Make no mistake, intelligence, wisdom and understanding are far superior to the so called education that these Libbie Elitists trumpet. Not to say education isn't also important, if you need it for your line of work. I've been to college, studied physics and avionics. Just because I avoided the Socialist/Commie, brainwashing of certain schools (most, these days, it seems) of higher education, doesn't mean I'm uneducated. I avoided the pompous, brainwashing, imbeciles that these young, ignorant, now pompous, mind numbed, college students look up to.
Intelligence and knowledge are not the same kiddies. It takes one to properly use the other. You are setting on a foundation that is missing MOST its' support. It's like knowing all the parts it takes to create an automobile, without having the ability to put it together, let alone drive the thing. Even if you could drive it, you'd ignore the traffic laws, not having the wisdom to understand that they are not old and outmoded rules, but rules built upon through years upon years of experience, through all the time that automobiles have been on the road. Can you make the connection? Probably not.
Don't you realize that your sense of direction is derived from a bunch of immature, deranged, acid tripping, drug addled, morons, that to this day, have never grown up? You are dangerous. You are ignorant of reality and need to develop the wisdom and understanding to begin to discern how truly ignorant you are. If it happens, one day you will see the light and grow up. A lot do, but not all. Then, we will be seeing a person who has shown the intelligence of being able to show the first humble sparks of the ability to develop discernment, wisdom and understanding. Finally, you will be able to put your knowledge to proper use.
A mind is such a terrible thing to waste. Go back to college.
My guess--couldn't cut it in college. Dropped out (or was never accepted), and now resents all people with a college education.
I'm impressed with the ability to type while so intoxicated.
Quote from: Townsend on November 18, 2009, 08:57:35 AM
I'm impressed with the ability to type while so intoxicated.
Oh, I didn't even think to look at the time stamp. About 15 minutes after the bars closed. Great catch on the PWI.
"...you'd ignore the traffic laws, not having the wisdom to understand that they are not old and outmoded rules, but rules built upon through years upon years of experience, through all the time that automobiles have been on the road."
Traffic laws? What traffic laws? They're not so much rules as they are guidelines.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yATxh46RxAA/SfDyjkpWFjI/AAAAAAAAAMU/mcrpqeW3J8E/s320/sigourney-weaver-ghostbusters-legs.jpg)
Quote from: Ed W on November 18, 2009, 04:22:31 PM
"...you'd ignore the traffic laws, not having the wisdom to understand that they are not old and outmoded rules, but rules built upon through years upon years of experience, through all the time that automobiles have been on the road."
Traffic laws? What traffic laws? They're not so much rules as they are guidelines.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_yATxh46RxAA/SfDyjkpWFjI/AAAAAAAAAMU/mcrpqeW3J8E/s320/sigourney-weaver-ghostbusters-legs.jpg)
Oh Zuulie, you nut you.
Quote from: Ed W on November 18, 2009, 04:22:31 PM
Traffic laws? What traffic laws? They're not so much rules as they are guidelines.
And it's a good thing they are (guidelines) or the jails would be full and we would need even more police to enforce them.
(http://www.webloggin.com/images/liberal_logic.jpg)
(http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/Graphic_remarks/noted%20Republican%20Presidents.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ndago_47fJo/SRSIYnZUheI/AAAAAAAAAGM/i2iJ_lMlfNA/s320/Idiot+Stewie.jpg)
Gee, don't you realize you have to be ignorant and uneducated to be smart? :D
No, no, no, I think what he is saying is that Conservatives "avoided the pompous, brainwashing, imbeciles" when they went to college,,, while the Liberals, poor ignorant things, didn't. ;)
So in essence,,, those who were stupid to begin with and went to college, were less able to choose the right college or professors (aka "a bunch of immature, deranged, acid tripping, drug addled, morons, that to this day, have never grown up") and thus became brainwashed Liberals, and the smart people who went to college were able to do just the opposite. Apparently stupid people who go to college are in high danger of becoming brainwashed Liberals, while the smarter people are far more likely to be able to make it, unscathed, out of college as wise Conservatives. 8)
Quote from: TheArtist on November 19, 2009, 08:30:07 AM
No, no, no, I think what he is saying is that Conservatives "avoided the pompous, brainwashing, imbeciles" when they went to college,,, while the Liberals, poor ignorant things, didn't. ;)
I still think he was just smilefaced retarded and huffing 700 club.
Quote from: Townsend on November 19, 2009, 08:47:24 AM
I still think he was just smilefaced retarded and huffing 700 club.
Sure has been a long, quiet hang-over, hasn't it?
Speaking of, when are you and the Mrs. going to come over and get smilefaced retarded again so we can get on TNF at 3am and post all sorts of farked up smile?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2009, 09:44:17 AM
Sure has been a long, quiet hang-over, hasn't it?
Speaking of, when are you and the Mrs. going to come over and get smilefaced retarded again so we can get on TNF at 3am and post all sorts of farked up smile?
It's the holidays. I see it in our near future.
Might me time for me to lay down an all day smoke on a turkey or some other dead carcass.
The Brain: Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?
Pinky: I think so Brain... but do I really need 2 tongues?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2009, 10:26:20 AM
Might me time for me to lay down an all day smoke on a turkey or some other dead carcass.
Sounds like you have had a few already.... ;D
Quote from: Breadburner on November 19, 2009, 12:05:12 PM
Sounds like you have had a few already.... ;D
Oops, damn fat fingers and skinny keys!
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2009, 09:44:17 AM
Speaking of, when are you and the Mrs. going to come over and get smilefaced retarded again so we can get on TNF at 3am and post all sorts of farked up smile?
I can't speak for the rest of you, of course, but I prefer to post here while both drunk AND naked. Maybe it's a long-established habit from my liberal college days, pounding away at a manual typewriter in the wee hours of the morning, trying to get a paper done, while naked co-eds danced suggestively all around me. I hated that.
Quote from: Ed W on November 19, 2009, 03:48:27 PM
I can't speak for the rest of you, of course, but I prefer to post here while both drunk AND naked. Maybe it's a long-established habit from my liberal college days, pounding away at a manual typewriter in the wee hours of the morning, trying to get a paper done, while naked co-eds danced suggestively all around me. I hated that.
Well Ed, that's far preferable than Paul Tay's idea of drinking box wine and riding his bicycle naked. Manual typewriter? What's that?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 19, 2009, 12:19:38 PM
Oops, damn fat fingers and skinny keys!
Typing with Mr. Johnson again..... 8)
Not sure what a liberal is, but I think I know what they sound like:
Even Oklahoma experiences the swinging in the pendulum between right and left. I recall the late stages of the last era of Liberalism. A friend and I went out to Southland to canvas a cross section of candidates. It was about 1972. Each of the candidates we canvassed supported a woman's right to an abortion and each of the candidates saw Oklahoma's Sodomy Laws as a victimless crime that would be overturned with time.
The only well known spokesperson for the Right at that time was William F. Buckley. Richard Nixon had signed Affirmative Action into law. Many business men were wearing long hair and side burns. And a common refrain was "If it feels good, do it."
Black people were making significant advances and many young people got "on the job training" in private businesses that paid their interns with CETA government funds for job training.
The one constant in our way of life, then and now, is change and as the pendulum has swung to the right, so shall it swing to the left.
While today many liberals are inclined to call themselves progressives, it won't be long until the Liberal Brand will be worn with Pride. We are taking a long ride towards Liberalism in all its glory.
Our family moved here in 1971 from near Philly, PA. Oklahoma was still conservative enough at that time that my parents noted that Oklahoma Democrats were not much different than Pennsylvania Republicans. That might be one reason Oklahoma usually goes R in presidential elections. I was in college back east and then was in the Navy for 4 years so I can only speak personally from late 1976 and on.
Liberal glory .... oxymoron
Libtards.....
Most of us are progresives....
More of what liberals sound like, in connection with healthcare reform and Joe Lieberman:
Oklahoma had state sponsored health insurance in the '30s under Liberal Governor Marland. My nomination for Oklahoma's Greatest Liberal to Date: Governor Marland of Ponca City. Founder of Conoco.
Still does, it's called Sooner Care
Oh, and Marland married his adopted daughter. Blech!
Quote from: Conan71 on December 16, 2009, 12:18:47 PM
Still does, it's called Sooner Care
Oh, and Marland married his adopted daughter. Blech!
You've obviously never had to deal with SoonerCare, right? I have. To call it nightmarish is being kind. We need something simpler than that.
Hoss, please tell us about SoonerCare. Make certain these ninnies here get a clue.
So glad the government is going to force tv commercial volume to be the same as the program. Too bad for Big Pharma....they should have never been allowed to advertise in the first place. Some of us recall an age when such nonsense commercials were prohibited. Of course, tv was supplemented by Big Tobackie back then. It was Nixon who freed up the airwaves for viagra et al. That Nixon. In hindsight, probably the most liberal of all our presidents. Just take women's college athletics, the dollar standard, and taping...what else? Lots of change because of Dick Nixon.
Quote from: Hoss on December 16, 2009, 12:57:17 PM
You've obviously never had to deal with SoonerCare, right? I have. To call it nightmarish is being kind. We need something simpler than that.
I said nothing about the quality of it, simply pointing out to HT that we still do have state-sponsored care. This is pretty close to what a national plan would look like, sorry to say guys/gals.
Quote from: FOTD on December 16, 2009, 01:16:55 PM
Hoss, please tell us about SoonerCare. Make certain these ninnies here get a clue.
So glad the government is going to force tv commercial volume to be the same as the program. Too bad for Big Pharma....they should have never been allowed to advertise in the first place. Some of us recall an age when such nonsense commercials were prohibited. Of course, tv was supplemented by Big Tobackie back then. It was Nixon who freed up the airwaves for viagra et al. That Nixon. In hindsight, probably the most liberal of all our presidents. Just take women's college athletics, the dollar standard, and taping...what else? Lots of change because of Dick Nixon.
EPA, Affirmative Action
Quote from: Conan71 on December 16, 2009, 01:52:15 PM
I said nothing about the quality of it, simply pointing out to HT that we still do have state-sponsored care. This is pretty close to what a national plan would look like, sorry to say guys/gals.
But to call something state-sponsored actually infers it's easy to work wi...wait a minute, it's a government-run program.
I don't have first hand knowledge other than to threaten the ninnies at the state who kept losing my mother's information and threatening to cut off her care.
But other than that, when it works, I'm all for 2 dollar copay prescriptions and free medical checkups, like she gets.
Quote from: Hoss on December 16, 2009, 02:06:21 PM
But to call something state-sponsored actually infers it's easy to work wi...wait a minute, it's a government-run program.
I don't have first hand knowledge other than to threaten the ninnies at the state who kept losing my mother's information and threatening to cut off her care.
But other than that, when it works, I'm all for 2 dollar copay prescriptions and free medical checkups, like she gets.
I had to pick up a scrip for mom last night myself, under $5.00. Not sure if that's medicare or her supplimental insurance that makes that possible.
All this complaining about government inefficiency completely ignores the fact that what we have -- right now -- is a privately funded and privately run behemoth of a system whose administrative costs are one of the primary reasons healthcare now takes up a sixth of our GDP.
It's free market-style inefficiency and bureaucracy, and it's just as bad if not worse than government inefficiency. Why worse? Because 1) it's an industry and it's profit driven and 2) it won't hesitate to use its leverage to grow bigger.
Quote from: we vs us on December 16, 2009, 04:40:58 PM
All this complaining about government inefficiency completely ignores the fact that what we have -- right now -- is a privately funded and privately run behemoth of a system whose administrative costs are one of the primary reasons healthcare now takes up a sixth of our GDP.
It's free market-style inefficiency and bureaucracy, and it's just as bad if not worse than government inefficiency. Why worse? Because 1) it's an industry and it's profit driven and 2) it won't hesitate to use its leverage to grow bigger.
How would the government run it with less administration and still provide the same level of service and at a lower cost?
A lot of it has to do with what comes out of the Senate Sausage Grinder, so i'm not sure what "reform" will look like at this point. In my perfect world, we go to single payer and many vast bureaucracies become one vast bureaucracy. And I don't know what service you're talking about. I've sat in some pretty awful waiting rooms, been subjected to some pretty perfunctory walkthroughs by the on duty MD, and not been treated at all well when a bill I thought was paid by my insurance turned out to not be.
At the same time, I've met some very kind people behind the counter at the post office.
And as for lower cost, well . . . no one here would want to hear it but I'd take a good chunk of the profit motive out of the equation. That's really what we're talking about with all this reform. Letting some of the air out of the greed bubble, and moderating the hauls some of these companies can take. Because it's pretty obvious when you look at how much of our economy is health care (not to mention all of those tried and true metrics that show us declining in quality while our cost skyrockets), that it's an industry waaaay out of control. It's like one of those huge deformities on the Elephan Man's head, making him tilt to far forward when he walks. It distorts everything.
One of the biggest problems here is that what we're dealing with is not insurance in the classic sense of the term. It's not like boat insurance or car insurance or house insurance. You're not necessarily insuring yourself and your loved ones against a once-in-a-lifetime catastrophe. In actuality it's an employer supported discount club for all medical care. It's there for you to be covered in case you're diagnosed with a brain tumor (that's the catastrophic part) but it's mostly there to discount the costs of a teeth cleaning, or a physical, or visits to your shrink. It's there to discount the costs of meds or your prosthetic leg or a crown on your back molar. When you start using an erstwhile financial product as a way to afford basic treatment, that's another sign that something fundamental is broken.
At heart I just think that private companies that don't care about me are running this thing into the ground. I think the private companies have too much power and need to be reigned in. The only entity out there that can approach the problem is government. At this point I think those problems outweigh the possibility that government healthcare will be as bad.
And hey, govt healthcare works like a charm in other places. Forget Canada. Look at most anywhere in Europe. Better results, no burden on private business to fund it, and cheaper care overall. Are we really truly saying that our we think our government is worse than any of the ones in the Eurozone?
Quote from: FOTD on December 16, 2009, 01:16:55 PM
Hoss, please tell us about SoonerCare. Make certain these ninnies here get a clue.
That Nixon. In hindsight, probably the most liberal of all our presidents. Just take women's college athletics, the dollar standard, and taping...what else? Lots of change because of Dick Nixon.
Humphrey (68) and McGovern (72) made Nixon look like a Goldwater by comparison.
Don't forget one of my least favorites, the 55 MPH speed limit. (On the Interstate my car got its best gas mileage at about 62 mph, NOT 55.)
Quote from: Conan71 on December 16, 2009, 04:45:04 PM
How would the government run it with less administration and still provide the same level of service and at a lower cost?
Do you know anyone that works in the medical profession? I have several relatives that do; doctors especially complain about multiple paperwork filings that cost them and arm and a leg to have assistants prepare. I thought the single-payer system would be best, not because I'm a bleeding heart liberal (I'm not really), but because, like someone said, the administrative costs are killing the system now as it stands. Medicare is the case in point, Coco...a single point of paperwork, as opposed to hundreds. Either that, or figure out a way to have a clearing house for paperwork to relieve the physicians of the huge paper trail they are beholden to.
Quote from: Hoss on December 16, 2009, 06:40:43 PM
Do you know anyone that works in the medical profession? I have several relatives that do; doctors especially complain about multiple paperwork filings that cost them and arm and a leg to have assistants prepare. I thought the single-payer system would be best, not because I'm a bleeding heart liberal (I'm not really), but because, like someone said, the administrative costs are killing the system now as it stands. Medicare is the case in point, Coco...a single point of paperwork, as opposed to hundreds. Either that, or figure out a way to have a clearing house for paperwork to relieve the physicians of the huge paper trail they are beholden to.
No, I don't know anyone who works in healthcare Hoss. ::) In the mood for a who has the biggest schlong game tonight?
My doctor friends and I don't usually discuss billing when we are on the back nine at SHCC, ;) so I don't consider myself an expert on medical billing. Truth be known, most doctors aren't and wouldn't have the time to be experts on medical billing even if it were a single-payer system. At this point, single payer doesn't seem like it's going to happen unless there's some sort of "nuclear" option which kicks in a few years after "reform" starts if certain conditions are or aren't met. There's far too much ink from insurance money staining the hands of most DC politicians for a true single payer system to happen and for an entire industry to be shut down over night, speaking figuratively. So what would happen to those hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost if health insurers are basically written out of existence?
Moving to single payer still doesn't solve the problem for providers of needing billing clerks to bill the government and justify charges which are sent back, just like the insurance companies do and just like Medicare/Medicaid does now. As far as multiple billings, I can only assume you are referring to filing insurance with different companies and/or government agencies. When I go to the Dr. I pay my deductible, they bill my single insurance company. If a Dr. (or I should say his business manager) does not like a particular insurance plan, they don't take it, pretty simple. Billing is all computerized, so I really don't get what the complication is once a doctor's office is set up on an insurer's system. Doctors do not have to hire an additional person for every single insurance plan they take. I'm willing to bet there are at most 5 to 10 different plans which cover about 90% of Tulsa's insured.
My skepticism of a single-payer system being more cost-effective and streamlined than the current system arises from the whole point that insurance companies are for-profit. That assures there has to be efficiency in the system in order for it to be profitable. Insurance companies answer to share-holders and policy-owners. They can't afford to have useless bureaucrats sitting around with nothing to do or duplicating responsibilities across three people that could be done by one.
The Federal government answers to no one because it can and does operate at a deficit and apparently can keep borrowing unlimited amounts of money to stay afloat. They have zero incentive to trim down and take administrative costs out of healthcare.
Having a single-payer system does nothing to cut out positions in the business offices at hospitals or doctors offices. There's no reason why it would unless we went to an all cash basis and there were no health care benefits to anyone.
FWIW, I was married to someone who worked as an intake coordinator for a large hospice for four years so I had a front row seat to her venting on Medicare, Medicaid, pay cap issues, charge-backs by Medicare, abuses of the system, less than altruistic motives by healthcare providers (attitudes which will not change under any sort of reform), and all the fleas and other parasites which presently feed off the Federal system now. Therein lies a lot of my skepticism of a single payer system. Hospice is an interesting breed unto itself and I don't claim to be an expert on it by any means but I did gain some great second-hand knowledge from someone who was on the front line of government-funded healthcare every day.
Finally, one last anecdote and I'll hand the floor over to someone else: My mother has knee and hip issues and had a great knee specialist, but he quit taking Medicare and she was forced to find another specialist. Don't think there aren't more and more doctors who could follow suit if the government starts dictating what every procedure is worth without taking into consideration what it actually costs to provide that treatment or service.
Here's an interesting read:
http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/14/is-it-always-better-to-have-health-insurance/
Quote from: Conan71 on December 16, 2009, 07:29:36 PM
No, I don't know anyone who works in healthcare Hoss. ::) In the mood for a who has the biggest schlong game tonight?
My doctor friends and I don't usually discuss billing when we are on the back nine at SHCC, ;) so I don't consider myself an expert on medical billing. Truth be known, most doctors aren't and wouldn't have the time to be experts on medical billing even if it were a single-payer system. At this point, single payer doesn't seem like it's going to happen unless there's some sort of "nuclear" option which kicks in a few years after "reform" starts if certain conditions are or aren't met. There's far too much ink from insurance money staining the hands of most DC politicians for a true single payer system to happen and for an entire industry to be shut down over night, speaking figuratively. So what would happen to those hundreds of thousands of jobs that would be lost if health insurers are basically written out of existence?
Moving to single payer still doesn't solve the problem for providers of needing billing clerks to bill the government and justify charges which are sent back, just like the insurance companies do and just like Medicare/Medicaid does now. As far as multiple billings, I can only assume you are referring to filing insurance with different companies and/or government agencies. When I go to the Dr. I pay my deductible, they bill my single insurance company. If a Dr. (or I should say his business manager) does not like a particular insurance plan, they don't take it, pretty simple. Billing is all computerized, so I really don't get what the complication is once a doctor's office is set up on an insurer's system. Doctors do not have to hire an additional person for every single insurance plan they take. I'm willing to bet there are at most 5 to 10 different plans which cover about 90% of Tulsa's insured.
My skepticism of a single-payer system being more cost-effective and streamlined than the current system arises from the whole point that insurance companies are for-profit. That assures there has to be efficiency in the system in order for it to be profitable. Insurance companies answer to share-holders and policy-owners. They can't afford to have useless bureaucrats sitting around with nothing to do or duplicating responsibilities across three people that could be done by one.
The Federal government answers to no one because it can and does operate at a deficit and apparently can keep borrowing unlimited amounts of money to stay afloat. They have zero incentive to trim down and take administrative costs out of healthcare.
Having a single-payer system does nothing to cut out positions in the business offices at hospitals or doctors offices. There's no reason why it would unless we went to an all cash basis and there were no health care benefits to anyone.
FWIW, I was married to someone who worked as an intake coordinator for a large hospice for four years so I had a front row seat to her venting on Medicare, Medicaid, pay cap issues, charge-backs by Medicare, abuses of the system, less than altruistic motives by healthcare providers (attitudes which will not change under any sort of reform), and all the fleas and other parasites which presently feed off the Federal system now. Therein lies a lot of my skepticism of a single payer system. Hospice is an interesting breed unto itself and I don't claim to be an expert on it by any means but I did gain some great second-hand knowledge from someone who was on the front line of government-funded healthcare every day.
Finally, one last anecdote and I'll hand the floor over to someone else: My mother has knee and hip issues and had a great knee specialist, but he quit taking Medicare and she was forced to find another specialist. Don't think there aren't more and more doctors who could follow suit if the government starts dictating what every procedure is worth without taking into consideration what it actually costs to provide that treatment or service.
Not what I was getting at, huffy...sheesh. My point is, the administrative costs force doctors to hire and pay for people they normally wouldn't have to if the paperwork wasn't such a b!tch. I've seen my brothers wife come home with STACKS of paperwork she's had to deal with, and her employer asked her to do it outside of her regular hours and without taking on overtime pay. This was five years ago when she actually worked in that profession. Her mom is a nurse and knows it too.
I'm not saying this (what my sis in law got caught up in) happens on a regular basis. What I am saying is that somehow the system MUST be changed. How is it, as was noted earlier, that health care costs are 1/6 of the GDP of this country, yet it's barely 1/10 of most other industrialized nations?
Will nationalizing healthcare be the solution? Probably not. But doing something about the administrative fees AND making sure doctors don't feel like they're getting bent over on their malpractice insurance is a good start.
And the reason why most doctors aren't experts at medical billing is because if they were the ones left to do the billing that they get from the insurance companies, they'd have no time left to be doing what they spend 12 years of their lives training for -- doctoring.
A simple Google search will tell you quite a bit that government-provided health insurance is a huge PITA for providers:
"Under Medicare regulations, physicians must comply with numerous federal rules and local contractor policies to complete claim forms, provide advance beneficiary notices, certify medical necessity, file enrollment forms and comply with code documentation guidelines. Yet, there is no single source that physicians can access to learn Medicare's rules and policies.
A preliminary finding that a physician did not follow Medicare's complex rules can result in an extraordinarily time-consuming series of subsequent events. Medicare may deny the claim and/or demand more paperwork documentation. It may institute an audit of the physician's Medicare claims, causing a virtual shutdown of a physician's practice. It may deny payments for similar claims based on a statistical sampling of claims submitted, without even looking at the actual records for those other claims. If the physician appeals a denial, this launches yet another complex process with its own set of time-consuming rules and paperwork requirements."
http://www.acponline.org/pressroom/merfa.htm
If you think government healthcare reduces paperwork, have a read of this, it's long, but what an eye-opener:
http://www.aha.org/aha/content/2001/pdf/FinalPaperworkReport.pdf
If you read nothing else in the .pdf, read pages three and four.
"A Medicare patient arriving at the emergency department is required to review and sign eight different forms- just for Medicare alone"
They estimate that one hour of emergency patient care equates to one hour of paperwork,
One hour of surgery and in-patient care equates to 36 minutes of paperwork
Skilled nursing care requires 30 minutes and home health care 48 minutes for every hour of patient care. T
his much I do know to be true as it's not simply billing work which is required, there is documentation of care required to obtain reimbursement. When my ex left the admin desk and went back out into the field, she spent roughly 1/2 her day seeing patients and 1/2 completing patient care paperwork. Part of that paperwork was for continuity of care between the different nurses, aides, and doctors, but a good part was required by Medicare for payment.
Big, deft systems are fraud magnets, therefore, they require tons of documentation paperwork to justify procedures. Making government healthcare even bigger means it becomes even more deft and even more of a fraud target if all claims for healthcare clear through a government bureau. Can anyone see a scenario as to how a bigger bureaucracy will manage to trim paperwork?
It's not as simple as sending a bill to the government as a single payer, it's about making sure the procedure is covered, documenting what was done to the patient and generating and retaining volumes of records to justify payment and then long term retainage for future audits and inquiries should they come up. Making medical records electronic does nothing to save time on patient documentation, it simply makes record retrieval much easier. The nurses and doctors I know who are presently using electronic systems say input time is still about the same, worse if they are not computer savvy. Again, purely anecdotal and I may know the only people who aren't finding it quicker and more efficient.
Call me dense but I simply cannot comprehend how a single-payer system run by the Federal Government will result in less paperwork. Someone explain to me their theory on how that will work after you read the AHA article I posted, because I'm sure not seeing it. My understanding this study was authored by Price Waterhouse in 2001 so the context is not in rebuttal to the current healthcare reform initiatives.
Poke around the www.aha.org website, it's got some interesting reading material.
Here's an interesting tidbit:
"New data released at today's Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) meeting show that Medicare payments for hospital services fall woefully short of covering costs, further fueling concerns about adding more patients to Medicare through a "buy-in" under reform, the American Hospital Association (AHA) said.
Medicare covered significantly less patient care costs in 2008 than it did in 2007, according to information released at today's commission meeting. The drop in Medicare margins from negative 6 percent to an estimated negative 7.2 percent marks an historic low in how Medicare covers the cost of care for America's seniors, continuing a trend of declining Medicare payment adequacy over the past seven years."
That also helps explain why private insurance costs keep rising. The government keeps squeezing the hospitals and therefore they must raise their rates on everyone else to stay afloat.
This does not appear to be your writing, Conan.
Did you glean it from some Insurance Cartel member? Perhaps a right wing doctors chat line? Which greedy group did this originate? Do you have a problem with insurance companies being the death panel? Guess that beats the government doing it?
Looks like you have no problem with the current health care situation because you offer up few solutions to the worsening problem.
Coco, that interesting read....it's absurd in the big picture of dying!
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/3173946938_d1d85ea2ea.jpg)
Last year the guy swam from Fisherman's Wharf to Alcatraz...Not bad for 95. They don't usually do open heart surgery on 95 year olds as a rule, since they don't expect them to survive the procedure. But Lalanne is in such good shape that he gets a chance.
Fitness Guru Has Open Heart Surgery
By Marc Davis
http://forums.musculardevelopment.com/showthread.php?t=76373
In his signature light-hearted style, 95-year-old fitness guru Jack LaLanne told his family "Dying would wreck my image," before he underwent heart valve surgery on December 8 at a Los Angeles hospital.
From his modest beginnings in 1936 when he opened his first health club, the diminutive, but buff, LaLanne eventually became a world-renowned figure in the health and fitness field. His television program, the Jack LaLanne show, ran a remarkable 34 years, from 1951 to 1985. During that period LaLanne hawked various health products including his celebrated Power Juicer.
Humorous, publicity-grabbing stunts characterize LaLanne's career over the years. He once swam across Long Beach Harbor towing boats while handcuffed. But he was always serious about keeping fit and avoiding the pitfalls of a sedentary lifestyle.
Throughout his 60s, 70s and 80s -- when most men his age were unabashed couch potatoes -- LaLanne made numerous public appearances, working out strenuously and parading his impressive muscular build and marathoner stamina.
LaLanne had been active right up to the time he underwent the recent operation. Last month he appeared on the Jay Leno Show working out with movie star Vince Vaughn and out-exercising the much younger actor.
But at 95 can LaLanne resume his previous level of vigorous activity after open-heart surgery?
"Mr. LaLanne's physical fitness is legendary and should help significantly with his post-operative recovery barring any unforseen medical setbacks," said Sandeep Nathan, M.D., assistant professor of medicine and Director of Interventional Cardiology Fellowship Program at University of Chicago Medical Center.
And on LaLanne's Web site, his motto looms large: "Long Live Living Long."
NOW. WHO PAID FOR THIS? WOULD IT BE CHEAPER TO PUT HIM ON A HEROIN DRIP? JACK, GRIM REAPER'S COMING. A FRIEND OF THE DEVIL TOLD ME SO.
WOULD YOU CONSIDER JACK A LIBERAL GUY?
Quote from: FOTD on December 16, 2009, 10:20:11 PM
This does not appear to be your writing, Conan.
Did you glean it from some Insurance Cartel member? Perhaps a right wing doctors chat line? Which greedy group did this originate? Do you have a problem with insurance companies being the death panel? Guess that beats the government doing it?
Looks like you have no problem with the current health care situation because you offer up few solutions to the worsening problem.
Coco, that interesting read....it's absurd in the big picture of dying!
I'm a cynic and skeptic by nature, FOTD. I generally try to take an objective look at things but I obviously take a more conservative approach to certain issues.
If single-payer is managed like Medicare, it can't possibly provide a more efficient payment method to healthcare providers (read back to ALL the paperwork required for reimbursement I mentioned) and more and more providers will be reluctant to opt into a system like that, in favor of catering to people who can afford to pay cash for their health care. Insurance companies provide a maddening series of requirements to get paid too. That's what happens when you rely on someone else to assume the risk of paying for your healthcare instead of you just paying cash.
If anyone can provide any evidence whatsoever that single-payer will be a far more efficient approach to a payment system both in funding it and the claims system, I will gladly listen. So far, I've not read or heard a thing which suggests that it will be any different from Medicare and Medicaid. Show me some anecdotal evidence from providers that shows they embrace this single-payer system and that they are happy with the present Medicare system. You are right I'm not offering an alternative at the moment. I simply think it's time to slow down and truly examine what the alternatives are to the present system and evaluate them carefully instead of ram-rodding a plan through this year to fix a system which slightly more than 1/2 of America thinks is broken and apparently has been broken for many years. I'm already skeptical enough of this as it is before they started shoveling billions more into this cost simply to help make this pallatable some balky Senators and Representatives.
When incredibly broad questions are asked in opinion polls like: "Does health care need to be reformed?" of course you are going to get a majority who will say yes. Asked further what needs to be fixed, you start getting puzzled looks out of 75% of those who said it needs to be reformed, some sort of broad answer out of 1/2 the remaining ones and an educated and thoughtful reply out of the rest.
There's no use in BS'ing anyone. I've got an ideal situation and I'm certainly a "have" when it comes to health care. My company picks up the tab for all my health insurance, something they do for all employees who have been there over five years. This is a small company, less than 12 employees. They used to even pick up the tab for dependent care after that milestone of service. I'm also capable of paying my co-pays and deductibles and those of my chidren who are on their mother's insurance plan.
I know this up front that I am partially responsible for my medical costs and that I pay a percentage of every single test, procedure, hospitalization, and emergency room visit. Unfortunately, even though I strive to do my best at preventative maintenance, I've got orthopedic issues and I've had a couple of ER visits within the last few years. Those issues have followed me from one provider to another and have never been excluded as "pre-existing". I'm thankful I've got the coverage I do and thankful I've got a few friends who can get me to the front of the line when services are needed. It's hardly a Cadillac plan, it's a PPO with $20 doctor visits, a 20% deductible on the major stuff and a decent formulary for the few meds I need from time to time. I'm not saying that to rub anyone's nose in it, I'm very appreciative of what I've got. I also realize it's not that way for everyone, but a blind over-haul at the expense of millions of people who are in a similar situation seems very radical to me.
I had to have two MRI's within the last couple of weeks, both of which wound up saving me (and my insurance provider) the expense of surgery. I was able to get these rapidly and with little fuss thanks to the plan I have. I seriously doubt I'd have these issues on the way to successful resolution right now if I were still waiting on approvals from some bureaucrat for justifiable testing.
In other words, the status quo is working for me, so I've definitely got a bias.
There are a lot of people who are capable of paying their share but who choose not to so they can spend their discretionary money elsewhere then they complain when they wind up being sued and their paycheck is garnished by those mean medical bill collectors and they become yet another poster child in the need for health care reform. Oh the horror to have to sell that 30 ft. boat, BMW, or RV to pay for one's medical care!
One reason I can see for insurance premiums continuing to skyrocket (all while profit percentages are pretty flat for insurers) is a decrease in medicare benefit payments to providers. Reductions which place an arbitrary value on procedures without really considering what the cost is to provide them. In order for providers to stay afloat, they must turn a profit. In order to overcome a reduction in government-paid benefits, they must raise the cost to whomever does pick up the tab. Simple economics. It's actually a government squeeze which is raising the overall cost. Look, your health insurance will be deducted as a direct payment to the insurer who covers you or as a tax to your government. The government cannot arbitrarily drive costs down if it winds up bankrupting an entire healthcare provider system without taking into account the actual cost of providing services. What then? More bail-outs? It's simply shifting cost-centers and control from corporations to the government. Neither of which has truly altruistic motives when it comes to your life and healthcare other than you being there to vote in your national elections or your patronage as a customer. The only person who is ultimately responsible for your health is you. I'm sure not banking on anyone else caring as much as I do about it.
Here's a few solutions I could see which would help:
Pharmaceutical companies severely curtail their marketing budgets, so that primary care providers will learn to provide real health solutions instead of being pill-pushers. We have a society which is far too dependent on their daily dose of meds, when a change in diet and lifestyle would be the most healthy solution.
Quit subsidizing healthcare costs in other countries by covering the majority of R&D and marketing budgets for equipment and med manufacturers through the costs for their products that we are charged here (that's one way the Euros supposedly pay less of their annual GDP in health care).
Bring in more initiatives and education for better and healthier lifestyles and reward holistic approaches to healthcare. Tax the smile out of tobacco products and other unhealthy products. Make the FDA clamp down on food additives. It's an immutable truth that what you shovel down your cake hole has an affect on overall health with allergies, diabetes, heart disease, certain cancers, etc. We demand a lot out of the healthcare system to counteract what we do to our bodies via poor nutrition and little fitness. Taking personal responsibility for our health instead of waiting on the government to do it is ultimately the best solution.
Put up a stiff barrier between the FDA, big pharma, and equipment manufacturers and end the inscestuous relationship that favors certain companies at the expense of ignoring treatments which may be safer and offer greater efficacy.
There's a few ideas, I'd love to stay up and chat but some of us have to work tomorrow.