The Health Care "Debate"

[baksheesh]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Maybe you can join Tim's debate class. He's almost as fluent in the english language as I am and may be able to help you out

Beware though. It IS a publik skool that he teaches at.

Hmmmm. I see....

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

I don't remember there being a shortage in 2008. Either way, your boy is Prez now. Time to stop blaming everything on Bush and owning up to your own faults.

Like you do?

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

This is incorrect. A large part of the high cost of health care in the US these days is due to lots of extra tests being done. This is done partly to cover the ass of the doctor due to our sue-happy society. Ask any doctor you meet for his/her opinion.

I've yet to meet a doctor who complains about having to do extra testing unless they're not getting paid for doing it.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

The talk of rationing has begun. Then again, women have always been expendable to the Dims in power. See JFK and his brother Teddy for examples.

Uh-huh.

Which would explain the Demos support of the ERA [Equal Rights Amendment], the Family Leave Bill, Pro-choice and parity in a male dominant job market/political system.


ALL of which was opposed by the republican'ts.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

I didn't say they complain about it. I said it drives up the cost of health care and that they do it to cover their asses due to our sue-happy society.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

Your world is very black and white. All Americans do not have equal access to health care. Why? Because health care is run by private insurance companies known as health insurers, and they dictate (with minimal government oversight) who gets paid, who gets covered and who gets paid in what amount. Because they control payment, they control, de facto, how doctors treat patients.

Moreover, we have a system whereby the primary responsibility for providing access to insurance is done (again, de facto) through employers. If you lose your job you still have some right to keep your insurance, but good luck paying the premiums without a job. You may not have noticed, but the economy is in recession, so there are more folks without a job lately. Even if you do manage to keep up with the premiums, they escalate at a ridiculous rate annually.

This may not seem like a problem to you, but it does to me.

Exactly, JMJ.


Well said.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

I didn't say they complain about it. I said it drives up the cost of health care and that they do it to cover their asses due to our sue-happy society.

And your solution would be...?


I really do not see the justification here, Wozzie. The insurance industry, and as a matter of course, arbitrarily keeps raising our insurance costs and they say it is because of those specious lawsuits and higher medical costs. Every year our costs go up 18%. Every year, Wozzie. Now it simply isn't possible for the costs to go up exactly that percentage each and every year.

Seems to me the government needs to step in and provide a viable alternative so that we can get these guys to stop mindlessly jacking up the rates every few months. No. Wait! The Congrees just passed such a bill, huh.

Now we will see if the GOP has enough heuvos to take the heat from the American people by siding with the HMOs. We will soon know what they are made of, won't we.



Hm.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

November 12, 2009 http://detnews.com/article/20091112/OPINION03/911120336

Oily health bill fails to build trust

NOLAN FINLEY

Trust is about the only thing left out of the bloated health care bill narrowly passed by the House.

Americans remain wary of the plan, according to polling, because they don't trust it will do the things President Barack Obama claims it will do, and will do the things he promises it won't.

Despite the president's "Don't worry, trust me" assurances that the reforms will deliver universal coverage with superior care and at a lower cost without disrupting current coverage, more than half of Americans aren't buying -- and it's not because they're frightened by Republican hainty tales. They know what snake oil smells like.

They don't trust the cost estimates, and for good reason. Taxpayers are being asked to swallow the incredible claim that the cost of the bill will be offset by savings gained from efficiencies and taxes on the wealthy. But as the Wall Street Journal notes, even confiscating 100 percent of the income of the truly rich won't raise enough revenue to pay for this bill. And the New York Times reports most analysts say the savings estimates are unachievable.

Big shock. Americans know this drill. In 1965, Medicare Part A was estimated to cost the nation $9 billion by 1990. Actual cost: $67 billion, according to the Cato Institute.

Similarly, in 1988, when a home health care benefit was added to Medicare, the cost was pegged at $4 billion. Actual: $10 billion. And the Medicare Part D drug benefit doubled in cost in the time it took to move from Congress to the president's desk.

Americans are also too familiar with how the federal bureaucracy works to trust that government management of care won't mean more hassles and hardship. Most Americans have had a least some contact with bureaucrats, and it's rarely pleasant. The House bill will increase the frequency and intensity of those contacts.

It sets up panels to dictate what procedures will be covered, panels to choose who can deliver the care, and panels to decide whether the treatment is necessary.

Americans are asked to trust the bureaucracy to be competent and compassionate at a time when competence and compassion can mean the difference between life and death.

Anyway they turn this bill, it still comes up looking like the first step to a federal takeover of health care.

That speaks to the widest gap in trust -- the bill's motives. The expressed goal is to make affordable insurance available to all. But much of what's in the bill reaches well beyond that mission, raising suspicions that the real objectives are to increase the dominance of government over the individual and use health care as a means of achieving a broader liberal agenda.

For example, the bill is laden with affirmative action requirements in health care education and hiring. A Senate version requires the government to "develop standards for the measurement of gender" because simple male and female checkboxes are no longer relevant.

It also requires restaurant chains to disclose caloric content and other nutritional information on menus. And it sets up home visits by federal health monitors to assess the household behaviors of certain families with young children.

Americans don't trust this bill because its sponsors have not been honest about its cost, impact and intent. To stop it, they'll have to do more than gripe to pollsters. They must start hollering at politicians again.

Because another thing they can't trust is that their members of Congress will vote on their behalf, rather than how they're told to by their partisan bosses.


Nolan Finley is editorial page editor of The Detroit News. His column runs on Sunday and Thursday. Reach him at nfinley@detnews.com">nfinley@detnews.com or (313) 222-2064.

[jesus marion joseph]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

I didn't say they complain about it. I said it drives up the cost of health care and that they do it to cover their asses due to our sue-happy society.

While I hesitate to make statements as sweeping as yours, I would point out that doctors doing tests to "cover their asses" is probably attributable at least as much to their hectic scheduling of patients as it is to worries of being sued. Why do they schedule so many patients in a day? Probably because the health insurance companies dictate how much of their time they get paid for patient consults.

IIRC, the typical allowable consult time is 15 minutes, so ideally you can bill four consults per hour. There are "X" hours available in a day, so it becomes a matter of mathematics. Additionally, most testing is done off-site these days, and those testing facilities are paid according to rates set by the insurance companies, so there's no cost to the physician for ordering the tests, and it helps "cover their ass".

Essentially, the health insurance companies have nobody but themselves to blame for the cost structure, IMHO.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by jesus marion joseph

While I hesitate to make statements as sweeping as yours, I would point out that doctors doing tests to "cover their asses" is probably attributable at least as much to their hectic scheduling of patients as it is to worries of being sued. Why do they schedule so many patients in a day? Probably because the health insurance companies dictate how much of their time they get paid for patient consults.

IIRC, the typical allowable consult time is 15 minutes, so ideally you can bill four consults per hour. There are "X" hours available in a day, so it becomes a matter of mathematics. Additionally, most testing is done off-site these days, and those testing facilities are paid according to rates set by the insurance companies, so there's no cost to the physician for ordering the tests, and it helps "cover their ass".

Essentially, the health insurance companies have nobody but themselves to blame for the cost structure, IMHO.

Once again, we concur.


Nice post.

[baksheesh]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Once again, we concur.


Nice post.

Is that the royal 'we' old chap? Why weren't we invited to the coronation? The world wonders...
(If you get that reference you're a far cleverer fellow than I give you credit for)

JMJ You are right on the nail as usual, and even more effective than Rollhead in puncturing Wonkiak's ridiculous 'arguments'.

[bluenoter]

New Mammogram Guidelines Are Causing Confusion, But Here’s Why They Make Sense



And here's another new set of guidelines, this one calling for fewer cervical cancer screenings as a norm:



Guidelines Push Back Age for Cervical Cancer Tests

I'm not outraged or alarmed by that one either.

[tippy]

I for sure wish I hadn’t gotten my mammograms because that’s what kept me from getting a policy. And now I basically have to get a third in one year to rule out something that is benign 98% of the time.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Some excellent reader comments at the end of the mammogram piece you linked to Rita. It seems that medical professionals do not agree with the new guidelines.


Here's one of the comments a reader posted:

Ben Says:

November 19, 2009 at 12:29 pm
MediaCurves.com conducted a study among 600 about the new guidelines released by the Preventive Services Task Force of the Department of Health and Human Services recommending against regular mammography tests for women under 50 years old. Results found that the majority of physicians (78%) reported that they do not agree with the new guidelines. Furthermore, the majority of physicians (78%) also reported that the advice they give to patients will not change based on the new Preventive Services Task Force of the Department of Health and Human Services guidelines.
More in depth results can be seen at:
https://www.mediacurves.com/HealthCa...ines/Index.cfm
Thanks,
Ben

[tippy]

I think it’s a little funny how women can’t be trusted to perform their own self exams. “It’s too stressful.” That sounds a tad patronizing.

Or maybe they are afraid we will enjoy it too much and all turn into lesbians – women shouldn’t touch themselves because the future of the human species is at stake.

LOL

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by tippy

. . . And now I basically have to get a third in one year to rule out something that is benign 98% of the time.

No you don't. You're in charge.

If by any chance you feel like talking about fibrocystic conditions, PM me.

[tippy]

The danger of cervical cancer screenings is the quickness with which they’ll pull out all your plumbing. Two of my close friends had hysterectomies in the their 30s for potential risks.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by tippy

I think it’s a little funny how women can’t be trusted to perform their own self exams. “It’s too stressful.” That sounds a tad patronizing.

It's coming from the government. It is always patronizing.

Preventative medicine has somehow become a bad thing.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Preventative medicine has somehow become a bad thing.

According to the HMOs it has.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

and now the all-knowing government concurs.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by bluenoter

No you don't. You're in charge.

If I want medical coverage, I will have to get a 3rd to follow up and rule out – that is the guideline for determining it as a benign condition. I never thought twice about the condition until I was specifically denied coverage. So unless I get it ruled out and can get insurance, the question remains open in my own mind about the fact that statistically insurers seem to know something about me that I don’t know – since they won’t insure me. Shouldn’t they have to inform me of the impending events they see from my medical records if I am too dangerous to insure?

And no one ever said I should be concerned about getting mammograms in my 40s either or that there were any risks associated with it.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by tippy

And no one ever said I should be concerned about getting mammograms in my 40s either or that there were any risks associated with it.

Well, the government is taking over now and we have to cut some corners. So, now there are risks involved...

[tippy]

Anyway, it’s become an emotional issue for me that took me completely by surprise, but on the bright side, and strictly as a personal choice, I figure I’ve already lived longer than I wanted to by about ten years so I don’t need the medical establishment for anything anymore anyway.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Well, the government is taking over now and we have to cut some corners. So, now there are risks involved...

Yeah, next they’re going to send out pencils and rubber bands instead of filling those erectile fixer upper prescriptions.

NOT!!! LOL.

[Jeffrey Wozniak]

Originally Posted by tippy

Yeah, next they’re going to send out pencils and rubber bands instead of filling those erectile fixer upper prescriptions.

NOT!!! LOL.

Do you have any idea how stressful it is to have a penis the size of a telephone poll due to taking those darn pills?

[tippy]

Thanks, blue. It’s not a fibrocystic condition. It’s calcifications on one side. (Unless that is the same?) Which I guess are common in women over 50, so I am playing outside the commonest rules. I’m honestly, really and truly, not concerned about it but it did hurt my feelings – LOL – that I couldn’t get insurance. I was also misinformed on my exit interview about the COBRA I would have to pay – they told me much less – so I found out very late that my plan B, a 35% COBRA rate, wasn’t an option. (And they are incompetent assholes but I already knew that.) The other challenge that made keeping COBRA hard was that the insurance companies you apply for take your bank information in the application so you don’t want to apply to more than one at once. And if one company takes several weeks to finish their evaluation and your 60 days is up, then you are a screwed duck.

On the plus side, there is no premium for me to pay. Which at this point in time is helpful. And I made the decision not to put myself through the exposure and disappointment of applying to more companies. I’m actually concerned that I have lessened my chances of employment though because I’d been applying for positions at Intermountain Healthcare and, well, they are going to know that I was rejected for insurance through their insurer. There is no way in the world that I would ever believe they wouldn’t use that information in screening applicants. In a lot of ways, it makes me feel not employable at all. I just really don’t care. I wish I had some access to alcohol though. ROFLMAO.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Do you have any idea how stressful it is to have a penis the size of a telephone poll due to taking those darn pills?

And with the female dinosaurs all extinct. Phew! That is a trial, Jeff.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

Do you have any idea how stressful it is to have a penis the size of a telephone poll due to taking those darn pills?

Speaking of telephone polls, I'm not impressed by the survey you cited (conducted by a market research firm that typically polls for public opinion on celebrities) or its apparent methodology---getting immediate reactions to the new guidelines, very possibly from a self-selected group of respondents to an online poll.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Wozniak

and now the all-knowing government concurs.

No.

A panel of doctors do.