Obama violating rights...STRUCK DOWN!

EdsonNascimento · August 2011

fife wrote:

thanks. and i agree with you that doctors make mistake and will order the same tests a couple of times. happen to my mom here in Canada when she had cancer. i just have met to many people who have been deny some type of test that may have saved their lives but wasn't approved as the insurance company didn't believed that it was needed.

Sorry about your mom.

And the last part is unfortunate. Again, I would implore anyone with that situation to question their doctor as to the necessity of such a test. And then fight if that's what you need to do. Folks at insurance companiers are human, too (believe it or not). Yes, it's unfortunate that the few have to work harder due to the transgressions of others who have abused the system. Nobody is trying to reduce the quality of care to anyone (well, I can't speak for EVERYONE). I truly believe that is not the goal. It is easier to approve care than to deny it.

My saying to all our new employees is this: The right care at the right time at the right place is always best for the patient. If you follow that - the finances will take care of themselves.

fife · August 2011

Specious argument. Whether I agree with the war(s) or not is irrelevant. If we never spent another dime on foreign soil, I still don't think government run health care is the right way to go. One has nothing to do with the other. Just because I save money on the war effort doesn't mean I have to spend it on ineffecient government run health care.

Now, I guess I should clarify - when folks talk about universal coverage, they generally mean a government run health care system. If you wanted to pay for everyone and then have mandated managed care or something NY State Medicaid does this), then maybe. But, I'm guessing that's not what most folks intend. They just want plain old - I go to a doctor and I want someone (else) to pay for whatever I get type coverage. Which is NOT what Canada has.[/quote]

i actually think the government run health care is actually a scare tactic mostly from the right (sorry). most people think that the government is going to tell them what they can do which is further from the truth. as i have said before, the best system in my eyes is the more based on a Canadian and other countries health care system. where through your taxes, the government pays the health care bills but does not dictate care.

Sludge Factory · August 2011

fife wrote:

Sludge Factory wrote:

fife wrote:

i have no doubt that insurance companies have doctors. and since you work in insurance, i just have a question for you. if a doctor is getting paid from the insurance company don't you think that maybe they might side more with the people who pay them? i don't know the answer to that and hope you can answer that. for me there seems to be a conflict of interest there.

Couldn't your same question be applied to mandated insurance that is handled by the government? Wouldn't it just replace the insurance company as the payor with the government?

no, as was mentioned before, i believe that any decision about your health should be decided by only you and your doctor. the government or the insurance company should not have a say it what you decide.

Ok, I wasn't exactly sure at what you were getting at with your question. I agree with your thinking on this; it definitely should be between you and your doctor.

EdsonNascimento · August 2011

fife wrote:

i actually think the government run health care is actually a scare tactic mostly from the right (sorry). most people think that the government is going to tell them what they can do which is further from the truth. as i have said before, the best system in my eyes is the more based on a Canadian and other countries health care system. where through your taxes, the government pays the health care bills but does not dictate care.

It's not a scare tactic to me.

I know what could work. Remember - businesses pay for a large chunk of the medical insurance bill in the states right now. GM was it's own health care carrier. This is also why Bush was brilliant in his design of Medicare Part D (prescription drugs). Now, folks complained about the donut hole. That is debatable, but that was put there for affordability reasons. But, again - debate away.

The truly brilliant part is he said to employers that were already footing the bill for their retirees (and keeping them off the government's dime) that the Feds would pay employers 2/3rds of the Federal Prescription drug plan cost if they provided Medicare eligible retirees with a prescription drug plan AT LEAST as rich as the Federal Plan. Now, critics argued that Bush was giving money to big business. And he was - to avoid the alternative - those same companies dropping coverage, and the Feds winding up with 100% of the cost of those retirees! It was sheer brilliance. Now, you could again argue if 2/3rd was too much, or what the exact amount was that would keep the employers in the game to keep providing this benefit. But, basically, he was saving the gov't (i.e. taxpayers) 33% on every retiree that kept their employer based retiree coverage and could thus afford to offer more benefit with less tax dollars. And employers liked it b/c they could keep that benefit to attract employees (and unions loved it even more b/c they are the ones that had this type of coverage the most).

That is the type of gov't funding we should look into - don't kill the golden goose (employer coverage and private insurance) - enhance it. And then you could fund an increasing number of uninsureds. Continue to close the gap while encouraging employer based funding for coverage.

fife · August 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

fife wrote:

i actually think the government run health care is actually a scare tactic mostly from the right (sorry). most people think that the government is going to tell them what they can do which is further from the truth. as i have said before, the best system in my eyes is the more based on a Canadian and other countries health care system. where through your taxes, the government pays the health care bills but does not dictate care.

It's not a scare tactic to me.

I know what could work. Remember - businesses pay for a large chunk of the medical insurance bill in the states right now. GM was it's own health care carrier. This is also why Bush was brilliant in his design of Medicare Part D (prescription drugs). Now, folks complained about the donut hole. That is debatable, but that was put there for affordability reasons. But, again - debate away.

The truly brilliant part is he said to employers that were already footing the bill for their retirees (and keeping them off the government's dime) that the Feds would pay employers 2/3rds of the Federal Prescription drug plan cost if they provided Medicare eligible retirees with a prescription drug plan AT LEAST as rich as the Federal Plan. Now, critics argued that Bush was giving money to big business. And he was - to avoid the alternative - those same companies dropping coverage, and the Feds winding up with 100% of the cost of those retirees! It was sheer brilliance. Now, you could again argue if 2/3rd was too much, or what the exact amount was that would keep the employers in the game to keep providing this benefit. But, basically, he was saving the gov't (i.e. taxpayers) 33% on every retiree that kept their employer based retiree coverage and could thus afford to offer more benefit with less tax dollars. And employers liked it b/c they could keep that benefit to attract employees (and unions loved it even more b/c they are the ones that had this type of coverage the most).

That is the type of gov't funding we should look into - don't kill the golden goose (employer coverage and private insurance) - enhance it. And then you could fund an increasing number of uninsureds. Continue to close the gap while encouraging employer based funding for coverage.

the major issue that i have with this is as you can see today, jobs are few and far in between. like here in Canada i have health coverage from my work for things that we must pay for. even thought we have UHC that doesn't mean that everything is paid for. for example, i take many pills in a day, these pills are paid for by my own insurance. the government doesn't pay for them. however, my insurance will not pay for other things that the government will pay for. however, if i lose my job only a portion of my health care is gone but not the whole amount. in America if you lose your job you also lose your coverage unless you can afford to keep it.

sorry when is a scare tactic what i mean is that most people still have a belief that it is the government who approve certain things and not others. that why that whole death panel came around.

Obama violating rights...STRUCK DOWN!

Comments

Categories