On Aug 19, 4:16*pm, "Bob F" wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
Bob F wrote:
Virtually EVERYBODY agrees that pre-existing condition and young
people coverage are good ideas; the difference is the GOP doesn't
think that mandatory coverage and death panels are necessary adjuncts.

Mandatory coverage was a creation of Republicons. They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to do it.

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

My God, you really need to pay more attention to
the news. But it is another fine example of folks
claiming to know what the solution is, that are
totally ignorant of the most basic facts.

" wrote in news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been doing
it for decades. It's nothing new, really.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been doing
it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause of
financial hemorrhage of their economies

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been
doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause of
financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but "financial
hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and housing sectors have
been more "guilty" than the medical reforms. Canada is doing fine, I
believe. Holland is doing (comparatively) fine, and MA isn't doing too
badly either.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Aug 21, 11:15*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? * *They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts.


ONE Republican governor implementing mandatory
healthcare coverage now equates to "Republicans
PUSHING mandatory healthcare for years before the
Dems agreed to it"? Have you been drinking this AM?

That's like saying Democrats have been pro life
for years, just because one Democrat, somewhere is.
Total nonsense. Actually I can find more Democrats
that are pro life than you can find Republicans in
favor of mandatory healthcare. But I would never
distort and twist and try to make the claim that
Democrats in general are pushing pro-life.

Another fine example of how you libs are generally
divorced from reality.






*Abroad they have been doing
it for decades. *It's nothing new, really.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in news:f3cc8d72-
:

On Aug 21, 11:15*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? * *They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts.

ONE Republican governor implementing mandatory
healthcare coverage now equates to "Republicans
PUSHING mandatory healthcare for years before the
Dems agreed to it"? Have you been drinking this AM?

That's like saying Democrats have been pro life
for years, just because one Democrat, somewhere is.
Total nonsense. Actually I can find more Democrats
that are pro life than you can find Republicans in
favor of mandatory healthcare. But I would never
distort and twist and try to make the claim that
Democrats in general are pushing pro-life.

Another fine example of how you libs are generally
divorced from reality.
*
Abroad they have been doing it for decades. *It's nothing new, really.

I have only said that Romney implemented compulsory health insurance in
Massachusetts. If that is incorrect, I'm sorry, but I believe it to be
correct. Whether others (left or right) have implemented similar things
in the US - I am not aware of that. If you ask me whether it is a good
idea, YES!! it is a good idea. I fully realize that it does away with
individual responsibility, but if you want that, you have to let the
hospital and doctors demand payment up front, before treatment, even if
you were hit by a truck and can't say anything.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Han" wrote in message
...
"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been
doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause of
financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but "financial
hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and housing sectors have
been more "guilty" than the medical reforms. Canada is doing fine, I
believe. Holland is doing (comparatively) fine, and MA isn't doing too
badly either.


When Claude Castonguay, the guy who created the Quebec Medicare system,
which was then copied for the rest of the country, comes out and declared
the system broken and proposed getting out of many areas of service because
of the inefficiencies and fraud, your belief is unfounded
AS for Massachusetts, it's even worse than Canada.
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/01/edca0901.htm

I would suggest that in the future, you verify before you go with your
beliefs

On Aug 21, 12:15*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:f3cc8d72-
:







On Aug 21, 11:15*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? * *They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts.

ONE Republican governor implementing mandatory
healthcare coverage now equates to "Republicans
PUSHING mandatory healthcare for years before the
Dems agreed to it"? *Have you been drinking this AM?

That's like saying Democrats have been pro life
for years, just because one Democrat, somewhere is.
Total nonsense. *Actually I can find more Democrats
that are pro life than you can find Republicans in
favor of mandatory healthcare. *But I would never
distort and twist and try to make the claim that
Democrats in general are pushing pro-life.

Another fine example of how you libs are generally
divorced from reality.

Abroad they have been doing it for decades. *It's nothing new, really.

I have only said that Romney implemented compulsory health insurance in
Massachusetts. *If that is incorrect, I'm sorry, but I believe it to be
correct. *Whether others (left or right) have implemented similar things
in the US - I am not aware of that.


Conveniently now ignoring the context of your reply.
We had some wingnut claim:

Mandatory coverage was a creation of Republicons. They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to do it.

THAT is total BS.
Maybe you shouldn't chime in with a reply
that supports some BS.


*If you ask me whether it is a good
idea, YES!! *it is a good idea.

I didn't ask you that. Nor was that the issue that I
responded to.

In article ,
Han wrote:


Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but "financial
hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and housing sectors have
been more "guilty" than the medical reforms. Canada is doing fine, I
believe. Holland is doing (comparatively) fine, and MA isn't doing too
badly either.

Just one Provence notes over a billion dollars in needed maintenance
repairs to hospital plants have gone unfunded. Britain is doing the
same. MA is spending MUCH more than they had planned and that has been
rising since implementation.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
says...

"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been doing
it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause of
financial hemorrhage of their economies


Hey knuckle-dragger, look up health care percent of GNP around the
world, then look up health care rankings around the world.
You can even use those exact words. That way you don't have to think.
They invented something called "the internet" a while back.
People with just a little bit of brains don't have to eat the bull****
of people with less brains - that's you.
Bye now.

" wrote in
:

On Aug 21, 12:15*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote in
news:f3cc8d72-
:







On Aug 21, 11:15*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? * *They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts.

ONE Republican governor implementing mandatory
healthcare coverage now equates to "Republicans
PUSHING mandatory healthcare for years before the
Dems agreed to it"? *Have you been drinking this AM?

That's like saying Democrats have been pro life
for years, just because one Democrat, somewhere is.
Total nonsense. *Actually I can find more Democrats
that are pro life than you can find Republicans in
favor of mandatory healthcare. *But I would never
distort and twist and try to make the claim that
Democrats in general are pushing pro-life.

Another fine example of how you libs are generally
divorced from reality.

Abroad they have been doing it for decades. *It's nothing new,
reall
y.

I have only said that Romney implemented compulsory health insurance
in Massachusetts. *If that is incorrect, I'm sorry, but I believe it
to be correct. *Whether others (left or right) have implemented
similar thing
s
in the US - I am not aware of that.


Conveniently now ignoring the context of your reply.
We had some wingnut claim:

Mandatory coverage was a creation of Republicons. They were pushing
it fo
r years
before the Democrats agreed to do it.

THAT is total BS.
Maybe you shouldn't chime in with a reply
that supports some BS.


*If you ask me whether it is a good
idea, YES!! *it is a good idea.

I didn't ask you that. Nor was that the issue that I
responded to.

I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the statement "Mandatory
coverage was a creation of Republicons". I merely said that Mitt
implemented it in MA, and did so whole-heartedly, and probably had
bipartisan support at the time.

Much has gone the way it was supposed to in MA. Some not. And it is
indeed very disheartening that the costs keep going up.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Truthman wrote:

Hey knuckle-dragger, look up health care percent of GNP around the
world, then look up health care rankings around the world.
You can even use those exact words. That way you don't have to think.
They invented something called "the internet" a while back.
People with just a little bit of brains don't have to eat the bull****
of people with less brains - that's you.
Bye now.

The problem with America's figures is that they lay a lot of the blame
for social issues on the medical system. There is a pretty fair
correlation between number of teen pregnancies (and single mother
households) and extremely low birth weight babies. In turn there is a
relationship between low birth weight and infant survival. We lead the
league in that respect largely for social reasons and not medical
reasons. Even among developed countries, those with high teen preg rates
also have worse infant mortality.
Another sidelite with infant mortality is that many developed
countries don't even count babies below a certain weight as live births.
We do. And we try to save them.
Life expectancy also has societal implications. Every teenager
that dies in a drive by or from drugs or just piles his car into a tree
lowers the life expectancy much more than keeping a geezer alive between
70 and 80.
Indeed there are some rather interesting indications that if it
wasn't for the medical system our figures in both these areas would be
even worse. We put most low birth weight babies into ICUs and fight like
hell to save them.. and do a fair %age of the time. There are
indications that our trauma systems may be saving more of the victims of
drive bys as shown by a decrease in the murder rate but no changes in
the shooting rate (thus turning murder investigations into attempted
murder investigations).
These are not as cut and dried as many would have us beleive.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Truthman wrote:

Hey knuckle-dragger, look up health care percent of GNP around the
world, then look up health care rankings around the world.
You can even use those exact words. That way you don't have to
think. They invented something called "the internet" a while back.
People with just a little bit of brains don't have to eat the
bull**** of people with less brains - that's you.
Bye now.

The problem with America's figures is that they lay a lot of the blame
for social issues on the medical system. There is a pretty fair
correlation between number of teen pregnancies (and single mother
households) and extremely low birth weight babies. In turn there is a
relationship between low birth weight and infant survival. We lead the
league in that respect largely for social reasons and not medical
reasons. Even among developed countries, those with high teen preg
rates also have worse infant mortality.
Another sidelite with infant mortality is that many developed
countries don't even count babies below a certain weight as live
births. We do. And we try to save them.
Life expectancy also has societal implications. Every teenager
that dies in a drive by or from drugs or just piles his car into a
tree lowers the life expectancy much more than keeping a geezer alive
between 70 and 80.
Indeed there are some rather interesting indications that if it
wasn't for the medical system our figures in both these areas would be
even worse. We put most low birth weight babies into ICUs and fight
like hell to save them.. and do a fair %age of the time. There are
indications that our trauma systems may be saving more of the victims
of drive bys as shown by a decrease in the murder rate but no changes
in the shooting rate (thus turning murder investigations into
attempted murder investigations).
These are not as cut and dried as many would have us beleive.

I agree with Kurt!! It makes me in favor of freely available
contraceptives and abortion. Availability, not coercion.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:



OK on the morphing, grinning too.
Of course insurance companies can just raise premiums, while MCare can't.
Of course they can. The base premium for MCare does every year. Although
because of political expediency, this isn't as cut and dried as it was
even 5 years ago. MCare was doing the equivalent for years by having
more people paying in than taking out (something the Evil Insurance
Companies would love to be able to do). These phantom increases are
going away as the Boomers hit the books, though. Another problem with
MCare.


And they do. My premium for add-on insurance to Medicare was $106/mo in
December 2010, $200/mo in August 2012. Medicare now: $100/mo per person,
then $110/mo per person.
Also MCare has access to the general funds of the US (the Trustees
note that one out of every three dollars of MCare spending now comes
from general funds). Again something the EIs would LOVE to do and a back
door increase.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On 21 Aug 2012 15:15:04 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been doing
it for decades. It's nothing new, really.

I never knew that MA had a Republican legislature. You learn something every
day.

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been
doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause of
financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but "financial
hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and housing sectors have
been more "guilty" than the medical reforms. Canada is doing fine, I
believe. Holland is doing (comparatively) fine, and MA isn't doing too
badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

" wrote in
:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have
been doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause of
financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but
"financial hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and housing
sectors have been more "guilty" than the medical reforms. Canada is
doing fine, I believe. Holland is doing (comparatively) fine, and MA
isn't doing too badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:15:04 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been
doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.

I never knew that MA had a Republican legislature. You learn
something every day.

Guess what? They even have a Republican Senator these days. Romney
pushed it, and was rather proud of it too, wasn't he?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 09:04:28 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Aug 21, 11:15*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? * *They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts.


ONE Republican governor implementing mandatory
healthcare coverage now equates to "Republicans
PUSHING mandatory healthcare for years before the
Dems agreed to it"? Have you been drinking this AM?

That's like saying Democrats have been pro life
for years, just because one Democrat, somewhere is.
Total nonsense. Actually I can find more Democrats
that are pro life than you can find Republicans in
favor of mandatory healthcare. But I would never
distort and twist and try to make the claim that
Democrats in general are pushing pro-life.

Another fine example of how you libs are generally
divorced from reality.

It's just another example in a long line of lies by the left. They'll say
anything to try to make a point. Worse, they'll *do* anything.

In article ,
says...

" wrote in
:


I'm not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the statement "Mandatory
coverage was a creation of Republicons". I merely said that Mitt
implemented it in MA, and did so whole-heartedly, and probably had
bipartisan support at the time.

Much has gone the way it was supposed to in MA. Some not. And it is
indeed very disheartening that the costs keep going up.

You're talking to a birther. Waste of time.
If you aren't willing to simply insult the wingnut political jagoffs in
this group - which is all they merit - you're wasting your efforts,
however minor they may be.
Wingnuts don't respond well to logic or fact.
Like asking your dog "What's 2 x 3?"
They'll just call you names. Bad, bad, names - like lib and such.
The mother****ing assholes can't even get name-calling right.
Heh.

On 22 Aug 2012 01:21:19 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have
been doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause of
financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but
"financial hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and housing
sectors have been more "guilty" than the medical reforms. Canada is
doing fine, I believe. Holland is doing (comparatively) fine, and MA
isn't doing too badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

On 22 Aug 2012 01:22:52 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:15:04 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have been
doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.

I never knew that MA had a Republican legislature. You learn
something every day.

Guess what? They even have a Republican Senator these days.

Next you're going to say that he voted for it? (I know better).

Romney pushed it, and was rather proud of it too, wasn't he?

He's certainly not my first choice but it's all I have.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I've found conservatives use logic, liberals use
hatred, name calling, and emotional arguments
without reasoning.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"Truthman" wrote in message

Wingnuts don't respond well to logic or fact.
They'll just call you names. Bad, bad, names -
like lib and such.

The mother****ing assholes can't even get name-calling right.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

The problem with America's figures is that they lay a lot of the blame
for social issues on the medical system. There is a pretty fair
correlation between number of teen pregnancies (and single mother
households) and extremely low birth weight babies. In turn there is a
relationship between low birth weight and infant survival. We lead the
league in that respect largely for social reasons and not medical
reasons. Even among developed countries, those with high teen preg
rates also have worse infant mortality.
Another sidelite with infant mortality is that many developed
countries don't even count babies below a certain weight as live
births. We do. And we try to save them.
Life expectancy also has societal implications. Every teenager
that dies in a drive by or from drugs or just piles his car into a
tree lowers the life expectancy much more than keeping a geezer alive
between 70 and 80.
Indeed there are some rather interesting indications that if it
wasn't for the medical system our figures in both these areas would be
even worse. We put most low birth weight babies into ICUs and fight
like hell to save them.. and do a fair %age of the time. There are
indications that our trauma systems may be saving more of the victims
of drive bys as shown by a decrease in the murder rate but no changes
in the shooting rate (thus turning murder investigations into
attempted murder investigations).
These are not as cut and dried as many would have us beleive.

Right. Many offer various proxies for the success of a country's medical
system. The most often used are cost and life expectancy.

* COST - Americans do spend more for health care than countries X, Y, and Z.
Guess what? We spend more because we CAN. America is a rich nation and we
elect to spend some of those riches on health care.

* LIFE EXPECTANCY - As you mentioned, we have several factors influencing
life expectancy not found in many other countries: Gang shootings,
automobile accidents, premature babies, executions via a valid warrant,
Dancing With The Stars, and more.

A MUCH better metric for determining the efficacy of the health care system
is life expectancy AFTER diagnosis. In almost all areas, breast cancer,
congestive heart failure, blah-blah-blah, the US leads the world, sometimes
dramatically. For example, the five-year survival rate for breast cancer is
84% in the US and 70% in the UK. I think the US is #2, behind Canada, in one
particular form of cancer - I forget.

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
Next you're going to say that he voted for it? (I know better).

Romney pushed it, and was rather proud of it too, wasn't he?

He's certainly not my first choice but it's all I have.

He's not my first choice either. But, since neither God nor I will become
president, he's the next best thing.

HeyBub wrote:

Right. Many offer various proxies for the success of a country's
medical system. The most often used are cost and life expectancy.

* COST - Americans do spend more for health care than countries X, Y,
and Z. Guess what? We spend more because we CAN.

No - you spend more because you have no choice. Your healh-care
industry is structured so that it doesn't compete with itself.

It's tied in with your insurance industry that has been suffering
massive losses from natural disasters and poor market investment
returns, and it is making up for those losses by raising premiums across
the board - and reducing coverage.

In article ,
Han wrote:


Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

My guess is that MA is the area that is not grateful (grin)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


* COST - Americans do spend more for health care than countries X, Y, and Z.
Guess what? We spend more because we CAN. America is a rich nation and we
elect to spend some of those riches on health care.
There are a bunch of studies from the Organisation for Econ Development
(since they are based in Paris and spell "Organisation" funny they MUST
be truly brilliant) that show that very thing.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

kr williams ) wrote:

Canada is doing fine, I believe.

You bet your broken ass that Canada is doing fine.

Holland is doing (comparatively) fine,

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

Oh for christ sakes.

Typical dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers american thinking.

Trying to drag up that tired and flat-out wrong "Canada is doing ok only
because the US military is 'protecting' it" thinking.

A totally intellectually-bankrupt idea.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

What a complete joke.

The only country that HAS EVER and WOULD EVER pose a CREDIBLE military
threat AGAINST Canada - IS the USA.

So get off your ****ing high-horse about being the protector of the
world. Your a joke of a country, sucking the life out of planet earth
as you **** it up in many ways.

In Home Guy wrote:

It's tied in with your insurance industry that has been suffering
massive losses from natural disasters and poor market investment
returns, and it is making up for those losses by raising premiums
across the board - and reducing coverage.

Since health care costs have been going up for decades, your natural
disaster explanation doesn't hold.

I see two very obvious reasons why costs go up:

1. Government regulations of every sort

2. The vast majority of Americans pay very little of their own health
care costs, and until recently, very little of their insurance costs,
and hence are completely unconcered about the actual cost of services.

--
St. Paul, MN

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 01:21:19 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have
been doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause
of financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but
"financial hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and
housing sectors have been more "guilty" than the medical reforms.
Canada is doing fine, I believe. Holland is doing (comparatively)
fine, and MA isn't doing too badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

Whatever you want to call some of the US's staunchest allies.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:39:47 -0400, Home Guy wrote:

kr williams ) wrote:

Canada is doing fine, I believe.

You bet your broken ass that Canada is doing fine.

Holland is doing (comparatively) fine,

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

Oh for christ sakes.

I can't help it if you don't like the truth, HomoGay.

Typical dumb-as-a-bag-of-hammers american thinking.

Fact, HomoGay.

Trying to drag up that tired and flat-out wrong "Canada is doing ok only
because the US military is 'protecting' it" thinking.

*CAN* do it because you don't have to spend more than $1.98 for defense.

A totally intellectually-bankrupt idea.

No, HomoGay, you are the one who is intellectually bankrupt. No assets at
all.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

What a complete joke.

You are, indeed, HomoGay.

The only country that HAS EVER and WOULD EVER pose a CREDIBLE military
threat AGAINST Canada - IS the USA.

You're an idiot, but everyone here already knows that. You're too stupid to
get the message.


So get off your ****ing high-horse about being the protector of the
world. Your a joke of a country, sucking the life out of planet earth
as you **** it up in many ways.

Not the world, just the part that likes freedom. I'm sorry that doesn't
include you, HomoGay.

On 22 Aug 2012 16:42:07 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 01:21:19 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have
been doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause
of financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but
"financial hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and
housing sectors have been more "guilty" than the medical reforms.
Canada is doing fine, I believe. Holland is doing (comparatively)
fine, and MA isn't doing too badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

Whatever you want to call some of the US's staunchest allies.

The fact is that they're freeloading on the protection. They're paying zero,
which is money they can use for other purposes. ...and even that isn't
working out so well.

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 16:42:07 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 01:21:19 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have
been doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause
of financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but
"financial hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and
housing sectors have been more "guilty" than the medical reforms.
Canada is doing fine, I believe. Holland is doing (comparatively)
fine, and MA isn't doing too badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

Whatever you want to call some of the US's staunchest allies.

The fact is that they're freeloading on the protection. They're
paying zero, which is money they can use for other purposes. ...and
even that isn't working out so well.

Don't know the details, but usually they buy airplanes (military as well
as civilian), other military hardware. Holland had a contingent in Iraq
and Afghanistan, I believe they still have. The fact they aren't
spending the outrageous amounts on socalled defense as the US only means
they are smarter ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 22 Aug 2012 22:00:02 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 16:42:07 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 22 Aug 2012 01:21:19 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
om:

On 21 Aug 2012 15:58:09 GMT, Han wrote:

"Atila Iskander" wrote in
:


"Han" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
news:f6859f3a-
:

Mandatory healthcare coverage was a creation of
REPUBLICANS? They were pushing it for years
before the Democrats agreed to it?

First implemented by Romney in Massachusetts. Abroad they have
been doing it for decades. It's nothing new, really.


And in just about all those countries, it's been the prime cause
of financial hemorrhage of their economies

Yes, often it hasn't been as cheap as initially projected, but
"financial hemorrhage" - hardly. I think that the banking and
housing sectors have been more "guilty" than the medical reforms.
Canada is doing fine, I believe. Holland is doing (comparatively)
fine, and MA isn't doing too badly either.

Both living under the military umbrella of the US.

And 2 of the countries that are grateful for that.

Perhaps I should have substituted "freeloading" for "living".

Whatever you want to call some of the US's staunchest allies.

The fact is that they're freeloading on the protection. They're
paying zero, which is money they can use for other purposes. ...and
even that isn't working out so well.

Don't know the details, but usually they buy airplanes (military as well
as civilian), other military hardware. Holland had a contingent in Iraq
and Afghanistan, I believe they still have. The fact they aren't
spending the outrageous amounts on socalled defense as the US only means
they are smarter ...

Don't make me laugh.

Bert wrote:
In Home Guy wrote:

It's tied in with your insurance industry that has been suffering
massive losses from natural disasters and poor market investment
returns, and it is making up for those losses by raising premiums
across the board - and reducing coverage.

Since health care costs have been going up for decades, your natural
disaster explanation doesn't hold.

I see two very obvious reasons why costs go up:

1. Government regulations of every sort

2. The vast majority of Americans pay very little of their own health
care costs, and until recently, very little of their insurance costs,
and hence are completely unconcered about the actual cost of services.

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

We spend twice what any other industrialized nation spends, per capita, and have
poorer results. And they cover everyone. Very few people with those "socialized"
medical systems would give it up for what we have.

Why do people in the US leave the country so often for medical care? Because
they can't afford it here.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...-S-3216010.php

Read about the Canadian system:
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

Somehow, every other industialized nation manages to do better than we do, for
more of their population, for 1/2 the cost or less. Might be something to look
at.

Bob F wrote:

You forgot - massive profits for the health care industry.

Insurance industry profits are in line with other industries, specifically
about 4.5% of revenue. Hospital profits are less, at 3.5%.


We spend twice what any other industrialized nation spends, per
capita, and have poorer results. And they cover everyone. Very few
people with those "socialized" medical systems would give it up for
what we have.

By every meaningful metric, the US healthcare system is superior to any
other in the world. Consider the 5-year life expectancy of a diagnosis of
breast cancer. In the US, it is 85%; in the UK it is 70%.


Why do people in the US leave the country so often for medical care?
Because they can't afford it here.

http://www.sfgate.com/business/artic...-S-3216010.php

Yep, that's correct. For those who chose not to have insurance, it's a
meaningful option.


Read about the Canadian system:
http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_12523427

The Canadian system has its advantages. Consider, though, that there are
more MRI machines in my town than in ALL of Canada. Far more.

Anecdotal observations usually aren't for squat as evidence, but I'll relate
mine. I stumbled and really hurt my knee in the fall. I got an appointment
with my internest that afternoon, and an MRI that evening (8:30 pm).

Contrast that with the waiting times in the Canadian system for
non-emergency MRI:

TWELVE WEEKS!


Somehow, every other industialized nation manages to do better than
we do, for more of their population, for 1/2 the cost or less. Might
be something to look at.

Other industrialized nations do NOT do better than we. It is simply NOT TRUE
that other countries' healtcare systems are superior.

HeyBub (the appologist / psycophant for US health-care industry) wrote:

By every meaningful metric, the US healthcare system is superior
to any other in the world.

Including performing unnecessary, fraudulent, and even RISKY proceedures
just to rack up billing dollars.

You can take your so-called "gold plated" health care system, with it's
proven health-care fraud, and shove it straight up your american
butt-hole.

Half of your system is medicare - which is practically speaking a public
/ socialist system anyways, but full of fraudulent billing. You
couldn't function as a country (not that you do now anyways) if medicare
was eliminated.

I'll take our Canadian health care system any day.

More affordable

Equally effective

NO PAPERWORK!!!!

NO WAITING FOR APPROVAL!!!!

NO WONDERING / WORRYING IF YOU'RE COVERERD!!!

Now read the following and be ashamed for your american health-care
system.

And don't be an absolute dick-head moron by full-quoting it. That goes
for anyone replying to this. For you google-groper morons out there,
select "Show Quoted Text" - and then ****ing trim it before you reply.

========
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/bu...pagewanted=all

Hospital Chain Inquiry Cited Unnecessary Cardiac Work
By REED ABELSON and JULIE CRESWELL
Published: August 6, 2012

In the summer of 2010, a troubling letter reached the chief ethics
officer of the hospital giant HCA, written by a former nurse at one of
the company’s hospitals in Florida.

In a follow-up interview, the nurse said a doctor at the Lawnwood
Regional Medical Center, in the small coastal city of Fort Pierce, had
been performing heart procedures on patients who did not need them,
putting their lives at risk.

“It bothered me,” the nurse, C. T. Tomlinson, said in a telephone
interview. “I’m a registered nurse. I care about my patients.”

In less than two months, an internal investigation by HCA concluded the
nurse was right.

“The allegations related to unnecessary procedures being performed in
the cath lab are substantiated,” according to a confidential memo
written by a company ethics officer, Stephen Johnson, and reviewed by
The New York Times.

Mr. Tomlinson’s contract was not renewed, a move that Mr. Johnson said
in the memo was in retaliation for his complaints.

But the nurse’s complaint was far from the only evidence that
unnecessary — even dangerous — procedures were taking place at some HCA
hospitals, driving up costs and increasing profits.

HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States with 163
facilities, had uncovered evidence as far back as 2002 and as recently
as late 2010 showing that some cardiologists at several of its hospitals
in Florida were unable to justify many of the procedures they were
performing. Those hospitals included the Cedars Medical Center in Miami,
which the company no longer owns, and the Regional Medical Center
Bayonet Point. In some cases, the doctors made misleading statements in
medical records that made it appear the procedures were necessary,
according to internal reports.

Questions about the necessity of medical procedures — especially in the
realm of cardiology — are not uncommon. None of the internal documents
reviewed calculate just how many such procedures there were or how many
patients might have died or been injured as a result. But the documents
suggest that the problems at HCA went beyond a rogue doctor or two.

At Lawnwood, where an invasive diagnostic test known as a cardiac
catheterization is performed, about half the procedures, or 1,200, were
determined to have been done on patients without significant heart
disease, according to a confidential 2010 review. HCA countered recently
with a different analysis, saying the percentage of patients without
disease was much lower and in keeping with national averages.

At Bayonet Point, a 44-year-old man who arrived at the emergency room
complaining of chest pain suffered a punctured blood vessel and a
near-fatal irregular heartbeat after a doctor performed a procedure that
an outside expert later suggested might have been unnecessary, documents
show. The man had to be revived. “They shocked him twice and got him
back,” according to the testimony of Dr. Aaron Kugelmass in a medical
hearing on the case.

In another incident, an outside expert described how a woman with no
significant heart disease went into cardiac arrest after a vessel was
cut when a Bayonet Point cardiologist inserted a stent, a meshlike
device that opens coronary arteries. She remained hospitalized for
several days, according to a person who has reviewed internal reports.

On Monday morning, in a conference call with investors, company
executives disclosed that in July the civil division of the United
States attorney’s office in Miami requested information on reviews
assessing the medical necessity of interventional cardiology services
provided at 10 of its hospitals, located largely in Florida, but also
two or three hospitals in other states. In the conference call and in a
statement on its Web site, the company also referred to inquiries by The
Times. HCA’s stock ended nearly 4 percent lower Monday, at $25.55.

In a recent statement, HCA declined to provide evidence that it had
alerted Medicare, state Medicaid or private insurers of its findings, or
reimbursed them for any of the procedures that the company later deemed
unnecessary, as required by law.

“When the company becomes aware of a situation in which we might have a
reimbursement obligation, we assess, with outside resources, what our
reimbursement obligations might be,” the statement said.

HCA also declined to show that it had ever notified patients, who might
have been entitled to compensation from the hospital for any harm.

Some doctors accused in the reviews of performing unnecessary procedures
are still practicing at HCA hospitals.

The cardiologists say the reviews of their work did not accurately
reflect the care they provided, and HCA says the reviews “are not, by
any means, definitive,” according to an e-mailed response by the
company. HCA says it took whatever steps were necessary to improve
patient care. It also said “significant actions were taken to
investigate areas of concern, to bring in independent reviewers, and to
take action where necessary.”

Details about the procedures and the company’s knowledge of them are
contained in thousands of pages of confidential memos, e-mail
correspondence among executives, transcripts from hearings and reports
from outside consultants examined by The Times, as well as interviews
with doctors and others. A review of those communications reveals that
rather than asking whether patients had been harmed or whether
regulators needed to be contacted, hospital officials asked for
information on how the physicians’ activities affected the hospitals’
bottom line.

HCA denies its decisions at these hospitals were motivated by financial
considerations, but rather “demonstrate the strong focus we have on
quality patient care.” The company also says that more than 80 percent
of its hospitals are in the top 10 percent of government rankings for
quality.

Although HCA has hospitals in about 20 states from California to
Virginia and Alaska to Texas, Florida, with its large older population,
is a critical and growing market for hospital chains and especially for
HCA. HCA’s Florida hospitals provide about 20 percent of the company’s
revenue.

The need to root out Medicare fraud — billing for unnecessary
procedures, for example — is high for all hospitals. In 2003, Tenet
Healthcare agreed to pay $54 million to settle allegations that
unnecessary cardiac procedures were being performed over six years and
billed to Medicare and Medicaid at one of its hospitals in California,
Redding Medical Center.

But the pressure is even greater for HCA. In 2000, the company reached
one of a series of settlements involving a huge Medicare fraud case with
the Justice Department that would eventually come to $1.7 billion in
fines and repayments. The accusations, which primarily involved
overbilling, occurred when Rick Scott, now the governor of Florida, was
the company’s chief executive. He was removed from the post by the board
but was never personally accused of wrongdoing.

As part of the settlement with the federal regulators, HCA signed a
97-page Corporate Integrity Agreement that extended through late 2008.
It detailed what had to be reported to authorities and provided for
stiffer penalties if HCA failed to do so.

If there were intentional violations of such an agreement, it would mean
“that a defendant, already caught once defrauding the government, has
apparently not changed its corporate culture,” said Michael Hirst, a
former assistant United States attorney in California who oversaw the
case against Tenet. Mr. Hirst now represents whistle-blowers.

In its statement, HCA said it fulfilled any obligation it had under the
agreement to report “substantial overpayment.” The revelations in the
documents come at a significant time in the evolution of medical
treatment in the United States — from independently owned hospitals to
large, corporate chains.

HCA exemplifies the trend. In 2006, HCA was taken private by a group of
private equity firms, including Bain Capital, the firm co-founded by
Mitt Romney, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. (By that
time, Mr. Romney was no longer a partner in Bain.) By mid-2010, the
private equity owners were eager to start cashing out of their
investment. While HCA prepared for an initial public offering of its
stock that took place in 2011, it borrowed to pay the private equity
firms $4.3 billion in dividends.

The ability to take these financial steps hinged on HCA showing
continued robust profit growth at its hospitals.

And for that the company turned, in part, to cardiac care.

An Early Sign of Trouble

Two years after the 2000 fraud settlement, company executives uncovered
problems in the cardiac catheterization lab at Cedars Medical Center,
according to accounts that became public.

An outside consulting group hired by HCA provided a report that raised
“questions regarding the medical necessity of some of the procedures,”
the company said in a news release in early 2003. HCA said it was
suspending eight physicians from doing certain cardiac procedures, was
providing the report to a United States attorney and would refund any
inappropriately submitted hospital claims.

“This issue at Cedars and the steps taken to investigate and resolve it
should be seen and understood in the larger context of HCA’s commitment
to quality care and patient safety,” Jack O. Bovender Jr., who was then
the company’s chief executive, told investors in a conference call that
February.

HCA will not say whether it had ever refunded payments for the
unnecessary procedures. Medicare officials said they could not determine
whether the agency had received payments, and the United States
attorney’s office in Miami declined to comment. The hospital allowed
four of the physicians to return under monitoring, according to HCA, and
two did so. “We believe the hospital acted appropriately,” the company
said in its recent statement. Still, the negative publicity swirling
around Cedars worried HCA executives, according to internal e-mails.
They wanted to avoid a replay when similar problems were discovered at
another HCA hospital — Bayonet Point.

An Outbreak of Stents

Nestled along the west coast of Florida, about 45 miles northwest of
Tampa, the town of Hudson, with its winding canals, is largely a quiet
fishing community.

Soon after the Cedars episode, HCA executives noticed that the hospital
in Hudson, the 290-bed Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point, was
implanting an unusually high number of cardiac stents, given the size of
the population.

Late in 2003, executives from HCA’s headquarters in Nashville dispatched
a group that oversees its hospitals’ cardiac care to investigate. In a
confidential memo, the team cited incidents at Bayonet Point where
patients were treated for multiple lesions, or blockages, even when “the
second lesion (or third) did not appear to have significant disease.”
The team went on to note “several cases” in which patients were treated
even though their arteries did not have significant blockages.

In a transcript of confidential hearings held later, the lawyers for HCA
were blunt. In looking at one physician, Dr. Sudhir Agarwal, Dr. Martin
I. Kalish, a physician who served as an outside lawyer for HCA, said the
“style of clinical practice leads to unnecessary procedures and
unnecessary complications.”

On the team’s recommendation, HCA brought in an external company,
CardioQual Associates of Franklin, Mich., in 2004 to examine medical
records from Bayonet Point.

In a confidential memo prepared in December 2004 and reviewed by The
Times, CardioQual concluded that as many as 43 percent of 355
angioplasty cases, where doctors performed invasive procedures to open
up a patient’s arteries, were outside reasonable and expected medical
practice.

Worse, the investigation revealed that some physicians had indicated in
medical records that the patients had blockages of 80 to 90 percent when
a later, more scientific analysis of a sampling of cases revealed the
blockages had ranged from 33 to 53 percent.

Cardiologists generally do not operate on any blockage less than 70
percent, said Dr. Rita Redberg, a prominent cardiologist at the
University of California, San Francisco. The significant disparities
between the magnitude of blockage being cited by the doctors at Bayonet
Point and the CardioQual review “raises real concerns that this wasn’t
just error, but it was intent” by the doctors, she said.

After receiving the CardioQual report, Bayonet Point suspended the
privileges of nine physicians in late 2004. But unlike the Cedars
episode, when HCA turned over its findings to regulators and
authorities, HCA took steps to withhold details of its conclusions to
the media and others, according to internal communications. In January
2005, David Williams, who was then the chief executive of Bayonet Point,
wrote in an e-mail: “Clearly, we have protected ourselves under the peer
review umbrella and have released very little information.” The
recipients of his message included Dan Miller, who then oversaw HCA’s
hospitals in western Florida, and Charles R. Evans, a Nashville
executive who was president of all of HCA’s hospitals on the eastern
side of the country.

In his response, Mr. Evans thanked Mr. Williams for the update and asked
for a “summary as to the business impact.”

In a later internal communication, a representative for HCA said the
company had successfully used confidentiality rules to withhold the
damaging CardioQual report from the Florida attorney general, whose
Medicaid Fraud Control Unit had started an investigation of the
physicians. In response to questions from The Times, however, HCA said
it had provided “substantially all of the information in the report” to
state regulators. The attorney general’s office did not return calls
seeking comment.

One of the subjects of that investigation was Dr. Agarwal. The
CardioQual review of 20 of his cases concluded that fewer than half were
within reasonable and expected practice. Dr. Agarwal did not return a
call to his office.

Anthony Leon, a lawyer for Dr. Agarwal and the other eight Bayonet Point
physicians, said in a statement: “There is absolutely no merit to any
allegation that any of these doctors were performing unnecessary
procedures or performing procedures that led to unnecessary
complications as a style or pattern of practice.” The suspensions of Dr.
Agarwal and another physician were found to have been done in error by
an outside panel in hearings in 2005 and 2006, Mr. Leon added. A doctor
on the panel said Dr. Agarwal’s procedures were found to be within
established medical practice, and his full privileges were reinstated in
early 2006.

Dr. Agarwal and the other eight physicians have filed defamation
lawsuits in county court, claiming the actions and statements of the
hospital and HCA ruined their practices. HCA has denied the claims.

HCA would soon discover its problems didn’t end at Bayonet Point.

A Nurse Speaks Out

C. T. Tomlinson said he could not believe his eyes as Dr. Abdul Shadani
prepared to insert a stent in a heart patient in the cardiac
catheterization lab of HCA’s Lawnwood hospital in the late spring of
2008.

Mr. Tomlinson, a traveling nurse who had worked at more than a dozen
cath labs before arriving at Lawnwood, said in a telephone interview
that he saw no blockages in the images of the patient’s artery.

“Sir, what are we going to fix?” Mr. Tomlinson recalled asking Dr.
Shadani. The doctor responded by asking the nurse if he did not see the
90 percent blockage in the artery. Mr. Tomlinson did not, and looked at
the others in the room. They all shrugged, he said, and Dr. Shadani
inserted the stent.

Mr. Tomlinson reported his concerns to hospital officials. Shortly
after, he was told his contract would not be renewed. An internal memo,
however, concluded that Mr. Tomlinson had been retaliated against. Even
so, that summer the hospital opened an investigation. Internal
communications show that HCA officials in charge of quality were
involved in the decision to review a sample of cases from some
cardiologists at the hospital.

The reviewer, an outside heart specialist, concluded there were problems
with 13 of the 17 cases performed by Dr. Shadani, including unwarranted
cardiac catheterizations and patients who were needlessly subjected to
multiple procedures.

While it is not clear whether HCA accepted the reviewer’s findings, Dr.
Shadani continues to practice at Lawnwood, according to the Web site.
Dr. Shadani did not return several telephone calls seeking comment.

The outside reviewer found similar problems with several other
cardiologists at Lawnwood. The company declined to say whether it
alerted regulators or patients of its findings but it said it
established stricter rules governing how cardiologists should document
their cases.

A Moneymaking Practice

Cardiology is a lucrative business for HCA, and the profits from testing
and performing heart surgeries played a critical role in the company’s
bottom line in recent years.

Some of HCA’s busiest Florida hospitals perform thousands of stent
procedures each year. Medicare reimburses hospitals about $10,000 for a
cardiac stent and about $3,000 for a diagnostic catheterization.

But in recent years, doctors across the country have been less quick to
implant stents, instead relying on drugs to treat blockages. Medicare
has also questioned the need for patients who receive cardiac stents to
stay overnight at the hospital, cutting into the profitability of the
procedures at many hospitals.

HCA has more than 100 catheterization labs across the country and the
one at Lawnwood was a financial juggernaut. It accounted for 35 percent
of the hospital’s net profits, according to financial documents.

In fact, one of the physicians from Lawnwood’s cardiac cath lab, Dr.
Prasad Chalasani, was highlighted by the hospital in a 2009 business
plan as being the most profitable doctor at the facility. “Our leading
EBDITA MD,” the plan described him. (Ebitda, or earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, is a measure of
corporate earnings.) Just a few months earlier, hospital executives had
received an outside review that characterized Dr. Chalasani as too quick
to perform catheterizations, often without first doing the stress tests
necessary to determine whether a patient needed the invasive and costly
test.

When reached by telephone, Dr. Chalasani defended his work, saying the
2008 findings were the result of poor documentation about what had
occurred before the patients received the catheterizations. “The tests
were done,” he said.

Dr. Chalasani emphasized that he was not paid by the hospital, and had
privileges at other hospitals. Since 2008, he said, doctors have
improved their documentation. Among the changes, he said, is the use of
forms requiring the doctors to indicate that they are following
established guidelines.

“To my knowledge, we have made tremendous progress,” he said.

The questions raised by the 2008 incident might have ended there if not
for Mr. Tomlinson’s 2010 letter to Alan R. Yuspeh, the head of HCA’s
ethics and compliance. HCA undertook another review of Lawnwood and some
of its other hospitals in Florida, including Kendall Regional Medical
Center, in Miami, and Palms West Hospital, near West Palm Beach. The
results showed that some patients without heart disease were receiving
questionable treatment, and HCA has responded by conducting still more
reviews.

Your link to the news article is good reading. Refers to the same
stinking division of the same stinking corp. that got it's ass sued for
Medicare fraud back in the nineties. Fined a lot by the gov't. CEO Rick
Scott u$ed his profits to become governor of Florida.


http://www.politifact.com/florida/ar...e-columbiahca/

Frist family (Senator Bill) founded HCA, which later joined with
Columbia. Frist was one of the jerks who tried to keep Terry Schiavo
"alive".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Frist

At the time, the formerly great newspaper, St. Pete Times, was on the
fraud case big time. The hospital website had dozens and dozens of job
openings for attorneys listed; very few for nurses.

Folks panic at the idea of the gov. running healthcare....scary thought,
I admit. Do they ever wonder where their healthcare dollars really go?

Wikipedia article about Columbia/HCA....scroll down to the mention of
Bain Capital )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospita...ion_of_America

In Home Guy wrote:

You can take your so-called "gold plated" health care system, with
it's proven health-care fraud, and shove it straight up your american
butt-hole.

Thank you for your calm, well reasoned analysis.

And, good luck.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN