Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
With all this discussion of top hats and "not studying and still getting A's," I thought it would be worth posting something substantive and relevant to anyone entering healthcare.

It's a PBS documentary on healthcare in the US. Feel free to discuss.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/view/

I saw it a while ago. It's an excellent documentary and PBS is an excellent news organization (I guess the gov't can do some things well...:laugh:).

Anyway, it's disgusting to see the Ins company abuses and people losing homes and going bankrupt over illnesses. Our Ins system is immoral and indefensible and it's overdue for major reform.

I look forward to the tough new regulations of the Ins industry and more affordable/accessible health coverage to ALL.
 
Last edited:

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
I saw it a while ago. It's an excellent documentary and PBS is an excellent news organization (I guess can do gov't some things well...:laugh:).

Anyway, it's disgusting to see the Ins sompany abuses and people losing homes and going bankrupt over an illness. Our Ins system is immoral and indefensible and it's overdue for major reform.

I'll look forward to tough regulation of the Ins industry going forward and more affordable/accessible health coverage to ALL.
I'm just disgusted by how the opposition party can sit there and say "we need to start over on healthcare." It's total BS. It's all political posturing. They want the reform effort to fail and they want Obama to be a do nothing president. The 2-party system is treating America like a zero-sum game. The Democrats' loss is the Republicans' political gain... and everyone in America's loss.
 

morning

butane in my veins
Feb 6, 2010
1,319
10
0
Status
Pre-Medical
I'm just disgusted by how the opposition party can sit there and say "we need to start over on healthcare." It's total BS. It's all political posturing. They want the reform effort to fail and they want Obama to be a do nothing president. The 2-party system is treating America like a zero-sum game. The Democrats' loss is the Republicans' political gain... and everyone in America's loss.
Republicans are going to set the filibuster record AGAIN - I'd bet my entire bank account on it.

What I want to know is, if any of this is actually important to them, why didn't they introduce it the many, many years they were in total control of the government? "Start over" on healthcare, indeed. They had ALL the time in the world to do something about health care and did not (other than enacting those Medicare cuts we all hate so much...there is that!), so don't believe that they have or ever had a plan.
 

Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Republican lawmakers of today will only do something on healthcare if CEOs, investment bankers and other the uber rich started going bankrupt, losing homes, dying premature deaths due to unaffordable ins or abusive ins practices. that's who they care about and are out to protect. The little guy on the other hand can eat cake....

I've lost all respect for Republican lawmakers, they have no integrity and are morally bankrupt.
 

morning

butane in my veins
Feb 6, 2010
1,319
10
0
Status
Pre-Medical
Republican lawmakers of today will only do somethings on healthcare if CEOs, investment bankers and other uber rich started going bankrupt, losing homes, dying premature deaths due to unaffordable ins or abusive ins practices. that's who they care about and are out to protect. The little guy on the other hand can eat cake....

I've lost all respect for Republican lawmakers, they have no integrity and are morally bankrupt.
People with integrity are few and far between in Congress, and that does include Democrats, but we do vote these cretins in so we are partly to blame.

It's only going to get worse, of course, since the Supreme Court deemed it legal for corporations to spend limitless money on campaign ads and donations in elections. Private citizens are limited to less than $3000 per candidate. It's kind of breathtaking, if you think about it. That does include foreign-owned corporations, too. I'm not sure how we take the government back from lobbyists now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
 

Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Yes u're right, people do lack integrity on both sides. However, I'm just shocked at the patently falsehoods and outright lies that Republicans have peddled throughout the whole health reform process - death panels, gov't takeover, socialism etc etc. It's almost some surreal, or some alternate-reality stuff. But I guess it scares people and that's the objective.

About the judicial activism of the conversative SC justice, overturning settled law with nearly 100yrs of precedence, well the ordinary citizen has been robbed of his/her voice. We all know $ wins elections and the same $ corrupts politicians, so we can expect corporate stranglehold on public policies and more political/legislative prostitution. I wonder how long until foreign gov'ts can make campaign donations....
 

Evergrey

10+ Year Member
Dec 27, 2008
1,471
6
251
Status
Medical Student
Thanks for posting this, it was really interesting and informative. And the material was well presented. It makes a great case for getting everybody insured all over America, makes me excited for tomorrow! People tell me I am crazy for wanting to go to medical school with all these things happening in health care (and I think all of us are to an extent) but I guess I have a feeling that if things don't get done now, our generation of doctors will definitely get it done. Medical schools are finally putting more of an emphasis on well-roundedness, compassion, and activism (while maintaining a requirement for intelligence and scholastic aptitude). I feel like the future of medicine is really bright. (I am such an optimist!)

It was beyond the scope of the video but it would've been nice if they expanded more upon how to decrease healthcare costs.

Here's another documentary that I found informative, it was posted a while back by another user: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=601716 It talks about similar things but places more of an emphasis on how to reduce cost in the health care system.

Edit: Finally a worthwhile thread. :thumbup: I have been lurking for weeks with naught to post.
 
Last edited:

Evergrey

10+ Year Member
Dec 27, 2008
1,471
6
251
Status
Medical Student
Yes u're right, people do lack integrity on both sides. However, I'm just shocked at the patently falsehoods and outright lies that Republicans have peddled throughout the whole health reform process - death panels, gov't takeover, socialism etc etc. It's almost some surreal, or some alternate-reality stuff. But I guess it scares people and that's the objective.

About the judicial activism of the conversative SC justice, overturning settled law with nearly 100yrs of precedence, well the ordinary citizen has been robbed of his/her voice. We all know $ wins elections and the same $ corrupts politicians, so we can expect corporate stranglehold on public policies and more political/legislative prostitution. I wonder how long until foreign gov'ts can make campaign donations....
I find both the behavior of both Democrats and Republicans utterly opprobrious. I think on one level you have to be insane to even want to run for public office, so only crazy people end up being elected. And if they aren't crazy to begin with, the culture and climate of policymaking quickly changes things.

I'm so sick of how our policymakers act. I almost feel like I should stop following politics. It seems like the opinions of rational people will forever be subsidiary to the whims of a politician. Following politics raises my blood pressure so much!
 
Apr 28, 2009
101
1
0
Status
Medical Student
For those who voted for obama and change, the health care "reform" bill turns out to be sham reform. Since they dropped the public health option, everyone who didn't have health insurance before will now be required by law to purchase health insurance from the preexisting health insurers. There is no "socialization" of medicine going on here, as the right had been afraid of. Instead, we've gone the other way and now the government owes money to the private insurance companies.

Those uninsured poor will become insured. [Hurray!] But now they will be forced by law to pay for that insurance out of their own pockets (which is something they couldn't previously afford in the first place) or face fines. But at least they receive a discount, because the government now agrees to pay the insurance companies the remainder of what they owed at market value.

So in the end, insurance companies earn even greater profits. They are free to raise their rates as high as they want in order to "remain competitive". There is no public option to compete against them. They continue to be immune to antitrust laws. And now they have 30+ more million subscribers. So the broken system has been "patched", but remains unfixed, and a part of what was wrong with the system in the first place is now even worse.
 
Last edited:

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
For those who voted for obama and change, the health care "reform" bill turns out to be sham reform. Since they dropped the public health option, everyone who didn't have health insurance before will now be required by law to purchase health insurance from the preexisting health insurers. There is no "socialization" of medicine going on here, as the right had been afraid of. Instead, we've gone the other way and now the government owes money to the private insurance companies.

Those uninsured poor will become insured. [Hurray!] But now they will be forced by law to pay for that insurance out of their own pockets (which is something they couldn't previously afford in the first place) or face fines. But at least they receive a discount, because the government now agrees to pay the insurance companies the remainder of what they owed at market value.

So in the end, insurance companies earn even greater profits. They are free to raise their rates as high as they want in order to "remain competitive". There is no public option to compete against them. They continue to be immune to antitrust laws. And now they have 30+ more million subscribers. So the broken system has been "patched", but remains unfixed, and a part of what was wrong with the system in the first place is now even worse.
Well, I'm in favor of non-discrimination and mandating coverage for all regardless of pre-existing conditions. That will enlarge the pool of coverage and lower costs for the sickest patients, although premiums may rise for the healthiest individuals. The healthy have to subsidize the sick... that's the only way it works unless you have a single payer system.

The bill isn't perfect or even good by any means. However, it is better than inaction or "starting over." Starting over? Give me a break. There are so many pressing issues and healthcare has been debated for a full year. Other issues like education, energy, tax reform, additional entitlement reform, etc... still need to be addressed.

Republicans want to stall until after the midterm elections because they care about regaining control. Democrats are the same because they didn't stand up to misguided Bush policies for fear of political reprisal (MEDICARE PART D!?! Largest enlargement of government entitlement EVER... under the "fiscally responsible" GOP. Total BS). It's a failure of the 2 party system. Unfortunately, that's how it is and we have to work within this system. I should mention that I'm a fairly moderate person that tends to be fiscally pragmatic (I won't say conservative).
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2009
1,051
2
0
Status
Medical Student

rxlea

Almost a unicorn
Moderator Emeritus
7+ Year Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,248
198
181
Status
Pharmacist
I just want smokers to pay more for their insurance.

Before you bask in the glory of "hope and change", you guys should consider the amount of money this will cost us. As it stands now, I only see it as a glorified form of welfare.

Socialism won't work for 300 million people. You cannot model Canada or Spain or any of those other countries with "free" healthcare for all.
 

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
I just want smokers to pay more for their insurance.

Before you bask in the glory of "hope and change", you guys should consider the amount of money this will cost us. As it stands now, I only see it as a glorified form of welfare.

Socialism won't work for 300 million people. You cannot model Canada or Spain or any of those other countries with "free" healthcare for all.
I'm sorry but what a worthless post. Is healthcare reform categorically called "socialism" these days? What utter, total BULL****. Altering the rules so that all insurers must provide insurance and all citizens are mandated to obtain it will expand the coverage pools and lower the overall risk to provide insurance to the sick... who are the ones who actually need it. There isn't even a public option anymore. There is nothing that is even remotely socialist in this bill other than government regulation of the insurance rules. The government has to step in to regulate negative externalities. It's a fundamental rule of economics because the free market ends up failing in such situations (e.g. Tragedy of the Commons).

Also, I believe smokers do pay more for their insurance. It's considered a risky behavior and that puts you into a different premium schedule.
 

rxlea

Almost a unicorn
Moderator Emeritus
7+ Year Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,248
198
181
Status
Pharmacist
I'm sorry but what a worthless post. Is healthcare reform categorically called "socialism" these days? What utter, total BULL****. Altering the rules so that all insurers must provide insurance and all citizens are mandated to obtain it will expand the coverage pools and lower the overall risk to provide insurance to the sick... who are the ones who actually need it. There isn't even a public option anymore. There is nothing that is even remotely socialist in this bill other than government regulation of the insurance rules. The government has to step in to regulate negative externalities. It's a fundamental rule of economics because the free market ends up failing in such situations (e.g. Tragedy of the Commons).

Also, I believe smokers do pay more for their insurance. It's considered a risky behavior and that puts you into a different premium schedule.
Poor choice of words: socialized medicine. And forgive me for being uninformed, but has the bill really changed that much since I last read about it? I thought the whole issue was that there SHOULD be a public option. I have a feeling what is coming out does not even remotely resemble what was going in (or what the dems envisioned). I agree that insurance companies must be regulated- 100% behind that.
 

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
Poor choice of words: socialized medicine. And forgive me for being uninformed, but has the bill really changed that much since I last read about it? I thought the whole issue was that there SHOULD be a public option. I have a feeling what is coming out does not even remotely resemble what was going in (or what the dems envisioned). I agree that insurance companies must be regulated- 100% behind that.
It's fine. I don't mean to be irascible, but it's frustrating when the Fox News talking points become part of what society actually believes. The bill is not socialized medicine. In it's current form, it is a watered down version of its former self. However, it will bend the cost curve down somewhat (100B), at least according to the CBO -- which is a HIGHLY respected, non-partisan group. When I was watching CSPAN, some GOP clowns actually argued that the CBO is "lying." That's a testament to how messed up and inflammatory the rhetoric is with regard to HC reform. CBO has always been respected with regard to its budget projections.

The bill definitely has flaws, but it at least extends coverage to the sick and eliminates discrimination against pre-existing conditions. It's a start. An important one. I hope to God it gets passed and I HOPE THEY USE RECONCILIATION. If the GOP has no qualms about using reconciliation for ADDING entitlements (medicare part D) for purely political reasons (gaining elderly votes), the Democrats should too when it's actually in the best interests of the majority of Americans.
 

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
Poor choice of words: socialized medicine. And forgive me for being uninformed, but has the bill really changed that much since I last read about it? I thought the whole issue was that there SHOULD be a public option. I have a feeling what is coming out does not even remotely resemble what was going in (or what the dems envisioned). I agree that insurance companies must be regulated- 100% behind that.
Haha, no need to ask for forgiveness. Everyone is uninformed to a certain extent. One step in the right direction would be watching documentaries like the one posted above. It helps give an objective perspective, which allows citizens to cut through the worthless chaff on either side (Fox News and MSNBC [except Hardball because Chris Matthews cuts into everyone]).
 

Siggy

10+ Year Member
Oct 27, 2004
3,573
1,440
281
33
Status
Fellow [Any Field]
I've watched Sick Around The World. It's also very excellente!

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/
Very much agree. If there's one thing with health care, if there is a panacea, no one has found it yet. All of the countries that they visited have vastly different systems, yet all have a variety of problems. Even still, if the Massachusetts system is any indication, just because someone has insurance doesn't mean they immediately get access. It switches from lack of money to lack of providers. Even still, just because someone is insured doesn't mean that physicians have to honor that insurance. A perfect example of this is Mayo Clinic's Arizona facilities refusing to accept new Medicare patients. What good is insurance if no one will honor it?
 

rxlea

Almost a unicorn
Moderator Emeritus
7+ Year Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,248
198
181
Status
Pharmacist
It's fine. I don't mean to be irascible, but it's frustrating when the Fox News talking points become part of what society actually believes. The bill is not socialized medicine. In it's current form, it is a watered down version of its former self. However, it will bend the cost curve down somewhat (100B), at least according to the CBO -- which is a HIGHLY respected, non-partisan group. When I was watching CSPAN, some GOP clowns actually argued that the CBO is "lying." That's a testament to how messed up and inflammatory the rhetoric is with regard to HC reform. CBO has always been respected with regard to its budget projections.

The bill definitely has flaws, but it at least extends coverage to the sick and eliminates discrimination against pre-existing conditions. It's a start. An important one. I hope to God it gets passed and I HOPE THEY USE RECONCILIATION. If the GOP has no qualms about using reconciliation for ADDING entitlements (medicare part D) for purely political reasons (gaining elderly votes), the Democrats should too when it's actually in the best interests of the majority of Americans.
Understandable. I agree that people with pre-existing conditions should have access to coverage, specifically those conditions that are outside of anyone's control. I guess I am biased in that I have witnessed so many people taking advantage of our broken system that I have concerns about how this new bill is actually going to work in the grand scheme of things.
 

rxlea

Almost a unicorn
Moderator Emeritus
7+ Year Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,248
198
181
Status
Pharmacist
Very much agree. If there's one thing with health care, if there is a panacea, no one has found it yet. All of the countries that they visited have vastly different systems, yet all have a variety of problems. Even still, if the Massachusetts system is any indication, just because someone has insurance doesn't mean they immediately get access. It switches from lack of money to lack of providers. Even still, just because someone is insured doesn't mean that physicians have to honor that insurance. A perfect example of this is Mayo Clinic's Arizona facilities refusing to accept new Medicare patients. What good is insurance if no one will honor it?
That is untrue. We still take Medicare patients. And, the story you heard about on the news was in regard to one small family practice facility in Glendale, not Mayo Clinic Arizona as a whole. And the reason is because they cutback medicare reimbursements and couldn't really AFFORD to take on any more patients. I encourage you to visit Mayo's website for their formal statement on the topic.

Here is the link: http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2010/01/05/medicare-and-mayo-clinic-in-arizona/
 

Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
For those who voted for obama and change, the health care "reform" bill turns out to be sham reform. Since they dropped the public health option, everyone who didn't have health insurance before will now be required by law to purchase health insurance from the preexisting health insurers. There is no "socialization" of medicine going on here, as the right had been afraid of. Instead, we've gone the other way and now the government owes money to the private insurance companies.

Those uninsured poor will become insured. [Hurray!] But now they will be forced by law to pay for that insurance out of their own pockets (which is something they couldn't previously afford in the first place) or face fines. But at least they receive a discount, because the government now agrees to pay the insurance companies the remainder of what they owed at market value.

So in the end, insurance companies earn even greater profits. They are free to raise their rates as high as they want in order to "remain competitive". There is no public option to compete against them. They continue to be immune to antitrust laws. And now they have 30+ more million subscribers. So the broken system has been "patched", but remains unfixed, and a part of what was wrong with the system in the first place is now even worse.

I agree with you on all counts. Imperfect bill but a step forward especially regarding the retroactive rescissions, medical exclusions etc..

I supported the public option or an annual cap ins co premium hikes.. something to suppress cost inflation and increase affordability. But the Dems didn't have the spine for either. However, they've moved the ball forward and that's an improvement over the status quo...
 

Siggy

10+ Year Member
Oct 27, 2004
3,573
1,440
281
33
Status
Fellow [Any Field]
That is untrue. We still take Medicare patients. And, the story you heard about on the news was in regard to one small family practice facility in Glendale, not Mayo Clinic Arizona as a whole. And the reason is because they cutback medicare reimbursements and couldn't really AFFORD to take on any more patients. I encourage you to visit Mayo's website for their formal statement on the topic.

Here is the link: http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.org/2010/01/05/medicare-and-mayo-clinic-in-arizona/
Ahh.. good to know. Everything I've seen has said that it was Arizona as a whole. The entire affordability issue is going to spread, though, as government gets more into health care.

Fun fact: Medicare pays what it wants to, not what it costs to provide care and balance billing isn't allowed. Think about that for everyone who thinks that government run healthcare is a panacea.
 
Jan 2, 2010
1,090
0
0
Reality, or so i think.
Status
With all this discussion of top hats and "not studying and still getting A's," I thought it would be worth posting something substantive and relevant to anyone entering healthcare.

It's a PBS documentary on healthcare in the US. Feel free to discuss.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundamerica/view/
for a hardcore republican like my self, i do have to say that this is sort of moving. however, if you want to help, public healthcare is not the way to do it, or rather, hand it over to the government. you can say healthcare is essential, but really, so are food and water, i just dont want to see american government go down this road.
 

morning

butane in my veins
Feb 6, 2010
1,319
10
0
Status
Pre-Medical
for a hardcore republican like my self, i do have to say that this is sort of moving. however, if you want to help, public healthcare is not the way to do it, or rather, hand it over to the government. you can say healthcare is essential, but really, so are food and water, i just dont want to see american government go down this road.
I know. Socialism is BAD. We need to close all our public elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, universities, police departments, fire departments, parks, roads and post offices NOW. The government should NOT be providing these things.
 
Jan 2, 2010
1,090
0
0
Reality, or so i think.
Status
I know. Socialism is BAD. We need to close all our public elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, universities, police departments, fire departments, parks, roads and post offices NOW. The government should NOT be providing these things.
i see your point. there are private universities, private high schools, private w/e. you have an option. however, this healthcare is going to be mandated, you are going to be taxed to pay for some one else.
 

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
for a hardcore republican like my self, i do have to say that this is sort of moving. however, if you want to help, public healthcare is not the way to do it, or rather, hand it over to the government. you can say healthcare is essential, but really, so are food and water, i just dont want to see american government go down this road.
I don't disagree with you, actually. Economically, a completely private, consumer-driven approach might be effective in covering most people. Or, so the argument goes. However, this approach will never, ever be reality. You would have to undo all government entitlement in healthcare. That means bye-bye medicare, medicaid, part d, cobra, S-chip, etc. In addition, the entire private insurance industry would have to be completely remade. No politician could ever undo all these programs. They are FAR TOO POPULAR.
 

morning

butane in my veins
Feb 6, 2010
1,319
10
0
Status
Pre-Medical
i see your point. there are private universities, private high schools, private w/e. you have an option. however, this healthcare is going to be mandated, you are going to be taxed to pay for some one else.

Newsflash: your taxes pay for the health care of every single congressman/woman. And the education of every single schoolkid in your district. And the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever else we decide to poke our head.
 

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
i see your point. there are private universities, private high schools, private w/e. you have an option. however, this healthcare is going to be mandated, you are going to be taxed to pay for some one else.
You have the choice of private insurance coverage too. It's not that different at all.
 

morning

butane in my veins
Feb 6, 2010
1,319
10
0
Status
Pre-Medical
I don't disagree with you, actually. Economically, a completely private, consumer-driven approach might be effective in covering most people. Or, so the argument goes. However, this approach will never, ever be reality. You would have to undo all government entitlement in healthcare. That means bye-bye medicare, medicaid, part d, cobra, S-chip, etc. In addition, the entire private insurance industry would have to be completely remade. No politician could ever undo all these programs. They are FAR TOO POPULAR.
You forgot the biggest reason why it will NEVER work: lack of competition. Health insurance is a veritable monopoly. There is no competition. They can jerk you around (and not in the good way) however they want to and you have very little choice whatsoever. Why do you think premiums are rising above inflation?

By 2020 you will be paying a college tuition's worth of money for family health insurance every single year.
 
Jan 2, 2010
1,090
0
0
Reality, or so i think.
Status
okay okay ima take back all of things i said, the only reason i got beef with this bill is this will cut doctor salary like hell. ur basically letting the government deciding how much doctors are being paid. i <3 $$$, the end of story.
 

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
You forgot the biggest reason why it will NEVER work: lack of competition. Health insurance is a veritable monopoly. There is no competition. They can jerk you around (and not in the good way) however they want to and you have very little choice whatsoever. Why do you think premiums are rising above inflation?

By 2020 you will be paying a college tuition's worth of money for family health insurance every single year.
Yeah, you're right. I guess my post only implies that. A consumer-driven approach would *theoretically* lead to competition that leads to low premiums. That's the premise of the argument. However, such an approach could never, ever work with entitlement programs in place. I hope this clarifies what I meant.
 

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
okay okay ima take back all of things i said, the only reason i got beef with this bill is this will cut doctor salary like hell. ur basically letting the government deciding how much doctors are being paid. i <3 $$$, the end of story.
:laugh: Thank you for being HONEST. This is the real reason why pre-meds are against healthcare reform. They think it will affect their pocketbook. They shouldn't worry too much. Medicine will still be lucrative. You can still expect 200k+ each year in any specialty, which is great money. And, if you are in a competitive sub-specialty, you will still make bank (500k+). That won't change. The hospitals will have to pay physicians to compete for the limited supply of physicians. Thus, hospital and insurer profits will likely fall, but doctors' salaries pretty safe. Why do you think none of the doctor groups are against the legislation? (AMA is on board... and they are primarily interested in protecting physician salaries.)
 
Jan 2, 2010
1,090
0
0
Reality, or so i think.
Status
Yeah, you're right. I guess my post only implies that. A consumer-driven approach would *theoretically* lead to competition that leads to low premiums. That's the premise of the argument. However, such an approach could never, ever work with entitlement programs in place. I hope this clarifies what I meant.
*takes pointer finger and taps my cheek 3 times in a row and look up with an enlightened look on my face*.

indeed
 

morning

butane in my veins
Feb 6, 2010
1,319
10
0
Status
Pre-Medical
okay okay ima take back all of things i said, the only reason i got beef with this bill is this will cut doctor salary like hell. ur basically letting the government deciding how much doctors are being paid. i <3 $$$, the end of story.
Where in the bill does it say that?
 
Jan 2, 2010
1,090
0
0
Reality, or so i think.
Status
Where in the bill does it say that?
i dunno. i read alot of articles about doctors being cut on pay/reinburstment, and increasing cost of practicing medcine. not to mention, government is going to dedictate how much they are going to be paid, hence like UK, China(lol). see it sucks for people like us. perhaps one day us will pay for its medical schools, perhaps one day the cost of training a physician will decrease. but for us, we are a generation which will eat a pay cut, while taking the full cost of training (med school + colllege + not working at a real job). its unfortunate that is all. i do agree some thing has to be done to our countries healthcare, i just don't want anything done to now during my lifetime thats all. you might say thats a selfish logic, but then again, ask people in the generation above us, would they have done the same for us?
 

morning

butane in my veins
Feb 6, 2010
1,319
10
0
Status
Pre-Medical
They're cutting medicare reimbursements significantly, which is going to place pressure on doctors since they may have to drop/reject more medicare patients (as it is now most doctors can only take a certain number of patients, say 5-10% of their patient base, since medicare pays so much less than other forms of insurance). Honestly I won't be surprised if further drops in medicare reimbursement cause the entire system to implode on itself.

Are you talking about the 21.3% cuts in Medicare that have thus far been delayed? Because that's not in the healthcare bill, that's an entirely separate bill, one that REPUBLICANS enacted in 1997.
 

Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
They're cutting medicare reimbursements significantly, which is going to place pressure on doctors since they may have to drop/reject more medicare patients (as it is now most doctors can only take a certain number of patients, say 5-10% of their patient base, since medicare pays so much less than other forms of insurance). Honestly I won't be surprised if further drops in medicare reimbursement cause the entire system to implode on itself.
The cuts I'm aware of to medicare are from medicare advantage which is a complete joke and boon to private ins. Medicare pays say Humana to cover Medicare's patients. Inefficient and wasteful so gut it. Personally I would use the savings from the redundancies to spend it on better doc reimbursement, deficit reduction and the extra benefits beneficiaries got from private ins..
 

Evergrey

10+ Year Member
Dec 27, 2008
1,471
6
251
Status
Medical Student
Are you talking about the 21.3% cuts in Medicare that have thus far been delayed? Because that's not in the healthcare bill, that's an entirely separate bill, one that REPUBLICANS enacted in 1997.
Touche, I was conflating the two. The current bill (AFAIK) has specific cuts to certain things, like reducing reimbursements for illnesses acquired in a hospital (like MRSA) and the medicare advantage stuff that Bernoull mentioned.

I wish the bill would streamline insurance, so that every insurance company has the same system. That alone would save billions of dollars in wasteful health administration fees to deal with billing. Or is that also in the bill and I'm just ignorant? :p
 

Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
Touche, I was conflating the two. The current bill (AFAIK) has specific cuts to certain things, like reducing reimbursements for illnesses acquired in a hospital (like MRSA) and the medicare advantage stuff that Bernoull mentioned.

I wish the bill would streamline insurance, so that every insurance company has the same system. That alone would save billions of dollars in wasteful health administration fees to deal with billing. Or is that also in the bill and I'm just ignorant?
:p
I don't know if the bill specifically addresses this, but I agree there's so much waste from duplication, redundancies, bureaucracy etc it's so inefficient. The avg doc maybe had to contend with 7 different insurers with different reimbursement formulae, different benefits/coverages, different billing processes etc.. It's just so inefficient.
 

tennisball80

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Feb 5, 2008
3,434
2
0
United States
Status
Pre-Medical
Americans, I am not one of them, are too scared of the word "socialism." Why the F you all call Obama's health plan socialism? That's BS. Are you saying that all developed countries like Canada, Briten, Australia, Franch dudes, and Sweden, are practing socialism. Wake up. Big insurance companies whose CEOs greed $$$ and big pharmacutical companies are just trying to use the word to scare you all off so they can make $$$. Dude, stop calling everything soclism my fellow Americans. You gotta jusdge something analytically and critically. Just don't turn things away from hearing the word Socialism.
 
Jan 2, 2010
1,090
0
0
Reality, or so i think.
Status
Americans, I am not one of them, are too scared of the word "socialism." Why the F you all call Obama's health plan socialism? That's BS. Are you saying that all developed countries like Canada, Briten, Australia, Franch dudes, and Sweden, are practing socialism. Wake up. Big insurance companies whose CEOs greed $$$ and big pharmacutical companies are just trying to use the word to scare you all off so they can make $$$. Dude, stop calling everything soclism my fellow Americans. You gotta jusdge something analytically and critically. Just don't turn things away from hearing the word Socialism.
RUN, HES A SOCIOLIST!!!!

i dont think the huge concern of this forum with this bill is that its sociolistic, its really more of the fact that government will dedictate doctors salary, and from what i have read so far, doctors are going to eat a pay cut. atleast thats my concern.
 

NerdyAndrea

Pre-Med Student
Feb 10, 2010
220
2
0
At my school
Status
Pre-Medical
Hi Apok:

I jsut watched that last night! Thank you. I am currently reporting on vaccinatons, and halth insurance amongst college students, the lack thereof.

So many people are in the situation that getting care can mean going broke, which isn't right, but neither is the gvt's solution the best.

I shared the video with my family. I was without health insurance for a long period once, and let me say this, no health insurance is a choice between life and death, because getting care at that point is realy hard.

A
 

ApoK

10+ Year Member
Oct 1, 2008
581
0
0
Status
Hi Apok:

I jsut watched that last night! Thank you. I am currently reporting on vaccinatons, and halth insurance amongst college students, the lack thereof.

So many people are in the situation that getting care can mean going broke, which isn't right, but neither is the gvt's solution the best.

I shared the video with my family. I was without health insurance for a long period once, and let me say this, no health insurance is a choice between life and death, because getting care at that point is realy hard.

A
No problem! I'm glad you enjoyed it. PBS has a ton of great stuff! I hope everything is going better for you now. :)
 

NerdyAndrea

Pre-Med Student
Feb 10, 2010
220
2
0
At my school
Status
Pre-Medical
Yes Apok I have the best plan available for individuals in my state, there's still a $500 deductable, and $1500 max out of pocket expenses for the year, and I am still fighting to get some of last years stuff covered. I do know life would be a lot worse without it!

I do have to shop prescriptions because there's a $15 or 50% of the drugs cost that I have to pay whichever is higher. Thankfully Wal-mart has $4.00 prescriptions.

Regular visits = $25.00

Urgency Care= $45.00

All services and labs 20% of the cost until $1500 out f pocket is reached. It's still a lt but FAR better than having to pay 100% of the costs. Preventive care is waived of charges, ie if I go to thelabfor routine preventive tests I don't pay.

I had to have major surgery last year, I wouldn't have been able too without insurance.

So yes or now I am a lot better!!! It isn't the greatest comprehensive coverage, but it sure beats NO Coverage.

A
 

Bernoull

10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Mar 24, 2007
1,724
8
141
Ischioanal fossa
Status
Resident [Any Field]
No problem! I'm glad you enjoyed it. PBS has a ton of great stuff! I hope everything is going better for you now. :)
PBS is a treasure!! They have great stuff on the financial meltdown, deregulation etc etc. Eye-opener for sure!!
 

Siggy

10+ Year Member
Oct 27, 2004
3,573
1,440
281
33
Status
Fellow [Any Field]
does anyone else wish we lived in a society where money did not rule the world?
So... errr... once you get out of school, I expect you to live on the bare minimum and donate everything else over, say, 50k to charity or the government. After all, if money is the root of all evil and the world would be a better place if, say, everyone was paid in Trident Layers. After all, once money is abolished and everyone works for free, I can just sit at home and mooch off of society for the rest of my life!