Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew

On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew




Roberts brought up the "tax" or penalty of 1% if you have no
insurance. If you are in the higher income bracket, you probably have
coverage either through your employer or you can afford it.

On the lower end, you have to make a big decision. If you are trying
to raise a family on $30k, you can either pay a penalty of $300 or you
can buy insurance for maybe $8000 to $12,000.

On 6/29/2012 5:01 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:23:35 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew




Roberts brought up the "tax" or penalty of 1% if you have no
insurance. If you are in the higher income bracket, you probably have
coverage either through your employer or you can afford it.

On the lower end, you have to make a big decision. If you are trying
to raise a family on $30k, you can either pay a penalty of $300 or you
can buy insurance for maybe $8000 to $12,000.

And those that can't afford that and or the illegals will still pay
nothing resulting in our government going farther into dept. All that
at a cost to buy votes form the growing population of the ignorant.

And those that can't afford that and or the illegals will still pay
nothing resulting in our government going farther into dept. *All that
at a cost to buy votes form the growing population of the ignorant.- -



The fed govt will pick up the tab for the first 5 yrs, then the burden
of cost will be placed on the states, which most are already budget
crunching. Managing the system will become a nightmare, I predict,
and no one knows what the insurance companies have in store to add to
the confusion (and mismanagement?).

Sonny

On 6/28/2012 10:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

It's entirely plausible that Roberts may have done more future damage to
the liberal's causes than they realize at the moment ... they may have
well been Marbury'ed ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew



What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
they said it with a straight face.

--
G.W. Ross

Freeman's Law: Nothing is so simple
it cannot be misunderstood.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross"
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew

What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
they said it with a straight face.

I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
be paying for those who do.

--
Always bear in mind that your own resolution to
succeed is more important than any one thing.
-- Abraham Lincoln

Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross"
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew

What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
they said it with a straight face.

I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
be paying for those who do.

I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until
now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you
are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course
you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the
"charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need
to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same
treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the
insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need
databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide
where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course).

At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay
for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that
insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured).

There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get
insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have
benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while,
and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance,
period.

Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system
would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it
would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful
which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare
personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless
bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more
than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on
the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the
quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would
like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should
be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of
proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is a cost.
And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility, I also think that
you have to play fair. Why should I get such favorable rates for health
insurance (because I work or worked for a company (university) that was
generous with benefits), while someone who is freelancing can't get
affordable insurance (certainly not if there could be a pre-existing
condition)? Is he/she really so much of a greater risk?

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 6/29/2012 3:41 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross"
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew

What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
they said it with a straight face.

I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
be paying for those who do.

I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing. Until
now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed expense, you
are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare provider. Of course
you could negotiate to get what you need for less than half of the
"charge", and sometimes you might be successful, but usually you'd need
to pay twice or more of what the insurance company pays for the same
treatment. Now everyone pays the same in healthcare insurance, and the
insurance companies negotiate with the providers. We "only" need
databases to find out actual amounts paid for each condition to decide
where a certain treatment is most economical (and best, of course).

At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help pay
for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge that
insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and uninsured).

There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to get
insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't have
benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a while,
and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more insurance,
period.

Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance system
would cut out most of the duplications in administering insurance, but it
would also cut what little competition there is left, so it is doubtful
which is worse. I am all in favor of good wages for healthcare
personnel, but currently much of the costs are associated with needless
bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art" care that doesn't help more
than regular exercise, and I could go on. Let's focus on that, and on
the question how much end of life care should cost, in comparison to the
quality of life. I know I tread perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would
like to submit that at that time, insurance and treatment choices should
be made. I have a living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of
proper instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.


While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still
the best and most responsive in the world, bar none. If the plan for
government review of the medical procedures a person gets, were in
effect today when my wife retina torn loss, she would be blind today, as
the surgery had to be done within hours not the months it would take the
bureaucrats to decide if she should be treated. Check the time frames
to get care under the European Socialist systems. You will be shocked.
As your European friends on Facebook.

However do you really think a bill that duplicates the FDA, adds taxes
on medical devices, and taxes to those who are least able to pay them,
is the solution to this dilemma.

With government limits on medical care, do you think any one would have
developed the spin off from The Star War program into the laser surgery
techniques we use today.

The government regulation has burden the medical industry with a system
that takes 10 to 20 years for the FDA to review and approve a new drug.
Do you think having two government agencies doing the same review is
going to make drugs safer or get new drugs to the doctors faster.

In article ,
G. Ross wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew



What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
they said it with a straight face.


It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the
primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care
and insurance industries.





--
Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler. (Albert Einstein)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:00:25 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still
the best and most responsive in the world, bar none.

I do realize this is a waste of bandwidth, but here's one comparison:

"Direct comparisons of health statistics across nations are complex. The
Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall",
compares the performance of the health systems in Australia, New Zealand,
the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found
that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently
underperforms compared to the other countries.[33] A major difference
between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is
the only country without universal health care. The OECD also collects
comparative statistics, and has published brief country profiles."

Another study a few years back by the World Health Organization, ranked
the US first in amount paid for health care, but 37th in quality. Right
behind Costa Rica and ahead of Slovenia.

Could you please reference reputable sources that support your claim of
"the best and most responsive in the world"?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 6/29/2012 1:41 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross"
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew

What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
they said it with a straight face.
I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
be paying for those who do.
I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing.

What you're really saying is that you think the benefits outweigh the
detriments. If you want a thing and can afford it, you've probably
already got it and don't need to be compelled. If you don't want a
thing, why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
expense? And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to
force a third party to get it for you at their expense? It makes no
difference how laudable the thing is, making it compulsory takes away
your freedom. So what you're really saying is that you believe denying
me and others our freedom is a good thing.

On 6/29/2012 2:51 PM, Larry W wrote:
In article ,
G. Ross wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew



What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
they said it with a straight face.

It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the
primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care
and insurance industries.


What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Just Wondering wrote:

What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from crazy
malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts of the
companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies gobble up
every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical community. Lots of
areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a small part of it all.

--

-Mike-

On 6/29/2012 3:59 PM, Han wrote:
Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is a cost.
And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility, I also think that
you have to play fair. Why should I get such favorable rates for health
insurance (because I work or worked for a company (university) that was
generous with benefits), while someone who is freelancing can't get
affordable insurance (certainly not if there could be a pre-existing
condition)? Is he/she really so much of a greater risk?

The difference is the company pays for your health insurance and the
independent does not have a company to pay part of his insurance.

To you this may seem unfair, but the company pays part of your insurance
to keep you on the job each day to get the most out of you.

On 6/29/2012 6:30 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 6/29/2012 2:51 PM, Larry W wrote:
In article ,
G. Ross wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew



What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could furnish
health care for more people for less money. Never made sense, but
they said it with a straight face.

It likely _is_ possible, but it would require legislation with the
primary purpose of benefit to the people, rather than the health care
and insurance industries.


What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Let start the cost analysis with the cost of government imposed
regulations. When I worked in a Pharmaceutical nearly a third of their
total staff was devoted to regulatory compliance.

That is just in on the manufacturing side. I have no experience with
the providers, but know they are also hit hard with government regulations.

Next let explorer the cost of law suits. The first thing some will do is
total the payouts in the current year and say that these cost are
insignificant. When considering these cost you have to consider the
preventive cost, adult resistant lids, label that say a fire is hot and
will burn you, and other nonsense. There are many expenses that a
company makes to avoid law suits.

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

On 6/29/2012 3:41 PM, Han wrote:
Larry Jaques wrote in
:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:19:15 -0400, "G. Ross"
wrote:

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.

Now let the fun and games begin.

Lew

What was amazing at the start was the premise that you could
furnish health care for more people for less money. Never made
sense, but they said it with a straight face.

I believe their theory is that all of us who rarely use doctors will
be paying for those who do.

I believe that compulsory healthcare insurance is a good thing.
Until now, if your insurance or lack of it does not cover a needed
expense, you are at the mercy of the doctor or other healthcare
provider. Of course you could negotiate to get what you need for
less than half of the "charge", and sometimes you might be
successful, but usually you'd need to pay twice or more of what the
insurance company pays for the same treatment. Now everyone pays the
same in healthcare insurance, and the insurance companies negotiate
with the providers. We "only" need databases to find out actual
amounts paid for each condition to decide where a certain treatment
is most economical (and best, of course).

At the moment, the cost of care often includes a surcharge to help
pay for indigent caren (in NY City, there is a 8.5% or so surcharge
that insurance covers, but that deals with the cost of under and
uninsured).

There wil be no more COBRA where it would cost $1000 plus/month to
get insurance if your hours were reduced to the extent that you don't
have benefits anymore, or get laid off. Skip on the insurance for a
while, and then you have a pre-existing condition, and no more
insurance, period.

Of course, I would think that a nationwide single payor insurance
system would cut out most of the duplications in administering
insurance, but it would also cut what little competition there is
left, so it is doubtful which is worse. I am all in favor of good
wages for healthcare personnel, but currently much of the costs are
associated with needless bureaucracy, duplicating "state of the art"
care that doesn't help more than regular exercise, and I could go on.
Let's focus on that, and on the question how much end of life care
should cost, in comparison to the quality of life. I know I tread
perhaps on sensitive toes, and I would like to submit that at that
time, insurance and treatment choices should be made. I have a
living will etc set up. Do you? In the absence of proper
instructions, the doctors and hospitals will clean you out.


While there are problems with our health insurance system it is still
the best and most responsive in the world, bar none. If the plan for
government review of the medical procedures a person gets, were in
effect today when my wife retina torn loss, she would be blind today,
as the surgery had to be done within hours not the months it would
take the bureaucrats to decide if she should be treated. Check the
time frames to get care under the European Socialist systems. You will
be shocked. As your European friends on Facebook.

As a born Dutchman, firstly I have nothing against Social Democrats (most
often called socialists over there). I have something against
communists, since they are dictatorial, whichtrue socialists aren't.
Secondly, the Dutch healthcare system is a single payer type national
healthcare system, although there are many companies offering insurance
policies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthc...e_Netherlands).

I broke a leg in an amusement/zoo type park (Dolfinarium) in Harderwijk,
a very small city, formerly more a fishing village on the inland sea arm
the Zuiderzee. It is also where Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy and the
system of nomenclature for animals and plants, developed his system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linaeus. But it had a first-class
hospital and trauma surgeon on staff. I broke the leg at 10:30 AM, it
took a while for an ambulance to get me to the hospital. I was seen in
the ER almost immediately and the trauma surgeon was called in. By 2:30
PM I was back in a hospital bed after surgery to put a couple of plates
on the 2 broken bones near the ankle, and a dozen or so screws. I spent
3 nights in the hospital. The total costs for ambulance, surgery
hospital stay and doctors was around $9000. The bill for the ambulance
was a 1-liner. The bill for the rest was 2 lines. Because I didn't have
Dutch (or EU) insurance they asked me to pay the bill, and get the money
back from my insurance company (they knew the difficulties dealing with
US insurance). It all worked out for me in the end, with not much more
than my deductible to be paid by me (they screwed me on the exchange
rates).

Here in the US, the orthopedist I used for follow-up was amazed at the
way the Dutch surgeon had inserted one of the plates by not cutting the
leg and placing the plate, but by inserting it under the skin and sliding
it in place. Note that I have now full use of the leg, and (so far) no
sign of the possible arthritic complications which I was told can happen.

So in my personal experience, the Dutch system was very efficient, highly
professional and "modern", and probably quite cheap.

However do you really think a bill that duplicates the FDA, adds taxes
on medical devices, and taxes to those who are least able to pay them,
is the solution to this dilemma.

There are things the FDA isn't very good at, and I don't know exactly how
it could be better. There is a trade-off between safety, approving new
treatments and doing careful followup. The tax on medical devices is
2.3%, I believe, well within the yearly cost increases for healthcare
related items. Those least able to pay don't pay at all now, for various
reasons. Having them pay something is a conservative's dream.

With government limits on medical care, do you think any one would
have developed the spin off from The Star War program into the laser
surgery techniques we use today.

Huh?? Limits on medical care?? What limits? The discussion of what
care a person should get, is and should be between the patient and the
doctor. The doctor shouldn't have to worry about misplaced malpractice
suits, or about getting paid for his services, and the patient should be
assured to get the most appropriate medical care. Now, the insurance
company might suggest hydrochlorothiazide for high blood pressure (a
diuretic costing a few dollars per month) over the latest new blood
pressure pill that has all kinds of side effects and costs $60 plus per
month. Plus I think (and have said so elsewhere several times), people
should ahead of time make their wishes for end of life care known (living
will, advanced directives, whatever). That should be in discussions with
their loved ones, and in written down, notarized and deposited with their
physician formats. And those are difficult questions, that can cause
heartache for years afterwards.

The government regulation has burden the medical industry with a
system that takes 10 to 20 years for the FDA to review and approve a
new drug. Do you think having two government agencies doing the same
review is going to make drugs safer or get new drugs to the doctors
faster.

I was involved in this area as a researcher, doing preliminary research.
I have knowledge of the problems, the bureaucracy and indirectly of the
falsifications during the processes. My considered opinion is that the
FDA should strive to bring new (really new, not me-too or slight
modifications of old drugs) medications and devices to the market place.
But there also should be a more formalized and stricter system of follow-
up. The Vioxx/Celebrex type anti-COX2 antiinflammatories are an example
how a celebrated new class of (expensive) drugs has had minimal effects
on treatment (a gross generalization) and some troublesome and still not
quite understood side effects. The statins have effects that cannot
really be explained by cholesterol-lowering (originally the way they were
designed and thought to act), they appear to have side effects for some
that are bad, but overall they are (I think) good. I'll have to look up
what this new law might do to a corollary of the FDA, because I hadn't
really heard about that aspect other than that the FDA is a heap of
trouble.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Winterburn wrote in news:4fee15f1$0$1474
:

I signed up with medcure.org. A real price performer.

Have to look into that. Thanks.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 30 Jun 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han wrote:
Yes, of course, that is why insurance should be compulsory IMO. No dodging
allowed.

And what does one do when they lose their job, get laid off or
heaven's forbid, don't work at a job that earns them enough to pay for
it in the first place?

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

On 6/29/2012 3:59 PM, Han wrote:
Sometimes you can't get something for free. Very often there is a
cost. And while I'm all in favor of individual responsibility, I also
think that you have to play fair. Why should I get such favorable
rates for health insurance (because I work or worked for a company
(university) that was generous with benefits), while someone who is
freelancing can't get affordable insurance (certainly not if there
could be a pre-existing condition)? Is he/she really so much of a
greater risk?

The difference is the company pays for your health insurance and the
independent does not have a company to pay part of his insurance.

To you this may seem unfair, but the company pays part of your
insurance to keep you on the job each day to get the most out of you.

Yes, the benefits are what kept me in the job for far longer than I
really wanted at times (and I was scared of failing to find a stable job
with kids who wanted college). What is unfair is that the company also
gets a tax break on those premiums, it's not just a freebie to you.
Freelancers don't get that break, plus they have difficulty getting into
a group with reduced premiums.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave wrote in
news
On 30 Jun 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han wrote:
Yes, of course, that is why insurance should be compulsory IMO. No
dodging allowed.

And what does one do when they lose their job, get laid off or
heaven's forbid, don't work at a job that earns them enough to pay for
it in the first place?

Seems there should be a mechanism for unemployed to keep up with the
insurance. Probably is in the law. If not, there should be some subsidy
to keep you in the system.

There is something wrong with a system that doesn't give you a living
wage, and that includes health insurance premiums. Similar to the
complaints that "poor" people don't pay taxes, even if they were working.
"Welfare" is what they get in the form of tax rebates because of being
poor. If people need to pay taxes (and I am in favor of that), then we
need to pay them wages that would cover those taxes (and health insurance
premiums). Either a recipe for inflation or class warfare, take your
pick.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Keith Nuttle wrote in
:

snip

What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really
goes, and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Let start the cost analysis with the cost of government imposed
regulations. When I worked in a Pharmaceutical nearly a third of
their total staff was devoted to regulatory compliance.

The compliance regulations and the time it took to comply with the nonsense
(changing every 3 months) is what drove me to retirement. No miore faldera
for me!

(much snipped)
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 30 Jun 2012 02:03:18 GMT, Han wrote:




Having reently joined the
retired crowd, and now having to deal with Medicare billing, supplemental
insurances, deductibles and copays, it is mind boggling and loudly crying
for simplification.

Plan F. No deductible, no co-pay, no paperwork. Most expensive option
though. Has some coverage for foreign travel too. Varies by state
and insurance but my cost is $230/month.

For those of you nearing Medicare time, a given plan, Plan F, Plan C,
etc are all the same no matter who the provider is. Rates may vary,
but the plan is the same.

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from
crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts
of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies
gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical
community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a
small part of it all.

Agreed.

You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense
they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how
to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their
own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:08:23 -0400, Dave wrote:

On 30 Jun 2012 01:58:26 GMT, Han wrote:
Yes, of course, that is why insurance should be compulsory IMO. No
dodging allowed.

And what does one do when they lose their job, get laid off or heaven's
forbid, don't work at a job that earns them enough to pay for it in the
first place?

From what I read, financial assistance will be provided to low income
families and waivers are provided to the truly poverty stricken.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:12:47 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Plan F. No deductible, no co-pay, no paperwork. Most expensive option
though. Has some coverage for foreign travel too. Varies by state and
insurance but my cost is $230/month.

I went with B. No co-pay or paperwork, but doesn't pay the doctors
deductible. It does pay the hospital deductible. I found that the
difference between B and C was greater than the cost of the deductible.
And yes, C does cover a few other things but I though those were minor.

We pay about $140 each thru AARP. I don't remember what you get
additional for F over and above the deductible, but I didn't think it was
worth an extra $90 a month.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

If you don't want a thing,
why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
expense?

Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?

And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to force a
third party to get it for you at their expense?

They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free treatment
they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the difference?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On 06/30/2012 09:47 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

If you don't want a thing,
why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
expense?

Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?

State or local as it should be. Read the 10th amendment.


And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to force a
third party to get it for you at their expense?

They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free treatment
they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the difference?

Non federal government. Read the 10th amendment.





--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Larry Jaques wrote:

Please tell me where a "regular ol' doctors" make 4K a hour. I'll try to
convince my wife to move.

Grants Pass, OR and Concord, CA. My oral surgeon @ $4k and my
sister's appendectomy surgeon who got $22k for near-outpatient (no
overnight stay) service. Granted, those were the clinic/hospital
charges, but CHRIST, $22k for 3 hours work and a change of sheets?

I can't belive that Grants Pass would be to any significantly way different
than Boise, ID (where we are) or White Salmon, WA (where we were).

What you are not seeing in those itemized bills is how much the surgeon
is took home. Nor what the the anesthesiologist took home. Nor what the
surgical nurse took home. Nor what the vast legions of support nursing staff,
medical records clerks, billing clerks, insurance relations staff,
administrators and janitors. In the tiny 20 bed hospital in White Salmon
I daresay that every surgery was paying the salaries of easily 30 people.

Again, don't heap the entire bill upon the guy doing the actual work. He
may be getting a good chunk of it, but to some degree he earned it. After
all the lowest of general surgeons spent 4 years as a undergradate education,
4 years of medical school and 5+ years of residency and internship. Thats to
say nothing of required annual continuing edation. If I had 13+ years of
education, I'd like to be paid a bit more too.

By the way, according to http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Healthcare/Ph...d-surgeons.htm
the median income of physicans and surgeons is about $80 an hour. I used to
make more than that doing private computer consulting.


--
Frank Stutzman

On 6/30/2012 12:29 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from
crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts
of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies
gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical
community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a
small part of it all.

Agreed.

You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense
they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how
to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their
own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.

Except the cost of maintaining a staff of regulatory experts to guide
the drug through the FDA approval process, the cost of the required
testing to demonstrate the drug is effective, safe, and a host of other
things, such as the lethal limit testing, environmental test require for
manufacturing discharges, etc. When you consider that to get a drug
through FDA review and approval, there must be 100 of animal test, and
many people must use the drug and the data collected analyses.

If the drug is a biologic the organism must be created and it must be
characterized. Long chain protein characterization is not easy with
1000's of carbon atoms in the molecule.

Before a drug can become approved, multiple lots of the drug must be
manufactured by the planned procedures that are submitted to FDA review
and the manufacture drug shown it is equivalent to the lab drug. These
lots can not be sold and are destroyed.

Before manufacturing can begin other permits must be obtained, or
reviews made the EPA, OSHA, and a host of other alphabets agencies on
the local, state, and federal level.

This does not include the R&D expense of the many drugs that are found
and never make it to be consider as a possible candidate for the medical
system. For every one drug the is seen as a potential candidate for the
drug industry, 1000 are required to be chemically constructed, and
evaluated.

If these cost could not be deducted from the drug sales, new drugs would
be prohibitively expensive and would not come on the market.

YES there is a lot of patient avoidance research, but where do you think
the generic drugs that are approved comes from? They too have
development cost.

On 6/30/2012 12:41 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:12:47 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Plan F. No deductible, no co-pay, no paperwork. Most expensive option
though. Has some coverage for foreign travel too. Varies by state and
insurance but my cost is $230/month.

I went with B. No co-pay or paperwork, but doesn't pay the doctors
deductible. It does pay the hospital deductible. I found that the
difference between B and C was greater than the cost of the deductible.
And yes, C does cover a few other things but I though those were minor.

We pay about $140 each thru AARP. I don't remember what you get
additional for F over and above the deductible, but I didn't think it was
worth an extra $90 a month.

You need to talk to an insurance agent that has access to several
different companies, and compare the cost for what you are getting.

Especially watch the out-of-pocket expense maximum and the deductible.
For some companies these items are additive. ie. if your out-of-pocket
maximum is 3000 and your maximum deductible is 3000 you will have to
come up with 6000 if the cost of the procedure is large enough.

Doug Winterburn wrote in
b.com:

On 06/30/2012 09:47 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

If you don't want a thing,
why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
expense?

Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?

State or local as it should be. Read the 10th amendment.


And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to
force a
third party to get it for you at their expense?

They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free
treatment they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the
difference?

Non federal government. Read the 10th amendment.

If I get charged an 8.5% surcharge (even if the insurance company pays
it, I ultimately pay via my premiums), it is immaterial whether it is a
federal or local charge. It is money out my pocket.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 06/30/2012 12:12 PM, Han wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote in
b.com:

On 06/30/2012 09:47 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

If you don't want a thing,
why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
expense?

Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?

State or local as it should be. Read the 10th amendment.


And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to
force a
third party to get it for you at their expense?

They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free
treatment they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the
difference?

Non federal government. Read the 10th amendment.

If I get charged an 8.5% surcharge (even if the insurance company pays
it, I ultimately pay via my premiums), it is immaterial whether it is a
federal or local charge. It is money out my pocket.



It's very material unless you believe the Constitution is immaterial.
Again, read the 10th amendment.

It would be best for all those who wish the federal government to be
involved in all aspects of life to start a movement to repeal the 10th
rather than just ignoring it.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:01:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle
wrote:

On 6/30/2012 12:41 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 00:12:47 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Plan F. No deductible, no co-pay, no paperwork. Most expensive option
though. Has some coverage for foreign travel too. Varies by state and
insurance but my cost is $230/month.

I went with B. No co-pay or paperwork, but doesn't pay the doctors
deductible. It does pay the hospital deductible. I found that the
difference between B and C was greater than the cost of the deductible.
And yes, C does cover a few other things but I though those were minor.

We pay about $140 each thru AARP. I don't remember what you get
additional for F over and above the deductible, but I didn't think it was
worth an extra $90 a month.

You need to talk to an insurance agent that has access to several
different companies, and compare the cost for what you are getting.

Especially watch the out-of-pocket expense maximum and the deductible.
For some companies these items are additive. ie. if your out-of-pocket
maximum is 3000 and your maximum deductible is 3000 you will have to
come up with 6000 if the cost of the procedure is large enough.

We're talking Medicare supplements. Plan C is plan C no matter the
company. Plan ? is Plan ? no matter the company. This is mandated by
the government. Only difference is cost. I was able to save $35 a
month with AARP over Blue Cross but it is the same policy with either
company. Start here
https://www.medicare.gov/find-a-plan...ions/home.aspx

Han wrote:

Well said. Just a little question. Most (I think) physicians, including
primary care doctors, nowadays are saddled with an extensive staff of
billing agents, transcribers, appointment secretaries etc, etc. So net
pay and gross pay are very different.

Absolutely. My father-in-law was also a general practitioner (doctoring tends
to run in my wife's family). He ran his clinic with just a nurse and a
front desk person who also handled the business operation. Very low overhead
and, thusly, very low costs to his patients.

On the other hand, it was a cash only business. He did his patient notes in
his own shorthand on 3x5 cards, owned the building he worked in, and ended
up marrying his nurse.

Now days just nagging insurance companies to pay (either Medicare or private)
takes a staff of and least 2 full time employees per practitioner.


--
Frank Stutzman

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:29:53 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 19:02:26 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:

What it would require is an accurate analysis of what has triggered
exploding health care costs, figuring out where the money really goes,
and finding solutions to getting the costs under control.

Correct. It won't be any single place since it includes things from
crazy malpractice awards, to the fear that attorneys put into the hearts
of the companies they represent, to profits that insurance companies
gobble up every year, to the cost of "wages" within the medical
community. Lots of areas to look at, and I'm sure this list is just a
small part of it all.

Agreed.

You forgot to mention the drug companies. You know that R&D expense
they're always harping on? Turns out most of it is spent analyzing how
to modify a competitors product just enough that they can bring out their
own version. Very little is spent on developing new drugs.

It is also spent on advertising the drugs they went out of their way
to produce, to make people think they had some new disease, which the
drug in question just happens to cure.

Pharmaceutical advertising is in the tens or hundreds of billions
annually, depending on your scope.

--
If you're trying to take a roomful of people by
surprise, it's a lot easier to hit your targets
if you don't yell going through the door.
-- Lois McMaster Bujold

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 16:23:11 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

If you don't want a thing,
why should someone else have the right to make you get it at your
expense?

Like building codes, auto insurance, food inspections, etc?

To some extent there is a difference Larry. Minimum liability coverage is
mandated in order to protect other people from you. Same with food
inspections and building codes - they protect others from the individual.
That is not the same as the health insurance position taken by Just
Wondering.


And if you can't afford it, why should someone else be able to
force a third party to get it for you at their expense?

They already are. The hospitals force you to pay for the free
treatment they give to those who can't or won't pay. What's the
difference?

True. Health insurance will probably always operate that way. I'm not sure
that's such a bad thing.

--

-Mike-

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:01:28 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:

You need to talk to an insurance agent that has access to several
different companies, and compare the cost for what you are getting.

See Ed K's response.

Remember, engage brain before putting mouth in gear :-).

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 12:26:30 -0700, Doug Winterburn wrote:

It's very material unless you believe the Constitution is immaterial.
Again, read the 10th amendment.

I do believe the Civil War (among other things) more or less ignored the
10th amendment. The Constitution, or at least the literal interpretation
of it, was on life support even before that.

Do you really believe that health care even entered the founders minds,
considering its primitiveness at the time? See death of G. Washington.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw