RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 2:28:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Reduce the criteria required for being a physician. Cap malpractice awards for typical cases (gross negligence deserves higher payouts than run-of-the-mill fuckups).

Capping malpractice awards will make no difference if you're releasing untrained medical staff into the wild to accumulate as many malpractice suits as they possibly can.
(If you want to lose money getting sued, quantity beats quality any day. Just ask Private Eye...)


The Effect of Tort Reform on Premiums for Medical Liability Insurance

National implementation of a package of proposals similar to the preceding list would reduce total national premiums for medical liability insurance by about 10 percent, CBO now estimates. That figure reflects the fact that many states have already enacted at least some of the proposed reforms. For example, about one-third of the states have implemented caps on noneconomic damages, and about two-thirds have reformed their rules regarding joint-and-several liability.

CBO estimates that the direct costs that providers will incur in 2009 for medical
malpractice liability—which consist of malpractice insurance premiums together with settlements, awards, and administrative costs not covered by insurance—will total approximately $35 billion, or about 2 percent of total health care expenditures. Therefore, lowering premiums for medical liability insurance by 10 percent would reduce total national health care expenditures by about 0.2 percent.

The Effects of Tort Reform on Total Health Care Spending and the Federal Budget

CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent
research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, as discussed earlier, and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (That reduction is the estimated net effect of the entire package listed earlier, although some components of that package might increase the utilization of physicians’ services, as has already been noted.) CBO’s estimate takes into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-tort_reform.pdf

Why is this coming back up again? Tort reform will not realize any significant savings.



tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 2:36:40 PM)

quote:

I am not aware of any rule of debate that says a thread about Americans cannot point to non-Americans as an example of any point. This whole side issue is becoming silly anyway.


I asked for proof of people saying they wanted free health care. If you cannot offer proof of people in this country, your point is moot.

quote:

I’m not trying to derail anything. I just don’t see any need to exclude the rest of the world. People in other threads about health care have pointed to other nation's systems as examples that we should follow or avoid… were they trying to derail the thread?


As examples of things working when others say its impossible. Not as to what americans may think based upon what a greek person thinks. Apples and oranges.

quote:

Wherever there has been large sums of wealth at stake there has been massive waste, fraud and miscommunications and errors are a part of life. You say the law addresses that but does it address it successfully?


The health care law addresses much of that. Clear enough now?

quote:

And this has what to do with what I am arguing?


That the arguments you are using have been made before, and a successful program was not derailed as a result.

quote:

And in my case you saw it wrong. I have merely been informing you of that.


No, you assumed what I meant without asking.

quote:

What is wrong with giving someone the benefit of the doubt? It is merely an acknowledgement that one does not have all the information and thus may have come to the wrong conclusion. I admitted that in this case and am simply asking for the same respect in return.


As you did above by saying... And in my case you saw it wrong. ?

Again, If I believe you to be racist, I will state so, plainly, clearly, and you will not be left wondering if I saw something "wrong". As I did not, and clearly did not, your assumptions were wrong.

For myself, I am done having a discussion about this topic with you.




tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 2:54:45 PM)

quote:

Bottom line is this. We simply can't afford Obamacare or Universal healthcare unless we find a constitutional way to make everyone pay, and we control costs. Paying for viagra and birth control as paid benefits is not controlling costs.


rofl.. paying for birth control is not controlling costs? Seen a delivery bill lately? Well baby care?

[8|]



tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 3:06:09 PM)

quote:

So, there are price caps? When has that worked?


There has always been a price cap. Under the new law, its not set by the insurance companies [;)]

quote:

Holy fuck, you still have no fucking clue what I'm trying to discuss with you. What would the problem be if the cost of a care procedure cost less?


Because.... think carefully

Insurance companies set the costs.... they set the limits... they set the percentages...

How exactly will you get the cost of procedures down?

quote:

How would that not be welcome by an insurance company?


Because they will lose money.

quote:

The amount they are being billed for is less. They have to pay less out. Their cost of doing business is less.


And they are making less on the other end. Remember, insurance companies do not just sell insurance anymore.

quote:

And, that can't happen with digital records? Seriously? Ask Sony, Mastercard or Visa how sweet it is to have a massive digital database.


It couldnt happen because so many were not computerized. We arent talking about just hospitals, but also physician offices, rehab, nursing homes, ect.


quote:

You are wrongly assuming I read the newspaper. When I did, it was quite the liberal rag.


Then you need to pick up some. Murdock doesnt ring a bell?

http://www.brucekelly.com/conservative-media.html

quote:

The Market has yet to be allowed to work without government meddling. Understand that there are needs for some regulations, but anything beyond that is meddling. Cut out the Government meddling and prices will drop.


Hmm.. how do you think HMO's came into power? Decreased regulation. Government got out, prices went up.

quote:

So, you can't or won't even back up your own allegations. Nice.


I am not here to teach a 41 year old man who is too lazy to teach himself.



SoftBonds -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 3:48:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls

If we weren't already 15 trillion in debt they could have passed universal health care, although technically, that would have been unconstitutional as well. The reason it's a bad idea for the government to run anything is because once they have control over it, they can charge whatever they want. Why do you think we used to pay $500 for a toilet seat or a hammer. The only reason we still don't is because they got some bad publicity on it. They do this with everything they control.



Ugh, not again, well, once more into the breech.
The $500 hammer was for the air force. It was used to loosen a big-ass nut on an airplane strut. The procedure it was used for involved having fuel fumes in the air. Now, which sounds like a better idea to you?
1. Use a $12 hammer from home depot, which won't be big enough to loosen the bolt, and which will strike sparks in an area filled with very flammable gas?
2. Spend $500 for a special, 6 foot long, all titanium hammer that will do the job and won't blow up the building?

As for the toilet seat, that was for the space shuttle. Now, I don't know if you are familiar with what liquids do in zero G, but suffice it to say they don't always stay in the bowl. If you can't understand paying a lot of money to get a special toilet that will trap the liquids, then I can give you a horrifyingly gross (and also horrifying, urine isn't good for electronics either) description...



SoftBonds -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 3:58:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
Yes, the individual costs need to go down. Got a solution for that that will make it through Congress? because you can bet your last dollar businesses and insurance companies wont implement that on their own.


Why wouldn't insurance companies want to lower the cost of individual procedures?



I remember how Halliburton had those great "cost plus," contracts with the military. Among other things they did to increase "revenue," was not changing the air filters on the big rigs they used in the Iraqi desert to deliver supplies. Yes, you heard me right, they didn't change air filters for engines driving through sandstorms!!!
Why? Cause every time a truck broke down, they would have EOD blow it up, and buy a new one, pocketing 15% in "administrative fees."
(BTW, why cost plus is now discouraged by military contract officers).
Insurance company profits are based on the underlying costs. If costs go down, then revenue goes down, and profits go down.
Now granted, insurance companies negotiate for lower costs for certain procedures-generally to levels that cause the hospital to lose money on those procedures. They do this knowing that they are "squeezing a balloon," and the costs will go elsewhere, generally in a way that makes not having insurance a nightmare.
Isn't the free market doing great?
So yes, I do think regulating the prices is a good idea, starting by requiring all patients (even medicare) to be charged the same amount, and paying on the basis of cures, rather than procedures, where possible. The idea that a hospital should have a variable fee for a service, which charges folks who have insurance LESS than folks who don't, is insane!
You want to know why hospital bills are crazy? Cause they are charging the folks who don't have insurance, or "negotiated fee schedules," crazy prices to make up for the "lose money on each service but make it up on volume," deals they have with the HMO's.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 6:59:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Your first two sentences are contradictory.


Yeah, the "almost completely" modifier has nothing to do with anything.

quote:

The next two we have now. Why would this suddenly NOW increase costs?


Companies and individuals don't have the option to cross state lines to shop for coverage. Then, there are minimums Obamacare will require.

In short, no, no we don't have the option to truly and completely decide what we want. They would decrease costs, and I'm not saying that they are going to increase costs now, but that they are hindrances to cost reductions and that they have helped to increase costs to where we are.

Reducing physician criteria--that's absurd. And not the problem. Your solution for decreasing cost is to decrease the quality of the care. No thanks. I like my doctor to know what he's doing.

Straw man argument.

No one is saying that a physician wouldn't know what he/she is doing. Lowering the bar will actually help increase the number of physicians, increasing competition, reducing patient load, and, thereby, lowering costs. Right now, a case can be made that physician population is artificially low to increase demand and maintain high pay.

quote:

Swapping out medicare isn't going to reduce costs--medicare costs are already artificially low.


Yes, Medicare costs are ridiculously low, but that's not the point. Shifting Medicare from what it is now to a voucher type program will help reduce the cost to the Federal Government. It will also be empowering seniors to take a more active stance in their health.

quote:

I agree with you about malpractice.



Musicmystery -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 7:09:45 PM)

Correct, that modifier doesn't do what you think, and no, that's not a straw man fallacy.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 7:15:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl
quote:

So, there are price caps? When has that worked?

There has always been a price cap. Under the new law, its not set by the insurance companies [;)]


Wrong, try again. There is a huge difference between a price cap and a negotiated cost.

quote:

quote:

Holy fuck, you still have no fucking clue what I'm trying to discuss with you. What would the problem be if the cost of a care procedure cost less?

Because.... think carefully
Insurance companies set the costs.... they set the limits... they set the percentages...


Doesn't answer my question. Perhaps it is you that should think carefully. Come on, depart from the norm.

quote:

How exactly will you get the cost of procedures down?


You'll have to go through and read my posts.

quote:

How would that not be welcome by an insurance company?

Because they will lose money.

Huh? How will an insurance company lose money by having the cost of care lower? You're trying to tell me that if the cost of a procedure is reduced, which will mean the amount of money an insurance company is required to pay for that service, it's going to mean the insurance company loses money? You shouldn't use "new math" when you discuss this stuff.

quote:

quote:

The amount they are being billed for is less. They have to pay less out. Their cost of doing business is less.

And they are making less on the other end. Remember, insurance companies do not just sell insurance anymore.


And, how much money are they making (let's ignore that I fully believe [and think you have mentioned this as a problem] that separating the care facilities from the care payers is a damn good idea)?

quote:

quote:

And, that can't happen with digital records? Seriously? Ask Sony, Mastercard or Visa how sweet it is to have a massive digital database.

It couldnt happen because so many were not computerized. We arent talking about just hospitals, but also physician offices, rehab, nursing homes, ect.


And you're simply building an even bigger database of personal information that hackers will eventually get into. That is what I was referencing with Sony, MC and Visa. They have all been relatively recent victims of hackers where millions of accounts were potentially compromised.

quote:

quote:

You are wrongly assuming I read the newspaper. When I did, it was quite the liberal rag.

Then you need to pick up some. Murdock doesnt ring a bell?
http://www.brucekelly.com/conservative-media.html


I'll pass on the newspapers. Anything I want to read in them, I can get online for less. I'm past reading the comics (surprisingly haven't missed them) and I can always find a tough crossword for Sunday "thinking" time. Anything else you want to wrongly accuse me of?

quote:

quote:

The Market has yet to be allowed to work without government meddling. Understand that there are needs for some regulations, but anything beyond that is meddling. Cut out the Government meddling and prices will drop.

Hmm.. how do you think HMO's came into power? Decreased regulation. Government got out, prices went up.


You simply don't get it. How much manpower is used complying with government regulations?

quote:

quote:

So, you can't or won't even back up your own allegations. Nice.

I am not here to teach a 41 year old man who is too lazy to teach himself.


So....no. Got it.



erieangel -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 7:16:15 PM)

quote:

Companies and individuals don't have the option to cross state lines to shop for coverage.



Do you even know what deregulating the credit card business, allowing credit card companies to "cross state lines" did? Most credit card companies went to Delaware and North Dakota an other states which had lax laws about interest rates, late fees, etc. I'd rather not do away with the state level insurance board and let Highmark Blue Cross/Blue Shield have a national office in whichever state has the most lax laws and go from there.

I have some issues with the PA insurance board (a state-run entity, btw) but it is better than the alternative you, in true Republican form, are espousing.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 7:34:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
So yes, I do think regulating the prices is a good idea, starting by requiring all patients (even medicare) to be charged the same amount, and paying on the basis of cures, rather than procedures, where possible. The idea that a hospital should have a variable fee for a service, which charges folks who have insurance LESS than folks who don't, is insane!
You want to know why hospital bills are crazy? Cause they are charging the folks who don't have insurance, or "negotiated fee schedules," crazy prices to make up for the "lose money on each service but make it up on volume," deals they have with the HMO's.


See, now, I don't completely agree on that. How many people pay the "menu price" for a procedure? Isn't it possible that a $5 stitch nets you a better tax savings by saying it costs $600? Insurance companies aren't paying that amount. I can't even say how many people pay that amount. I'm guessing it actually comes down to them being able to inflate their "uncompensated care" numbers which they can then deduct. I have sold first aid supplies. That stuff doesn't cost that much. Hospitals, I'm sure, get a much better pricing schedule than what my customers were being charged. There simply is no way that those charges aren't inflated beyond what would truly be necessary.



DesideriScuri -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 7:36:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
I have some issues with the PA insurance board (a state-run entity, btw) but it is better than the alternative you, in true Republican form, are espousing.


Excepting that I am not a Republican, so......



MrRodgers -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 7:47:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Well, I can't speak for everyone who is opposed to the mandate but for myself it has nothing to do with health care or insurance or whether such things are a good idea or not. It has to do with how much power we are willing to give to the government. When does it end? It seems as if for some people the solution to every problem is increased government power. History has shown us time and time again how governments abuse power... why then are some people seemingly so eager to grant even more power to the government?

...how much power the govt. has over you ? The power to tax you to give the money to a favored constituent, the power that suited govt. and the federal courts just fine...to force you into the military, sign over most of your remaining constitutional rights or...go to jail.

Come on people the whole argument against AFCA is a ruse to keep some aspects of support for the laissez faire right. You know...life will be the biggest profit possible...all of the way up until you die.



tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 8:21:55 PM)

quote:

So....no. Got it.


You are right, the answer is no. Do your own fucking work. Unless of course you like looking like a damn fool.



erieangel -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 8:31:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: erieangel
I have some issues with the PA insurance board (a state-run entity, btw) but it is better than the alternative you, in true Republican form, are espousing.


Excepting that I am not a Republican, so......


You sure as hell sound like one.




tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 8:33:46 PM)

quote:

Wrong, try again. There is a huge difference between a price cap and a negotiated cost.


Wrong.

quote:

A half-dozen health insurers yesterday filed a lawsuit against the state seeking to reverse last week’s decision by the insurance commissioner to block double-digit premium increases — a ruling they say could leave them with hundreds of millions in losses this year.


http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2010/04/06/health_insurers_sue_to_raise_rates/



tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 8:36:20 PM)

quote:

You simply don't get it. How much manpower is used complying with government regulations?


That has nothing to do with the money grabbing power of HMO's.

Have you ever worked in a hospital?

If yes, employed at doing what?

Because you sure seem rather.. unknowing... about the industry you claim to be trained in.



tazzygirl -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 8:40:19 PM)

quote:

I'll pass on the newspapers. Anything I want to read in them, I can get online for less. I'm past reading the comics (surprisingly haven't missed them) and I can always find a tough crossword for Sunday "thinking" time. Anything else you want to wrongly accuse me of?


Dude, you are nuts. You ask what I mean, then dismiss my responses.

I have proven over and over that you know nothing about the health care industry.

More than just me have tried to enlighten you, and all you do is pout and stomp your foot, declaring this "wont work" without having a damn clue what "this is".

Intellectual dishonesty is oozing from ever post you make.

Why dont you man up, put your big boy panties on, and admit you dont have a clue about anything you are talking about. You are convincing no one... and making a laughing stock out of yourself.




slvemike4u -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 8:54:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

So....no. Got it.


You are right, the answer is no. Do your own fucking work. Unless of course you like looking like a damn fool.

That ship has sailed.....



Edwynn -> RE: The truth about those against the Affordable Health Care law? (4/9/2012 9:16:51 PM)


More like a 1/4 scale Kon-Tiki adrift in a pond ...

But the point remains.





Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 [10] 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.201172E-02