for mom, why the fuck do you care?

How does your shit-brain imagine the rich will make public schools better just because their kids are in them?  Some sort of rich people voodoo?   Do you think finally the school will be able to afford the textbooks that they already have?  Do you think then they'll be able to pay the electric bill they're already paying.  Do you think then they'll be able to hire the college grads that they hire now?

No one has suggested an end to government welfare for the poor to buy an education.  There will be money for everyone to get an education.  And, as you said, business follows the money, which everyone has.   But, when the school has to win students, instead of the student being forced to go there, they'll really try to offer a better product.  Your ideas couldn't be any more stupid if you tried.



> Government is not the primary cause of higher healthcare costs.  The major cause is the increase in demand for healthcare.



Demand is high because almost no one pays for medical care out of pocket.  The US government is the biggest single payer for healthcare in the world.


----------



## Flopper (May 14, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just saying private enterprise will meet the needs of society only if it can do so profitably.
> ...


Not if the people that have the need have no money.


----------



## Flopper (May 14, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Private schools like any business will follow the money and the money is not in poor and lower middle class neighborhoods.  The wealthy will have the best schools and best teachers because they can afford the high tuitions... If we really wanted to improve our schools, we should make private schools illegal, and assign every child to a public school by random lottery.
> ...


The rich have access to good schools now.  There are plenty of good private schools, if you have the big bucks, which they do. The wealthy has access to good schools.  Thats not the problem.  Claiming the cost of education plays little role in quality is ridiculous.  The most expensive private schools in the country sport class sizes of 12 students, the best instructors, personal tutors, instructional programs tailored to the student, and excellent facilities.  Compare that to some of the ghetto schools, with class sizes of 35 students, being taught by poorly trained teachers in overcrowded shabby class rooms.

Wealthy and influential parents are in a position to see that positive changes are made to public education, however they send their kids to private schools so they have little incentive to push for improvements.  In fact, their incentive is cut funding for public schools.

The idea that people visit a doctor or go into the hospital just because someone else is paying the bill is silly.  I know of no one who enjoys going to the doctor, dentist or hospital.  If you payed me to go to the doctor, I doubt I would go any more than I do now.


----------



## beagle9 (May 14, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > This is what concerns me greatly with this one aspect of our private industry and/or set up these days, as it has a tendency to pick winners and losers for profit margins,.
> ...


I meant to say in regards to our "healthcare private sector industry", in which winners and losers (i.e. the sick verses the not so sick) are being picked through and/or over, and this is due to profits and/or the divided up cost being placed against those profits, signaling the amount of care given these days to most of us as individuals yet seperate all because of, in which is to be based on loses and gains in regards to this health care industry and/or healthcare giant now in which we have serving us as citizens these days.

This has become immoral and disrespectful to all citizens who deserve better than what they are getting these days in this situation of late (where extreme charges in health care is a crime yes), in which is fueling profits and/or profit margins/bottom lines (verses) the amount of care to be given to us in relation to such bottom lines or profits.  Our care is sadly being rationed to us in an unequality way (plan verses plan), that is being found amongst us as human beings anymore these days, and these plans are being based on profits and loses before offered to us, and then resulting in winners and losers all because of.

This is why health care needs to be taken out of the private sector in regards to profits & loses that are born out of capitalism, because just as you said it yourself, that millions of companies go broke under capitalism, where as you said that their is no protectionist to be found within you when it comes to capitalism, so when it comes to ones health is that different ? We don't need the system to be going broke under the rules of capitalism when we need it most, but instead we should have a more stable socialized (single payer) system of health care, that is taxed to every working American citizen in this nation, in order to pay for it just like we do for SSI & etc. across this nation. What would be wrong with that ?

I'm tired, and I may not be thinking to clearly, so forgive me if I don't get my point right in which I am trying to convey on the subject.


----------



## bussclinton (May 17, 2012)

Well some service which are very essential like education,energy and healthcare must be exempt on low and supply order. If we are thinking as government factor then these are most common are where government revenue is increases so government must minimize the tax rate on these services for the people.


----------



## Ariux (May 17, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Claiming the cost of education plays little role in quality is ridiculous.  The most expensive private schools in the country sport class sizes of 12 students, the best instructors, personal tutors, instructional programs tailored to the student, and excellent facilities.  Compare that to some of the ghetto schools, with class sizes of 35 students, being taught by poorly trained teachers in overcrowded shabby class rooms.



Here's what those ghetto schools get: CARPE DIEM: DC Public Schools: $1.29 Billion, $28,170 per Pupil 
We're paying for the best education in the world for those stupid Afros.  

How does a class size of 12 help?  Do you think more than 12 people would absorb all the sound of the teacher talking, or take up so much space that more than 12 won't be able to see the board?

One reason Afros cost so much is because they get personal tutors and instructional programs tailored to them, in very expensive facilities.  But, they're still just dumb Afros, barely literate by the time they graduate from high school.  



> Wealthy and influential parents are in a position to see that positive changes are made to public education, however they send their kids to private schools so they have little incentive to push for improvements.  In fact, their incentive is cut funding for public schools.



Yeah, that's it, fucking idiot, those Afros aren't getting enough education funding.

There are public schools (rural) that get under $10,000 per student and private schools that get half of that, yet their whites students far exceed the academic performance of Afros at some of the country's most expensive schools.  Other than flat out lying by denying the facts, how does your money theory account for that?



> The idea that people visit a doctor or go into the hospital just because someone else is paying the bill is silly.  I know of no one who enjoys going to the doctor, dentist or hospital.  If you payed me to go to the doctor, I doubt I would go any more than I do now.



Old people are infamous for going to the doctor frequently just for someone to talk to, because it's free to them.  Afros are infamous for frequenting emergency rooms for non-emergencies, because it's free to them.  Most visits to the doctor are trivial, because people don't have to pay much out of pocket.  These visits would stop if they had to pay in cash at the time of the visit.  Likewise, they'd increase if the visits were perceived as free (this is why places like Canada have such long waits to visit the doctor, making sick people wait is the cost of giving "free" service to people who don't need it).  I'd go every month for a thousand dollars of unnecessary blood tests, just for the fun of monitoring changes over time (cholesterol, sugar, vitamins, white blood cells, etc.), if it were free and available to me.  If people had to pay cash, they'd take better care of themselves to avoid medical expenses.  That's how people are and if you disagree, you're either a liar or an idiot.  And, I'm sure both.


----------



## Flopper (May 17, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Old people are infamous for going to the doctor frequently just for someone to talk to, because it's free to them.  Afros are infamous for frequenting emergency rooms for non-emergencies, because it's free to them.  Most visits to the doctor are trivial, because people don't have to pay much out of pocket.  These visits would stop if they had to pay in cash at the time of the visit.  Likewise, they'd increase if the visits were perceived as free (this is why places like Canada have such long waits to visit the doctor, making sick people wait is the cost of giving "free" service to people who don't need it).  I'd go every month for a thousand dollars of unnecessary blood tests, just for the fun of monitoring changes over time (cholesterol, sugar, vitamins, white blood cells, etc.), if it were free and available to me.  If people had to pay cash, they'd take better care of themselves to avoid medical expenses.  That's how people are and if you disagree, you're either a liar or an idiot.  And, I'm sure both.



Being one of those old folks, I can say without hesitation that you are full of crap.  As you age, you have more and more health problems.  A severe chest pain can be a symptom of a heart attack or it can be pleurisy,  pneumonia, or nothing at all.  A darkened mole can be just a mole or it can be a melanoma.  Most really serious health problems begin with symptoms with a multitude of causes, most of which are not serious, but it usually takes medical help to determine the difference.   Waiting to see what develops is rarely a good idea.  The chance of a successfully outcome decreases as the disease progress and the cost of treatment rises, often dramatically.

Very few people actually get free medical care.  Almost all insurance programs have co-pays or coinsurance.  For Medicare it's 20% which for the average doctor visit is about $25.  For Medicaid it varies by state but in most states an adult can expect to pay $10 to $20 for a doctors visit.  The idea that anyone goes to the doctor for the fun of being poked with needles, asked embarrassing questions and scared shirtless over possible diagnosis is absurd.  Paying $10 or $20 for it is even more absurd.


----------



## Flopper (May 17, 2012)

VivaGaza said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...


Healthy eating and exercise reduces your chance of sickness, but it doesn't eliminate it.  Healthcare is something everyone will need and the older you are the more you need it.


----------



## Ariux (May 17, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Being one of those old folks, I can say without hesitation that you are full of crap.



A second opinion: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtI6ZVOzWqQ]Needy Seniors or Greedy Geezers? -- Stossel In The Classroom - YouTube[/ame]



> A darkened mole can be just a mole or it can be a melanoma.



You shouldn't need a doctor to recognize a mole from something that's probably not a mole.



> The idea that anyone goes to the doctor for the fun of being poked with needles, asked embarrassing questions and scared shirtless over possible diagnosis is absurd.  Paying $10 or $20 for it is even more absurd.



If you were to go to the doctor every month, you wouldn't have to be asked those "embarrassing questions" every time.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 17, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Very few people actually get free medical care.  Almost all insurance programs have co-pays or coinsurance.  For Medicare it's 20% which for the average doctor visit is about $25.



Many if not most get supplemental insurance for $100-300/month and then healthcare is again free and so very abused! Any resource you don't pay for will be greatly abused. This is why the USSR failed. Its common sense that a child can follow, just not a liberal.


----------



## Political Junky (May 17, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Very few people actually get free medical care.  Almost all insurance programs have co-pays or coinsurance.  For Medicare it's 20% which for the average doctor visit is about $25.
> ...


Who knew, the USSR was defeated by healthcare. Lots of cons will be disappointed it wasn't Reagan.


----------



## Ariux (May 17, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Who knew, the USSR was defeated by healthcare. Lots of cons will be disappointed it wasn't Reagan.



How did Reagan do it?  By giving them the middle-finger?

The USSR killed itself with socialism.


----------



## Flopper (May 17, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Being one of those old folks, I can say without hesitation that you are full of crap.
> ...


If people had to pay their doctor the full cost of service as you seems to suggest, many would not go to the doctor month or even yearly.  Putting off going to the doctor to have those little problems checked out because paying the mortgage and putting food on the table has a higher priority, can be very costly in the long run.  Discovering a heart problem, cancer, or many other diseases in their early stages can mean the difference between relatively low cost treatments and a normal life and huge medical costs and an early death.  You seem to suggesting the latter.


----------



## Flopper (May 17, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Very few people actually get free medical care.  Almost all insurance programs have co-pays or coinsurance.  For Medicare it's 20% which for the average doctor visit is about $25.
> ...


Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free.  Even going to the doctor is rarely a pleasant experience.  People use medical services because there're sick, in pain, or are availing themselves of preventive care that can save a lot of money as well as their life.

Following your line of reason, if the government paid for funerals, seniors would abuse the service by killing themselves.

If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none.  That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free.



common sense will tell you that if it's free far more of it will be consumed.
a liberal has no common sense? Imagine having to argue about that? 




Flopper said:


> Following your line of reason, if the government paid for funerals, seniors would abuse the service by killing themselves.



some perhaps, but all would abuse it by having state of the art medical care and state of the art or very very expensive funerals.
Again, common sense to all but a liberal.



Flopper said:


> If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none.  That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.



no one  says it has to be pure. If we had capitalism costs would be about 10% of what they are now and most could afford it. Those who couldn't could use partial vouchers so the incentive would be to shop and provider's incentive would be to compete.

If you want an example that even a liberal can follow consider China. They instantly went from en masse liberal starvation to getting rich just by switching to some key elements of capitalism.

Still over your head???


----------



## Ariux (May 18, 2012)

Flopper said:


> Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free.  Even going to the doctor is rarely a pleasant experience.  People use medical services because there're sick, in pain, or are availing themselves of preventive care that can save a lot of money as well as their life.



You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy, so it's curious that you hold the shitbrained position that price of healthcare doesn't affect demand for healthcare.  Both reason and evidence say you're a fool.

People want uncomfortable things because of their fear of having a health problem can be greater than the discomfort of the test.  Take mammograms.  Studies show that there's no reason for women to get annual mammograms, so the government changed their annual recommendation... how did women's groups respond?  Look it up and learn something.

If those dumb c***s had to pay for those mammograms out of pocket, most of them would be completely fine going half as often, or even less often.  Likewise, I know many women who run themselves or their kids to the doctor with every sneeze, and when I ask why they wast money in such a way, they tell me insurance pays for it.  

I'm serious that if I could get free medical care, I'd go every month for a battery of blood tests worth at least a $1000, not out of fear of disease but just out of curiosity of changes over time.  Other people would go monthly just out of fear of high cholesterol, or some other thing.  

Many health problems can be cured by taking better care of yourself.  A lot of fat people would be more motivated to lose weight if they were paying out of pocket to treat the problems and discomforts resulting from their obesity. 

If I were 99 years old, I might want a $200,000 in medical care even if it would only extend my life a little bit in bed, because it would be free to me.   

I could go on endlessly making these point.



> Following your line of reason, if the government paid for funerals, seniors would abuse the service by killing themselves.



You, on the other hand, can only make totally stupid points.  People die once, and only once, regardless of the cost of a funeral.  This rule doesn't apply to demand for medical treatment. 



> If everyone had to pay all their own healthcare costs, the wealthy would have great healthcare, the middle class would have mediocre care, and the poor would have none.  That's the way pure capitalism works and that's why we have the system we have today.



So the fuck what if the rich can get the best medical care?  What the fuck is it of your business?  Besides, the only way with any medical system for the rich to get the same care as everyone else is if the law prohibits them from spending their money for their health.  That's just spite, having nothing to do with the quality of medical care that the middle-class can get.  (In fact, it might hurt the quality of medical care the middle-class can get.)

No medical system in the world can give the middle-class better than moderate medical care.  The resources simply don't exist.  And, even if they did, it's a damn foolish waste of money.  Doubling the spending on someone's medical care would only result in a tiny improvement in the quality of medical care.

As for the poor.  They can go get a job if they want medical treatment.  But, if you really insist on paying them to devote their lives to crime and self-abuse instead of productivity, that's what welfare is for.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2012)

Ariux said:


> I could go on endlessly making these point.



yes but you have to remember you're talking to liberals. Here's a simple enough question even for liberals.

What would happen if you made pork chops free in a supermarket. Would people consume more or less.


----------



## Political Junky (May 18, 2012)

Nobody's talking about making healthcare free.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> Nobody's talking about making healthcare free.



BO is for single payer, actually. We all know how his thinking will "evolve" if its given half a chance. If liberals can't promise free stuff how else will they buy votes?

This is not fair to Republicans, they only promise freedom.


----------



## Political Junky (May 18, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody's talking about making healthcare free.
> ...


I'm for single payer, too, but it's not free. You should really read something about it other than right wingnut sources.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2012)

Political Junky said:


> I'm for single payer, too, but it's not free. You should really read something about it other than right wingnut sources.



since the bottom half pay no taxes and the top 1% pay 40% of taxes its in effect free to the majority of voters ! This is like running a kindergarten.


----------



## Ariux (May 18, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> since the bottom half pay no taxes and the top 1% pay 40% of taxes its in effect free to the majority of voters ! This is like running a kindergarten.



The income tax isn't the only tax.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 18, 2012)

Ariux said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > since the bottom half pay no taxes and the top 1% pay 40% of taxes its in effect free to the majority of voters ! This is like running a kindergarten.
> ...


----------



## beagle9 (May 18, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free.  Even going to the doctor is rarely a pleasant experience.  People use medical services because there're sick, in pain, or are availing themselves of preventive care that can save a lot of money as well as their life.
> ...


You are a weird one to call someone else names I'm sad to say, and so you have the nerve to call others names on here just as you do, but why (in order to hopefully make your point somehow by this bullying tactic used) ?

My sister went and had a mamogram (within her two year check up's), and then she went back between the two years, because she felt something wrong, and guess what it was that was wrong ? Yep, she found out she had breast cancer on her next earliest visit. Now somewhere within a two year span she was clean, but somewhere between the two years she began having the symtoms of breast cancer, and thus found out that she had it within that period. The scan didnot show it on her two year visit, but before she could make it to the next normal scheduled visit, she had developed the problem..

Now if she hadn't of went for that check up again, who knows what would have happened to my sister in between these check up's, I mean if she had put it off for say 5 years or less ? Happy to say she is cancer free now, and I am hopeful and praying that she remains this way.


----------



## Ariux (May 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> My sister went and had a mamogram (within her two year check up's), and then she went back between the two years, because she felt something wrong, and guess what it was that was wrong ? Yep, she found out she had breast cancer on her next earliest visit.



What you say is going to happen sometimes.  But, dumbdumbs don't have the intellect to weigh the costs.  Excessive breast screening results in unnecessary cancer treatment, because of false positives.  While a delay in finding a lump has minimal impact on outcome.  Don't argue with me - this is the conclusion of scientific studies that caused the government to change its recommendation.  

Sticking to just your sister, did she find this cancer within a year after a mammogram?  If so, the government's change of recommendation, assuming she was following it, had absolutely no effect on her.

If she had chosen to NEVER have routine mammograms per the government's new recommendation, it would have made absolutely no difference, because she found it herself, not the routine mammogram.  

Only in the window of the second year, specifically the time between when she would have had a second annual mammogram and the time she found the lump would have been the difference, and the effect on the outcome would have been minimal.  It might even be that the second annual mammogram would have missed it (it's a lot easier for a doctor to find a lump after the woman finds it herself), which would have resulted in absolutely no difference if she had annual mammograms (more than 4 of 5 lumps are found by the women themselves, not by annual screening, even when there is annual screening).

Breast cancer is a political disease because men don't get it (like AIDS is a political disease because moral people don't get it) (Don't argue).   Lung cancer kills far more women than breast cancer, but women aren't screaming that the government doesn't recommend annual lung cancer screening.   The government doesn't even recommend that people ever get lung cancer screenings!  The government shouldn't recommend any routine screenings for any kind of cancer for anyone who isn't at very high risk.


----------



## beagle9 (May 19, 2012)

Ariux said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > My sister went and had a mamogram (within her two year check up's), and then she went back between the two years, because she felt something wrong, and guess what it was that was wrong ? Yep, she found out she had breast cancer on her next earliest visit.
> ...


Did the government recommend these screenings (or) did the doctors and/or health care proffessionals begin all of this upon what you are saying ? Did they just get the government involved and going along with them somehow (or) did the government see this as a job creator within government, and also within the health care industry as they ( the industry) may have been lobbying government for ?


----------



## Flopper (May 19, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Do you really think the reason people have surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, colonoscopies, endoscopies, Barium enema, cervical biopsies, and thousands of other uncomfortable and downright pain procedures is just because it might be free.
> ...


What I was saying is that people will not use medical care just because it's free, at least not enough that it would make a dent in the nations healthcare costs.  I do agree that sick people will use more healthcare services if it's free or low cost, which is a good thing.  Early diagnosis coupled with treatment and preventive care for heart disease and strokes can save 75 billion in healthcare costs; costs of cancer treatments could be radical reduced.  Making it more expensive for people to seek treatment for minor problems will only add to our healthcare costs.


----------



## Flopper (May 19, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > I could go on endlessly making these point.
> ...


That's not a good comparison.  Supply and demand for healthcare services are not that simple.  If you cut the patients cost for healthcare services, people will go to the doctors more often, however this is the way to reduce the nations healthcare cost because we will be treating more illness in the most cost effective way, in doctor's offices, with drugs,  and out patient facilities instead of the most expensive way, emergency rooms and hospitals.  We will be diagnosing more diseases in early stages which can drastically reducing costs.


----------



## beagle9 (May 19, 2012)

Flopper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Yep, you are right, it will only add to the health care cost down the road, especially when something minor turns into something major, in which has been the problem for a long time now in this overcharging/over priced system, that keeps so many away until it's to late to handle their case in a more inexpensive way.

Think about this for a second in comparrison of, what are the repubs accusing of the unemployment rates being lower now than before when they are reported ? They are saying that it's because many have given up (dropped off of the roles, and are not seeking unemployment anymore), and thus they are not counted anylonger in the system, and yet they are not showing up in a job either, so what happened to them I wonder ? Is anyone checking on these people, or are they discarded and hoped to be forgotten about in the scheme of things ? Are the uninsured looked at or hoped to be forgotten about also by the private sector health care industry, and this in the same ways that the unemployed are also forgotten about once they leave the roles or fall off of the grid?

Many of the unemployed have showed up on the disability roles, where as there has been a sky rocketing level of disability enrollements or disability grants made for those who had no where else to turn (what between 45 to 61 years of age maybe?), as is found in a system that had long since abandoned them, or put them between a rock and a hard place in result of all this mess ?


----------



## beagle9 (May 19, 2012)

Flopper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...


It's a no brainer, but the greed of a dollar bill keeps people from thinking with any common since anymore.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 19, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...



its a no brainer that  free pork chops means people will buy more and more and even waste some ???


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> > I'm for single payer, too, but it's not free. You should really read something about it other than right wingnut sources.
> ...



No dumbass the bottom half pay no federal income taxes of which only equal 1/4 of taxes. THe bottom half pay most of the other taxes because those taxes are sales, property, or payroll (of which only taxes income up to 100,000)
So go read something other then Glen Beck you 
The reason you think this is like running kindergarten is because you have a brain of a kindergartener


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



So you are such a retard that you think eating food is the same thing as getting chemotherapy, getting a cast or getting a heart surgery. 
Notice how eveyone knows you are a retard, its not because you are smart its because you are dumber then bricks


----------



## beagle9 (May 19, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Your trivial analogies and/or comparrisons are sometimes laughable at best, because you are making a foolish man of yourself (sorry), by trying to defend the indefensible, especially when it comes to health care and the peoples need of it (verses) their ability to afford it with such high market prices these days, and this as an out of pocket expense found in some peoples minds and/or suggestions of, or even being without covererage by insurance of any kind, thus keeping them away even more when they get ill or diseased for way to long, and all because of ??? 

No it's not fair that the government is having to foot the bill for so many, but if it didn't, you couldn't afford to live in this nation either, because disease would run so rampant again in this nation, that people would litterally be sitting back and dying or becoming so diseased again (as they have been lately to a new degree) that plague's would soon again be unleashed as a result of this wait and see attitude, that is based upon affordability mainly, thus shutting out so many because of their affordability issues being in the tank these days, and especially over that of something that is so essential to any modern day society (being it's over all health), and so it is going to be played or gambled with on the Vegas strip (so to speak) while in it's continuance of in these ways ??? How do you think that HIV became such a mega bug I wonder, that it is virtually non-stopable (no cure) as is many other diseases along that line ? Partly it's because of the shame/cost of these diseases, that keep patients away from the doctor for to long in their conditions, as well as the cost of it in dollars trying to find a cure and/or cost worthy treatement for these now known unleashed 21st century mega bugs, thus causing the patient to get the blunt of the cost (death warrant) + the trials and tribulations that come along with them as well (discrimination), in which soon equates to an over all ill society with tiny sectors being healthy and thriving in front of those who are ill in and amongst those who are not ill (ohhh that's right, as long as one can't see it from his or her town house), it's like it doesn't even exist does it, you know (the sick and the poor and/or dying), until it hits home one of these diseases, that has been born out of all this ignorance that is now found in our soceity at large these days. 

Who knows, maybe if people were quicker to come in and get help by a very friendly invitation of, and in a very cost friendly way, then maybe these mega bugs wouldn't be so easy to form in and amongst our societies at large, and kill millions before we can get a hold on them somehow when it finally happens again and again.


----------



## Flopper (May 19, 2012)

In 2009, Americans spent $7,960 per person on health care. Our neighbors in Canada spent $4,808. The Germans spent $4,218. The French, $3,978. If we had the per-person costs of any of those countries, Americas deficits would vanish.

There are many possible explanations for why Americans pay so much more. It could be that were sicker. Or that we go to the doctor more frequently. But health researchers have largely discarded these theories.  The argument that we overuse healthcare doesn't hold water.  Studies have found that Americans dont see the doctor more often or stay longer in the hospital than residents of other countries. Quite the opposite, actually. We spend less time in the hospital than Germans and see the doctor less often than the Canadians.

Other countries negotiate very aggressively with the providers and set rates that are much lower than we do. They do this  in one of two ways. In countries such as Canada and Britain, prices are set by the government. In others, such as Germany and Japan, theyre set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 21, 2012)

Flopper said:


> In others, such as Germany and Japan, they&#8217;re set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.



too bad we're not fascist idiot liberals here, but instead have capitalism setting most prices in most industries so low that we are the richest people in human history.

Liberals lack the IQ to understand that so imagine simple fascism will work. Why not make liberalism illegal as out Constitution intended?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 23, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > In others, such as Germany and Japan, theyre set by providers and insurers sitting in a room and coming to an agreement, with the government stepping in to set prices if they fail.
> ...



So according to you having good health care at half the cost is facism
Why don't you go back and pass 1st grade?


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 23, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> So according to you having good health care at half the cost is facism
> Why don't you go back and pass 1st grade?



if its good then it would produce 80% of new medical patents like our system does

Its fascist or liberal if its largely a government controlled monopoly. A monopoly is not cheap or good or efficient because there is not competitive incentive.

Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?


----------



## Flopper (May 23, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > So according to you having good health care at half the cost is facism
> ...


Universal healthcare does not imply a government monopoly.  

In a number of countries, government mandated private insurance and private health providers make up the healthcare system.  This is certainly not a government controlled monopoly.  Even those countries that directly provide healthcare, much of their system is contracted to provide providers.

If you consider all countries that provide universal healthcare to be fascist, then you're talking about all major economic powers with the exception of the US.


----------



## StateofFreedom (May 23, 2012)

I just noticed my website in my signature is 4Xs. I guess since they don't want to contribute viewers to my website, I will not contribute content to theirs. It all works out in the end.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 28, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > So according to you having good health care at half the cost is facism
> ...


Source plz. Oh wait you can't provide one because like always you are just spewing bullshit. What are you afraid of? Reality?
55% of new drugs developed in America are developed by the goverment
http://www.citizen.org/documents/ACFDC.PDF


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Its fascist or liberal if its largely a government controlled monopoly. A monopoly is not cheap or good or efficient because there is not competitive incentive.


SO according to you spending more then half of what we spend despite proving medical care to everyone and having better health outcomes is not efficient or good.
Come back later retard


EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better. Not so hard was it?


If you really thought compeition was good thing you wouldn't oppose obamacare.
Futhermore there is still compeition in European health care systems. Patients still chose which doctor to go to etc etc so again thx for proving that you are a clueless partisan hack whose head is so far up his ass you can see it coming out his mouth


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (May 28, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Futhermore there is still compeition in European health care systems.



Dear, when we speak of capitalist competition we speak of a life and death struggle to provide better quality and price than your  competitiors just to stay in business and earn a living. If thats too complicated for you:



Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better and how it got us fro the stone age to here. Not so hard was it?


----------



## beagle9 (May 28, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better and how it got us fro the stone age to here. Not so hard was it?



Ok, but listen to yourself, where as you are putting our heath in the same senario as a life and death struggle found in "competition" as some sort of a running race (your words), where as one is striving to be the faster runner always, but what about your brother who can't run as fast (none perfect, no not one), are you to just watch him die in that struggle because he was slower than you ?

How about if everyone is running along happy, because they all have the same chances at life as the next fellow human being has ? I would rather jog for fun (be happy) when it comes to our healthcare, knowing that we are all as fellow human beings running down the same path when it comes to our health & wellness, instead of a few getting to go a short cut and live, while others die like rabbid dogs in the shadows of classwarfare, that is born out of competition between the haves and the have nots.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 29, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Futhermore there is still compeition in European health care systems.
> ...


No but its to complicated for you to get that doctors having to compete for patients is competition. And because your to stupid to know what competition is you have to go on incoherent rants about running and death




EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Imagine someone who jogs for fun and someone who races in life and death competition? Who would be a faster runner? Now you understand competion and how it makes us better and how it got us fro the stone age to here. Not so hard was it?



OMG i see so Europe has no competition because ti doesn't let people die. Meaning if you really cared about competition you'd go die
So go die you'd do the world a lot of good if you did


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 6, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> OMG i see so Europe has no competition because ti doesn't let people die.



it has no competition because  people don't shop with their own money and because  providers don't compete on price and quality to stay in business. Simple enough?


----------



## pfuzzy57 (Jun 16, 2012)

I wonder the same thing.  Several years ago I woke up with vertigo so bad I couldn't see.  It was 4th of July weekend.  I had a friend take me to the ER and saw a doc who asked me what the problem was, and I never saw him again.  While I was there, I had two more episodes of intense vertigo, and he did nothing.  He told me it was a holiday weekend and that he couldn't help me.  He also told me that he'd worked in a larger hospital and that he was leaving our hospital.  After that, my friend encouraged me just to leave.  That was 6 hours later, and they'd not helped me at all.  So when I checked out, the clerk wanted to charge me $40.  I say not only NO, but HELL NO!  I asked why I would have to pay anything when I wasn't even treated.  Ridiculous.

Another time I went to the ER with severe abdominal pain.  I knew exactly what it was as I have diverticulitis.  I told the ER doc what it was, they stuck an IV in my arm and gave me morphine, and I never saw the doc again.  I was still in pain when I left, and they didn't give me any pain meds or anything.  

Both these times I had Tricare, as I'm a military retiree.  I'm not sure if that's why they wouldn't do anything or not, but they should have done something, since they are a hospital and that's their job.  

I am now on Medicare because I'm on Soc Sec disability due to an injury and can't work.  Everything I've had done, including several surgeries have been pain, no questions asked, and more than one was over $20K.  

I have recently discovered, as I have broken my foot, that Medicare doesn't pay for much as far as medical equipment goes.  I need a walking boot and they don't pay for it.  I needed orthotics for my shoes and Medicare doesn't pay for them unless you're a diabetic, and Tricare won't pay unless Medicare does and you've met your Tricare deductible, which I haven't because Medicare has paid my bills.  I find that ridiculous.

So what's the difference between Medicare and Tricare?  They're both government medical insurance, and I've had better care since I've had Medicare than when I had Tricare.  Go figure.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 16, 2012)

pfuzzy57 said:


> I wonder the same thing.  Several years ago I woke up with vertigo so bad I couldn't see.  It was 4th of July weekend.  I had a friend take me to the ER and saw a doc who asked me what the problem was, and I never saw him again.  While I was there, I had two more episodes of intense vertigo, and he did nothing.  He told me it was a holiday weekend and that he couldn't help me.  He also told me that he'd worked in a larger hospital and that he was leaving our hospital.  After that, my friend encouraged me just to leave.  That was 6 hours later, and they'd not helped me at all.  So when I checked out, the clerk wanted to charge me $40.  I say not only NO, but HELL NO!  I asked why I would have to pay anything when I wasn't even treated.  Ridiculous.
> 
> Another time I went to the ER with severe abdominal pain.  I knew exactly what it was as I have diverticulitis.  I told the ER doc what it was, they stuck an IV in my arm and gave me morphine, and I never saw the doc again.  I was still in pain when I left, and they didn't give me any pain meds or anything.
> 
> ...


Wow, this seems a tangled weve of a mess that you have been dealing with in your life, and they wonder why Americans can't get back on their feet (no pun intended), so I really do hope things get better for you, but it is likely and sadly enough that they won't if things keep going like they are going.

I have some of the worst insurance now than ever before in my life, and I work 12 hours a day sometimes 6 days a week, and I pay a very high price for this insurance in relation to what it offers me, but it is the only option that I have at this time with my company worked for.. If anyone knows of a way to get a good insurance plan outside of a company offered plan, THEN LET ME KNOW!!


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 20, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> If anyone knows of a way to get a good insurance plan outside of a company offered plan, THEN LET ME KNOW!!



Vote for Republican capitalism. Then providers would be in a life and death struggle against each other to provide lower prices and better quality to you. THen, you would have a better  pay check to spend on the winners of the struggle

Very simple but beyond a liberal's IQ isn't it?


----------



## signelect (Jun 20, 2012)

I have a tooth problem, cure is a root canal and crown, cost $2600 for about 3 hours of the denist time.  Now they say that after trying to do the root canal that other problems exist so they need to pull it and do an implant, cost $4,000.  I studied the wrong major in college.  Cost for health care is obsene and it is only going to get worse.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 20, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> pfuzzy57 said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder the same thing.  Several years ago I woke up with vertigo so bad I couldn't see.  It was 4th of July weekend.  I had a friend take me to the ER and saw a doc who asked me what the problem was, and I never saw him again.  While I was there, I had two more episodes of intense vertigo, and he did nothing.  He told me it was a holiday weekend and that he couldn't help me.  He also told me that he'd worked in a larger hospital and that he was leaving our hospital.  After that, my friend encouraged me just to leave.  That was 6 hours later, and they'd not helped me at all.  So when I checked out, the clerk wanted to charge me $40.  I say not only NO, but HELL NO!  I asked why I would have to pay anything when I wasn't even treated.  Ridiculous.
> ...


As long as we have private health insurance, there's not going to be much improvement.  Insurance companies make money by collecting premiums, not paying claims.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 20, 2012)

signelect said:


> I have a tooth problem, cure is a root canal and crown, cost $2600 for about 3 hours of the denist time.  Now they say that after trying to do the root canal that other problems exist so they need to pull it and do an implant, cost $4,000.  I studied the wrong major in college.  Cost for health care is obsene and it is only going to get worse.




root canal and crown in my area, huge city, is $1400 . Ever wonder why a dentist goes to school for 4 years and a doctor the same??
Liberal crony capitalism designed to limit supply of dentists and drive price up. 
 Vote for Republican capitalism, not liberalism


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 20, 2012)

Flopper said:


> As long as we have private health insurance, there's not going to be much improvement.  Insurance companies make money by collecting premiums, not paying claims.



always perfectly stupid and liberal!!!!

there is no private insurance competition because liberals made it illegal. Are you a robot programmed to keep saying the same dumb things over and over. Have you no pride????


----------



## MikeK (Jun 20, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> I went into ER with a temperature of 102 with a bladder infection. I was given a urinalysis, a chest X-ray (?), IV antibiotics and sent home with Vicodin (I did not ask for) and received a copy of charges to Medicare for $3,965.50. I had to take Remsa, I live a block away from the hospital and the charges was $1000. I noticed these costs had gone up about 25% in the last few years.
> 
> [...]


I understand what you're saying because I recently posted my own experience with an ER.  And there is no question that the cost of treating illegal aliens is the cause of these outrageous charges.

While it appears government has no intention of deporting illegals who are in need of medical attention, and because the vast majority of medical problems treated at hospital ERs do not require the attention of MDs, I've suggested that government set up walk-in medical centers in certain areas which are staffed by former military medics, retired EMTs, and Nurse Practicioners -- most of whom are as competent and capable at treating 99% of typical ER problems as any hospital intern.   And anyone requesting treatment at one of these centers would be required to waive all rights to sue for malpractice, which is the root cause of the bureaucratic hassle and treatment excesses at all ERs.  

The cost of maintaining these centers probably wouldn't amount to ten percent of the existing cost of treating illegals at hospital ERs.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 20, 2012)

MikeK said:


> And there is no question that the cost of treating illegal aliens is the cause of these outrageous charges.



actually it is because ER's generally have no competition.

Imagine if Ford Motors had no competition. What incentive would they have to lower your price or raise the quality. Now you understand Republican capitalism too.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 20, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > As long as we have private health insurance, there's not going to be much improvement.  Insurance companies make money by collecting premiums, not paying claims.
> ...


In my state there are between 50 and 100 health insurance providers.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 20, 2012)

Flopper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




who's talking about your state??

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 20, 2012)

Flopper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Uh huh, and everyone of them are probably acting in some kind of unwritten "UNISON/UNIONISM" together at their levels, just so they can keep the rates high and close to one another, and this in order to not undermine each other on, or it is within their figuring that they would all fail if each were to (go independent) of one another.

Many unionize, even though there is no formal setting or structure to put ones finger upon it always, but I garantee you that they unionize at various levels, and this by using (trends and/or hidden agreements within these cliques), and then they dare or talk down about anyone else ever thinking of also unionizing in a legit way, as if they aren't doing it themselves as the exampled "beamer club gang" or what ever they may be into calling themselves, where their offices are usually upon the nearest golf course, where they know that they darn well are off the record mostly there, where as they are well within the cliques habbitat, and in uniison together on many ideals along with their ideologies when get together to do their business regarding us, but be damned if anyone else attempts the same, in order to even the score better or to even it up just a little maybe.


----------



## EdwardBaiamonte (Jun 20, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > EdwardBaiamonte said:
> ...




all true there is huge crony liberal capitalism on the state level with interstate competition made illegal by liberals.


----------



## LogikAndReazon (Jun 21, 2012)

Illiterates like lilolady "think" universal healthcare will bring costs down , improve benefits, while adding 40 million to the welfareCare rolls...............

Yes They Can !!!!!!!!     lol


----------



## MikeK (Jun 21, 2012)

EdwardBaiamonte said:


> MikeK said:
> 
> 
> > And there is no question that the cost of treating illegal aliens is the cause of these outrageous charges.
> ...


I would be forced to agree with you were it not for the number of hospitals which have been bankrupted and driven out of business by the requirement to treat illegals in their ERs.  » Sherline: What Do Illegal Aliens Cost Hospitals? » Commentary -- GOPUSA

But I must agree that hospitals need competition in the form of walk-in medical centers in poor neighborhoods which are staffed by former military medics, EMTs and nurse practicioners.  Only those cases which require the attention of physicians would be ambulanced to a regular hospital.  Treatment at these centers would require signing a waiver discharging any future malpractice claim.  

The quality of treatment at these centers would be comparable to that received by military personnel and the cost would be vastly reduced due to eliminating impositions of the medical bureaucracy.  Problems that call for a penicillin shot and a band-aid would receive that and nothing more.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 21, 2012)

MikeK said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


Ok, but how much will that bandaid and shot cost the government that is funding the facility, by those companies who would provide the facility with the shot and band aids, by what is known about through corrupted government contracts ? This is where it all goes wrong most of the time, and then we as taxpayers payers pay for it down the road big time, because government accountability is totally missing in all of this mess, and it is also missing at most any government run anything it seems (except for the military), and now they are beginning to get slacker and slacker under ultra liberalist leaderships.  How much longer I wonder, can this nation keep traveling down these no where roads it has been on for so long now ?


----------



## Douger (Jun 21, 2012)

Flopper said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


With between 50 and 100 thousand Jew lawyers looking to stake a claim.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2012)

MikeK said:


> EdwardBaiamonte said:
> 
> 
> > MikeK said:
> ...


There are a couple of problems with your plan.  First off, former military medics, EMTs and nurse practitioners can't write prescription, although in some states Nurse Practitioners can.

Studies have shown the in primary care, Nurse Practitioners do quite well.  But there is a caveat.  Nurse Practitioners usually work with or under supervision of doctors.

Combat medics are trained to provide medical assistance in combat situations and can do trauma care that's beyond the scope of a civil medic.  Civil medic are typically used as LPNs in military hospitals.  EMT personnel are trained to stabilize victims in traumatic situations.  None of the these people are trained to diagnose diseases or prescribe treatments.

Clinics operated by health departments often use a triage approach staffed with nurses,  nurse practitioners, and physicians.  This is an acceptable approach to providing medicare care for the poor as long you accept the premise that the best medical care is to reserved for those that can pay and the poor are to receive a lower level of care.


----------

