So Virginia bans O-Care

[KenC]

I guess I'm not sure exactly what your getting at, care to clarify it a bit more?

Choosing whether you get to see a specialist or not, whether you get generic vs name-brand medications, possibly having to wait a bit longer for certain procedures. I know the last comment is going to make most think I'm doing some round-about comparison to UK or Canada as that's a downside of their system that is often cited/exploited, but I can assure you I'm not. Within the system I work for, patients are often irate at 4-8mo waiting lists for joint replacements to repair non life threatening conditions that they've dealt with for decades. It may not be as convenient as many would like an you can't choose the hospital at which the surgery takes place, however, care is delivered for a reasonable cost with excellent outcomes.
Would you give up the freedom to self-refer yourself to a specialist if evidence-based reports indicated that their services weren't necessary for your ailment if it meant that costs would be decreased system-wide?

[dinanm3atl]

"ObamaCare" has nothing to do with Health Care.

It's about taking from the "rich" to give to the "poor" and to create further dependencies on government.

The more dependent, the more control they have over you and I.

And to bribe voters with "free" stuff.

Hit the nail on the head. You have in any given setup a middle ground that can easily be swayed with crap. Like 'free' healthcare. They will support it. They will vote for it. Same during the election all these promises of all this 'easier to go to school' and a bunch of other empty promises.

I just don't see why the majority of the citizens do not want something yet more than likely we will end up with it. What is the deal with that? Why is that how our government decides to operate. Quite fun really.

[z31maniac]

Realistic question:

How much freedom in your healthcare are you willing to give up in exchange for better quality and lower costs? (I'm not referring to rationing or that "death panel" hysteria bullshit). They're more mutually exclusive than you think.

I guess I'm not sure exactly what your getting at, care to clarify it a bit more?

[KenC]

Realistic question:

How much freedom in your healthcare are you willing to give up in exchange for better quality and lower costs? (I'm not referring to rationing or that "death panel" hysteria bullshit). They're more mutually exclusive than you think.

[KenC]

Another thing I REALLY wish they would include is tuition reimbursement for physicians who enter primary care. At OHSU (one of the most expensive, but best medical schools in the country), each graduate will enter their residency with ~$250k in debt (which must be repaid in 10yrs). This alone entices many to enter specialty care bc salaries are much higher, and is contributing to the lack of primary care providers available for a given population. People will often self-refer (another topic that makes me, and medical economists cringe) to specialists because their often times able to see patients sooner than GPs. A simple issue that could have been dealt with for $100-150, is now costing the insurance company 3-4x that... guess whose exhorbant premiums cover that?

[KenC]

I think the bill is a step in the right direction, and to quote an article I just read "a wobbly one." A lot of the benefits of the bill won't occur for several years (exchanges, etc) I'm assuming bc details of implementation/regulation need to be worked out. A lot of the insurance reforms will benefit us all. I don't know how many of you have a family member with a chronic condition or have one yourself, but insurance companies aren't exactly great advocates for a patient's best interest. Ask your current provider how much time per week they spend justifying treatments to some HI rep that has never practiced a day of medicine in their lives.

I fully agree with Republicans that intense tort reform should be included in the bill, and I hope it's added afterward. Although it's a major concern for physicians and costs a significant portion of their salary, it doesn't have a huge effect on the price of care delivery as the physician's payment is only a portion of your bill, and a small one at that (infact, 13 pts are getting billed for my work right now). The CBO, which is about as bipartisan of a source as we have estimates tort reform to reduce national healthcare spending by only $5.4b per year, mostly becuase malpractice suits have declined greatly in recent years, and significant payouts are seldom to begin with.

Like Ive stated before, the ultimate goals aren't the same, so it's hardly likely that common ground will be reached. That, and the fact that each party is more concerned about the failure of the other than actually working together.
Again, your view on this bill is tightly tied to your personal beliefs of the role of government and the responsibilties of society as a whole.

(I believe that the existence of for-profit health insurance companies is morally reprehensible, and that we as a society are morally responsible for caring for the indigent.)

[ck_taft325is]

I've no clue why my pop's insurance didn't work. No idea what so ever. It was tried. If this happend tomorrow to me at 24, it's a different story. Thus, the "special" circumstances. This was involving a minor, not a legal adult. The state "viewed" me as "emancipated" because I was paying rent to the grandparents. There's a LOT of crap involved here regarding who filed what between my ridiculously bad grandparents and my parents.

I'm not going to defend this part of it anymore. Blanket statements and the like are ridiculous, inflamatory and frankly, if the shoes were on the other foot would change completely how people view this.

Hallen is correct by my wifes and other's I've talked to in this past week in the Medical field for anywhere between 5-35 years.

Republican's want reform. I've yet to see the Democrats/Liberals here (beyond KenC) bring anything to the table past defense of O-Care. If you have, please, reiterate it as I'd really like to understand why, where you're coming from and how you'd like to see it done. It's a greatly debated subject that I'd love to keep going.

[Hallen]

ck_taft325is,
Have you considered the situation you'd be in if you DID have medical insurance before that melee? One of two scenarios:
1) insurance company finds some lame excuse to drop you. No others will pick you up for anywhere near what you were previously paying. It's not cancer so at least they won't just outright deny you.
2) your insurance bill would cost more than your rent/mortgage. You'd be in the poor house until finally just declaring bankruptcy.
3) Theoretical utopia land option: the company just pays your bill and your premium stays the same, no problem. If this is how they did business, then this discussion wouldn't have been started.

This is the fucked up thing. The majority of people that this happens to ARE insured people with decent jobs. Not this stereotpye that people are trying to build up about the "dependancy class" or people who are spending money on big stupid wheels and tv's instead of insurance. That is a load of subjective crap. What is said about the majority going through bankruptcy being insured is a hard cold fact.

#3 is by far the most common outcome. Why?
1) It's the law. You can't drop somebody once they make a claim.
2) You go out of business if you do this kind of thing regularly. People find out, and the government finds out, and all of a sudden, things get really bad for the company. (Yes, government has a roll in policing. Not regulating)

Yes, people do get screwed by this kind of thing from time to time, and it's a very bad thing. The media, 60 minutes and the like, just thrive off of amping this kind of thing up. It's faulty logic though. Company A screws an individual on their insurance (although the reasons are murky, but Dan Rather seemed SO sure of himself) therefore, all insurance companies regularly screw their customers as a matter of normal business practices.

I'm sorry, but that's just not how it works.

[Wiglaf]

ck_taft325is,
Have you considered the situation you'd be in if you DID have medical insurance before that melee? One of two scenarios:
1) insurance company finds some lame excuse to drop you. No others will pick you up for anywhere near what you were previously paying. It's not cancer so at least they won't just outright deny you.
2) your insurance bill would cost more than your rent/mortgage. You'd be in the poor house until finally just declaring bankruptcy.
3) Theoretical utopia land option: the company just pays your bill and your premium stays the same, no problem. If this is how they did business, then this discussion wouldn't have been started.

This is the fucked up thing. The majority of people that this happens to ARE insured people with decent jobs. Not this stereotpye that people are trying to build up about the "dependancy class" or people who are spending money on big stupid wheels and tv's instead of insurance. That is a load of subjective crap. What is said about the majority going through bankruptcy being insured is a hard cold fact.

"ObamaCare" has nothing to do with Health Care.

It's about taking from the "rich" to give to the "poor" and to create further dependencies on government.

The more dependent, the more control they have over you and I.

And to bribe voters with "free" stuff.

:hitler:

Not to be a dick but these random negative copy-paste interjections of yours aren't really tuned to the discussion at hand.

[KenC]

My mother worked as a nurse in a hospital for many years. The hospital was a not-for-profit establishment. They strove to break even. The doctors made money, the nurses made money, the patients received a high level of care. Then the hospital was taken over by Columbia health. All of a sudden profits needed to be made. Wages were cut, hours extended (overtime was "required" but not paid for) and overall patient care went way down. All to make a big corporation (Columbia) big bucks. My mother ultimately left that job because of the high stress and long hours. If anyone even mentioned a union it was grounds for termination. (kind of like when I worked for walmart too)

I guess I feel that essential industries (food, transportation, healthcare, utilities) should be regulated into affordability for the general populous. (opinion here)

ck_taft325is, I'm glad you were taken care of. Yours sounds like a situation you had little control over. If your hospital visit ends up costing me something (taxes, increased costs whatever) I don't mind paying because I know that someday it could happen to me. I hope I'm fortunate enough to never experience a situation like that, but I am happy to assist someone who does experience an unfortunate incident like that.

The wave of For-Profit HMOs that sprouted up in the 80s really gave that whole system of care a bad name. Really unfortunate.

The not-for-profit HMO that I work for is often cited as an efficient delivery system that "works."

[BlueBMW]

My mother worked as a nurse in a hospital for many years. The hospital was a not-for-profit establishment. They strove to break even. The doctors made money, the nurses made money, the patients received a high level of care. Then the hospital was taken over by Columbia health. All of a sudden profits needed to be made. Wages were cut, hours extended (overtime was "required" but not paid for) and overall patient care went way down. All to make a big corporation (Columbia) big bucks. My mother ultimately left that job because of the high stress and long hours. If anyone even mentioned a union it was grounds for termination. (kind of like when I worked for walmart too)

I guess I feel that essential industries (food, transportation, healthcare, utilities) should be regulated into affordability for the general populous. (opinion here)

ck_taft325is, I'm glad you were taken care of. Yours sounds like a situation you had little control over. If your hospital visit ends up costing me something (taxes, increased costs whatever) I don't mind paying because I know that someday it could happen to me. I hope I'm fortunate enough to never experience a situation like that, but I am happy to assist someone who does experience an unfortunate incident like that.

[joshh]

So... I should critically understand that you misread my post and then inherently know what you actually would have replied with had you read it correctly? Dude, we might as well stop speaking English and communicate with grunts and pelvic thrusting in the direction of things.

Nice try on the misdirection spanky.

But whatever the case I don't believe in supporting the lazy.

There's this recurring theme of people who can't afford health insurance being called lazy. I'm curious as to where that comes from, because several of you mentioned that you were poor growing up and did not have health insurance as a result. Were you and your parents lazy?

I'll refer you back to the critical understanding you missed. Try to focus. Where in there do I say the lazy is the poor?

[kronus]

Straight to semantics eh.

Critical understanding....try it sometime.

So... I should critically understand that you misread my post and then inherently know what you actually would have replied with had you read it correctly? Dude, we might as well stop speaking English and communicate with grunts and pelvic thrusting in the direction of things.

[joshh]

Perhaps try using more logic to actually read that post, because that's not what it says.

Straight to semantics eh.

Critical understanding....try it sometime.

[E30 Cabrio]

"ObamaCare" has nothing to do with Health Care.

It's about taking from the "rich" to give to the "poor" and to create further dependencies on government.

The more dependent, the more control they have over you and I.

And to bribe voters with "free" stuff.