Obama violating rights...STRUCK DOWN!

fife

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

pass UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER and be done with it...

Yeah, so this way we can wait on line for necessary care and rich bastards can get premium service anyway!

Um... no, that's not how that works. With single-payer, we all get the same care.

not really correct, people with money will always get some better services.

Prince Of Dorkness

fife wrote:

not really correct, people with money will always get some better services.

In Canada there are things like private hospital rooms and a few upgrades, yes. But it evens the playing field MUCH more than it is down here in the USA.

I simply don't understand how people can see how well the system works in other countries and then claim there are death panels here.

fife

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

I agree with most of what you said here and i am not a fan of this health care bill you have but for me its because it was a sell out bill.

This is also why Clinton(s) was smart enough to leave it alone. It's clear the majority doesn't want it. And it's not clear it will solve the problem (if I hear bend the cost curve one more time...). And then you wind up with an even worse non-compromise most of which will be repealed as soon as 1 term is out of office (if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down before then).

In actuality - Managed Care would be more efficient if Gov't gave it a backbone rather than caving to every wimpering person that comes along (I am not saying companies don't make mistakes they need to be held accountable for - just saying there are instances where gov't steps in for no good reason and drives up unnecessary costs).

see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.

i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?

fife

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

fife wrote:

not really correct, people with money will always get some better services.

In Canada there are things like private hospital rooms and a few upgrades, yes. But it evens the playing field MUCH more than it is down here in the USA.

I simply don't understand how people can see how well the system works in other countries and then claim there are death panels here.

completely agree that the playing field is more even. i was just saying that if you are a rich person in canada you can always go to America or somewhere to get faster services. the people with the greatest health coverage in canada are the Hockey players.

EdsonNascimento

fife wrote:

but can we rely on a system that has that many ifs? your plan would work great if we lived in a world where the ideal happen but that is not always the case and i think we need some sort of safety net to protect patients when that happens.

Agreed - but, that's also why I think this option needs to be explored more. Quite honestly, some of it is. There's ifs in any system. It's just what are the ifs.

I work with some great doctors and nurses who would not only never deny necessary care, but go out of their way to make sure folks homes are safe for them and that they are taking care of themselves as best they can.

No gov't is going to do that. I'd much prefer to strive for that sort of care for as many people as possible (which considers expense) than settle for a system that everyone knows their hospital bills are paid, but has nobody helping them look out for their own good. We have a long way to go to undo the damage the media has done (this industry is not alone), but if the Feds would provide support instead of tearing it down for simplicity sake, we might have something (and btw, it is actually happening- NY State has a mandated managed care coverage - so if you a in a Medicaid plan, you must enroll in a managed care plan - why, do you suppose a liberal state like NY would do that? Bingo - it's cheaper and more efficient).

EdsonNascimento

fife wrote:

see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.

i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?

No way - not referring to you at all. Just talking about folks (providers, even patients some times) that when they don't get their way, the State steps in even if it is to the patient's detriment. Most State folks don't understand health care. They just understand wimpering consituents.

fife

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

but can we rely on a system that has that many ifs? your plan would work great if we lived in a world where the ideal happen but that is not always the case and i think we need some sort of safety net to protect patients when that happens.

Agreed - but, that's also why I think this option needs to be explored more. Quite honestly, some of it is. There's ifs in any system. It's just what are the ifs.

I work with some great doctors and nurses who would not only never deny necessary care, but go out of their way to make sure folks homes are safe for them and that they are taking care of themselves as best they can.

No gov't is going to do that. I'd much prefer to strive for that sort of care for as many people as possible (which considers expense) than settle for a system that everyone knows their hospital bills are paid, but has nobody helping them look out for their own good. We have a long way to go to undo the damage the media has done (this industry is not alone), but if the Feds would provide support instead of tearing it down for simplicity sake, we might have something (and btw, it is actually happening- NY State has a mandated managed care coverage - so if you a in a Medicaid plan, you must enroll in a managed care plan - why, do you suppose a liberal state like NY would do that? Bingo - it's cheaper and more efficient).

see again you are thinking that the government is going to be the one who will be doing the work which is not the case. the same doctors are going to providing the care not the government.

your idea sound good and i will try to read more about it.

EdsonNascimento

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

fife wrote:

not really correct, people with money will always get some better services.

In Canada there are things like private hospital rooms and a few upgrades, yes. But it evens the playing field MUCH more than it is down here in the USA.

I simply don't understand how people can see how well the system works in other countries and then claim there are death panels here.

fife answered better than I could, but who makes the death panel arguments? Politicians? Who cares? That's not the real reason. They just make that argument to pander to folks they are basically calling stupid (which is sort of funny that those same people are their biggest supporters).

Nobody believes there are death panels. But, what that refers to is the fact that some folks are denied care based on very real risk factors. Quite frankly - it is logical - you need knee replacement, but you're 90 years old - sorry - you don't get that. One of the things driving costs here is the US is much more sympathetic and insurance will cover that assuming no other mitigating circumstances. So, you replace a knee, the person dies 2 years later at the ripe old age of 92, and we have higher health care costs, so that person can have a better quality of life the last 2 years - I prefer that. Canada and the like does not. From an economic - benefits/risk analysis, I can't really argue with Canada's logic.

fife

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.

i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?

No way - not referring to you at all. Just talking about folks (providers, even patients some times) that when they don't get their way, the State steps in even if it is to the patient's detriment. Most State folks don't understand health care. They just understand wimpering consituents.

ok, i understand, we get that here in Canada too. i am not a person who believes that the government should ever get involved in the actual care of a patient. that should be left between the doctors and the patient.

EdsonNascimento

fife wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

see i don't agree that people didn't want it. both Obama and Clinton ran on a UHC system as a main objective. I think people don't like this bill. there is a difference.

i am hoping you are not calling me a wimpering person? are you talking about law suits and stuff here cause i don't know what you mean?

No way - not referring to you at all. Just talking about folks (providers, even patients some times) that when they don't get their way, the State steps in even if it is to the patient's detriment. Most State folks don't understand health care. They just understand wimpering consituents.

ok, i understand, we get that here in Canada too. i am not a person who believes that the government should ever get involved in the actual care of a patient. that should be left between the doctors and the patient.

Have to run now. I'll be home later. Maybe, we can continue this. Thanks for the conversation. (Didn't want you to think I was just bagging out on you). Later.

Go Beavers

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

Ummm..there are certain thresholds that have to be met to provide different levels of mental health care through Medicaid, all of which I think meet the professional consensus of necessary care and likely the consensus of the general public. Mental health providers do receive reviews, which I would say are more streamlined and expectations are way more clear with Medicaid than private health insurance. Of course, people want to hold on to their myths about how the government runs vs. the private industry.

Managed Care companies are regulated. They can only use guideliness that are publicly published. Are they more rigorous than the gov't? Definitely. But, why is that a bad thing? I have never seen a patient with the proper clinical diagnosis be turned down for service. That is the myth - that insurance companies are turning away patients that have meet criteria.

I've seen them essentially be turned away when they meet the criteria to be in residential treatment care, because nearly all the private insurance companies incorrectly apply the criteria for high acuity hospital care to residential treatment. Try and tell a parent of a kid who has severe behavioral problems that include threatening to kill the new baby, stealing, property destruction, lighting the cat on fire and stabbing the teacher with a pencil that their insurance approved them for 10 days of treatment instead of the 2 or 3 months recommended stay. They do that because they apply hospital criteria to clients, which is, if you haven't attempted to kill yourself or someone else or have been physically aggressive in the last week, you should go to the next lower level of care.

Plus, each insurance company has a different expectations, which only results in more wasted time jumping through the different hoops that each company has put out in front of you and doesn't improve care, it only takes away from it while providers talk on the phone with someone who has no knowledge of the client and fill out required paperwork.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

What are you talking about? Every Managed Care company in the country covers Well visits. Every year? For a 40 year old they do. You are right. For a healthy 25 year old, they don't. So what? What healthy 25 year old goes for an ANNUAL well visit (other than women who actually do have it covered via an OB).

i absolutely know what i am talking about, and i am going to call bullshit right here.
annual physicals and well visits are not covered. and if they are, they are not covered at nearly the same reimbursement rate as a sick visit. even for school aged kids who have to have an annual physical for school, and for those that need a preparticipation physical for sports. i have to tell them when they call that an annual physical is not covered by their insurance and if they want to submit it to insurance they can, but if it gets denied it costs $168. sometimes they call their insurance company to ask them to cover it, and they get maybe $20 paid and sometimes they don't. all i know is i have to track down deadbeat parents to get the money for their kid's physical that the insurance did not cover. so yeah...


i dunno, 25 year olds need annual physicals all the time. in case you have not looked around, we have a lot of obese people in their 20s. obesity is the leading cause of chronic illness. these are people with hypertension, high cholesterol, thyroid problems, diabetes, etc and they all require yearly checkups, and most of them require refills on their maintenance medications, and this is normally done at the annual physical. if they are asymptomatic and are not sick they are called well visits. if they come in while sick it is not a well visit, so that is when it is typically covered..

well visits are covered under medicaid and medicare. and mind you medicare covers not only elderly, but those on disability.

usamamasan1

STRUCK DOWN!

Woot!

CH156378

usamamasan1 wrote:

STRUCK DOWN!

Woot!

for now :yawn:

Prince Of Dorkness

usamamasan1 wrote:

STRUCK DOWN!

Woot!

YAY!!!! That means MORE grandmothers and children with cancer will DIE!!!

GOODIEE!!!!!! BOY.. I BET YOU TEA Um... "PEOPLE" ARE PROUD OF YOURSELVES!!!!!!

WOW.... That means that any day now, your health insurance company will tell you "Sorry, we won't treat your car accident injuries... you had ACNE as a TEENAGER!!!"

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

Prince Of Dorkness

fife wrote:

completely agree that the playing field is more even. i was just saying that if you are a rich person in canada you can always go to America or somewhere to get faster services. the people with the greatest health coverage in canada are the Hockey players.

Meh... I'm "rich" (-er than the average American) and live in America and I still got better services in Canada when I was making 40K a year.

Yes, I have an amazing personal doctor who answers my emails at 6 AM, but I also have a PPO that costs more per year than most people make in two months.

My last motorcycle accident when I went to an emergency room... I laid there for 3 hours begging for morphine before I even saw a doctor. The health care down in America... ain't so great.

Smellyman

I have a severe back issue. No inusurance I had would ever cover my pre existing condition.

It was nice to leave the US and finally be able to afford my perscriptions.

RFTC

usa health care=suck

my wife had hi blood pressure 6 fkn years ago right after birth of our daugher. hi blood pressure accompanying birth is VERY common. 6 years later she tries to get insurance and is turned down by 3 private insurers due to the infamous 'pre-existing condition' bullshit. sorry, your FKD!

our healthcare is shameful, try to improve it an out come the trolls. funny thing is 'obamacare' really resembles the gop healthcare reform plans of years past.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i absolutely know what i am talking about, and i am going to call bullshit right here.
annual physicals and well visits are not covered. and if they are, they are not covered at nearly the same reimbursement rate as a sick visit. even for school aged kids who have to have an annual physical for school, and for those that need a preparticipation physical for sports. i have to tell them when they call that an annual physical is not covered by their insurance and if they want to submit it to insurance they can, but if it gets denied it costs $168. sometimes they call their insurance company to ask them to cover it, and they get maybe $20 paid and sometimes they don't. all i know is i have to track down deadbeat parents to get the money for their kid's physical that the insurance did not cover. so yeah...


i dunno, 25 year olds need annual physicals all the time. in case you have not looked around, we have a lot of obese people in their 20s. obesity is the leading cause of chronic illness. these are people with hypertension, high cholesterol, thyroid problems, diabetes, etc and they all require yearly checkups, and most of them require refills on their maintenance medications, and this is normally done at the annual physical. if they are asymptomatic and are not sick they are called well visits. if they come in while sick it is not a well visit, so that is when it is typically covered..

well visits are covered under medicaid and medicare. and mind you medicare covers not only elderly, but those on disability.

Those obese visits you're talking about are not well care. Obesity is a recognized illness, and pcps get them covered every time.

As for well visits, they are covered to pcps. Not to specialists. What kind of provider are you? Im guessing not Im or fp or ped.

EdsonNascimento

RFTC wrote:

usa health care=suck

my wife had hi blood pressure 6 fkn years ago right after birth of our daugher. hi blood pressure accompanying birth is VERY common. 6 years later she tries to get insurance and is turned down by 3 private insurers due to the infamous 'pre-existing condition' bullshit. sorry, your FKD!

our healthcare is shameful, try to improve it an out come the trolls. funny thing is 'obamacare' really resembles the gop healthcare reform plans of years past.

What else accompanies the high blood pressure? I'm sorry. There's details missing here.

And if you got employer base HMO coverage, you cannot be denied.