NCAAbbs

I spoke to my neighbor as I collected my mail and he was cutting grass, and he told me his wife has BOTH breast and ovarian cancers. Her doctors are conferring with her insurance company to decide what treatments she will be able to get under their coverage. After that discussiopn, her oncologist will put together the surgical team to take care of the tumors and do whatever restorative "plastic surgery" her policy will provide. She wants as much of it done in one session as possible. Since he is on "disability" and she is a hair stylist, the insurance company "holds all the cards" in deciding what medical care will be afforded.

This is what the healthcare debate is about. It is not about the government getting between patient and doctor. It IS about whether the insurance companies will continue to have complete control between the two parties as it is now. I told earlier how the insurance company countermanded our doctor's prescription for a medicine he wanted her to take by refusing to pay for it until cheaper medicines had been tried. This episode of my neighbor is another example of the absolute dollar power the insurance companies have in healthcare.

And with a "public option," how long do you think she'll have to wait for the "non-essential" "plastic surgery?"

(I thought my "excessive" use of quotation marks might help you "catch my drift.")

As for the evil, greedy, poor children-eating insurance companies, do you not think that a federal mandate that everyone has to purchase insurance is going to make insurance companies more powerful, especially if a public option is left out, like is being considered?

(09-29-2009 11:39 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ]And with a "public option," how long do you think she'll have to wait for the "non-essential" "plastic surgery?"

(I thought my "excessive" use of quotation marks might help you "catch my drift.")

As for the evil, greedy, poor children-eating insurance companies, do you not think that a federal mandate that everyone has to purchase insurance is going to make insurance companies more powerful, especially if a public option is left out, like is being considered?

Failure to include a public option would be a sell out of the promised "reform movement". The "evil, greedy, etc." insurance companies are just following the practices to which they have become accustomed by being in absolute control so long. No politically powerful entity has surrendered that control willingly in recorded history. It has always been wrested from their "cold, dead hands" by political force. Look at how violent the resistance to the Civil Rights Movement had to become before the State relinquished "White only" control.

...and we're right back to racism and a comparison to the Civl Rights movement. That's where it always end up with you.

You did make one good point, though.

BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:No politically powerful entity has surrendered that control willingly in recorded history.

Yep, and that includes government itself. Once a gov't program/entity is established or gains control of something, there's no going back. It always ends up ballooning in terms of control, power, and, of course, cost.

(09-29-2009 11:23 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]I spoke to my neighbor as I collected my mail and he was cutting grass, and he told me his wife has BOTH breast and ovarian cancers. Her doctors are conferring with her insurance company to decide what treatments she will be able to get under their coverage. After that discussiopn, her oncologist will put together the surgical team to take care of the tumors and do whatever restorative "plastic surgery" her policy will provide. She wants as much of it done in one session as possible. Since he is on "disability" and she is a hair stylist, the insurance company "holds all the cards" in deciding what medical care will be afforded.

This is what the healthcare debate is about. It is not about the government getting between patient and doctor. It IS about whether the insurance companies will continue to have complete control between the two parties as it is now. I told earlier how the insurance company countermanded our doctor's prescription for a medicine he wanted her to take by refusing to pay for it until cheaper medicines had been tried. This episode of my neighbor is another example of the absolute dollar power the insurance companies have in healthcare.

sorry to read of your neighbor's condition, but this isn't what this debate is really about, at all.
This is merely what the collectivists, socialists and marxists [among us] want us to believe this is about.
This is about whether more and more Americans are willing and able to abdicate another personal responsibility
[and personal freedom] to the Federal Government, all the while demanding someone else [with more material wealth]
pick up their share of load along the way. With a single-payer system, the 'nanny state' will be complete.
Demonizing insurance companies won't change the debate.
Insurance companies do not have [and have never had] 'complete control' over a patient's medical treatments.
There have been many times I've bypassed my medical insurance, auto insurance and homeowners' insurance
for a treatment/care/service I wanted or deemed necessary. For me, insurance companies have never 'held all the cards'.
Personally, I like the control over my life I [currently] possess. Some of you really ought to try it.
Apparently, more and more Americans agree with me. They don't appear to be buying into this ruse/scheme, either.
The numbers [now] seem to fall along ideological lines, with the socialsts/marxists/collectivists in favor and everyone else opposed.

Health Care Reform
Support for Health Care Plan Hits New Low
Monday, September 28, 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...are_reform

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.
That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed...

(09-29-2009 11:39 AM)BlazerFan11 Wrote: [ -> ](I thought my "excessive" use of quotation marks might help you "catch my drift.")

THANK YOU!!!!


Look, if I have to choose between the insurance company standing between me and a doctor, and the federal government standing between me and a doctor- give me the insurance company every day of the week and twice on Sunday. At least the insurance company won't use police power. And they aren't forcing me to participate in their program.

(09-29-2009 03:07 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-29-2009 11:23 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]I spoke to my neighbor as I collected my mail and he was cutting grass, and he told me his wife has BOTH breast and ovarian cancers. Her doctors are conferring with her insurance company to decide what treatments she will be able to get under their coverage. After that discussiopn, her oncologist will put together the surgical team to take care of the tumors and do whatever restorative "plastic surgery" her policy will provide. She wants as much of it done in one session as possible. Since he is on "disability" and she is a hair stylist, the insurance company "holds all the cards" in deciding what medical care will be afforded.

This is what the healthcare debate is about. It is not about the government getting between patient and doctor. It IS about whether the insurance companies will continue to have complete control between the two parties as it is now. I told earlier how the insurance company countermanded our doctor's prescription for a medicine he wanted her to take by refusing to pay for it until cheaper medicines had been tried. This episode of my neighbor is another example of the absolute dollar power the insurance companies have in healthcare.

sorry to read of your neighbor's condition, but this isn't what this debate is really about, at all.
this is merely what the collectivists, socialists and marxists [among us] want us to believe this is about.
this is about whether more American people are willing and able to abdicate another personal responsibility
and personal freedom to the Federal Government, and demanding someone else [with more material wealth]
pick up their share of load along the way. With a single-payer system, the 'nanny state' will be complete.
Demonizing insurance companies won't change the debate.
Insurance companies do not have [and have never had] 'complete control' over a patient's medical treatments.
There have been many times I've bypassed my medical insurance, auto insurance and homeowners' insurance
for a treatment/care/service I wanted or deemed necessary. For me, insurance companies have never 'held all the cards'.
Personally, I like the control over my life I [currently] possess. Some of you really ought to try it.
apparently, more and more Americans agree, and aren't buying into this ruse/scheme, either.
the numbers [now] seem to fall along ideological lines, with the socialsts/marxists/collectivists in favor and everyone else opposed.

Health Care Reform
Support for Health Care Plan Hits New Low
Monday, September 28, 2009
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_c...are_reform

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats.
That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed...

Yeah, I don't support the current plan either because it sucks. I want a guaranteed plan that isn't run by a for-profit corporation that has it's shareholders' interests ahead of mine.

dude, then don't buy a medical insurance policy [while you're still free to choose].
you really ought to try that personal responsibility thing, instead of waiting on the gov't
to complete your life for you. I'm pretty happy with my current life choices and freedoms.

Both who championed "self-responsibility" and independence from insurance decision-making sound like they have the financial resources at hand to pay their way out of pocket. The people who NEED the insurance payment to have ANY treatment don't have that option. "My way or the highway" is more to the point. An individual prescription denied by insurance can be handled by paying in cash once in a while. The insurance company confering with your doctor on what treatment you wife can receive for her cancers based on their coverage decision is something else. I don't want ANY third party to tell my doctor what they want my treatment to be, and while it has been claimed to be part of a national plan, it CERTAINLY is NOW an integral part of the present for-profit system.

This is what the healthcare debate is about. It is not about the government getting between patient and doctor. It IS about whether the insurance companies will continue to have complete control between the two parties as it is now. I told earlier how the insurance company countermanded our doctor's prescription for a medicine he wanted her to take by refusing to pay for it until cheaper medicines had been tried. This episode of my neighbor is another example of the absolute dollar power the insurance companies have in healthcare.

I'm sorry to hear of your neighbor's disease. However, your assumption that transferring power from private enterprise to government will somehow result in lower costs AND less bureaucracy simply will not happen. Anyone who has had to deal with CMS can attest to that. Bureaucracy is used by both as a tool to limit costs. A public option would have less incentive to control costs since they have an alternate source of funding....taxes.

So the dominant attitude remains "Let them eat cake".

(09-29-2009 09:18 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]Both who championed "self-responsibility" and independence from insurance decision-making sound like they have the financial resources at hand to pay their way out of pocket...

your hearing must be defective. I still own several insurance policies. But, I don't rely on them as our only means of financial survival.
My wife and I made decisions in our life to sacrifice many 'niceties' in an attempt to not be dependent upon others/government.
Unfortunately, we're not independently wealthy, yet. As it stands now, I'll have to work [at least] another
10-15 yrs in order to be able to retire, if ever. I'm not complaining, though. Nobody ever told me life would be easy.
We weren't born with the proverbial 'silver spoon' in our mouths. We've earned what we have, a modest middle class family life.
My wife was [mostly] a stay at home mom, until our children achieved school age (oldest is now 31, youngest 18).
Yeah, it was tough with only one modest (low to mid 5 figure) income. But, we wouldn't have had it any other way.
I've mostly purchased term life and catastrophic health insurance. Our auto insurance is/has been basic coverage.
I used the premium savings [v. full coverage/whole life] to save $ for the inevitable rainy days. We still live in the first [and only]
house we ever 'purchased' (yeah, we own it). We've never purchased 'flashy' vehicles, only reliable vehicles.
Stick in the key, turn the ignition switch, and away we go. I still perform basic maintenance myself.
I've never had a stock portfolio, and I've never risked my savings, except in our small, family owned corporation.
My wife did invest some of her savings in a small (very low 5 figure) [and now smaller, as in 4 figures] stock portfolio.
We are certainly appreciative for our catastrophic health insurance coverage during one of the darkest periods of our life together,
a horrible and life altering accident involving our first born. I wouldn't want anyone to have to live through anything like that, ever.
Do you know what it's like to be told your child probably won't survive the night, much less the next 24 hrs.?
We lived for 3 months in UAB hospitals (3 weeks of those, literally). Our oldest still lives at home, and will [more than likely]
always be dependent on someone else. For the past 25 yrs., we've lived with pre-existing conditions. So, we know what it's like.
Our health insurance company [at that time] lived up to the letter of the contact. I've never had a situation where one of them didn't.
The point in all this is, life in our Country is not a lottery, choosing winners and losers at random. Your life is what you make of it.
You can't wait on the Government to 'make things right'. That's your responsibility, and no one else.
We make choices in life. Some turn out well, others.....................................not so.

That being said, I'm still searching for the 'benevolence' clause in our Constitution.
BAMANBLAZERFAN, in your adult life, did you ever work outside of the 'public sector'?
You've told us you worked as a government school educator,
but did you ever work in private education/business (as in not taxpayer supported)?

I lifted this quote from another [recent] thread. I think it sums up your [flawed] line of reasoning

(09-29-2009 09:39 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]...The national government saved the states from themselves...

You appear to be waiting on the Federal Government (or in your case, any government) to 'save the day'.
How's that worked out for you, so far?
If the Washington politicians turn health insurance into another 'inferred right',
what makes anyone believe the outcome will be any different from the inferred right of 'affordable home ownership'?
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Federal Government coerced sub-prime mortgages wrecked our economy.
I maintain, any form of gov't health insurance will fundamentally change the greatest Nation ever known to mankind, and not in a good way.

I think this is an excellent time in the "discussion" for a remedial course in the basics so that we can remember what it is we are talking about here. Of course, some of us never knew them in the first place...

A policy contract is just that, a contract.

It isn't Jesus.

It isn't a panacea.

It isn't the answer to all of life's ills.

Its coverage, or lack thereof, is specified right there in black and white.

You paid a premium for the coverage, and it is your duty to understand what it is you purchased--as an insured you are a rather important party to the contract.

You are getting precisely what you paid for, or then why did you purchase it?

(09-29-2009 04:31 PM)oldblazer79 Wrote: [ -> ]dude, then don't buy a medical insurance policy [while you're still free to choose].
you really ought to try that personal responsibility thing, instead of waiting on the gov't
to complete your life for you. I'm pretty happy with my current life choices and freedoms.

Amen!!!!!

(09-29-2009 09:49 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote: [ -> ]So the dominant attitude remains "Let them eat cake".

Absolutely not! There are still a myriad of things that can be done and still work within the private system. My point simply is that the notion that a government run (and as it's currently written, government dominated) option is not going to be the solution to the current problem. It has the potential to make things worse both from a patient care standpoint and in terms of long term fiscal stability of the country. Currently only about 1/3 of the burden of healthcare costs are shouldered by the federal and state governments. Those programs are essentially insolvent now.

I posted this thread on 9/29, and after talking to Tammy today (10/19), her doctors are STILL waiting for the insurance company to decide what treatment options they will financially support to treat her two tumors (breast and ovarian). Until the insurance company rules on what they will pay for, the doctors can't put a surgical team together to begin whatever will be covered. All she can do is wait for that decision.

well thank god we have private insurance where a bureaucrat can't come between a doctor and a patient...

You think the government would be any quicker? I think they've shown that they don't value our lives. We've got guys dying every day in Afghanistan and the administration wants to think about what to do. This war isn't anything new, the administration knew they would inherit it when they applied for the job. It's simple, either bring them home like you said you would or send them some help.

If they can't handle life and death decisions concerning 100,000 troops, what makes you think they can handle life and death decisions of 300 million?

My neighbors wife found out she had a stage 4 brain tumor last Wednesday, after a doctor checkup because of memory loss. She had surgery on Monday with radiation and chemo starting tomorrow.

The greatest healthcare system in the world!

(10-20-2009 03:40 PM)RBB Wrote: [ -> ]My neighbors wife found out she had a stage 4 brain tumor last Wednesday, after a doctor checkup because of memory loss. She had surgery on Monday with radiation and chemo starting tomorrow.

The greatest healthcare system in the world!

Heath care debate aside. I pray for the heath and recovery of both these ladies. Cancer has touched my family personally and I know how bad it can be.

(10-20-2009 03:18 PM)iam4uab Wrote: [ -> ]You think the government would be any quicker? I think they've shown that they don't value our lives. We've got guys dying every day in Afghanistan and the administration wants to think about what to do. This war isn't anything new, the administration knew they would inherit it when they applied for the job. It's simple, either bring them home like you said you would or send them some help.

If they can't handle life and death decisions concerning 100,000 troops, what makes you think they can handle life and death decisions of 300 million?

We've got to try something. We can't keep going with the status quo. I don't support a government system where everything has to be approved HMO style. If we had a system that was based on outcomes and not profits, I think we'd come out much better. Other countries do it better than us. We don't have to be too proud to copy someone else.

(10-20-2009 09:19 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-20-2009 03:18 PM)iam4uab Wrote: [ -> ]You think the government would be any quicker? I think they've shown that they don't value our lives. We've got guys dying every day in Afghanistan and the administration wants to think about what to do. This war isn't anything new, the administration knew they would inherit it when they applied for the job. It's simple, either bring them home like you said you would or send them some help.

If they can't handle life and death decisions concerning 100,000 troops, what makes you think they can handle life and death decisions of 300 million?

We've got to try something. We can't keep going with the status quo. I don't support a government system where everything has to be approved HMO style. If we had a system that was based on outcomes and not profits, I think we'd come out much better. Other countries do it better than us. We don't have to be too proud to copy someone else.

Unfortunately outcomes don't pay the bills and medicine isn't an exact science. Sometimes the best treatments don't work and the patient dies.

Also, if healthcare were outcomes based then what would happen to palliative care and hospice?

Americans can learn to provide healthcare on a whole population basis by listening to those who have done it elsewhere and adapting those attributes that provide what we want. The idea being promoted that the present system works for most people so we can ignore the rest reminds me of the American Automobile Industry's attitude in the 50s that those who were critical of what "Detroit" was building were just malcontents who just wanted to make trouble or just wanted "cheap" cars. Today those industries have been pushed by their attitudes to the brink of financial ruin. We can't take that same tack with the lives of millions of Americans whose health is in danger. We aren't talking about cars that won't last. We are talking about persons living or dying while we fight over whether they are important enough to matter. As has been proven, Americans CAN build good cars, and Americans CAN work out a healthcare system that does not let thousands "fall through the cracks" and suffer.

when will the rest of the populace realize nearly EVERY political policy of this administration solves a spurious 'crisis'?
if healthcare reform is the 'unsustainable crisis' proclaimed by the socialists in our Country, why does it take four years to implement such reform?
if passed, socialized healthcare will destroy the greatest healthcare system in the world. ours may not be perfect, but you don't dismantle what works for 90% of the Country [as well as citizens from other nations] to add another 3 - 4%.
the few perceived problems can be solved without what is being proposed.

I've seen no evidence that our healthcare is worse than any other country's. I've seen people talk about life expectancy, but I'm a firm believer that is more of a public health issue than a healthcare one (obesity!). Anytime I've seen a comparison of cancer survival rates and average lifespan following the diagnosis of cancer, the US is far and away ahead of everyone else.

You can talk about paying based on outcomes instead of volume, but you should probably figure out a way to protect reimbursement from being rejected due to patient non-compliance. If the physician gets penalized because the patient doesn't take his medications and has a bad outcome, you're going to see those patients get fired from the practice.

(10-21-2009 07:45 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]I've seen people talk about life expectancy, but I'm a firm believer that is more of a public health issue than a healthcare one (obesity!).

The life expectancy argument is using a statistic that has many factors that fall outside of the healthcare realm. Obesity is a good one. Also take into account that Americans drive autos much more than anybody else, so we have a much higher death rate due to auto crashes. That bumps our life expectancy number down compared to other western countries. We also have a higher rate of deaths due to violent crimes than most other western nations. So expectancy isn't the best indicator. I would rely more on quality of life.

(10-21-2009 07:45 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]You can talk about paying based on outcomes instead of volume, but you should probably figure out a way to protect reimbursement from being rejected due to patient non-compliance. If the physician gets penalized because the patient doesn't take his medications and has a bad outcome, you're going to see those patients get fired from the practice.

Huge +1. I've seen countless patients come through the ER for various things that they're already being treated for, but they don't take their meds, or they continue to smoke, etc.

If I were a MD I'd have the 1 strike rule. You get one chance to screw up and then I'm done treating you. If you're not going to try and help yourself, then why should I do all the work? Going to keep smoking eventhough you've had a heart attack? Bye bye. Not going to take your bp meds? See ya!! Keep gaining weight as a diabetic? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

I keep hering the cry of how expensive anational healthcare option would be as if there is a cheap option now. If healthcare had a "cheap option" we would have put it into practice nearly a century ago. We are discussing how to MINIMIZE the burgeoning costs of what we are doing now--looking for ways to keep healthcare from becoming a run-away freight train of national expense. How to provide good healthcare to those Americans who are being marginalized by the present system while keeping the greater emphasis on the private healthcare structure.

Healthcare is in many ways like the educational system. People must accept that what is being offered is something they need for their own good. It is not just the person who doesn't get educated who will suffer. It is also those who get caught when the economic structure falters because of too many under-educated and under-skilled workers. When a company or industry goes "belly-up", ALL of its employees are damaged. The "rain" falls on the "just" and the "unjust" equally.

When people get sick, they can infect and affect ALL who come in contact with them. The H1N1 virus is just one "bug" out there of many that can do a lot of damage to people.

(10-21-2009 03:23 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2009 07:45 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]You can talk about paying based on outcomes instead of volume, but you should probably figure out a way to protect reimbursement from being rejected due to patient non-compliance. If the physician gets penalized because the patient doesn't take his medications and has a bad outcome, you're going to see those patients get fired from the practice.

Huge +1. I've seen countless patients come through the ER for various things that they're already being treated for, but they don't take their meds, or they continue to smoke, etc.

If I were a MD I'd have the 1 strike rule. You get one chance to screw up and then I'm done treating you. If you're not going to try and help yourself, then why should I do all the work? Going to keep smoking eventhough you've had a heart attack? Bye bye. Not going to take your bp meds? See ya!! Keep gaining weight as a diabetic? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Well thank god you're not a doctor. Part of being a good doctor is being a compassionate person, not a complete Paul Finebaum.

I still haven't found that benevolence clause in our Constitution.
I don't need the government to tell me what is good for me?
That's the difference between people like me and the socialists/collectivists/ Marxists

(10-23-2009 08:37 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2009 03:23 PM)dfarr Wrote: [ -> ]

(10-21-2009 07:45 AM)TMcCarty Wrote: [ -> ]You can talk about paying based on outcomes instead of volume, but you should probably figure out a way to protect reimbursement from being rejected due to patient non-compliance. If the physician gets penalized because the patient doesn't take his medications and has a bad outcome, you're going to see those patients get fired from the practice.

Huge +1. I've seen countless patients come through the ER for various things that they're already being treated for, but they don't take their meds, or they continue to smoke, etc.

If I were a MD I'd have the 1 strike rule. You get one chance to screw up and then I'm done treating you. If you're not going to try and help yourself, then why should I do all the work? Going to keep smoking eventhough you've had a heart attack? Bye bye. Not going to take your bp meds? See ya!! Keep gaining weight as a diabetic? Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Well thank god you're not a doctor. Part of being a good doctor is being a compassionate person, not a complete Paul Finebaum.

I'll be a nurse practitioner in two years, so I will be able to see patients.

Why should a physician go through all the trouble of constant treatment for someone who doesn't follow simple instructions? Seriously, if the patient doesn't care enough about their health to do something about it, then why keep trying? If it's obvious that a patient is not compliant with medical orders, then cut that patient loose and make room for a patient who does care about their health.

Update on my neighbor--She tells me that her doctors have scheduled her surgery for the Wed. before Thanksgiving. They are doing her double mastectomy and hysterectomy concurrently with restorative surgery to follow at a later date. She will be off from work for a short time--she hopes.