+++http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/

State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011.


+++
Some small companies are passing along a 26% incease this year to their employees..mine is.


In March 2008 the Boston Globe reported that some "safety-net" hospitals serving low-income individuals in urban areas were facing budget shortfalls due to the combination of reduced "free-care" payments from the state and low enrollment in Commonwealth Care. The reduced state payments anticipated that by reducing the number of uninsured people Commonwealth Care would reduce the amount of charity care provided by hospitals.[43] In a subsequent story that same month the Globe reported that Commonwealth Care faced a short-term funding gap of $100 million and the need to obtain a new three-year funding commitment from the federal government of $1.5 billion. The Globe reported that a number of alternatives were under consideration for raising additional funding, including a $1 per pack increase in the state's cigarette tax. Health care costs in the state were rising at an annual rate of 10 percent, and the state budget deficit was $1.3 billion.

And your state is one of those states having financial difficulties, too.

Perhaps our legislators would be willing to try out the program for a few years, before we go with the National Health Care plan....

Or did I hear that they were making themselves "exempt from the program?

quote:

Originally posted by aggie_swife:
And your state is one of those states having financial difficulties, too.

Perhaps our legislators would be willing to try out the program for a few years, before we go with the National Health Care plan....

Or did I hear that they were making themselves "exempt from the program?

Yep, you heard right. Congress, do as I say, not as I do.
Was Franklin who said, 'no one is safe when Congress is in session'?

quote:

Originally posted by threerings:
+++http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/

State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011.


+++
Some small companies are passing along a 26% incease this year to their employees..mine is.


In March 2008 the Boston Globe reported that some "safety-net" hospitals serving low-income individuals in urban areas were facing budget shortfalls due to the combination of reduced "free-care" payments from the state and low enrollment in Commonwealth Care. The reduced state payments anticipated that by reducing the number of uninsured people Commonwealth Care would reduce the amount of charity care provided by hospitals.[43] In a subsequent story that same month the Globe reported that Commonwealth Care faced a short-term funding gap of $100 million and the need to obtain a new three-year funding commitment from the federal government of $1.5 billion. The Globe reported that a number of alternatives were under consideration for raising additional funding, including a $1 per pack increase in the state's cigarette tax. Health care costs in the state were rising at an annual rate of 10 percent, and the state budget deficit was $1.3 billion.

I can see by the number of responses...facts do not matter. I mean...it is only the health of ourselves and loved ones at stake.

quote:

Originally posted by ACR26:

quote:

Originally posted by threerings:
+++http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/

State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011.


+++
Some small companies are passing along a 26% incease this year to their employees..mine is.


In March 2008 the Boston Globe reported that some "safety-net" hospitals serving low-income individuals in urban areas were facing budget shortfalls due to the combination of reduced "free-care" payments from the state and low enrollment in Commonwealth Care. The reduced state payments anticipated that by reducing the number of uninsured people Commonwealth Care would reduce the amount of charity care provided by hospitals.[43] In a subsequent story that same month the Globe reported that Commonwealth Care faced a short-term funding gap of $100 million and the need to obtain a new three-year funding commitment from the federal government of $1.5 billion. The Globe reported that a number of alternatives were under consideration for raising additional funding, including a $1 per pack increase in the state's cigarette tax. Health care costs in the state were rising at an annual rate of 10 percent, and the state budget deficit was $1.3 billion.

I can see by the number of responses...facts do not matter. I mean...it is only the health of ourselves and loved ones at stake.

It will start to matter when people can't get that CAT scan until next year or they are in line for a hip replacement. We are a "I want it right now" society, so if this goes through it won't take long to start seeing the dissatisfaction. But from the point of view of the poor, it will be better than nothing especially when you don't have to pay for it.

However, it won't really affect the rich for some time as they will be able to buy their own health care.

quote:

Originally posted by aggie_swife:
It will start to matter when people can't get that CAT scan until next year or they are in line for a hip replacement. We are a "I want it right now" society, so if this goes through it won't take long to start seeing the dissatisfaction. But from the point of view of the poor, it will be better than nothing especially when you don't have to pay for it.

However, it won't really affect the rich for some time as they will be able to buy their own health care.

Yep, let's place all the burden on the middle class.

Oh, wait didn't Obama promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k? Don't see that promise working out too well along with all his other promises.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by aggie_swife:
It will start to matter when people can't get that CAT scan until next year or they are in line for a hip replacement. We are a "I want it right now" society, so if this goes through it won't take long to start seeing the dissatisfaction. But from the point of view of the poor, it will be better than nothing especially when you don't have to pay for it.

However, it won't really affect the rich for some time as they will be able to buy their own health care.

Yep, let's place all the burden on the middle class.

Oh, wait didn't Obama promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250k? Don't see that promise working out too well along with all his other promises.

Obama lied, America died.

Let's see...a 2008 Boston.com article on the Mass State which you cherry pick for shock value.

1.35 billion to cover 342,000 people in 2011...that's less than 4,000 a year per person...less than 350 a month. 618 million to cover 169,000 people in 08...3600 a year. 300 a month.
Ask your boss what you're costing him...bet it's more...unless your insurance is already covered by the feds, then tell me again how poor your national health care is.

Obama lied, America died? Now you're just being a dick. Did ya miss this part of your own article?

quote:

The expanding need for new state and federal money is in sharp contrast to the statements made by former governor Mitt Romney, when he proposed the initiative in 2004 and as he campaigns for president. He has repeatedly suggested that the state could insure low-income residents largely by reallocating money paid to hospitals and health centers that serve the uninsured.

Does your insurance cover treatment for that selective blindness and deafness?

Great health care is a good thing, long as you don't have to pay for it, eh? No ****.

Nothing new here.

quote:

Originally posted by threerings:


Obama lied, America died.

If it weren't so true that would be hilarious.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:
Let's see...a 2008 Boston.com article on the Mass State which you cherry pick for shock value.

1.35 billion to cover 342,000 people in 2011...that's less than 4,000 a year per person...less than 350 a month. 618 million to cover 169,000 people in 08...3600 a year. 300 a month.
Ask your boss what you're costing him...bet it's more...unless your insurance is already covered by the feds, then tell me again how poor your national health care is.

Obama lied, America died? Now you're just being a dick. Did ya miss this part of your own article?

quote:

The expanding need for new state and federal money is in sharp contrast to the statements made by former governor Mitt Romney, when he proposed the initiative in 2004 and as he campaigns for president. He has repeatedly suggested that the state could insure low-income residents largely by reallocating money paid to hospitals and health centers that serve the uninsured.

Does your insurance cover treatment for that selective blindness and deafness?

Great health care is a good thing, long as you don't have to pay for it, eh? No ****.

Nothing new here.

Let's hope so since Obama needs treatment for it too. I mean he wants to take a failing plan nationwide because it will help the nation so much.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:
Let's see...a 2008 Boston.com article on the Mass State which you cherry pick for shock value.

1.35 billion to cover 342,000 people in 2011...that's less than 4,000 a year per person...less than 350 a month. 618 million to cover 169,000 people in 08...3600 a year. 300 a month.
Ask your boss what you're costing him...bet it's more...unless your insurance is already covered by the feds, then tell me again how poor your national health care is.

Obama lied, America died? Now you're just being a dick. Did ya miss this part of your own article?

quote:

The expanding need for new state and federal money is in sharp contrast to the statements made by former governor Mitt Romney, when he proposed the initiative in 2004 and as he campaigns for president. He has repeatedly suggested that the state could insure low-income residents largely by reallocating money paid to hospitals and health centers that serve the uninsured.

Does your insurance cover treatment for that selective blindness and deafness?

Great health care is a good thing, long as you don't have to pay for it, eh? No ****.

Nothing new here.

This state is quite literally being crushed under the weight of failed liberal polciies, corrupt liberal hacks, and ignorant voters.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:
Let's see...a 2008 Boston.com article on the Mass State which you cherry pick for shock value.

1.35 billion to cover 342,000 people in 2011...that's less than 4,000 a year per person...less than 350 a month. 618 million to cover 169,000 people in 08...3600 a year. 300 a month.
Ask your boss what you're costing him...bet it's more...unless your insurance is already covered by the feds, then tell me again how poor your national health care is.

Obama lied, America died? Now you're just being a dick. Did ya miss this part of your own article?

quote:

The expanding need for new state and federal money is in sharp contrast to the statements made by former governor Mitt Romney, when he proposed the initiative in 2004 and as he campaigns for president. He has repeatedly suggested that the state could insure low-income residents largely by reallocating money paid to hospitals and health centers that serve the uninsured.

Does your insurance cover treatment for that selective blindness and deafness?

Great health care is a good thing, long as you don't have to pay for it, eh? No ****.

Nothing new here.

Let's hope so since Obama needs treatment for it too. I mean he wants to take a failing plan nationwide because it will help the nation so much.

I guess that's the new American way. If it costs money, then it's a failure. If you can insure people for 300 a month, that's a failure. Health care costs are rising at 10 percent per year because of...

I know you'll give the stock answer--taxes and regulation.

******** again.

A 'BU professor who specializes in health care costs' says:

quote:

Even with federal backing, the state may not be able to afford the insurance initiative as designed, because the law did not make any attempt to trim wasteful health spending, said Alan Sager, a Boston University professor who specializes in healthcare costs.

The brainchild of that well-known flip-flopping creative accountant, Deval Patrick Mitt Romney didn't bother to try to control costs...another big surprise.

Underestimated the number of uninsured in the state? Yet another surprise?

Hardly...but why stick with the gloom and doom:

quote:

From the beginning, many health policy specialists said the initiative would cost the state more than expected. Now, some say, the benefits of reaching near-universal insurance coverage may counterbalance the financial pain.

"I wouldn't say there's an imminent danger that the whole thing is going to collapse," said Robert Seifert, senior associate at the Center for Health Law and Economics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. "It's challenging, but if it's a priority for the administration, then I think it's doable. There are benefits that don't appear in the budget numbers," including healthier residents, who are less of a financial drain in the long run.

Like a bunch of short-term thinkers would find that important...Y'all keep chewing on viral emails and a few carefully selected quotes to get your psychic schwerve on.

quote:

Originally posted by threerings:
+++http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/subsidized_care_plans_cost_to_double/

State projections obtained by the Globe show the program reaching 342,000 people and $1.35 billion in annual expenses by June 2011.


+++
Some small companies are passing along a 26% incease this year to their employees..mine is.


In March 2008 the Boston Globe reported that some "safety-net" hospitals serving low-income individuals in urban areas were facing budget shortfalls due to the combination of reduced "free-care" payments from the state and low enrollment in Commonwealth Care. The reduced state payments anticipated that by reducing the number of uninsured people Commonwealth Care would reduce the amount of charity care provided by hospitals.[43] In a subsequent story that same month the Globe reported that Commonwealth Care faced a short-term funding gap of $100 million and the need to obtain a new three-year funding commitment from the federal government of $1.5 billion. The Globe reported that a number of alternatives were under consideration for raising additional funding, including a $1 per pack increase in the state's cigarette tax. Health care costs in the state were rising at an annual rate of 10 percent, and the state budget deficit was $1.3 billion.

Just tell Romney to get out his check book and cut a check to cover the difference - -

He's good for it - -

Short term thinking? I have seen the universal health care in England. It's been around for a little while, and it don't work. People have to wait years for surgery. Many employers are now offering private insurance to attract and keep good employees.

I know we are starting with the private insurance, but even if I have private insurance I have to pay taxes to the federal program. When the federal program needs more money, I will pay more taxes. The taxes will keep going up until I can't afford private insurance and am forced to use the federal program. And then since more people are using it I am sure they will need to raise taxes again. Rinse and repeat.

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Short term thinking? I have seen the universal health care in England. It's been around for a little while, and it don't work. People have to wait years for surgery. Many employers are now offering private insurance to attract and keep good employees.

So you're telling me that even in the presence of a nationalized system, some intrepid little insurance company offers a private option?
Shhh...you're spoiling the argument for everyone. If the private option is better, more will choose it, pay for it, and cut costs for the publicly funded plan.

No worries--I won't tell.

quote:

I know we are starting with the private insurance, but even if I have private insurance I have to pay taxes to the federal program. When the federal program needs more money, I will pay more taxes. The taxes will keep going up until I can't afford private insurance and am forced to use the federal program. And then since more people are using it I am sure they will need to raise taxes again. Rinse and repeat.

The choice of words suggests that you don't have private insurance at all, but already enjoy a taxpayer-funded option. That would make your argument disingenuous.

Regardless...any suggestions to get the costs under control no matter which way folks are insured? If nothing changes and health care reform doesn't get through congress, how long do you think employers can afford to subsidize health care as a fringe benefit? How many more will be using the ER as their primary source of care when private health insurance is fully funded by individuals?

How many CAT scans and elective surgical procedures do you think middle America can afford out of pocket at the current 10% rate of increase each year?

Once we take the insurance companies and the lawyers out of the mix how much yearly increase in the rates for care do you think you will see?

So why don't we look closely at the health care savings account theories out there THEN decide what we're going to do??

quote:

Originally posted by tawodi:
Once we take the insurance companies and the lawyers out of the mix how much yearly increase in the rates for care do you think you will see?

So why don't we look closely at the health care savings account theories out there THEN decide what we're going to do??

That, sir, is far too sensible a place to start. I like the idea of deferring cash from my paycheck--before taxes--to then shop for deals on preventive screenings and wellness care. Extra tax benefits for those who take better care of themselves, thereby lowering costs, could be a part of that plan as well.

It doesn't touch the disastrous financial effects of catastrophic injury or illness on the average American though.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Short term thinking? I have seen the universal health care in England. It's been around for a little while, and it don't work. People have to wait years for surgery. Many employers are now offering private insurance to attract and keep good employees.

So you're telling me that even in the presence of a nationalized system, some intrepid little insurance company offers a private option?
Shhh...you're spoiling the argument for everyone. If the private option is better, more will choose it, pay for it, and cut costs for the publicly funded plan.

No worries--I won't tell.

quote:

I know we are starting with the private insurance, but even if I have private insurance I have to pay taxes to the federal program. When the federal program needs more money, I will pay more taxes. The taxes will keep going up until I can't afford private insurance and am forced to use the federal program. And then since more people are using it I am sure they will need to raise taxes again. Rinse and repeat.

The choice of words suggests that you don't have private insurance at all, but already enjoy a taxpayer-funded option. That would make your argument disingenuous.

Regardless...any suggestions to get the costs under control no matter which way folks are insured? If nothing changes and health care reform doesn't get through congress, how long do you think employers can afford to subsidize health care as a fringe benefit? How many more will be using the ER as their primary source of care when private health insurance is fully funded by individuals?

How many CAT scans and elective surgical procedures do you think middle America can afford out of pocket at the current 10% rate of increase each year?

How many are actually needed? To many doctors are alarmists and order unnecessary tests at the drop of a hat. Many times these tests are false positives which lead to more tests and unnecessary invasive costly procedures. Retirees
are the biggest offenders who plan lunch around Dr visits daily for aches and pains of aging and demand tests which doctors gladly order.

Its the abuses that drive medical costs up along with many unnecessary prescriptions being written. Lower the insurance premiums and raise the co-pays substantially so people will only go when necessary. Then see how fast it stops. Preventive medicine other than an annual exam is a scam.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
How many are actually needed? To many doctors are alarmists and order unnecessary tests at the drop of a hat. Many times these tests are false positives which lead to more tests and unnecessary invasive costly procedures. Retirees
are the biggest offenders who plan lunch around Dr visits daily for aches and pains of aging and demand tests which doctors gladly order.

Its the abuses that drive medical costs up along with many unnecessary prescriptions being written. Lower the insurance premiums and raise the co-pays substantially so people will only go when necessary. Then see how fast it stops. Preventive medicine other than an annual exam is a scam.

That cuts to the heart of one side of the problem, John. Unnecessary tests are considered a right of the insured, and you'll find scans and films being done and redone with each referral or consultation--tied to contracts between doctors and the facilities where they practice. My better half has excellent private insurance through her job--her payment is about 150 a month--and she's also covered for copays and non-covered services through her tribe. Her out of pocket expenses amount to about 2400 a year--including glasses, dental and periodontal, diabetic testing supplies and education, bloodwork every three months to keep blood sugar, blood pressure and cholestorol under control. She needed to have a circulatory issue in her leg addressed, and the scans began. Apparently, one clinic's sonogram wasn't good enough for the vascular guy, and his bloodwork and pre-admit screenings didn't satisfy the surgeon who'll actually do the repairs. You--and few others here--seem to realize that you're paying for that too.

Increase the copays, and you've once again made a healthy life the domain of the wealthy.

No simple answers yet, but keep on pluggin'...

I like that reducing costs at the point of delivery is the first step in your plan. I'm definitely listening to you, dude.

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by iamgonzo:
Short term thinking? I have seen the universal health care in England. It's been around for a little while, and it don't work. People have to wait years for surgery. Many employers are now offering private insurance to attract and keep good employees.

So you're telling me that even in the presence of a nationalized system, some intrepid little insurance company offers a private option?
Shhh...you're spoiling the argument for everyone. If the private option is better, more will choose it, pay for it, and cut costs for the publicly funded plan.

No worries--I won't tell.

quote:

I know we are starting with the private insurance, but even if I have private insurance I have to pay taxes to the federal program. When the federal program needs more money, I will pay more taxes. The taxes will keep going up until I can't afford private insurance and am forced to use the federal program. And then since more people are using it I am sure they will need to raise taxes again. Rinse and repeat.

The choice of words suggests that you don't have private insurance at all, but already enjoy a taxpayer-funded option. That would make your argument disingenuous.

Regardless...any suggestions to get the costs under control no matter which way folks are insured? If nothing changes and health care reform doesn't get through congress, how long do you think employers can afford to subsidize health care as a fringe benefit? How many more will be using the ER as their primary source of care when private health insurance is fully funded by individuals?

How many CAT scans and elective surgical procedures do you think middle America can afford out of pocket at the current 10% rate of increase each year?

How many are actually needed? To many doctors are alarmists and order unnecessary tests at the drop of a hat. Many times these tests are false positives which lead to more tests and unnecessary invasive costly procedures. Retirees
are the biggest offenders who plan lunch around Dr visits daily for aches and pains of aging and demand tests which doctors gladly order.

Its the abuses that drive medical costs up along with many unnecessary prescriptions being written. Lower the insurance premiums and raise the co-pays substantially so people will only go when necessary. Then see how fast it stops. Preventive medicine other than an annual exam is a scam.

And why are those tests ordered? We all know what happens if a doctor fails to order a test and then missess something...

And Obama has left them out to dry on that point.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:
So you're telling me that even in the presence of a nationalized system, some intrepid little insurance company offers a private option?
Shhh...you're spoiling the argument for everyone. If the private option is better, more will choose it, pay for it, and cut costs for the publicly funded plan.

No worries--I won't tell.

quote:

I know we are starting with the private insurance, but even if I have private insurance I have to pay taxes to the federal program. When the federal program needs more money, I will pay more taxes. The taxes will keep going up until I can't afford private insurance and am forced to use the federal program. And then since more people are using it I am sure they will need to raise taxes again. Rinse and repeat.

The choice of words suggests that you don't have private insurance at all, but already enjoy a taxpayer-funded option. That would make your argument disingenuous.

Regardless...any suggestions to get the costs under control no matter which way folks are insured? If nothing changes and health care reform doesn't get through congress, how long do you think employers can afford to subsidize health care as a fringe benefit? How many more will be using the ER as their primary source of care when private health insurance is fully funded by individuals?

How many CAT scans and elective surgical procedures do you think middle America can afford out of pocket at the current 10% rate of increase each year?

I intentional worded it to fit as many people as possbible. I do currently have health insurance (thank goodness I was smart enough to get it before my family was diagnosed with numerous health problems).

Yes, as I have stated there are private options so people can avoid the public health care system. But people still pay for the public system, and it is quite expensive. You should see all the taxes in England.

There are a couple things that need to be looked at.
The lawsuit situation. There are too many frivilous lawsuits. Doctors have to run every test they ever heard out of fear of malpractice suits. Tort reform would also mean the Drs and hospitals could use a less educated person for many of the jobs, does it really take an RN to do some of the more simple tasks?

Price gouging. Every really examined a hospital bill? There could easily be things like $12 for a box of facial tissues (Kleenex or more likely the generic version), which you may have used 10.

Get rid of illegal aliens.

Charge people douple for stupidity. If you think it would be fun to tie your skateboard to the back of a car doing 50mph, you deserve to be charged extra. This is also a good idea for private insurance - have a stupity clause that says you won't cover them for acts of sheer stupidity.

Edited to add
Charge triple for injuries recieved while committing a crime.

The douple and triple charges are not allowed to be included in any bankruptcy proceedings.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: iamgonzo,

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
How many are actually needed? To many doctors are alarmists and order unnecessary tests at the drop of a hat. Many times these tests are false positives which lead to more tests and unnecessary invasive costly procedures. Retirees
are the biggest offenders who plan lunch around Dr visits daily for aches and pains of aging and demand tests which doctors gladly order.

Its the abuses that drive medical costs up along with many unnecessary prescriptions being written. Lower the insurance premiums and raise the co-pays substantially so people will only go when necessary. Then see how fast it stops. Preventive medicine other than an annual exam is a scam.

That cuts to the heart of one side of the problem, John. Unnecessary tests are considered a right of the insured, and you'll find scans and films being done and redone with each referral or consultation--tied to contracts between doctors and the facilities where they practice. My better half has excellent private insurance through her job--her payment is about 150 a month--and she's also covered for copays and non-covered services through her tribe. Her out of pocket expenses amount to about 2400 a year--including glasses, dental and periodontal, diabetic testing supplies and education, bloodwork every three months to keep blood sugar, blood pressure and cholestorol under control. She needed to have a circulatory issue in her leg addressed, and the scans began. Apparently, one clinic's sonogram wasn't good enough for the vascular guy, and his bloodwork and pre-admit screenings didn't satisfy the surgeon who'll actually do the repairs. You--and few others here--seem to realize that you're paying for that too.

Increase the copays, and you've once again made a healthy life the domain of the wealthy.

No simple answers yet, but keep on pluggin'...

I like that reducing costs at the point of delivery is the first step in your plan. I'm definitely listening to you, dude.

Ya know another scam in the field is the diabetic industry. I am a type two diabetic and see the abuses. The disease is serious but the monitoring is overdone. Any diabetic who is testing knows if the numbers are to high and can feel the changes. So why the three month doctor visits and A1C lab tests? It can all be monitored in the yearly exam. The suppliers inundate you with supplies, classes on eating, new free meters yearly etc.. and the worst abuse is the diabetic shoes with the expensive orthodic inserts. Hell they give me two pairs a year and charge medicare for one. I dont really need them but better me than some illegal. These shoes are very expensive, close to 400 dollars they charge medicare. And you can buy these shoes at Walmart for less than 20 bucks and Dr. sholls inserts at the drug store for a few bucks. As long as there giving it away free
Im taking even if I have to give them away. All you need to qualify is a prescription another dr cost and they make sure you need them. Medicare even gives you heating pads if you have arthritus and we wonder where the money is going. This is all proof of governments alignment with Industry and the root of our problems.
tests? once a year would be safe

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
How many are actually needed? To many doctors are alarmists and order unnecessary tests at the drop of a hat. Many times these tests are false positives which lead to more tests and unnecessary invasive costly procedures. Retirees
are the biggest offenders who plan lunch around Dr visits daily for aches and pains of aging and demand tests which doctors gladly order.

Its the abuses that drive medical costs up along with many unnecessary prescriptions being written. Lower the insurance premiums and raise the co-pays substantially so people will only go when necessary. Then see how fast it stops. Preventive medicine other than an annual exam is a scam.

That cuts to the heart of one side of the problem, John. Unnecessary tests are considered a right of the insured, and you'll find scans and films being done and redone with each referral or consultation--tied to contracts between doctors and the facilities where they practice. My better half has excellent private insurance through her job--her payment is about 150 a month--and she's also covered for copays and non-covered services through her tribe. Her out of pocket expenses amount to about 2400 a year--including glasses, dental and periodontal, diabetic testing supplies and education, bloodwork every three months to keep blood sugar, blood pressure and cholestorol under control. She needed to have a circulatory issue in her leg addressed, and the scans began. Apparently, one clinic's sonogram wasn't good enough for the vascular guy, and his bloodwork and pre-admit screenings didn't satisfy the surgeon who'll actually do the repairs. You--and few others here--seem to realize that you're paying for that too.

Increase the copays, and you've once again made a healthy life the domain of the wealthy.

No simple answers yet, but keep on pluggin'...

I like that reducing costs at the point of delivery is the first step in your plan. I'm definitely listening to you, dude.

Ya know another scam in the field is the diabetic industry. I am a type two diabetic and see the abuses. The disease is serious but the monitoring is overdone. Any diabetic who is testing knows if the numbers are to high and can feel the changes. So why the three month doctor visits and A1C lab tests? It can all be monitored in the yearly exam. The suppliers inundate you with supplies, classes on eating, new free meters yearly etc.. and the worst abuse is the diabetic shoes with the expensive orthodic inserts. Hell they give me two pairs a year and charge medicare for one. I dont really need them but better me than some illegal. These shoes are very expensive, close to 400 dollars they charge medicare. And you can buy these shoes at Walmart for less than 20 bucks and Dr. sholls inserts at the drug store for a few bucks. As long as there giving it away free
Im taking even if I have to give them away. All you need to qualify is a prescription another dr cost and they make sure you need them. Medicare even gives you heating pads if you have arthritus and we wonder where the money is going. This is all proof of governments alignment with Industry and the root of our problems.
tests? once a year would be safe

I'll stay clear of debate on what makes for a proper protocol to manage Type II Diabetes...except to say that when my Deb starts basing her management on how she 'feels', her A1C goes from a very acceptable 6.2 to over 9 in about six months. The biggest waste I see in that field is from the patients who use the professional services, take home the maintenance equipment and nutritional advice...


...and don't put them to use. Diabetes costs livesand limbs and huge dollars because the day to day management lies with the individual, and we as Americans aren't big on lifestyle changes involving sacrifice. It's also the American way to say that 'The root of our problems lies...

...elsewhere.' No one looks to clean up their own side of the street.

Diabetics can take heart in one thing though---even though most insurance (including medicare) doesn't cover testing supplies, they'll cover pretty much all of the surgery, hospitalization, and durable medical supplies you'll need when letting the diabetes progress results in an amputation.

That sort of back-as swards thinking drives up costs too...

But I still agree that to lower costs, the first thing we have to do is...

Lower costs.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
How many are actually needed? To many doctors are alarmists and order unnecessary tests at the drop of a hat. Many times these tests are false positives which lead to more tests and unnecessary invasive costly procedures. Retirees
are the biggest offenders who plan lunch around Dr visits daily for aches and pains of aging and demand tests which doctors gladly order.

Its the abuses that drive medical costs up along with many unnecessary prescriptions being written. Lower the insurance premiums and raise the co-pays substantially so people will only go when necessary. Then see how fast it stops. Preventive medicine other than an annual exam is a scam.

That cuts to the heart of one side of the problem, John. Unnecessary tests are considered a right of the insured, and you'll find scans and films being done and redone with each referral or consultation--tied to contracts between doctors and the facilities where they practice. My better half has excellent private insurance through her job--her payment is about 150 a month--and she's also covered for copays and non-covered services through her tribe. Her out of pocket expenses amount to about 2400 a year--including glasses, dental and periodontal, diabetic testing supplies and education, bloodwork every three months to keep blood sugar, blood pressure and cholestorol under control. She needed to have a circulatory issue in her leg addressed, and the scans began. Apparently, one clinic's sonogram wasn't good enough for the vascular guy, and his bloodwork and pre-admit screenings didn't satisfy the surgeon who'll actually do the repairs. You--and few others here--seem to realize that you're paying for that too.

Increase the copays, and you've once again made a healthy life the domain of the wealthy.

No simple answers yet, but keep on pluggin'...

I like that reducing costs at the point of delivery is the first step in your plan. I'm definitely listening to you, dude.

Ya know another scam in the field is the diabetic industry. I am a type two diabetic and see the abuses. The disease is serious but the monitoring is overdone. Any diabetic who is testing knows if the numbers are to high and can feel the changes. So why the three month doctor visits and A1C lab tests? It can all be monitored in the yearly exam. The suppliers inundate you with supplies, classes on eating, new free meters yearly etc.. and the worst abuse is the diabetic shoes with the expensive orthodic inserts. Hell they give me two pairs a year and charge medicare for one. I dont really need them but better me than some illegal. These shoes are very expensive, close to 400 dollars they charge medicare. And you can buy these shoes at Walmart for less than 20 bucks and Dr. sholls inserts at the drug store for a few bucks. As long as there giving it away free
Im taking even if I have to give them away. All you need to qualify is a prescription another dr cost and they make sure you need them. Medicare even gives you heating pads if you have arthritus and we wonder where the money is going. This is all proof of governments alignment with Industry and the root of our problems.
tests? once a year would be safe

I'll stay clear of debate on what makes for a proper protocol to manage Type II Diabetes...except to say that when my Deb starts basing her management on how she 'feels', her A1C goes from a very acceptable 6.2 to over 9 in about six months. The biggest waste I see in that field is from the patients who use the professional services, take home the maintenance equipment and nutritional advice...


...and don't put them to use. Diabetes costs livesand limbs and huge dollars because the day to day management lies with the individual, and we as Americans aren't big on lifestyle changes involving sacrifice. It's also the American way to say that 'The root of our problems lies...

...elsewhere.' No one looks to clean up their own side of the street.

Diabetics can take heart in one thing though---even though most insurance (including medicare) doesn't cover testing supplies, they'll cover pretty much all of the surgery, hospitalization, and durable medical supplies you'll need when letting the diabetes progress results in an amputation.

That sort of back-as swards thinking drives up costs too...

But I still agree that to lower costs, the first thing we have to do is...

Lower costs.

To lower costs..lower costs? Okay...

Anyway, I agree that the number one issue facing the U.S., in terms of health care, is poor personal choices. No amount of money of access to health care will change that. You'll notice that the number 1 cause of infant mortality is lack of neonatal care, you'll also notice that I posted a page of at least 15 differant, totally seperate places in my area that offer FREE neonatal care... Access is not the issue.

The issue is the social agenda of the left. You'll also notice that those who favor UHC dodged that issue completely...

What is this thing about a $1000.00 fine a year for those who don't buy into health care? Who's going to determine who that is without an invasion of privacy?? Maybe if there was basic health care that cost $1000.00 a year for everybody, people could/would buy into it - -

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj: How many CAT scans and elective surgical procedures do you think middle America can afford out of pocket at the current 10% rate of increase each year?

The ONLY mid-to-long term outcome of Congress-f'ed, collectivized, socialized federally-mismanaged so-called "healthcare" will be a curtailment of these diagnostic procedures. If offered at all by the bureaucrats deciding on people's health options and treatments, the scans will be delayed. Fact: a few years ago there were more medical scanners offering high-quality diagnostics in the greater Pitssburgh area than in all of socialized medicine Canada. That disparity in resources emphasizes the difference in quality between what we have and what Canada offers.

There is no desire by the obamanation and its cultish sycophants to make diagnoses quicker or better: that would mean more people would live longer. That is emphatically NOT desired. More people dead, sooner saves medical funds for Obama's latest vote-buying, polytickle payoff schemes and reduces the burden on Social Insecurity. Why can people not get that through their heads and see the ultimate purposes behind guvmint control-freak management of "healthcare?"

The English health care system doesn't work...my friend...the Brits see us as healthcare barbarians who throw people out on the street a day after surgery without the benefit of visiting nurses...our system throws people out and says your on your own...if you have no family or a "good neighbor" your screwed.

quote:

Fact: a few years ago there were more medical scanners offering high-quality diagnostics in the greater Pitssburgh area than in all of socialized medicine Canada. That disparity in resources emphasizes the difference in quality between what we have and what Canada offers

Says nothing to quality. Tells me that Doctors practicing in Pittsburgh hospitals need to keep those machines occupied to pay for them all...CT scans for hangnails, indigestion, sprains and strains--all in the interest of 'ruling out' what isn't there. More doesn't mean better--it just means more.

Canadian medicine doesn't lack for diagnostic tools and equipment--they don't put the same premium on immediate access to elective and non-emergent procedures.

Your idea about killing off the elderly as the ultimate goal of health care reform...I'm sure I've heard wilder theories...danged if I could say where, though.

quote:

Originally posted by threerings:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
<snip> The biggest waste I see in that field is from the patients who use the professional services, take home the maintenance equipment and nutritional advice...


...and don't put them to use. Diabetes costs livesand limbs and huge dollars because the day to day management lies with the individual, and we as Americans aren't big on lifestyle changes involving sacrifice. It's also the American way to say that 'The root of our problems lies...

...elsewhere.' No one looks to clean up their own side of the street.

<snip again>

quote:

To lower costs..lower costs? Okay...

Anyway, I agree that the number one issue facing the U.S., in terms of health care, is poor personal choices. No amount of money of access to health care will change that. You'll notice that the number 1 cause of infant mortality is lack of neonatal care, you'll also notice that I posted a page of at least 15 differant, totally seperate places in my area that offer FREE neonatal care... Access is not the issue.

The issue is the social agenda of the left. You'll also notice that those who favor UHC dodged that issue completely<snip>

...

...

...

...

...

That the 'social agenda of the left' portion of the quote you're talking about?

How much did your coverage/copays go up this year? Everything all right with your non-taxpayer-funded health plan?

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by threerings:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
<snip> The biggest waste I see in that field is from the patients who use the professional services, take home the maintenance equipment and nutritional advice...


...and don't put them to use. Diabetes costs livesand limbs and huge dollars because the day to day management lies with the individual, and we as Americans aren't big on lifestyle changes involving sacrifice. It's also the American way to say that 'The root of our problems lies...

...elsewhere.' No one looks to clean up their own side of the street.

<snip again>

quote:

To lower costs..lower costs? Okay...

Anyway, I agree that the number one issue facing the U.S., in terms of health care, is poor personal choices. No amount of money of access to health care will change that. You'll notice that the number 1 cause of infant mortality is lack of neonatal care, you'll also notice that I posted a page of at least 15 differant, totally seperate places in my area that offer FREE neonatal care... Access is not the issue.

The issue is the social agenda of the left. You'll also notice that those who favor UHC dodged that issue completely<snip>

...

...

...

...

...

That the 'social agenda of the left' portion of the quote you're talking about?

How much did your coverage/copays go up this year? Everything all right with your non-taxpayer-funded health plan?

There has been no change to my plan in several years.