the bill has passed- whats gonna happen to us?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Maxpwer222 said:
Health insurance is a right that every person should have. To argue against that is just naive.
Click to expand...

Just curious... How come nobody says health care is everyone's responsibility? I'm sorry the American way is my right your duty. But to be clear, I advocate health care for all the needy. But the system is strained to the point that contribution is exhausted by abusive usage and waste.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Last edited:
litetigre said:
Just curious... How come nobody says health care is everyone's responsibility? I'm sorry the American way is my right your duty. But to be clear, I advocate health care for all the needy. But the system is strained to the point that contribution is exhausted by the usage.
Click to expand...

Do you really think this is true? Can you explain why we spend more per capita than any other country, yet cover less of our population and have worse outcomes?



Can you explain why Medicare has a 2% overhead and private insurance has almost 30%.

Do you understand the role of technology in driving costs as opposed to usage?

Do you understand the fact we practice emotional based medicine in this country as opposed to evidence based medicine?

Do you understand the narcissistic nature of the country is driving the cost of care?

You are making dogmatic statements that twist facts to fit into your preconceived notions of reality.
 
Maxpwer222 said:
Health insurance is a right that every person should have. To argue against that is just naive.
Click to expand...

Natural rights have little to do with what is necessary for survival. Food is needed but it is not a right. Shelter is needed but it too is not a right. Nothing can be a natural right which requires someone else to provide it for you. Look at our basic 'rights', they all involve people not doing something; people can't kill you (right to life), people can't imprison you (right to liberty), they can’t keep you from voting (right to suffrage), and so on. The way Locke, as well as our Founding Fathers, framed what constitutes a right is something which necessarily cannot impinge on someone's rights (i.e. forcing them to do something).

Therefore, since health care must be provided by someone who is trained in medicine, nursing, dentistry, etc it cannot be a right. Simply stated, the government cannot keep you from getting water, but that does not mean that they have to provide it for you. Same idea fits for health care.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Old Timer said:
Do you really think this is true? Can you explain why we spend more per capita than any other country, yet cover less of our population and have worse outcomes?



Can you explain why Medicare has a 2% overhead and private insurance has almost 30%.

Do you understand the role of technology in driving costs as opposed to usage?

Do you understand the fact we practice emotional based medicine in this country as opposed to evidence based medicine?

Do you understand the narcissistic nature of the country is driving the cost of
care?

You are making dogmatic statements that twist facts to fit into your preconceived notions of reality.
Click to expand...

my bad that I should say abusive usage. Your questions are all valid, but since heath care as you argue is a right, everyone wants their health care but forget about responsibility. The new plan is just to expand a broken instead of fixing it from the root. The cause is always accountability. Anyone knows how accountable our gov is and how sincere our politicians are. You can't pump more money in a hole until you seal the leak
 
litetigre said:
my bad that I should say abusive usage. Your questions are all valid, but since heath care as you argue is a right, everyone wants their health care but forget about responsibility. The new plan is just to expand a broken instead of fixing it from the root. The cause is always accountability. Anyone knows how accountable our gov is and how sincere our politicians are. You can't pump more money in a hole until you seal the leak
Click to expand...

I didn't say it as a right. I do argue for more personal responsibility. Where I disagree with you as on your point that Medicaid is draining the system. The system is draining the system and must be changed soon...
 
Can you explain why Medicare has a 2% overhead and private insurance has almost 30%.

Thats just pure Horsesh*t...nothing more than bilge and talking points from one of your blogs. Medicare serves an entirely different population with a different acuity level and generates higher expenditures with respect to private insurance. The end result is that administrative costs are smaller as a percentage of total costs.

Old Timer is playing the "shell" game with you...he's not even comparing apples to apples...Private insurers have a number of additional expenditures that can be considered “administrative costs” (e.g state HIP taxes, marketing costs) that Medicare does not have, further inflating the apparent differences in cost. This list goes on..Suggesting that Medicare is model of administrative efficiency is laughable. Don't fall for it...
 
cjhrph said:
Can you explain why Medicare has a 2% overhead and private insurance has almost 30%.

Thats just pure Horsesh*t...nothing more than bilge and talking points from one of your blogs. Medicare serves an entirely different population with a different acuity level and generates higher expenditures with respect to private insurance. The end result is that administrative costs are smaller as a percentage of total costs.

Old Timer is playing the "shell" game with you...he's not even comparing apples to apples...Private insurers have a number of additional expenditures that can be considered “administrative costs” (e.g state HIP taxes, marketing costs) that Medicare does not have, further inflating the apparent differences in cost. This list goes on..Suggesting that Medicare is model of administrative efficiency is laughable. Don't fall for it...
Click to expand...

I will concede Medicare does not have to pay marketing costs, but that does not account for the entire difference. And compared to private insurance, Medicare is the model of efficiency. If private insurance was doing such a good job, we would not be in the mess we are in. In addition, since 110% of the politicians in BOTH parties are crooks, the insurance industry has paid off (oops I mean, they exercised their first ammendment rights (which by the way founders would find odd that corporations, AKA property, would have these rights) via lobbying to pass off as much of the costs on to medicare as possible. If you are on Medicare and decide that in addition to Medicare you want private insurance and you pay for the private insurance, Medicare is primary.
 
litetigre said:
If you were to read my thread carefully, I said to cut the "leeches." Instead, you made false accusation, do the name-calling. You go to the extreme and ignore what the majority of the problem is. Healthcare is like a pool, you can't fill it with taxes and at the same time drain it with leaky pipes. Think about it twice before you use foul language. I don't know how you were educated, but I take the high road and will leave this disccussion.
Click to expand...

Ok, cut the "leeches." That'll account for a fraction of those on public assistance. Good job, you've cut 0.001% of the US healthcare budget.
 
I'm so amazed that some of you are complaining about wasted funds in Medicare and Medicaid, it makes up such a small amount of your taxes that if they were to remove it then you low income people won't even feel the effects.

Especially when you compare it to our national debt, give me a break.
 
TXPharmDStudent said:
I'm so amazed that some of you are complaining about wasted funds in Medicare and Medicaid, it makes up such a small amount of your taxes that if they were to remove it then you low income people won't even feel the effects.

Especially when you compare it to our national debt, give me a break.
Click to expand...

You are correct about Medicaid, but you are dead wrong on Medicare. If we do not get a hold of medical expenses now, Medicare will bankrupt the country.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Ok, cut the "leeches." That'll account for a fraction of those on public assistance. Good job, you've cut 0.001% of the US healthcare budget.
Click to expand...

Where does the number come from? Don't throw out a number without citation. I could be like you and said they will tax us 30% more to make health care for everyone. I could have said they will flood the system with tax money so all the waste should be seen minimal.
Just an example to see how the system is abused, an emergency room crowded with drug addicts waiting to get scripts for 20 vicodins. They cost Medicaid hundreds each emergency visit. Also, don't forget that these people are on medicaid, food stamp, cashaid, housing, making illegal money, children social service. For some reason their reproductive system is on dope and cranks out kids quite often. More importantly, they tie up services for people who need it most. They should have worked to produce and paid taxes. To come up with a total saving you should have add all of these factors. As far as I know, there has not been any study about this phenomenon.
It seems that you have a problem with cutting those "leeches" off. That's your personal choice. For me, until I see an effective lean model, I don't pour more money into it.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
litetigre said:
Where does the number come from? Don't throw out a number without citation.
Click to expand...

Eh...why not. You're the one that started out claiming that cutting all of the "leeches" off would save a bunch of money...par for the course...

But I think if you actually did look into it, you'd be shocked at how little of your tax dollars goes to the "leeches"...plus you've admitted that some people do need and maybe even deserve it...so you'd have to tell me how some people would be considered leeches and others not...

I mean, hell, I thought we were just rambling based off of bull**** from the beginning...now out of the blue you have the gull to ask for sources...pshhh...
 
I think another thing we are forgetting here is that even in the current system we are "paying for the leeches".

What happens when people go to the ER and never pay? the hospital needs to budget those anticipated losses in so they must pass on that cost to the prices to 3rd party insurers which causes all of our premiums to go up (at least without any experience in hospital administration this is my understanding).

If we get everyone covered so that they can leech off of cheaper preventative services and avoid excess expensive ER visits/hospital admissions for end-stage disease, we just may be able to lower the total healthcare cost burden.
 
Krismeese09 said:
I think another thing we are forgetting here is that even in the current system we are "paying for the leeches".

What happens when people go to the ER and never pay? the hospital needs to budget those anticipated losses in so they must pass on that cost to the prices to 3rd party insurers which causes all of our premiums to go up (at least without any experience in hospital administration this is my understanding).

If we get everyone covered so that they can leech off of cheaper preventative services and avoid excess expensive ER visits/hospital admissions for end-stage disease, we just may be able to lower the total healthcare cost burden.
Click to expand...

In Asian countries and some other countries, you PAY BEFORE you get any services from the ER or any doctor for that matter. A good way to get rid of those leeches? :idea: Hey, you don't mail out your Ebay products until you get a check in the mail...why should these services be any different?
 
SHC1984 said:
A good way to get rid of those leeches? :idea:
Click to expand...

I've read some cold-blooded **** in my life, but that takes the cake. Why don't we take a brief moment and remember we're talking about people who genuinely can't afford medical care. The leeches are a convenient scapegoat which contribute little to the big problem, as WVU has mentioned over and over. And screw statistics, even middle class families have a hard time affording health insurance.

Let's look at criminal law, where Blackstone's formulation is the principle: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Substitute leeches for the guilty and let's move on. It's just not the main issue.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree. In fact I do think healthcare is a right. I just used the term "leeches" in jest because it had been used previously to show that even in spite of that term, an argument could be made for universal coverage.

Is it ethical for us as healthcare providers to segregate who gets care based on who can pay? (right now the insurance companies are doing this, and retail pharmacists sometimes have to do this) I don't think so.


________________________
4th year PharmD student
http://pharmacyidealist.wordpress.com/
 
Krismeese09 said:
I totally agree. In fact I do think healthcare is a right. I just used the term "leeches" in jest because it had been used previously to show that even in spite of that term, an argument could be made for universal coverage.

Is it ethical for us as healthcare providers to segregate who gets care based on who can pay? (right now the insurance companies are doing this, and retail pharmacists sometimes have to do this) I don't think so.
Click to expand...

In keeping with natural rights, healthcare is most certainly not a right. Therefore it would be justifiable segregating based on who can pay and who cannot.
 
SHC1984 said:
Hey, you don't mail out your Ebay products until you get a check in the mail...why should these services be any different?
Click to expand...

Not to be nitpicky, but technically you do. Ebay pays sellers bi-monthly. Just sayin....
 
p-rog said:
Not to be nitpicky, but technically you do. Ebay pays sellers bi-monthly. Just sayin....
Click to expand...

The point is you can't just walk into a store (or any place) and take something without paying for it first. (unless you want to go to jail of course) The ONLY way you can recieve payment is if you collect payment BEFORE services and products are given is all that I am saying. Some countries do make people pay before they go to the doctor. Doctors have the right to refuse services in some countries. Healthcare is a privilege like EVERYTHING in life.
 
hroark said:
in keeping with natural rights, healthcare is most certainly not a right. Therefore it would be justifiable segregating based on who can pay and who cannot.
Click to expand...

+1
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
That's not poor. Poor is living in a dilapidated trailer with no dry wall and plaster particles you breath in your entire childhood giving you severe asthma, a front door that was beaten in by the cops 3 times and is held together with duct tape and plastic draw ties, one sink with running water...and all of this mostly because your crack addicted stepfather who beats you every day spends any money he might have on his addiction, leaving you hungry and hopeless...and unable to fathom a world that is hospitable to you. THAT is hopelessness. That is poverty...that's life in Appalachia. Those are the people that can't break out. If you think a kid in that situation just effortless breaks away from that ****, you are nuts. Oh, wah, you had to work at Best Buy. Spare me. ****, I wish I had a ride to Best Buy. Just like every other suburban kid that thinks they are "poor." Everyone else...the suburban "poor"...there really isn't as much of a cycle of hopelessness. They tend to do well, even though they were raised on *gasp* medicaid. Jesus ****ing Christ, judging people on the complete random ass luck of the draw that is the environment they are raised in...seriously...
Click to expand...

Damn that's pretty tough. My mom had a similarly tough life. She immigrated to USA at 17 with a younger brother and 9 yo cousin to take care of with 6 USD, most of which went towards paying for shoes because she didn't have any. She didn't go to college and spoke little english. 30 years later she's sending 3 kids to college, owns a home by the beach in CA, 8 town home, and owns her own business. She did all that by cutting hair and doing nails. My dad contributed until his stroke.
I could never match what she did :)
 
cjhrph said:
There's was a good piece in Wednesday's WSJ 11/20 on the subject written by the Harvard Medical school dean. You should read it..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704431804574539581994054014.html
Click to expand...

Listen, it mentions Medicare once in the entire article and it does not involve efficiency. So that would be: Nice try. Also the WSJ is always considered to be on partisan and even handed on their editorial and Op-ed pages.

So all in all, I suggest you come up with some proof to back up your claims that private insurance is more efficient than Medicare.
 
Old Timer said:
Listen, it mentions Medicare once in the entire article and it does not involve efficiency. So that would be: Nice try. Also the WSJ is always considered to be on partisan and even handed on their editorial and Op-ed pages.

So all in all, I suggest you come up with some proof to back up your claims that private insurance is more efficient than Medicare.
Click to expand...

rofl at the wall street journal's editorial opinion being even handed. Since they were taken over by R murdoch, they have started leaning even harder.
 
type b pharmD said:
rofl at the wall street journal's editorial opinion being even handed. Since they were taken over by R murdoch, they have started leaning even harder.
Click to expand...

You do realize I was being sarcastic....
 
Old Timer said:
So that would be: Nice try. Also the WSJ is always considered to be on partisan and even handed on their editorial and Op-ed pages.
Click to expand...

Would it have been more legit if it had been posted in the NYT? Did you even bother to read it? The author, Jeffrey Flier from Harvard, could hardly be described as a partisan hack..you don't know what your talking about and you have obviously never been to Cambridge....there's not a republican anywhere in sight :>
 
Last edited:
cjhrph said:
Would it have been more legit if it had been posted in the NYT? Did you even bother to read it? The author, Jeffrey Flier from Harvard, could hardly be described as a partisan hack..you don't know what your talking about and you have obviously never been to Cambridge....there's not a republican anywhere in sight :>
Click to expand...

Since you are a pharmacist, you must have some functioning brain cells. Use them. Do you know the politics of the author? Many doctors are on the political right. In addition, my main point was this article has ZERO to do with efficiency of medicare and the word Medicare appears in the article only once, this article does nothing to bolster your argument that Medicare is inefficient.
 
Old Timer said:
this article does nothing to bolster your argument that Medicare is inefficient.
Click to expand...

I already explained it to you in a previous post (see #56). It's really not not that difficult. Ill explain again. Medicare/Medicaid is less efficient than private insurance plans because their administrative costs on a per-person basis are higher than private insurers. Period. You need to compare apples to apples......

I know this is hard for you, but contrary your ideological beliefs, a government run health care option will not generate any cost savings through lower administrative costs....say it to yourself a couple times...it may sink in...

Understand that government is rarely more efficient than the private sector and if it sounds too good to be true, it almost always is.

Regarding the article..it wasn't intended to be a breakdown of the medicare/medicaid vs private insurance debate. I thought you may be open minded enough to be able to absorb a well written article on the current health care debate from a well respected individual in the field. Sadly, you didn't even read the article and implied that he was a partisan hack....you really should pay less attention to what Paul Krugman has to say and start thinking for yourself...
 
cjhrph said:
I already explained it to you in a previous post (see #56). It's really not not that difficult. Ill explain again. Medicare/Medicaid is less efficient than private insurance plans because their administrative costs on a per-person basis are higher than private insurers. Period. You need to compare apples to apples......

I know this is hard for you, but contrary your ideological beliefs, a government run health care option will not generate any cost savings through lower administrative costs....say it to yourself a couple times...it may sink in...

Understand that government is rarely more efficient than the private sector and if it sounds too good to be true, it almost always is.

Regarding the article..it wasn't intended to be a breakdown of the medicare/medicaid vs private insurance debate. I thought you may be open minded enough to be able to absorb a well written article on the current health care debate from a well respected individual in the field. Sadly, you didn't even read the article and implied that he was a partisan hack....you really should pay less attention to what Paul Krugman has to say and start thinking for yourself...
Click to expand...

You are the one with the agenda. You need to read carefully what I said.

Let's take your misstatements one at a time:

1) I did read the article. That's I how I Knew Medicare was only mentioned once. I don;t disagree with some of the things he said. I also don't think the crap going through Congress will address the problems we face. People want all of the care they want and they don't care if it's cost effective or proper. Look at the mammogram debate. It's emotional based instead of evidence based. That's what you are doing. You have an emotional and political point of view and you see everything through that lens. But the article does not really have anything to do with medicare.

2) I implied that the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal leans right. They used to have a liberal columnist at the WSJ for years (Al Hunt). I pointed out that despite how respected the author was, neither you nor I know his politics. But based on where he chose to submit his article, you can assume he leans right.

3) You were the one who used the article not me.

4) Government can be just as efficient as private enterprise. There are some things government does really well. Let me know the next time you drive on a private road.

5) I like you per person argument. That sounds good until you find the only people who believe that are right wingers. The studies are either done by or for the insurance industry or the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank. Try to find something from the CBO. When you do it will back up my claims.
 
BMadjuster said:
Could you provide any evidence? The government builds roads but what says they are efficient about building them?
Click to expand...

Provide evidence to the contrary.... I like the efficiency of AIG or any of the other of millions of companies that go belly up. It one of those conventional wisdom things that we repeat long enough even though there is no evidence to the contrary.....
 
PharmacistReb said:
How are you a pharmacist and not know that successful independents make a couple million or more? That's what gets taxed. Of course they don't take home that much. At the end of the day, they're going to take home a little over a hundred grand IF that much.

So yes, it will greatly affect independents.

And by the way, you don't add jobs to the health care industry when you add 50 million peole to the system all at once. We can't create health care jobs instantaneously to support the 50 million we will add to the system. You can't automate the jobs of ER physicians, surgeons, and nurses.

We already have a shortage as it is. And are you forgetting once again that we are trying to cut the costs that we already have without adding 15%. 15% sounds so minimal but it's 50 million Americans we are talking about. There will be rationing. You have given no logic as for how we can add 50 mil to our system, save costs, and have no immediate increase in human capital in terms of health care personnel. I'm still waiting for your reasoning on that small but very important fact.
Click to expand...








Yawn...Another Conservative SEC loudmouth....good job beating LSU and the southern schools are helpful to NCPA.....but really man, most of the stuff you say is Sarah Plain Bulll**** and by the way, the AMP cuts conversion to AWP are coming no matter what NCPA does about it. I am VERY familiar with independent pharmacy, but it is becoming too difficult to make a buck (DEMPOS assurance bonds for simple things like test strips, PBMs ripping off independents etc....)
 
@ Cjhrph:

MEDICARE IS ONLY LESS EFFCIENT BECAUSE SICK PEOPLE BECOME A BURDEN OF THE STATE AS THE PRIVATE SECTOR FINDS WAYS TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK IN THEIR RISK POOL. Duh!











cjhrph said:
I already explained it to you in a previous post (see #56). It's really not not that difficult. Ill explain again. Medicare/Medicaid is less efficient than private insurance plans because their administrative costs on a per-person basis are higher than private insurers. Period. You need to compare apples to apples......

I know this is hard for you, but contrary your ideological beliefs, a government run health care option will not generate any cost savings through lower administrative costs....say it to yourself a couple times...it may sink in...

Understand that government is rarely more efficient than the private sector and if it sounds too good to be true, it almost always is.

Regarding the article..it wasn't intended to be a breakdown of the medicare/medicaid vs private insurance debate. I thought you may be open minded enough to be able to absorb a well written article on the current health care debate from a well respected individual in the field. Sadly, you didn't even read the article and implied that he was a partisan hack....you really should pay less attention to what Paul Krugman has to say and start thinking for yourself...
Click to expand...
 
MEDICARE IS ONLY LESS EFFCIENT BECAUSE SICK PEOPLE BECOME A BURDEN OF THE STATE AS THE PRIVATE SECTOR FINDS WAYS TO EXCLUDE PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK IN THEIR RISK POOL. Duh![/QUOTE said:
Tell you what..why don't you call 10 doctors at random today, tell them you have medicare and need to be seen. You'll get a quick lesson in exclusion.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cjhrph said:
Tell you what..why don't you call 10 doctors at random today, tell them you have medicare and need to be seen. You'll get a quick lesson in exclusion.
Click to expand...

I don't know where you live, but in the greater Philadelphia metropolitan market, nobody has trouble being seen because of Medicare. If you have some evidence, not anecdotal, but even one news article that shows Medicare patient's cannot be seen, I would like to see it....
 
Old Timer said:
I don't know where you live, but in the greater Philadelphia metropolitan market, nobody has trouble being seen because of Medicare. If you have some evidence, not anecdotal, but even one news article that shows Medicare patient's cannot be seen, I would like to see it....
Click to expand...

Here is a couple article to read :
http://aaucm.org/About/News/NewsDetail.aspx?a=966

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/27/news/economy/healthcare_medicare_doctors/index.htm

My mom's doctor and other 2 at her practice do not accept new Medicare patients and my dad's doctor and the other 4 at his practice to not accept new Medicare patients. All primary care doctors. Medicare knows what it is doing, people without a regular doctor die earlier, saves them money.
 
Last edited:
Old Timer said:
I don't know where you live, but in the greater Philadelphia metropolitan market, nobody has trouble being seen because of Medicare. If you have some evidence, not anecdotal, but even one news article that shows Medicare patient's cannot be seen, I would like to see it....
Click to expand...


I'm guessing you don't actually have the stones to pick up the phone and call around.

Do you actually work in healthcare? Do you know any physicians personally? Are you living in a vacuum?






http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-medicare.htm

http://aprn.org/2009/03/26/anchorage-doctors-turning-away-new-medicare-patients/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/27/news/economy/healthcare_medicare_doctors/index.htm

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...are&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://medicare-medicaid.com/medicare/finding-new-doctors-who-accept-medicare/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151606126.html

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7385372

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/04/once-you-hit-medicare-age-good-luck.html

http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/note-to-medicaid-patients-the-doctor-wont-see-you/

http://www.prweb.com/releases/MedicareSupplementPlans/05-26-09/prweb2457754.htm

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091027_Health_reform_will_increase_Medicaid_costs.html
 
cjhrph said:
I'm guessing you don't actually have the stones to pick up the phone and call around.

Do you actually work in healthcare? Do you know any physicians personally? Are you living in a vacuum?






http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-medicare.htm

http://aprn.org/2009/03/26/anchorage-doctors-turning-away-new-medicare-patients/

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/27/news/economy/healthcare_medicare_doctors/index.htm

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...are&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

http://medicare-medicaid.com/medicare/finding-new-doctors-who-accept-medicare/

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151606126.html

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7385372

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/04/once-you-hit-medicare-age-good-luck.html

http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/note-to-medicaid-patients-the-doctor-wont-see-you/

http://www.prweb.com/releases/MedicareSupplementPlans/05-26-09/prweb2457754.htm

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091027_Health_reform_will_increase_Medicaid_costs.html
Click to expand...

How dare you mock the defender of the good name that is CVS!:laugh:
 
DrWrong said:
We had a town hall meeting the other day at FAMU COPPS and the doctors were talking about how important preventative care is. After the meeting, they served FRIED CHICKEN......Oh, the irony.....Wait, is that actually irony? After fighting with my roommate about that Alanis Morissitte song I don't even know anymore.......


Okay, back to SSRIs, TCAs and any other type of CNS drug you can think of!
Click to expand...

That is so wrong... lol I love fried chicken... welcome to the south = )

As a huge advocate of preventative health care (particularly not smoking and decreasing obesity, etc) I can tell you as someone raised in Florida and Georgia... we are not prepared to give up our scrumptious culinary delights that were gifted to us by our great southern heritage. haha

Seriously though... this country does need to do something about our vices and excess. I was happy when Florida raised its tobacco tax... There were a lot of angry people in the gas station that week though. :smuggrin: I didn't cry when I went to Publix this week and my oreos hit 5 dollars a pack though.
 
cjhrph:
So now I must bid you a fond farewell. I will put you on ignore as is pointless to have a discussion with someone who is unable to understand the terms logic and proof. Do you actually read any of the links you post? I don't have time to spend debunking all of the garbage you post. You live in your fantasy land world and have a nice life.....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-02-19-medicare.htm
To be sure, the vast majority of doctors nationally still participate in Medicare. Yet two recent surveys of doctors were conducted in Colorado: One showed only 15% of doctors accepting new Medicare patients. The pockets of insurgency reflect doctors' impatience with insurance in general and also highlight Medicare's main problem: how to provide more benefits to more people, pay enough to keep health care providers interested — yet keep spending in check.
Click to expand...

http://aprn.org/2009/03/26/anchorage-doctors-turning-away-new-medicare-patients/
Didn't have the time to listen to the MP3, but Alaska has it's own issues with costs and is certainly not representative of health care in the lower 48.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html
In a June 2008 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, an independent federal panel that advises Congress on Medicare, said that 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24 percent the year before. And a 2008 survey by the Texas Medical Association found that while 58 percent of the state’s doctors took new Medicare patients, only 38 percent of primary care doctors did.
Click to expand...
Gee let's see 71% of the people had NO trouble finding a doctor. That really bolsters your point.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/27/news/economy/healthcare_medicare_doctors/index.htm
CMS said 96.5% of all practicing physicians, nearly 600,000 doctors, currently participate in Medicare."Geographically, the level within every state is less than 5% of Medicare beneficiaries who have difficulties accessing a doctor," said Renee Mentnech, director of CMS' Research and Evaluation Group. Mentnech also pointed to an August report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), an independent branch of the Congress, that showed less than 3% of Medicare beneficiaries reported major difficulties accessing physician services in 2007 and 2008.
Click to expand...

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...are&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
I can't copy & paste from this site. But again this shows this not a wide spread problem but varies from area to area. And again, Alaska has it's own dynamics and cannot be easily compared to the lower 48.

 http://medicare-medicaid.com/medicare/finding-new-doctors-who-accept-medicare/
The impact on seniors of physicians opting out of the Medicare program hasn’t been a serious problem yet,
Click to expand...
This article also points out the shortage of primary care physicians will play just as large a roll as MD's opting out of Medicare.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-151606126.html
This is my fave. An article from the end of 2006 that says the sky is falling.

http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=7385372

It's amazing how Alaska keeps popping up.......

http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2009/04/once-you-hit-medicare-age-good-luck.html
A blog written by a doctor that links to a NYT article as backup. Brill absolutely brill.....
http://mlyon01.wordpress.com/2007/07/19/note-to-medicaid-patients-the-doctor-wont-see-you/
This is my second fave. It's about Medicaid, not Medicare.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/MedicareSupplementPlans/05-26-09/prweb2457754.htm
An exact duplicate of a previous link.

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20091027_Health_reform_will_increase_Medicaid_costs.html[/QUOTE]
The word Medicare DOES NOT appear in the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

H
  • Question
People who failed Biochemistry the first time but passed it the second time, what went wrong, then what went right?
Replies
12
Views
846
WorthlessOxygen
WorthlessOxygen
mentos
New EV tax credit bill to be signed on Monday
2
Replies
62
Views
3K
DoctwoB
DoctwoB
G
Some of these Naplex pass rates are awful
Replies
43
Views
4K
clarkbar
C
CetiAlphaFive
Whatever happened to that guy that got busted for sketchy compounding?
Replies
8
Views
1K
CetiAlphaFive
CetiAlphaFive
P
  • Locked
Biden has won.....What do you think will happen to student loans debt
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
256
Views
14K
BC_89
BC_89
Top