What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

walrus said:
20? I'm flattered the first thing you do in the morning is to check what I posted. Its kinda cool having my very own cyber stalker
Click to expand...

Stalking? I read political threads, you post in political threads...if that is stalking then by definition I guess you are stalking me too? SWEEEEEEEET! :D

But hey, if it makes you feel like you have a purpose to pretend you have a stalker you go right ahead! Oh and let me add:

TF!

:D ;)
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Interesting point about comparing Auto insurance to healthcare. My thought- if you don't have auto insurance- you are screwed. No one has to fix your car and no one cares if you don't. If you need healthcare the hospital is required to give you at least an evaluation and if you are critically ill they must treat you or they lose their sox in fines/damages/ what ever, the Providers could lose their licenses for not treating you. So, although it is interesting can we use the same comparison?
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

leswp1 said:
Interesting point about comparing Auto insurance to healthcare. My thought- if you don't have auto insurance- you are screwed. No one has to fix your car and no one cares if you don't.
Click to expand...
Right - but collision insurance (the kind that will fix your car if it gets damaged) isn't required. *Liability* insurance is required, so if you hurt someone else, your insurance company pays him off so that you don't get sued.

If we were actually willing to buy into the "it's okay if you screw yourself so long as your actions don't hurt other people" then nobody would be required to buy health insurance and hospitals would be allowed to refuse treatment based on ability to pay. Right now, the costs of those uninsured people who get health care are spread across the other users of the hospital (i.e. actual consumers of the product), and, by extension, to the pool of customers of the insurance companies whose clients use the hospital. If everyone is required to buy health insurance, then that pool includes everyone, so the costs are (theoretically) spread across everyone.

In practice, of course, there are a ton of people out there who won't be able to afford health insurance, so there will have to be some sort of tax credit or other means to allow them to buy it. The money for that tax credit, in turn, will have to come from somewhere - namely, the pockets of the people who actually do pay taxes, a.k.a. "the rich." So when it all boils down, it's really just a big scheme to make richer Americans (regardless of whether they're significant consumers of health care or not) pay for health care for poorer Americans. If that's where we want to go as a country, that's fine, but let's call it what it is...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Bill said:
The dean of the Harvard Medical School gives the current health care reform effort a failing grade:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html
Click to expand...

Pretty much nails it too.

Instead of forthrightly dealing with the fundamental problems, discussion is dominated by rival factions struggling to enact or defeat President Barack Obama's agenda. The rhetoric on both sides is exaggerated and often deceptive. Those of us for whom the central issue is health—not politics—have been left in the lurch. And as controversy heads toward a conclusion in Washington, it appears that the people who favor the legislation are engaged in collective denial.
Click to expand...

And the sad thing is, that's the way our legislation always works now. Always.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Yeah, that should come as a shock to no one.

Both sides of the aisle are knee deep in politics, and I sincerely doubt that any one of them has given more than a moment of thought to the actual health care concerns.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

unofan said:
Interesting NY Times article on the breast cancer screening controversy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20aronowitz.html?pagewanted=all
Click to expand...

Especially this part:

You need to screen 1,900 women in their 40s for 10 years in order to prevent one death from breast cancer, and in the process you will have generated more than 1,000 false-positive screens and all the overtreatment they entail.
Click to expand...
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

pardonme said:
Especially this part:
Click to expand...

Biggest problem is the volume should be getting us to a cheap and accurate test. Instead the docs, hospitals, and insurance companies all get to cash out on the test so we don't get that.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

ScoobyDoo said:
Biggest problem is the volume should be getting us to a cheap and accurate test. Instead the docs, hospitals, and insurance companies all get to cash out on the test so we don't get that.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the cost issues, that false positive rate is atrocious. Think of how many women go through the first screen and think they have cancer and the psychological toll that takes on them.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

pardonme said:
Regardless of the cost issues, that false positive rate is atrocious. Think of how many women go through the first screen and think they have cancer and the psychological toll that takes on them.
Click to expand...

They had some MD on NPR last night, and I believe she was on this panel, and she pretty much dismissed the value of regular breast self-exams for the same reasons as as the Mammogram. False positives, costs, etc. And then these people are surprised by the backlash they received? If this is how the panels might operate under Obamacare, you may actually see a "revolution". What I find really fascinating is the breakdown between those who actually see patients, and those who only crunch the numbers.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

What is probably overlooked with that ridiculous panel is that, in a bad economy, that's the kind of stuff that will happen in ANY health care system. Insurers (public or private) will always be looking for ways to cut costs when their books start to flirt with the red numbers.

Frankly, for all the increased meaning we've seen in phrases like "pre-existing condition" in recent years, and if even babies are subject to being too fat or too skinny to be covered (all in the name of cost savings), then we probably shouldn't be shocked to see more and more reports like this in the future.

And that, my friends, has absolutely nothing to do with government involvement in health care and everything to do with the desire of insurers to take your money and run. Why not? There's no regulations to stop them. See also: Bankers.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

ExileOnDaytonStreet said:
What is probably overlooked with that ridiculous panel is that, in a bad economy, that's the kind of stuff that will happen in ANY health care system. Insurers (public or private) will always be looking for ways to cut costs when their books start to flirt with the red numbers.

Frankly, for all the increased meaning we've seen in phrases like "pre-existing condition" in recent years, and if even babies are subject to being too fat or too skinny to be covered (all in the name of cost savings), then we probably shouldn't be shocked to see more and more reports like this in the future.

And that, my friends, has absolutely nothing to do with government involvement in health care and everything to do with the desire of insurers to take your money and run. Why not? There's no regulations to stop them. See also: Bankers.
Click to expand...
The difference between the govt doing something like reducing coverage and private insurers reducing coverage is that as a consumer with a private insurer, you have the ability to bargain and create contracts. If the private insurer breaches the contract, you have greater legal resources against a corporation that has a reputation to care for, investors to consider (in this case, bad pub can cause the money guys to flee), and legal recourse with the govt. If the govt is your insurer, there is no incentive from investors, bureaucrats don't generally care about the govt's reputation, and governments often write law that limits its own exposure in civil courts.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

pardonme said:
Regardless of the cost issues, that false positive rate is atrocious. Think of how many women go through the first screen and think they have cancer and the psychological toll that takes on them.
Click to expand...

ScottM said:
They had some MD on NPR last night, and I believe she was on this panel, and she pretty much dismissed the value of regular breast self-exams for the same reasons as as the Mammogram. False positives, costs, etc. And then these people are surprised by the backlash they received? If this is how the panels might operate under Obamacare, you may actually see a "revolution". What I find really fascinating is the breakdown between those who actually see patients, and those who only crunch the numbers.
Click to expand...

maybe if there was a greater out of pocket cost for the insured consumer (i mean, c'mon... $20 office visit co-pays?:rolleyes: ). they'd be a greater appreciation of proactive, preventive care along with tests/screens/etc.

some people feel a need to change their oil every 3,000 miles on the button, some don't -- ya know?!?:cool:
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

mookie1995 said:
maybe if there was a greater out of pocket cost for the insured consumer (i mean, c'mon... $20 office visit co-pays?:rolleyes: ). they'd be a greater appreciation of proactive, preventive care along with tests/screens/etc.

some people feel a need to change their oil every 3,000 miles on the button, some don't -- ya know?!?:cool:
Click to expand...

Some people come in to be seen having been sick less than 1/2 a day and having tried nothing on their own. No pre-exsisting conditions- they just come it. Too lazy to think. And sadly, no matter how many times you try to educate them it doesn't matter. They show up with the next sniffle.:(
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

leswp1 said:
Some people come in to be seen having been sick less than 1/2 a day and having tried nothing on their own. No pre-exsisting conditions- they just come it. Too lazy to think. And sadly, no matter how many times you try to educate them it doesn't matter. They show up with the next sniffle.:(
Click to expand...

Yup-and then there are some who wait until a leg is falling off before coming in. Over the years I have seen both types.
 
Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

DrDemento said:
Yup-and then there are some who wait until a leg is falling off before coming in. Over the years I have seen both types.
Click to expand...

Makes you want to go work at McDonalds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top