I wanted to let this forum know an experience I and another poster in here recently had with getting health care. We saw, first hand, what will unquestionably become the norm when it comes to some groups of people getting the care they need. Doctors are very selective in the ages of the new patients they will see, and very guarded in what insurance plans they will accept. This, mind you, is before HCR has even been marginally implemented.
Advice. If your physician is about the retire/cut back, or you think your coverage may prohibit you from seeing your current doctor, start shopping around NOW. Trust me.
...because the previous system in which 50 million people could ONLY go to the emergency room for care, or practice healthcare "self rationing," or lose everything because of medical bankruptcies was so great....
...oh, that's right... you're the guy who thinks you pay for everybody else's healthcare.... go figure. :P
Quote from: guido911 on December 05, 2012, 08:07:53 PM
I wanted to let this forum know an experience I and another poster in here recently had with getting health care. We saw, first hand, what will unquestionably become the norm when it comes to some groups of people getting the care they need. Doctors are very selective in the ages of the new patients they will see, and very guarded in what insurance plans they will accept. This, mind you, is before HCR has even been marginally implemented.
Advice. If your physician is about the retire/cut back, or you think your coverage may prohibit you from seeing your current doctor, start shopping around NOW. Trust me.
Obviously, you've been without care until recently. You let it go on too long. Only a reactionary would post this comment. Progressives saw it coming several years ago.
Good luck.
Quote from: guido911 on December 05, 2012, 08:07:53 PM
I wanted to let this forum know an experience I and another poster in here recently had with getting health care. We saw, first hand, what will unquestionably become the norm when it comes to some groups of people getting the care they need. Doctors are very selective in the ages of the new patients they will see, and very guarded in what insurance plans they will accept. This, mind you, is before HCR has even been marginally implemented.
Advice. If your physician is about the retire/cut back, or you think your coverage may prohibit you from seeing your current doctor, start shopping around NOW. Trust me.
You've lost what little credibility you had go. This is a joke. So are you. BTW, those meds are synthetic heroin and your health care program covered the cost. Now, take another pill.....
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 05, 2012, 08:50:50 PM
Obviously, you've been without care until recently. You let it go on too long. Only a reactionary would post this comment. Progressives saw it coming several years ago.
Good luck.
Try a major health care system in Tulsa not renewing their contract with a major health care "insurance" company. You are obviously blowing smoke.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 09:05:26 PM
Try a major health care system in Tulsa not renewing their contract with a major health care "insurance" company. You are obviously blowing smoke.
Aetna? They've sucked for years. Had there been a choice for me, I would never have chosen them.
In the last job I had, in seven years, we change HC insurance companies no fewer than four times. That should really tell you all you need to know of the HC insurance industry.
When I had to help take care of my mother out of the hospital in 1985-1986, my Dad was working at Sunoco, and at the time, Aetna was what he had. They were awesome back then. Out of a quarter million dollar bill that was piled on, out of pocket with Aetna my dad paid about $850 of that.
Good luck doing that now.
Quote from: Hoss on December 05, 2012, 09:16:03 PM
Had there been a choice for me, I would never have chosen them.
Bingo. No choice.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 09:22:55 PM
Bingo. No choice.
That's not the fault of the gubmint. Your employer chooses. You could always opt to not sign up for your employers coverage and purchase it outside of it. But the prices would double.
Quote from: Hoss on December 05, 2012, 09:28:52 PM
That's not the fault of the gubmint. Your employer chooses. You could always opt to not sign up for your employers coverage and purchase it outside of it. But the prices would double.
Gubmint actions are making it more difficult for health care systems and health care insurers to come to agreement. How much of
your salary would you be willing to
give back to your employer because they chose an insurer that chose not to renew with your doctor's group or your doctor's group chose not to renew with your insurer? Oh, add to it that this is a one way ticket. You cannot change your mind and go back next year, or ever.
Quote from: Hoss on December 05, 2012, 09:28:52 PM
That's not the fault of the gubmint. Your employer chooses. You could always opt to not sign up for your employers coverage and purchase it outside of it. But the prices would double.
I am sorry to hear that you pay as much as 50% of your health care costs. Maybe you need to find another new job.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 09:47:36 PM
I am sorry to hear that you pay as much as 50% of your health care costs. Maybe you need to find another new job.
The individual market is completely effed up and has been for years. The actual rates are well over double what they are on a group plan in a lot of places and the available coverage is usually much worse, although that varies by employer since the employer gets to choose. And spats between insurers and providers are nothing new. It may well be that provider A's contract came up for renewal and they didn't want to take the reimbursement rates the insurer wanted, while provider B's contract hasn't yet come up. Dropping provider A means more volume with provider B and gives the insurance company more negotiating power at provider B's renewal.
I hope that the exchanges help with the individual market, but I'm not very optimistic.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 10:32:52 PM
And spats between insurers and providers are nothing new.
True. The fact that the difficulties were announced in October and it was also announced that a decision would be (and was) withheld until November 15th makes me wonder though.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 09:41:59 PM
Gubmint actions are making it more difficult for health care systems and health care insurers to come to agreement. How much of your salary would you be willing to give back to your employer because they chose an insurer that chose not to renew with your doctor's group or your doctor's group chose not to renew with your insurer? Oh, add to it that this is a one way ticket. You cannot change your mind and go back next year, or ever.
So far I haven't had that issue. That's not to say it won't happen, however.
Please don't assume that my situation equals yours. It sucks for your situation and I feel for you. So far, not so much for mine.
However, when it does, I won't go assuming that you'd do the same as me.
We all know the one thing that would solve this. Unfortunately, if I utter that hyphenated word, I'll be labeled as a socialist.
Quote from: Hoss on December 05, 2012, 11:12:50 PM
We all know the one thing that would solve this. Unfortunately, if I utter that hyphenated word, I'll be labeled as a socialist.
Everyone would have coverage but no one really knows if that coverage would be better than now overall. Equalization in government usually means lowest common denominator, not raising the bottom to meet the top.
That is except when car and truck tags were equalized in Oklahoma. Everyone with cars thought they would get truck rates. What happened for at least a few years is that truck rates were raised and I think car rates went down a little. I think there is a cap on tag rates now but my cars are both old enough (1995 & 1998) that I am below that so I am not sure.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 05, 2012, 11:19:53 PM
Everyone would have coverage but no one really knows if that coverage would be better than now overall. Equalization in government usually means lowest common denominator, not raising the bottom to meet the top.
They've got private hospitals and private insurance in the UK, despite the NHS. Employers often provide supplementary coverage for things like private rooms or the drug copay in the (rare) instances you'd have to pay one.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 05, 2012, 08:53:39 PM
You've lost what little credibility you had go. This is a joke. So are you. BTW, those meds are synthetic heroin and your health care program covered the cost. Now, take another pill.....
You are an unbelievable moron. You, and soccer punk, have made such stupid assumptions about me and this thread that there is nothing else to do but laugh at you both.
Quote from: nathanm on December 05, 2012, 11:28:38 PM
They've got private hospitals and private insurance in the UK, despite the NHS. Employers often provide supplementary coverage for things like private rooms or the drug copay in the (rare) instances you'd have to pay one.
Yeah, I thought about that after I shut down for the evening.
The hyphenated word may not even guarantee that everyone had coverage although most of us probably assume it would. I am thinking of the exemptions granted to some companies and unions to Obamacare provisions. The hyphenated word would most likely guarantee a level of coverage. As you note above that level of coverage may not be adequate as evidenced by supplementary coverage in the UK. Medicare is pretty much that way. Better than nothing but not good enough. You can still go bankrupt on Medicare without a supplement if you are unlucky. Could we pass a law forcing ALL health providers to accept the hyphenated word and nothing else? Would they be free to accept cash from those who could afford it? Would groups of people get together and form mutual associations to pool their money and spread the risk? Would we make it illegal to provide services and medicine above the level of the hyphenated word? That limitation would most likely fly like the proverbial lead balloon.
I see health care cost as having at least two parts.
One is the cost of the care itself. We evidently spend a greater portion of our GDP on health care than most countries. Spreading it around to more people will not lower that significantly. I understand the preventative vs fixative argument but I don't believe that will be the cure for the overall cost. There have been plenty of discussion here on TNF regarding how to lower the real, overall cost. Lots of disagreement too.
Another part of the cost is indeed the cost to any one individual. The only way around that is for people who are not needing health care to pay for those who do. Period. That is the whole premise of insurance, the "individual mandate" and probably some more. You lefties sit down.... As much as I don't like the "individual mandate" as government intrusion, as long as we are not willing to let someone bleed to death at the doors of an emergency room, it may be the only solution. It needs to be everyone, no exceptions for big donors to any political entity. Now back to myself again. Everyone needs to pay, like the payroll tax. The fact that health care would cost more
as a percentage for poor people than rich people is acceptable to me.
One idea I have is for the government to supply umbrella coverage for those under 65/Medicare. Insurance companies exposure would be limited, say $2,000,000. The government insurance would in essence be a really big deductible policy. Insurance companies would not have to price their coverage to cover infinite costs. Cost to the government could be less because the government wouldn't be paying for bandaids. I go along with some things in Obamacare like the pre-existing conditions provision. Eventually, all of us will have pre-existing conditions.
I have a friend who is an emergency room doctor and he was saying last week that he has many repeat emergency patients who now know him and greet him by name when he walks through the waiting room. None of them have insurance.
He must feel like Norm on the TV show "Cheers."
A buddy of mine asked for the name of a good gastroenterologist last week. I had him call a guy I know and they set him up with an appointment, but not without first sending him a document to sign with big black shouty letters that stated he understood that this group AS OF 2013 WILL NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WITH MEDICARE OR MEDICADE. Of course this wasn't a problem because he's only 48 and has one of those 1%er Cadillac private insurance policys that covers everything from hangnails to pedicures.
I think it would probably be a good idea for seniors to start shopping now before their only option for care is the emergency room. My doc stopped accepting medicare last year, and it's starting to look like that's going to be the norm for most of the established physicians.
Here is a question: why does the discussion never include the need to force the AMA to encourage MORE DOCTORs?
There is an artificial shortage of doctors created by our medical school system and immigration policy. Making it harder to find doctors and healthcare more costly. Similarly, if we continue to expand the roll of nurses and PAs we can prove efficiency. Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but when it is manipulated it often increases problems.
Add in the death of the single payer system and the rise in health insurance conglomerates and the growth of medicaid/care and we have a real failure of capitalism. The worst healthcare per dollar spent in the world. Even with all that money we are not in the top for healthcare by the vast majority of metrics.
No easy answer. Even finding the problem(s) is not easy.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 06, 2012, 03:07:30 PM
Here is a question: why does the discussion never include the need to force the AMA to encourage MORE DOCTORs?
It does occasionally come up here and on other discussion sites, but your perception that it gets no traction in the media seems accurate.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2012, 03:07:18 PM
A buddy of mine asked for the name of a good gastroenterologist last week. I had him call a guy I know and they set him up with an appointment, but not without first sending him a document to sign with big black shouty letters that stated he understood that this group AS OF 2013 WILL NOT ACCEPT PATIENTS WITH MEDICARE OR MEDICADE. Of course this wasn't a problem because he's only 48 and has one of those 1%er Cadillac private insurance policys that covers everything from hangnails to pedicures.
I think it would probably be a good idea for seniors to start shopping now before their only option for care is the emergency room. My doc stopped accepting medicare last year, and it's starting to look like that's going to be the norm for most of the established physicians.
My mother's PCP is retiring early and she's dreading finding another doc as she's in her mid '70s. His stated reason for retiring now is he doesn't like the coming climate for physicians.
Quote from: Conan71 on December 06, 2012, 04:34:08 PM
His stated reason for retiring now is he doesn't like the coming climate for physicians.
You mean his excuse for quitting?
I just love the difference between doctors 50 years ago and today.
BTW, I have been looking for a new physician for 6 months. It will take longer to settle on one because I want him/her to outlive me.
Lots of D.O.'s but few M.D.'s....
Let us stay well.
I hate that I am now at the age of having to see these quack doctors.
It's like changing my car oil four times a year, With the good stuff!
Excellent video featuring Oklahoma doctors.
FWIW my uncle retired from his practice very recently. His primary reason was he was tired of dealing with ignorant patients who refused to take care of themselves and then blasted him with stupid questions or demanded vanity procedures (I want a c-section on XYZ date because we have vacation planned for ABC or I want to have a C-section before the baby gets so big I have stretch marks).... 30 years as an OBGYN in the Tulsa area and few lawsuits against him (which is remarkable for an OB). He complained a little about insurance companies and uncessary procedures mandated by either an insurance company or a law; but by far and away his primary complaint was patients.
I never heard him complain about being unable to earn a very fine living or fearing he would not be able to in the future. Perhaps OB is so well covered by insurance that the concerns are different?
My other friends and relatives that are MDs are all specialists too (Cardio, foot, and eye surgeon). I'm not as close with them as my uncle, but I do not get the impression that payment is the issue. None of my friends/relatives complain about difficulty finding new patients. Most complaints are about procedures required by bureacracy (governmental or insurance) that do little for patients. Again, any PCP is different... but my impression is a major problem is too many patients searching for too few doctors.
Surgery centers are utilized to contain potential liabilities.
I would not choose this doctor. Almost everyone in this video looks unhealthy.....
"Medical business"..... aha!
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 06, 2012, 05:02:49 PM
but I do not get the impression that payment is the issue.
I had one doctor's office tell me they don't take xxx insurance because "they don't pay us".
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 06, 2012, 04:41:29 PM
I just love the difference between doctors 50 years ago and today.
50ish years ago they still made house calls.
Quote from: Red Arrow on December 06, 2012, 05:30:10 PM
50ish years ago they still made house calls.
You still can, but you have to pay. Concierge medicine coupled with a huge fee. Great for hypochondriacs. Even better for those docs in the business. Clientele is usually the $250,000+ income earner.
QuoteLetter to the Editor: Taking care of own?
By Herb Rains, Ponca City
Published: 12/6/2012 1:47 AM
Last Modified: 12/6/2012 2:35 AM
Why are we Americans against providing health care for our fellow countrymen? We've achieved a status as the only western/industrialized nation in the world without national health care. I have friends in Europe who are amazed by the fact that not only do we "not" have a general health-care program, but many of us are so adamantly against it. Why?
My closest friend has been a hard worker all his life and has never taken a handout from anyone. And now he has spinal stenosis, which is slowly crippling him. He is in constant pain, losing the use of his legs and cannot even use a pencil as his hands are so severely cramped.
He has no health insurance - never has been able to afford it.
He went to a doctor for help. It cost him $400 just to see the doctor and the operation would cost him from $30,000 to $40,000. That is out of the question for him.
Gov. Mary Fallin turns down Obamacare, denying close to 600,000 Oklahomans health care. She used wrong numbers and wrong statistics to make it sound logical. And she says it isn't political? That is pure BS. She's like her twin in Arizona, Gov. Jan Brewer. It is so political it stinks. Anything to go against President Obama, even if it means people in our own state will suffer.
And then she dares say that Oklahoma will take care of its own? Oh yeah, we've done a great job of that so far.
Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/opinion/article.aspx?articleid=20121206_62_A16_Wyaewm513692
The docs I know who were opposed to HCA are wanting single payer now that they know the law. Imagine that.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 06, 2012, 06:43:20 PM
You still can, but you have to pay. Clientele is usually the $250,000+ income earner.
That explains why I didn't know about it.
Quote from: Gaspar on December 06, 2012, 04:51:51 PM
Excellent video featuring Oklahoma doctors.
Great video. My recent surgery stint and post op experience was similar. From check in to discharge, each person involved had multiple tasks. It was as well orchestrated a process as I have ever seen. And I was in the health care field for a number of years.
And by the way, I really like my health care. I have fantastic PCP, cardiology,and when I need it (often) ortho (EOOC). I do not want it eff'd with by anyone.
With that said, the point of starting this thread was to let folks know that I saw something that really sucks TODAY. Getting quality health care for certain persons. And its going to suck a lot worse later. And CF: More doctors isn't necessarily the solution. In medicine, more is not as important as capable. And if you do open the floodgates, why would anyone want to focus on primary care work (except ER), such as peds or geriatric. Too little money and too much bureaucracy.
Quote from: guido911 on December 06, 2012, 10:50:01 PM
And by the way, I really like my health care. I have fantastic PCP, cardiology,and when I need it (often) ortho (EOOC). I do not want it eff'd with by anyone.
Any suggestions who to see at EOOC? The guy working on my neck did the job but his 3 hour window when it comes to appt times was killing me.
My appointment could be first thing in the morning and I'd still wait 2 hours for that guy to walk in.
Quote from: Townsend on December 07, 2012, 09:36:49 AM
Any suggestions who to see at EOOC? The guy working on my neck did the job but his 3 hour window when it comes to appt times was killing me.
My appointment could be first thing in the morning and I'd still wait 2 hours for that guy to walk in.
Depends on who the spinal specialist is. I've seen him when I had a neck/shoulder issue and can't remember his name now.
Quote from: Townsend on December 07, 2012, 09:36:49 AM
Any suggestions who to see at EOOC? The guy working on my neck did the job but his 3 hour window when it comes to appt times was killing me.
My appointment could be first thing in the morning and I'd still wait 2 hours for that guy to walk in.
Have you thought about getting a pacemaker first? I am really pushing those nowadays. My ortho needs were for elbows and shoulder. So I went with Dr. Emel in sports med. He also has later in the day appts and is all business. Dr. Capehart is another that I have heard good things. Let me ask my wife about your deal because that could be neuro too. Also for PT, I know who to rec and they are located near us. For a while it seemed I was living at their offices.
Quote from: guido911 on December 06, 2012, 02:55:33 AM
You are an unbelievable moron. You, and soccer punk, have made such stupid assumptions about me and this thread that there is nothing else to do but laugh at you both.
You've made more stupid assumptions about me than just about anybody.
Almost like you want to put me on trial..... oh, wait.... ::)
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 06, 2012, 05:02:49 PMHere is a question: why does the discussion never include the need to force the AMA to encourage MORE DOCTORs?
That'd be about as much fun as "forcing" the NRA to encourage LESS HANDGUNs... good luck with that. ;)
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 06, 2012, 05:02:49 PMThere is an artificial shortage of doctors created by our medical school system and immigration policy. Making it harder to find doctors and healthcare more costly. Similarly, if we continue to expand the roll of nurses and PAs we can prove efficiency. Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but when it is manipulated it often increases problems.
Add in the death of the single payer system and the rise in health insurance conglomerates and the growth of medicaid/care and we have a real failure of capitalism. The worst healthcare per dollar spent in the world. Even with all that money we are not in the top for healthcare by the vast majority of metrics.
If a government program had these metrics of costs and stats attached to them, that program would be demonized, dismantled and privatized by the very same conservative Republicans who are such defenders of de-regulation, voluntary compliance and "market-based" solutions...
Capitalist laissez faire healthcare and insurance bureaucracies give us blizzards of paperwork, yet we continue to pay through the nose to put up with a patchwork of separate but unequal systems that bear little resemblance to the traditional view of healthcare based on "ability to pay."
There seems to be no shortage of medical marketing experts, though...
Consumer drug ads drive up health costs -US studyhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2009/11/23/drugs-advertising-idUSN2327475820091123
QuoteFrom 1999 to 2000, there were no consumer-directed ads for Plavix. But from 2001 to 2005, U.S. advertising spending for Plavix topped $350 million, or an average of $70 million a year.
During the study period, doctors servicing Medicaid patients did not change the prescribing trends, but the amount of money spent by Medicaid on the drug rose dramatically.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on December 06, 2012, 05:02:49 PMFWIW my uncle retired from his practice very recently. His primary reason was he was tired of dealing with ignorant patients who refused to take care of themselves and then blasted him with stupid questions or demanded vanity procedures (I want a c-section on XYZ date because we have vacation planned for ABC or I want to have a C-section before the baby gets so big I have stretch marks).... 30 years as an OBGYN in the Tulsa area and few lawsuits against him (which is remarkable for an OB). He complained a little about insurance companies and uncessary procedures mandated by either an insurance company or a law; but by far and away his primary complaint was patients.
I would argue that people are still people. So, what has changed in the last 30 years? Do women just "refuse to take of themselves" or is it that more women work more hours in more stressful yet sedentary work environments? I'd postulate that 30 years ago, you did what the doc told you to do... and Madison Ave. has bombarded us over the past 15 years with new drug ads touting the magic words: "ask your doctor." Does this excuse human behavior? No. Does it help explain it? Yep.
Pharma's misguided TV pitcheshttp://articles.latimes.com/2009/jul/22/opinion/oe-lane22
QuoteWe do not go to American TV to seek signs of deep thought. The studios that gave us "Baywatch," "Toddlers & Tiaras" and "Skating with Celebrities" can't be accused of setting our expectations too high. Still, at least we know what we're getting with such shows. Direct-to-consumer, or DTC, pharmaceutical advertising, legal only in the U.S. and New Zealand, is -- or should be -- another matter. After all, it concerns public health.
We should recall that we did just fine when these ads were limited to professional journals and healthcare providers. That constraint reduced the risk of self-diagnosis -- and spared us the barrage of vanity treatments that now beset us.
In 1997, however, the Food and Drug Administration -- encouraged by the Clinton administration -- relaxed its rules on this issue. The pharmaceutical industry was given a green light to bypass providers and market its wares directly to consumers.
To gauge the effect of that change, just follow the money. The year before the ruling, drug companies spent $595 million on DTC advertising, according to the Food and Drug Law Journal. Within a year of the change, their spending rose to $844 million. By 2000, it shot up to $2.24 billion. And an August 2007 New England Journal of Medicine article put the total for all drug-related marketing in 2005 at $29.9 billion, with $4.1 billion spent annually on DTC advertising. That's more than $11 million a day.
Quote from: Teatownclown on December 06, 2012, 04:41:29 PM
You mean his excuse for quitting?
I just love the difference between doctors 50 years ago and today.
BTW, I have been looking for a new physician for 6 months. It will take longer to settle on one because I want him/her to outlive me.
Lots of D.O.'s but few M.D.'s....
Let us stay well.
It's not my place to judge his motives or to call him a "quitter". I was taught long ago not to judge someone else until I'd walked a mile in his or her moccasins.