Page 2 of 2 [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

claire-333
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,658

09 Sep 2009, 12:34 am

Master_Pedant wrote:
Spending as much time as I have on the internet obsessively waiting for any and all forum replies is unhealthy. So I'll wrap it up.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ ... 716260.htm

Quote:
There is no systemized, nationwide collection of data on wait times in the U.S., making it difficult to compare delays to those in countries with national health systems, who typically track and publish data on wait times. But a 2005 survey conducted by the Commonwealth Fund of sicker adults in six highly industrialized countries found that only Canada was worse than the U.S. when it came to waiting six days or longer to schedule a doctor's appointment for a medical problem.


Furthermore, wait times in Canada increased largely due to spending cuts by Canada's CEO Minister of Finance (Paul Martin). So, if anything, Canada proves that if you want low wait times you must pay for it.

Manitoba - a province governed by the centre-left NDP & pours lots into healthcare - has a GREAT WAIT TIME.

Furthermore, yes I agree Obama's speech is pretty chunky ever since the Convention 2004 speech. He's not the greatest orator I've ever seen.

Finally, I hardly think as many Americans would distrust healthcare were it not for Obama's failure to counter Republican attacks on it.
There could be some debate on the wait time issue in the us for government health care recipients, but I will concede your point because a large part of the problem is finding doctors who will accept it as they pay so low...pretty much forcing those with government healthcare to go to clinics where appointments are so over booked it can take weeks and even months for non urgent appointments.

I should get some rest too. :D



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Sep 2009, 1:56 am

Obama's game is power, the acquisition and the holding thereof. That is his sole principle. Anything else is a means to that end. He is the spiritual Son of Old Mayor Daley.

ruveyn



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

09 Sep 2009, 7:19 am

From another site.

John Stossel from ABC's 20/20 hits the nail on the head. Rather than universal coverage, we need to reduce coverage. Insurance being used to pay for everything is allowing runaway inflation. If people had coverage for major issues only and had to pay out of pocket for the regular stuff, the demand for lower prices would change the whole market.

Try asking a doctor to commit to a price up-front for cash...most won't know what to tell you, and a reason for that is they negotiate with insurance companies to accept a percentage of "usual and customary" charges. So, to get the $80 they need per office visit to be profitable, they bump up their price so that they still get that $80.

Those who have insurance get the benefit, those who pay cash get screwed.

Link 1

Link 2



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

09 Sep 2009, 9:49 am

ruveyn wrote:
Obama's game is power, the acquisition and the holding thereof. That is his sole principle. Anything else is a means to that end. He is the spiritual Son of Old Mayor Daley.

ruveyn


But he's an agent acting for private interests. This healthcare issue will turn around in such a way that benefits private insurance in the end. There will be no public option.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

09 Sep 2009, 10:03 am

skafather84 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Obama's game is power, the acquisition and the holding thereof. That is his sole principle. Anything else is a means to that end. He is the spiritual Son of Old Mayor Daley.

ruveyn


But he's an agent acting for private interests. This healthcare issue will turn around in such a way that benefits private insurance in the end. There will be no public option.


True. But he is playing footsie with the mega-corporations in order to gain power. Distinguish between means and ends. Once he and his buddies have the power, they will essentially nationalize the major corporations.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

09 Sep 2009, 10:20 am

ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Obama's game is power, the acquisition and the holding thereof. That is his sole principle. Anything else is a means to that end. He is the spiritual Son of Old Mayor Daley.

ruveyn


But he's an agent acting for private interests. This healthcare issue will turn around in such a way that benefits private insurance in the end. There will be no public option.


True. But he is playing footsie with the mega-corporations in order to gain power. Distinguish between means and ends. Once he and his buddies have the power, they will essentially nationalize the major corporations.

ruveyn


You have it backwards, though. The ends is a benefit for Wall Street and the Fed. More government money getting fed into private insurance will positively effect the bottom dollar for Wall Street and the Fed. Obama is nothing more than a tool of manipulation where his acquiescence is what grants the power to the true holders of power. He's the same as Bush 1.3 who's the same as Clinton who's the same as Bush who's the same as Reagan who's the same as Carter who's the same as Ford who's the same as Nixon who's the same as LBJ. Kennedy is still up for debate, though.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

09 Sep 2009, 12:32 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
From another site.

John Stossel from ABC's 20/20 hits the nail on the head. Rather than universal coverage, we need to reduce coverage. Insurance being used to pay for everything is allowing runaway inflation. If people had coverage for major issues only and had to pay out of pocket for the regular stuff, the demand for lower prices would change the whole market.

Try asking a doctor to commit to a price up-front for cash...most won't know what to tell you, and a reason for that is they negotiate with insurance companies to accept a percentage of "usual and customary" charges. So, to get the $80 they need per office visit to be profitable, they bump up their price so that they still get that $80.

Those who have insurance get the benefit, those who pay cash get screwed.

Link 1

Link 2


I saw that show a while ago. It is true that cash payers pay about double what insurance pays. The discount is clearly marked on my statements. The reason insurance gets a break is that they are reliable payers, in general. An uninsured consumer brings a lot of risk to the table so there is basically an effective surcharge. The solution is to ensure that all Americans are insured and require equal billing. The rediculous idea of doing away with insurance would completely screw anyone who ever became seriously ill or injured, and those with chronic conditions. These arguments are only ever made by healthy individuals. The idea that we can somehow prevent illness and injury by making smart choices is wrong. Eating right and excercising would prevent some of it (I think incentives are the way to go), but certainly not all of it. We would have to live in little bubbles, never travel, never touch anyone, and go back in time to engineer our genes. It's absurd. We mandate insurance on automoblies, why not people.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,615

09 Sep 2009, 1:50 pm

number5 wrote:
I saw that show a while ago. It is true that cash payers pay about double what insurance pays. The discount is clearly marked on my statements. The reason insurance gets a break is that they are reliable payers, in general. An uninsured consumer brings a lot of risk to the table so there is basically an effective surcharge.


No.

That would be illegal. A surcharge for someone paying CASH when services are rendered?

Insurance carriers take MONTHS to pay what's billed to them. The only reason why accept those terms is because it's the only way (they think) to have enough clients to be profitable.