health care realities

[nvsked]

FMCCAP I read the stuff you post I think it's as slanted as Rush Limbaugh, so your opinion means nothing......sorry to deliver the bad news. The great thing about this country is you are entitled to your opinion, have a good one

[Aces]

U.S. Sues Michigan Blue Cross Over Pricing

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/business/19insure.html?th&emc=th

[longball]

For everyone who benefits from healthcare legislation....many more get screwed

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_costs_boeing

[Furious1Auto]

The great thing about this country is you are entitled to your opinion

No matter how wrong it is!

Edited October 21, 2010 by Furious1Auto

[1993Stang]

It not only can happen, it more than likely will happen..All the while are International leadership continues to donate to the Democrats..

 

First, obviously you and the Milkmen have not used the educational sources that the U.A.W. and the company gave so you can learn that everything media special interests spew is not always the truth and then inaccurately posted for all of us to be board with. Sometimes I am so frustrated when people post utter and total bullshit about something they no absolutely nothing about. www.mercypartners.com And I quote Ken Cook President and CEO of Mercy of Scranton, PA

 

" It was announced last week that it is the intention to explore the sale of our facilities (Mercy). READ CAREFULLY! "The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain POLITICIZED MEDIA OUTLETS (no surprise there) and SEVERELY distorted by SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS," (right from the CEO"S mouth" and web page. Furthermore, Discussions about mergers, acquisitions and strategic partnerships have been going on for years long before the Affordable Healthcare Act." He continues to say the "It was a challenging time for Mercy Hospital Partners, our staff and community, we do continue to be encouraged by the potential of READ CAREFULLY Health Care Reform to improve coverage and access to everyone in our country"

 

How sad to use this web site for inaccurate political banter and to smear the good name of a hospital that has taken care of patients for nearly 100 years.

[1993Stang]

Aces, specifically which part of that it untrue? Facts Aces, facts.

The facts are at www.mercypartners.com by Ken Cook, CEO. MILKEM12 is totally wrong about the hospital case, I debunked his facts as total and utter BS. Look for yourself under the website under topic A message to our Community.

[Marginal Economist]

The facts are at www.mercypartners.com by Ken Cook, CEO. MILKEM12 is totally wrong about the hospital case, I debunked his facts as total and utter BS. Look for yourself under the website under topic A message to our Community.

 

He posted a link that mentioned this and that linked to another article. He did not make this up. I don't know why you are calling him out on this. Maybe you should start another thread as well to call him out. Oh wait...

[Twincam Harley]

The facts are at www.mercypartners.com by Ken Cook, CEO. MILKEM12 is totally wrong about the hospital case, I debunked his facts as total and utter BS. Look for yourself under the website under topic A message to our Community.

 

The Facts? You mean what the CEO says are facts? So you will believe what any CEO says? ROFLMAO!!!

Edited October 21, 2010 by Twincam Harley

[mikem12]

First, obviously you and the Milkmen have not used the educational sources that the U.A.W. and the company gave so you can learn that everything media special interests spew is not always the truth and then inaccurately posted for all of us to be board with. Sometimes I am so frustrated when people post utter and total bullshit about something they no absolutely nothing about. www.mercypartners.com And I quote Ken Cook President and CEO of Mercy of Scranton, PA

 

" It was announced last week that it is the intention to explore the sale of our facilities (Mercy). READ CAREFULLY! "The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain POLITICIZED MEDIA OUTLETS (no surprise there) and SEVERELY distorted by SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS," (right from the CEO"S mouth" and web page. Furthermore, Discussions about mergers, acquisitions and strategic partnerships have been going on for years long before the Affordable Healthcare Act." He continues to say the "It was a challenging time for Mercy Hospital Partners, our staff and community, we do continue to be encouraged by the potential of READ CAREFULLY Health Care Reform to improve coverage and access to everyone in our country"

 

How sad to use this web site for inaccurate political banter and to smear the good name of a hospital that has taken care of patients for nearly 100 years.

 

 

Wow I post an article and say:

 

 

"thought every one woud be intersted in this.

 

 

http://biggovernment...ying-the-price/

 

and please dont tell me it can't happen to the UAW"

 

 

and I still say don't tell me it can't happen to the UAW!

[xr7g428]

The facts are at www.mercypartners.com by Ken Cook, CEO. MILKEM12 is totally wrong about the hospital case, I debunked his facts as total and utter BS. Look for yourself under the website under topic A message to our Community.

 

Looks like you didn't do much to check the facts. The link you posted goes to a parked URL.

 

Try it and see... mercypartners.com

 

The original story included quotes from the CEO. You give us a link to a site that doesn't exist.

 

The whole basis of the story was that several organizations, when faced with the new law, required a waiver or they would have to drop coverage. Is this true or not?

[1993Stang]

Looks like you didn't do much to check the facts. The link you posted goes to a parked URL.

 

Try it and see... mercypartners.com

 

The original story included quotes from the CEO. You give us a link to a site that doesn't exist.

 

The whole basis of the story was that several organizations, when faced with the new law, required a waiver or they would have to drop coverage. Is this true or not?

 

My apologies the web site is http://www.mercyhealthpartners.com/ I left out the health word, sorry. Yes, the basis of the story was several organizations but would you believe him/her on everything else when he was clearly wrong on posting this one? Come on, you have to be smarter than that. I wouldn't believe any one way leaning organization if all their tongues were notarized. Dig for the facts before the spin on either side, that is all I'm saying.

[mikem12]

My apologies the web site is http://www.mercyhealthpartners.com/ I left out the health word, sorry. Yes, the basis of the story was several organizations but would you believe him/her on everything else when he was clearly wrong on posting this one? Come on, you have to be smarter than that. I wouldn't believe any one way leaning organization if all their tongues were notarized. Dig for the facts before the spin on either side, that is all I'm saying.

 

 

You might not realize it but I scan several news serivices if you want the list I can give them to you and yes some are Liberal. I try to find the middle some where in between. But I have seen similar articles in business. I don't go to a labor sights!

 

Why did McDonalds say they would be dropping medical for their employees then the gov gives them a two year waiver. Last I heard 29 companies have been given these waivers. Why not all?

 

Why is Boeing Aircraft threartening the same thing in Washington state??

 

Look all I am saying is look around don't take the word of either side because chances are it, the truth, some where in the middle. Remember O said and congress said the healthcare would cost under a TRILLION dollars but somehow the OMB said, and quite conveinently after it was signed, that they missed the additional 115 billion for Admin costs.

 

the real problem is somebody has to pay and it will be US, thats you and me the middle class. Oh and of course the elderly since they raided medicare for 500mil. Where or when do we stop borrowing money to pay for all of these entitlements?? We are in debt to the tune of $13 trillion now and the number continues to grow.

[Aces]

Some facts instead of the nonsense being spread around like fertilizer by the Health Insurance industry and the GOP/ Tea Party.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24sun1.html?ref=todayspaper

 

from the end of the article;

 

WHAT THEY’RE NOT SAYING: Health care reform has already brought substantial benefits, mostly starting in late September. Insurers are now barred from dropping coverage after a beneficiary becomes sick. Dependents can stay on their parents’ policies until age 26. Insurers must cover preventive services and annual checkups without cost-sharing. Lifetime limits on how much insurance plans will pay for treatment are gone.

 

The major benefits start in 2014, when tens of millions of the uninsured will gain coverage through Medicaid or by buying private coverage — with government help for low- and middle-income Americans — on the new competitive exchanges. If you lose your job, you will no longer lose access to insurance. And with government help the coverage should be affordable.

 

Far too few Democrats are explaining this on the campaign trail. The barrage of attack ads are hard to push back against. But the voters need to know that health care reform will give all Americans real security.

[forddaughter]

Any retirees get a letter in the mail recently suggesting their dependent apply for SS Disability or Medicare? I got mine yesterday. Shipped it off to my lawyer.

[Marginal Economist]

Some facts instead of the nonsense being spread around like fertilizer by the Health Insurance industry and the GOP/ Tea Party.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24sun1.html?ref=todayspaper

 

from the end of the article;

 

WHAT THEY’RE NOT SAYING: Health care reform has already brought substantial benefits, mostly starting in late September. Insurers are now barred from dropping coverage after a beneficiary becomes sick. Dependents can stay on their parents’ policies until age 26. Insurers must cover preventive services and annual checkups without cost-sharing. Lifetime limits on how much insurance plans will pay for treatment are gone.

 

The major benefits start in 2014, when tens of millions of the uninsured will gain coverage through Medicaid or by buying private coverage — with government help for low- and middle-income Americans — on the new competitive exchanges. If you lose your job, you will no longer lose access to insurance. And with government help the coverage should be affordable.

 

Far too few Democrats are explaining this on the campaign trail. The barrage of attack ads are hard to push back against. But the voters need to know that health care reform will give all Americans real security.

 

Aces - a couple things:

1. Who wrote this? It is in the opinion section and I did not see a by line or anything else on who wrote this.

 

2. I think there are benefits to the health insuracne mandate. The dependents until 26, no dropping coverage, and checkups and preventative maintenance are good. The problem I have with this is that they try to spin it as free.

"Insurers must cover preventive services and annual checkups without cost-sharing" - there is no cost sharing - the insured people pay 100% of this through our premiums. Our premiums (employers and employees) will rise to cover these additional benefits. I'm OK with that, but why do they continue to spin it as this great cost savings? If you wanted to pas health care, make it like public schools and just say it is the right thing to do. Every cost in every business is eventually passed on to the consumer. There is no free lunch.

 

3. Some other aspects of the health plan that are going to be here shortly concern me. The "80/20" rule does not make sense to me. I think this will either raise the cost of health care, decrease customer service, or both.

If a company currently spends 30% of it's revenue on admin and profit, how will it get down to 20%? They can downsize (hurting the job situation, customer service, and claims process), they can take less profit (who decides a fair profit, how many companies will shut down) or they can raise revenue and give more to the doctors, drug comapanies, and medical industry so they can maintain the status quo. I think this 80/20 rule is going to have some unintended consequences.

 

This will lead to a repeal of the health insurance mandate or a single payer health insurance modeled much like medicare.

 

I still would love to see a hybrid system based in catastrophic coverage, covered phyisicals and preventative care, with HSA's and a market based exchange with listed prices for services. An increase in nurse practioners and lower levels of medical personnel could make this happen.

[Marginal Economist]

Aces - a couple things:

1. Who wrote this? It is in the opinion section and I did not see a by line or anything else on who wrote this.

 

2. I think there are benefits to the health insuracne mandate. The dependents until 26, no dropping coverage, and checkups and preventative maintenance are good. The problem I have with this is that they try to spin it as free.

"Insurers must cover preventive services and annual checkups without cost-sharing" - there is no cost sharing - the insured people pay 100% of this through our premiums. Our premiums (employers and employees) will rise to cover these additional benefits. I'm OK with that, but why do they continue to spin it as this great cost savings? If you wanted to pas health care, make it like public schools and just say it is the right thing to do. Every cost in every business is eventually passed on to the consumer. There is no free lunch.

 

3. Some other aspects of the health plan that are going to be here shortly concern me. The "80/20" rule does not make sense to me. I think this will either raise the cost of health care, decrease customer service, or both.

If a company currently spends 30% of it's revenue on admin and profit, how will it get down to 20%? They can downsize (hurting the job situation, customer service, and claims process), they can take less profit (who decides a fair profit, how many companies will shut down) or they can raise revenue and give more to the doctors, drug comapanies, and medical industry so they can maintain the status quo. I think this 80/20 rule is going to have some unintended consequences.

 

This will lead to a repeal of the health insurance mandate or a single payer health insurance modeled much like medicare.

 

I still would love to see a hybrid system based in catastrophic coverage, covered phyisicals and preventative care, with HSA's and a market based exchange with listed prices for services. An increase in nurse practioners and lower levels of medical personnel could make this happen.

Above were some ideas I liked for health care reform versus a health insurance mandate. What would you like to see? What can we do to improve the system and lower drug and medical costs?

[Aces]

Above were some ideas I liked for health care reform versus a health insurance mandate. What would you like to see? What can we do to improve the system and lower drug and medical costs?

 

One

 

If a newspaper publishes a lead editorial such as this without a byline then it the editorial boards opinion as a whole.

 

To your other questions;

 

I lived in Canada for most of my life.

 

I believe that a single payer system is the only way to go. It is much cheaper to run. The costs are rising there but no where near what they are here.

The outcomes are just as good or better than here, and people don't go bankrupt if they get sick or die for lack of insurance as they do here.

 

Doctors offices there spend no time or money on billing....it all is billed to one agency in each province. So a busy practice has only one employee for all functions such as billing, receptionist ,maintaining files, booking and receiving patients etc. You don't see that here.

 

Even with such a system there are debates over what should be covered. There are differences among provinces. There is still a place for insurance for Dental, Vision,Semi-private hospital room, Drugs etc.

 

Drug prices are way lower. in Canada...there is no comparison.

 

There is no advertising for drugs or hospitals (what a waste of the health care dollar).

 

Rich people and investors are not making a huge and obscene profit from illness as they do here.

 

 

However, although such a system has many merits and prevails in most of the developed world, it is not considered by most here as realistic or achievable (perhaps due to the unbridled influence of money in politics in America).

 

 

Therefore any change is really only gilding the lily of a broken system which we cannot afford. However some of the changes in the health care reform bill do save money and prevent the worst practices in the health care insurance racket.

 

 

PS ....Sorry I missed your earlier post....I am frequently away.

Edited November 15, 2010 by Aces

[Marginal Economist]

One

 

If a newspaper publishes a lead editorial such as this without a byline then it the editorial boards opinion as a whole.

 

To your other questions;

 

I lived in Canada for most of my life.

 

I believe that a single payer system is the only way to go. It is much cheaper to run. The costs are rising there but no where near what they are here.

The outcomes are just as good or better than here, and people don't go bankrupt if they get sick or die for lack of insurance as they do here.

 

Doctors offices there spend no time or money on billing....it all is billed to one agency in each province. So a busy practice has only one employee for all functions such as billing, receptionist ,maintaining files, booking and receiving patients etc. You don't see that here.

 

Even with such a system there are debates over what should be covered. There are differences among provinces. There is still a place for insurance for Dental, Vision,Semi-private hospital room, Drugs etc.

 

Drug prices are way lower. in Canada...there is no comparison.

 

There is no advertising for drugs or hospitals (what a waste of the health care dollar).

 

Rich people and investors are not making a huge and obscene profit from illness as they do here.

 

 

However, although such a system has many merits and prevails in most of the developed world, it is not considered by most here as realistic or achievable (perhaps due to the unbridled influence of money in politics in America).

 

 

Therefore any change is really only gilding the lily of a broken system which we cannot afford. However some of the changes in the health care reform bill do save money and prevent the worst practices in the health care insurance racket.

 

 

PS ....Sorry I missed your earlier post....I am frequently away.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with a lot. I could get on board with a single payer system if it covered everyone for the most basic services. I think it could be great for catastrophic coverage and an annual physical, but for cost effectiveness it would probably be limited to that. Tax deductible HSA's for everyone (with possible graduated funding for those below certain income levels) would work hand in hand with this.

 

If single payer were instituted (which I don't think will happen soon), do you think there would be a lot of lost jobs? You mentioned a lot less billing and administrative duties, as well as advertising. I'm not sure how many work in the medical industry, but I'm guessing 500K+ jobs could eventually be eliminated. If they could go to online or portable record keeping, it could be beneficial.

 

I'd like to see a "B" tier doctor added as a cost savings. There is no reason I can't get a nurse to give me a physical or physicians assistant to prescribe me a pill. Add in a way to shop doctors prices on a consumer website and you could have feedback ratings like E-Bay. Good doctors would get more patients and lesser doctors will drop rates or fix their problems. I hope they do reopen the health care debate after the job situation stabilizes.

[Aces]

Still the biggest health care reality is that we are paying through tax dollars for enormous waste and poor administration by multiple players.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=10-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

Nowhere else in the world is this waste condoned or supported by taxes like here in the 'States.

 

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

 

http://www.hewittassociates.com/_MetaBasicCMAssetCache_/Assets/Articles/HealthCareExpenditures.pdf

 

http://www.world-psi.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=18093&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

 

Efficiency would mean lost jobs...just like at Ford.

 

The present inefficiency cost lives and bankrupts families.

[Marginal Economist]

Still the biggest health care reality is that we are paying through tax dollars for enormous waste and poor administration by multiple players.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=10-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

Nowhere else in the world is this waste condoned or supported by taxes like here in the 'States.

 

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

 

http://www.hewittassociates.com/_MetaBasicCMAssetCache_/Assets/Articles/HealthCareExpenditures.pdf

 

http://www.world-psi.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=18093&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

 

Efficiency would mean lost jobs...just like at Ford.

 

The present inefficiency cost lives and bankrupts families.

 

Honest question - do you think the new health reform law will reduce the enormous waste and poor administration?

 

I was checking out the law in the new govt website - www.healthcare.gov

 

This made me chuckle - We'll bring down administrative costs by adding another level?

 

New Innovations to Bring Down Costs

Administrative funding becomes available October 1, 2011

 

The Independent Payment Advisory Board will begin operations to develop and submit proposals to Congress and the President aimed at extending the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. The Board is expected to focus on ways to target waste in the system, and recommend ways to reduce costs, improve health outcomes for patients, and expand access to high-quality care.

 

It may get better the following year -

 

Reducing Paperwork and Administrative Costs

First regulation effective October 1, 2012

 

Health care remains one of the few industries that relies on paper records. The new law will institute a series of changes to standardize billing and requires health plans to begin adopting and implementing rules for the secure, confidential, electronic exchange of health information. Using electronic health records will reduce paperwork and administrative burdens, cut costs, reduce medical errors and, most importantly, improve the quality of care.

 

This sounds positive - now if they would seperate it 100% from my employer.

 

Establishing Health Insurance Exchanges

Effective January 1, 2014

 

Starting in 2014 if your employer doesn’t offer insurance, you will be able to buy insurance directly in an Exchange -- a new transparent and competitive insurance marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable and qualified health benefit plans. Exchanges will offer you a choice of health plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, Members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able buy your insurance through Exchanges too.

 

How is this going to be measured?

 

Paying Physicians Based on Value Not Volume

Effective January 1, 2015

 

A new provision will tie physician payments to the quality of care they provide. Physicians will see their payments modified so that those who provide higher value care will receive higher payments than those who provide lower quality care.

[Aces]

To answer your Question above "Honest question - do you think the new health reform law will reduce the enormous waste and poor administration?"

 

I can only say ...maybe.

 

 

Here is a "Marginally" interesting article on health care from a Canadian newspaper.

 

It looks at healthcare in Northern Ireland from a Canadian perspective but it might have some lessons for the 'States too.

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/how-to-save-health-care-from-the-pale-green-maze/article1806958/singlepage/#articlecontent

 

 

 

An American study based on these principles is here

 

http://www.tricare.mil/ocfo/_docs/071306_evidence_based_design.pdf

Edited November 20, 2010 by Aces

[lovelincolns]

Still the biggest health care reality is that we are paying through tax dollars for enormous waste and poor administration by multiple players.

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1903_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=10-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=&state=US&color=c&local=s

 

Nowhere else in the world is this waste condoned or supported by taxes like here in the 'States.

 

http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/spend.php

 

http://www.hewittassociates.com/_MetaBasicCMAssetCache_/Assets/Articles/HealthCareExpenditures.pdf

 

http://www.world-psi.org/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=18093&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm

 

Efficiency would mean lost jobs...just like at Ford.

 

The present inefficiency cost lives and bankrupts families.

You are right about increased efficiency costing jobs but what is the alternative. Sometimes amputating a limb is necessary to save a life.

[Aces]

Sad

 

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/11/22/gop-az-gov-brewer-legislature-kill-funding-for-transplants-for-uninsured/

 

Why do Republicans kill people?

[nvsked]

Sad

 

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/11/22/gop-az-gov-brewer-legislature-kill-funding-for-transplants-for-uninsured/

 

Why do Republicans kill people?

 

It's not personal, its business.... unfortunately, transplants, stem cells etc are not covered the bright side hospice care usually is

[Aces]

Why do Republicans think they have a mandate to march backwards?

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/22/104152/poll-majority-of-americans-want.html