Originally Posted by norcaljeff

@ eyeknows: not buying someone something is like "first they came fir teh joos"?? What a horrifying analogy. Is not wanting them to buy booze and cigs with free gov money like pulling gold teeth? Ffs

lol, you in the wrong thread bro. the cigs/booze is another thread.

and it's a perfect analogy - willfully ignoring the suffering/problems of others because they ain't your problems. and at the end realizing they were your problems all along when she is turned down by her insurance company.

pretty simple.

 

Originally Posted by SpankyHamm

Eliminate doctors and hospitals from padding their wallets by ordering unnecessary tests.
Reduce the amount of medical liability insurance that doctors need to carry.

The doctors that order tests have no incentive to do so ($$) other than ass-coverage. The doctors that perform and diagnose the tests make $$ but have no authority or input on which tests to do. (ok, yeah, an unscrupulous diagnostician could say further tests needed, but that's not the big problem afaik). The hospitals do make $$ but again don't dictate which/how many tests are run.

As for insurance, I doubt doctors would cover themselves for less if they're smart. Many many malpractice settlements/judgments exceed the amount of the doctor's coverage. And a boomerang back to the bankruptcy discussion

Like I said earlier, it won't be long before we start seeing the results of this law. The only issues in my mind will how it gets spun and specifically how the causation issue will get diverted. In otherwords, when it fails it will be because of something other than the law itself. The likely suspects will be the GOP for watering it down and not providing proper funding, greedy corporations who finds ways around it and the other greedy corporations who helped write it for their benefit, rich people for not paying their fair share, maybe a little lip service to fraud and abuse, you all know the drill. I have my popcorn ready.

 

Originally Posted by LeftyMark

So not getting a discount is a tax?

Is you tax burden higher if you have solar panels, or not?

We really do need death panels. I nominate myself to pull the plug on Leftymark and willywoo?

But seroiusly the biggest cost this health care system has is keeping people alive in miserable conditions for a couple extra months

Technically in some cases we already had death panels, they are called insurance companies.

 

Originally Posted by userid363

The doctors that order tests have no incentive to do so ($$) other than ass-coverage. The doctors that perform and diagnose the tests make $$ but have no authority or input on which tests to do. (ok, yeah, an unscrupulous diagnostician could say further tests needed, but that's not the big problem afaik). The hospitals do make $$ but again don't dictate which/how many tests are run.

As for insurance, I doubt doctors would cover themselves for less if they're smart. Many many malpractice settlements/judgments exceed the amount of the doctor's coverage. And a boomerang back to the bankruptcy discussion

Yeah - you point out a big Catch-22. Doctor's order extra tests to cover their asses, because malpractice costs can be outrageous. But then you get into the whole "what is a life worth" discussion, which is extremely scary to leave up to anyone. Do we limit that value so that doctors have to pay less for malpractice insurance?

Also - if a doctor orders a test - do the hospitals say no, it's not necessary? Probably not. So...

(1) Doctor orders extra tests.
(2) Hospital runs tests, sends bill to insurance company.
(3) Insurance company pays the claim, and your premium goes up.

Insurance companies are trying to interject themselves between the steps (1) and (2) and try to say no so that they can maintain their profits (and to control insurance costs).

Insurance shouldn't be trying to control healthcare costs
Government shouldn't be trying to control healthcare costs.

And within the healthcare industry, nobody wants to take the lead and try to control costs.

So now - the pressure for controlling the costs falls back to everyone (and I mean everyone - not just those who currently support the healthcare and insurance industries).

Logan's Run, but say 70 instead of 30.

 

Originally Posted by SpankyHamm

Logan's Run, but say 70 instead of 30.

70? Way too low.

 

Originally Posted by SpankyHamm

Insurance shouldn't be trying to control healthcare costs
Government shouldn't be trying to control healthcare costs.

And within the healthcare industry, nobody wants to take the lead and try to control costs.

So now - the pressure for controlling the costs falls back to everyone (and I mean everyone - not just those who currently support the healthcare and insurance industries).

Ok, I'm with you. What's our move?

hey you fucking pricks! I could probably afford better healthcare if I could play online poker.

some things never change. keep up the endzone dancing, retards

Repealed?????

Youre way too smart to believe this, no?

Zero chance this get repealed. Ron Paul has a better chance of winning the presidency.

 

Originally Posted by dolphin13

Yeah, instead some dude in an insurance compant office decided what treatment you could take.

Have you ever worked for an insurance company, either on the agency or insurance side? Do you actually know what goes on during the adjudication process?

Really? I honestly think it's really unlikely this gets repealed, even if Romney gets elected. Couldn't the Senate just filibuster any attempts at a repeal?

 

Originally Posted by tkeat1653

Have you ever worked for an insurance company, either on the agency or insurance side? Do you actually know what goes on during the adjudication process?

Dude, the point was that ecugirl doesn't want a govt beaurocrat determining her care, when in reality, it's insurance companies that do so. Whether its a panel of doctors hired by the insurance company or whoever, the point is that the insurance company have the power to reject a treatment her and doctor decide on.