Obama: Healthcare debate is "over"

[nova]

i had a stent put in. total cost? $57,848.58

since my life has improved greatly i'd say it was worth it since life is priceless to me.

Naw dude, $57K is outrageous. You should just decide that your health and well being is worth a lot less and complain about the cost and the greedy docs that charge too much... :sarcasm

 

[Minor Axis]

Put up or shut up.

For faulty reasoning? Sure thing but I really have to repeat this back at you?

A Ferrari F430 should cost as much as a Ford Taurus since they're both cars right?

There is a bit of difference between brain/open heart surgery and routine operations that take about 1 hour to complete. The above is your brilliant analogy?

In this conversation in this thread, the expense of being a Doctor has been raised several times. I brought up training expenses because, a Doctor is not the only expensive profession out there.

We've been going around in circles way too much in this forum, and I'm gonna have to cut ya off. I might as well argue with the dining room table. It's just not worth the effort. I'm sure I'll wither from your scalding retort. Have at it. Btw, the sky is blue.

 

[Pabst]

Naw dude, $57K is outrageous. You should just decide that your health and well being is worth a lot less and complain about the cost and the greedy docs that charge too much... :sarcasm

honestly i would like to see the costs lower but everyone in the room spent who knows how many years in med school, doing internships, etc to get to where they are now.

but we are talking about life and the quality of life, you cant really put a price on those things.

 

[retro]

For faulty reasoning? Sure thing but I really have to repeat this back at you?

There is a bit of difference between brain/open heart surgery and routine operations that take about 1 hour to complete. The above is your brilliant analogy?

In this conversation in this thread, the expense of being a Doctor has been raised several times. I brought up training expenses because, a Doctor is not the only expensive profession out there.

We've been going around in circles way too much in this forum, and I'm gonna have to cut ya off. I might as well argue with the dining room table. It's just not worth the effort. I'm sure I'll wither from your scalding retort. Have at it. Btw, the sky is blue.

Wow... so because you're incapable of refuting arguments, you walk away with a parting shot on your way out the door. Typical.

It is YOUR OPINION that a cholecystectomy is a "routine" surgery. Hell, in this day and age, you could argue that open heart surgery is "routine" because it's done relatively often now. You've proven yourself to be wholly incapable of defending your points against facts, choosing instead to use faulty logic and accusing others of greed in a pathetic attempt to give your arguments meaning.

Learn some things about the health care industry as a whole, and doctors specifically, before you go around accusing them of being "greedy" for charging for services. Especially when a cholecystectomy averages between $10-20k depending on where you have it done and by what physician. But you cannot seriously sit there and blame "greedy doctors" for what's wrong with health care... and if you really think that, do some actual research, and you'll find that you're sorely mistaken.

 

[nova]

There is a bit of difference between brain/open heart surgery and routine operations that take about 1 hour to complete. The above is your brilliant analogy?

It really is a sad testament to the education system of this country that I have to spell this stuff out letter for letter for you and you still don't get it. People ask my why I fear public health care, well the public education system is almost #1 of my list of reasons...

It is an apt analogy. You have neither the education, training nor background to even begin to comment on how much any surgery should cost and yet you persist in insisting that two different surgeries should cost the same based on the fact that they're both surgery and they take the same amount of time. Never mind any differences in difficulty, preparation and planning time for the surgeon, or any of a myriad of other factors that can and do go into a surgeon determining what he charges for his time.

Assuming someone is completely ignorant of a particular area, you can transfer that reasoning over to anything.

Ferrari F430 and Ford Taurus are both cars and both have four wheels, so they should cost the same, using your ridiculous logic. Never mind differences in sales volume, materials, R&D expenses or any of the other myriad of other factors that determine how much a car costs.

A night at the Hilton Hotel should cost the same as a night at Hampton Inn. They're both hotels and its the same length of stay right?

In this conversation in this thread, the expense of being a Doctor has been raised several times. I brought up training expenses because, a Doctor is not the only expensive profession out there.

So you're company spends $20k a year on continued training. Do you think they eat that or do you think they factor that cost into what they charge their customers?

If you had to pay that training yourself, would you work for an amount that just barely let you scrape by after paying for it, or would you expect enough to live the life you want over the top of that?

On top of that, its not just the dollars and cents we're talking about when we say "cost." Its the years of time and hard effort that they put in getting the training to do it correctly that is a cost as well. If it was easy and everybody getting 2 year degree from their local community college could come out with an MD trained to perform surgery, it might not cost that much.

As it stands you are going to pay the Econ 101 supply/demand price for a surgeon due to the fact that out of 350 million Americans, there are only something like 65000 surgeons. Which is to say you're going to pay them a fee that they feel adequately compensates them for the time and effort they put into the procedure or you can go the the much cheaper witch doctor...

We've been going around in circles way too much in this forum, and I'm gonna have to cut ya off. I might as well argue with the dining room table. It's just not worth the effort. I'm sure I'll wither from your scalding retort. Have at it. Btw, the sky is blue.

And another rabid liberal runs scared at the thought of actually having to back up their position because they have nothing to back it up with. Again, coming from the person who hasn't said anything of substance in at least 15 posts, I'll take that as a compliment...

 

[nova]

but we are talking about life and the quality of life, you cant really put a price on those things.

Socialized medical systems do it all the time. By definition you have to when you have a budget to adhere to....

 

[Pabst]

Socialized medical systems do it all the time. By definition you have to when you have a budget to adhere to....

im aware of that. i'm seeing my cardiologist tomorrow for a follow up and i need to talk to him about some of the meds, they're too expensive.

that doesnt mean life has a price tag though, the care perhaps but life is priceless no matter what.

idealism meats reality. somewhere in the middle is where we all live.

 

[Alien Allen]

im aware of that. i'm seeing my cardiologist tomorrow for a follow up and i need to talk to him about some of the meds, they're too expensive.

that doesnt mean life has a price tag though, the care perhaps but life is priceless no matter what.

idealism meats reality. somewhere in the middle is where we all live.

That is one hell of a statement :thumbup

 

[Minor Axis]

The Five Biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate- Newsweek by Sharon Begley.

1. You'll have no choice in what health benefits you receive.
2. No chemo for older medicare patients.
3. Illegal immigrants will get free health insurance.
4. Death Panels will decide who lives.
5. The government will set doctor's wages.

I just read this in the dreaded media: Remember, TR, FDR, and Truman all favored national health care. So did Nixon. So it's got to be a lie, right?

 

[nova]

:24::24::24::24::24:

Yet again, our wonderful news media will do anything to cover the collective asses of Obama and his Demacronies in Congress, regardless of what logically following through all the implications of the proposals tells you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/health/policy/20view.html?_r=2

The push for universal coverage is based on the appealing premise that everyone should have access to the best health care possible whenever they need it. That soft-hearted aspiration, however, runs into the hardheaded reality that state-of-the-art health care is increasingly expensive. At some point, someone in the system has to say there are some things we will not pay for. The big question is, who? The government? Insurance companies? Or consumers themselves? And should the answer necessarily be the same for everyone?

 

[Alien Allen]

:24::24::24::24::24:

Yet again, our wonderful news media will do anything to cover the collective asses of Obama and his Demacronies in Congress, regardless of what logically following through all the implications of the proposals tells you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/health/policy/20view.html?_r=2

I saw that the other day. I am missing your point I guess as I thought he had some valid points. And did not see it as covering Obama's ass.

 

[nova]

I saw that the other day. I am missing your point I guess as I thought he had some valid points. And did not see it as covering Obama's ass.

The article I posted is not an ass covering piece. Its one of the few that actually takes a realistic look the implications of these proposals. Its just a counterpoint to one of the arguments in the NW article.

I first read the NW article almost a month ago when it was first released. If you take their rebuttals to the "lies" in an aggregate big picture way, they're contradictary on several different levels and unless you look at them all lumped together, you don't see that.

Its also really funny that NW finally figured out that "reducing increases" doesn't equal "a cut" after having called "reduced increases" "cuts" for many many years. Methinks that if anyone without a D after their name made that proposal it would have been rediscovered as a "cut."

Although ultimately it will end up as a cut to the care seniors receive. Obama and the Democronies want to deny that but the CBO disagrees...

The Associated Press: Budget chief contradicts Obama on Medicare costs

The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, told senators that seniors in Medicare's managed care plans could see reduced benefits under a bill in the Finance Committee.

The bill would cut payments to the Medicare Advantage plans by more than $100 billion over 10 years.

Elmendorf said the changes "would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans."

 

[nova]

And now we have the gov't hushing up Humana from repeating what the CBO says about the plan. The new motto for Obama and his Democronies should be "What we want by any means necessary"

Baucus Cuts will Hurt Medicare - WSJ.com

Maybe Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus should put a gag order on Douglas Elmendorf too. On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office director told Mr. Baucus's committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage—the program that gives almost one-fourth of seniors private health-insurance options—will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage.

Imagine that. Last week Mr. Baucus ordered Medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish Humana Inc. for trying to educate enrollees in its Advantage plans about precisely this fact. Jonathan Blum, acting director of a regulatory office in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), said that a mailer Humana sent its customers was "misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, who may believe that it represents official communication about the Medicare Advantage program."

Mr. Blum has also banned all Advantage contractors from telling their customers what Mr. Elmendorf has just told Congress. Mr. Blum happens to be a former senior aide to Mr. Baucus and a health adviser on the Obama transition team.

Mark Tapscott: Beware the Stalin in progressive hearts | Washington Examiner

But that is what government always does as it becomes more costly, intrusive and intolerant of dissent. As if to drive the point home, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a gag order this week telling all private companies participating in the Medicare Advantage program to shut up. Violators would face fines and jail time. Forget the First Amendment.

The gag order was issued after Humana Corp. sent a letter to its policyholders who participate in Medicare Advantage telling them the facts about Obamacare's effect on the program. The companies were ordered "to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website."
The bureaucrats added this blunt threat: "Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions. ...."

Those, my friends, are the words of soft tyranny. How much longer before it becomes a hard tyranny?

 

[Codrus]

YouTube - Arguing with Idiots, Health Care


YouTube - Arguing with Idiots, Government Costs

 

[Minor Axis]

:24::24::24::24::24:

Yet again, our wonderful news media will do anything to cover the collective asses of Obama and his Demacronies in Congress, regardless of what logically following through all the implications of the proposals tells you.

You make fun of media posts and bad mouth the media in general and then use your own media post to counter. Oh, I see, it's the media you agree with that is ok for posting. Now that is funny!

 

[nova]

You make fun of media posts and bad mouth the media in general and then use your own media post to counter. Oh, I see, it's the media you agree with that is ok for posting. Now that is funny!

No, like always, you don't see anything other than what you choose to see.

What you posted was presented as a NEWS ie a factual representation of the situation. It is anything but factual, its a thinly disguised opinion piece based on faulty reasoning and logic.

What I posted, was an OPINION piece and is presented as such. Yes I agree with that opinion but only because it utilizes a very rationa logicall argument based on reality.

Now would you actually care to address the content instead of this ridiculous response or will you continue being purposefully obtuse?

 

[Tim]

Again I think there's an Econ 101 lesson in here somewhere. Surgery you really need (high demand) that requires one of a small group of people to get it done (low supply).

Its not freaking greed to expect to get paid in line with the amount of training and skill you have. You seem to be more than happy to dictate what is "excessive pay" for other professions, so I propose we do the same with you next.

Economics 101? :24: you actually believe that the price of surgery is high because there is a high demand for a limited resource? :24: again I laugh at you...

You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that a majority of the bills will never be paid or will be paid at a reduced rate? What happens when people don't pay for the medical bills they get? Where does the cost of those surgeries go? What about the reduced rates paid by the insurance companies? Who covers those costs???

My son was born 2 years ago, it was a text book delivery without any complications. 4 hours of labor, no problems with the delivery, no specialists needed and the standard 72 hour stay at the hospital after the birth. Yet the bills amounted to over $50,000.00. We were responsible for $240 in deductibles with the office visits, ultrasounds, etc. and the insurance company (Aetna) paid just over $6,000. So what happened to the rest of the costs? What if I didn't have medical insurance? Would I be responsible for the whole $50k?

$50,000 is a complete and total rip off by any measure and only getting $6,240 is a crime. But to say that the bill was $50k because the doctors and hospitals deserve to be paid that much because of schooling, malpractice insurance rates and supply and demand means you don't know the first thing about economics. The real reason rates are as high as they are has nothing to do with how expensive medical care is or how much they pay in malpractice insurance. It has everything to do with how often they are actually paid for services that they perform. Those who actually pay their bills in full with cash are actually carrying the weight of my freeloading insurance carrier (who I pay near $14,000 a year to in premiums.) or those who would never have enough to pay $50,000 for a birth so they choose to pay nothing at all.
This is why health care is so expensive in this country. This is why we need a change.
I want the health care professionals to be paid well for what they do. And I'm sure that they would do much better if they knew that EVERYTIME they delivered a baby, they would be paid $10k or $12 instead of jacking the price through the roof knowing the insurance companies were only going to pay 10% of the bill.

 

[nova]

Economics 101? :24: you actually believe that the price of surgery is high because there is a high demand for a limited resource? :24: again I laugh at you...

You don't think it has anything to do with the fact that a majority of the bills will never be paid or will be paid at a reduced rate? What happens when people don't pay for the medical bills they get? Where does the cost of those surgeries go? What about the reduced rates paid by the insurance companies? Who covers those costs???

My son was born 2 years ago, it was a text book delivery without any complications. 4 hours of labor, no problems with the delivery, no specialists needed and the standard 72 hour stay at the hospital after the birth. Yet the bills amounted to over $50,000.00. We were responsible for $240 in deductibles with the office visits, ultrasounds, etc. and the insurance company (Aetna) paid just over $6,000. So what happened to the rest of the costs? What if I didn't have medical insurance? Would I be responsible for the whole $50k?

$50,000 is a complete and total rip off by any measure and only getting $6,240 is a crime. But to say that the bill was $50k because the doctors and hospitals deserve to be paid that much because of schooling, malpractice insurance rates and supply and demand means you don't know the first thing about economics. The real reason rates are as high as they are has nothing to do with how expensive medical care is or how much they pay in malpractice insurance. It has everything to do with how often they are actually paid for services that they perform. Those who actually pay their bills in full with cash are actually carrying the weight of my freeloading insurance carrier (who I pay near $14,000 a year to in premiums.) or those who would never have enough to pay $50,000 for a birth so they choose to pay nothing at all.
This is why health care is so expensive in this country. This is why we need a change.
I want the health care professionals to be paid well for what they do. And I'm sure that they would do much better if they knew that EVERYTIME they delivered a baby, they would be paid $10k or $12 instead of jacking the price through the roof knowing the insurance companies were only going to pay 10% of the bill.

See, now we're getting into some higher level Econ. We'll let you do a little homework and if you still can't follow me, I'll spell it out for you. Don't feel bad if you can't follow the logic, because that speaks more about our public education system than it does you...

1. Go look up the economic concept of "discount rate" as it applies to pricing risk and the realities of a virtually guaranteed short term payday from the insurance company vs non guaranteed potentially stretched out payments from an individual.

2. When you've done that, do a mental thought excercise of how that relates to the fact that if you pay cash upfront or immediately after a procedure, you can typically get the same rate an insurance company would, or sometimes even better because it cuts down on admin expenses for your provider.

3. Try and come up with some sort of logic where somewhat less than 20 million people (the one's chronically poor, without insurance, who aren't covered by some other program) use enough care that it drives up costs for the 330 million of us exponentially. I'll give you a hint in that mathematically that would mean those 20 million are using a disproportionate amount of care by a factor of several times the rate of the rest of the population. The go look up some data to see if thats actually happening.

4. And then finally you can answer my question

http://www.offtopicz.net/50245-obama-speech-kiddies-9.html#post1255224

and then get back to me.

My money says I'll never get a response to any of this because it requires more than a :24: and "NO YOU"RE FING WRONG" following by specious logic and running the opposite direction from the discussion.

 

[retro]

1. Go look up the economic concept of "discount rate" as it applies to pricing risk and the realities of a virtually guaranteed short term payday from the insurance company vs non guaranteed potentially stretched out payments from an individual.

2. When you've done that, do a mental thought excercise of how that relates to the fact that if you pay cash upfront or immediately after a procedure, you can typically get the same rate an insurance company would, or sometimes even better because it cuts down on admin expenses for your provider.

You are 110% accurate in this assessment, and I can speak to that as someone who was involved in medical billing. Physicians have contracted rates with different insurance companies, these are contracts that state that for Procedure X, the Insurance Company will reimburse Y, and that reimbursement has to come within Z days of the billing being submitted. If the insurance company wants a longer Z, then Y goes up; if they want lower Y, then Z becomes shorter.

Private patients are generally billed full price for the procedure, because for expensive procedures, patients aren't expected to be able to pay in full at or within 30 days of the procedure. That's why you can work out a payment plan with nearly every doctor out there, which ends up being a percentage of what the total cost of the procedure was, stretched out over a period of time. The shorter the time, the smaller the total payment will be, just like the contracted rate with the insurance companies goes.

The oddball is Medicare/Medicaid. Medicare simply decides how much money they're going to pay for Procedure X, and the provider has no choice but to accept those terms if they want to see Medicare patients. Providers have very limited say in what they get back from Medicare for services rendered. Then you have a situation like we're seeing right now, Medicare is set to slash reimbursements by 20% across the board next year. The Family Practice dept. at my dad's medical clinic has already voted to stop seeing Medicare-only patients if those cuts go into effect, because it will cost them money in most cases to provide treatment for them. Like it or not, medicine is still a business; physicians still need to be paid according to their skills and services rendered, they still need to be able to pay their staff, and they still need to be able to pay their bills for their office, and have money to provide for their families, and pay off any outstanding debt they may be carrying from medical school.

Where physicians are rightfully concerned is that if the government is making these cuts in Medicare when there are still technically other options out there for patients, how is it going to be when a public option exists that many people will want to get on board with because of the potential cost savings involved. Then if the democrats get their way and we end up with single-payer health care, the government can then control prices, set doctor wages, and control what procedures are covered, what isn't, to whom you can see, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Tim]

See, now we're getting into some higher level Econ. We'll let you do a little homework and if you still can't follow me, I'll spell it out for you. Don't feel bad if you can't follow the logic, because that speaks more about our public education system than it does you...

1. Go look up the economic concept of "discount rate" as it applies to pricing risk and the realities of a virtually guaranteed short term payday from the insurance company vs non guaranteed potentially stretched out payments from an individual.

2. When you've done that, do a mental thought excercise of how that relates to the fact that if you pay cash upfront or immediately after a procedure, you can typically get the same rate an insurance company would, or sometimes even better because it cuts down on admin expenses for your provider.

3. Try and come up with some sort of logic where somewhat less than 20 million people (the one's chronically poor, without insurance, who aren't covered by some other program) use enough care that it drives up costs for the 330 million of us exponentially. I'll give you a hint in that mathematically that would mean those 20 million are using a disproportionate amount of care by a factor of several times the rate of the rest of the population. The go look up some data to see if thats actually happening.

4. And then finally you can answer my question

http://www.offtopicz.net/50245-obama-speech-kiddies-9.html#post1255224

and then get back to me.

My money says I'll never get a response to any of this because it requires more than a :24: and "NO YOU"RE FING WRONG" following by specious logic and running the opposite direction from the discussion.

Discounts for quick pay from your customers, who would have ever thought of that?

:sarcasm


We do this on a regular business in my occupation, but we offer 1 or 2 points depending on how quick the payment is made. But I challenge you to find any other industry that offers a 87.5% reduction in rate based solely on guaranteed/quick payment.

Like every business out there, if you have X amount of customers that will never pay, you take those losses and incorporate them into your price structure.

And as far as my unanswered post... go read the 1919 opinion in Dodge v. Ford where the Michigan Supreme Court found that Ford owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate the business for profitable purposes as opposed to charitable purposes. This opinion has been used several times in US Supreme Court arguments.

"My ambition is to employ still more men, to spread the benefits of this industrial system to the greatest possible number, to help them build up their lives and their homes. To do this we are putting the greatest share of our profits back in the business."

This was shot down in the courts....







And excuse the hell out of me for not getting back to you in a timely manner. But I actually work for a living and my family life is much more important than you reply.