PDA

View Full Version : Here's my questiion about Obama-care, hopefully reasonably objectively posed...



Okla-homey
8/3/2009, 07:23 PM
Okay. In '64 when LBJ signed Medicare* into law, he knew it needed a corresponding revenue stream to pay for itself. Presto. That "FICA" withholding on every employed person's pay stub. All of us. From the 17 year old flippin' burgers at McD's, to rocket surgeons at NASA. And its always on the verge of going broke despite said dedicated revenue stream since its inception.

How, please tell me, how is it possible to give health care to 50 million Americans without taxing all the working folks of this here nation to cover it?

I'll hang-up and listen. :pop:

* for you Medicare un******s, think gubmint administered, more or less free, health care for all folks over 62.

Curly Bill
8/3/2009, 08:28 PM
The correct answer is: it is not possible.

Harry Beanbag
8/3/2009, 09:06 PM
Haven't you been paying attention? The evil rich folks are gonna pay for it out of the kindness of their hearts.

oumartin
8/3/2009, 09:11 PM
Obama is the man! ;)

GrapevineSooner
8/3/2009, 10:21 PM
I'm just wondering how they'll be able to administer the costs to cover the program from start to finish without any funding gaps in between...when they said the Cash for Clunkers program would have enough money in it to last from July 1st through November 1st.

Which obviously, it didn't.

It's not that I'm wholeheartedly against the idea of a state run health care program. I recognize our current system has it's warts what with some employers requiring you to work for 90 days and/or be employed full time in order to get health insurance.

The other thing that bugs me is Obama suggesting Congress needs to act on this fast. What's the rush, Mr. President? When you're dealing with one of the largest government takeovers of any industry, shouldn't we be given time as legislators and citizens to go over this plan with a fine tooth comb?

I'll hang up and listen, too.

OKC-SLC
8/4/2009, 12:44 AM
Think about the largest entitlement programs the govt runs currently. And think about how much time we spend debating when (not if) they'll go bankrupt.

Yeah, we should definitely let the govt take over one of the largest industries in the world.

Frozen Sooner
8/4/2009, 12:49 AM
Reasonably asked. Typing on phone so answer will be short. The theory is that while taxes would have to go up the total cost of health care would go down due to streamlining of processes and incentives to cover preventative care. Much more to it but phone typing sucks. H

JLEW1818
8/4/2009, 01:18 AM
i hate obama, good night

Tiptonsooner
8/4/2009, 06:21 AM
Reasonably asked. Typing on phone so answer will be short. The theory is that while taxes would have to go up the total cost of health care would go down due to streamlining of processes and incentives to cover preventative care. Much more to it but phone typing sucks. H

What has the government ever streamlined??

1890MilesToNorman
8/4/2009, 06:52 AM
Streamlining and gubment in same sentence, that's funny. :D

OUHOMER
8/4/2009, 07:13 AM
Fix medicare and the VA medical, then come ask if they can take over the whole enchilada

GrapevineSooner
8/4/2009, 07:16 AM
To be fair, our current private based health care system is about as bureaucratic a private system as there is in our country in the year of our lord, 2009.


Uhhhhh, I think you get my point.

So yes, as hard as it may seem to believe, the gubmint actually might be able to streamline some of the administrative work here.

beer4me
8/4/2009, 07:46 AM
Fix medicare and the VA medical, then come ask if they can take over the whole enchilada

Fix the VA yea, there is a bigger chance that a man might be able to understand a woman before that happens.:D

Harry Beanbag
8/4/2009, 08:14 AM
Fix the VA yea, there is a bigger chance that a man might be able to understand a woman before that happens.:D

I don't know if I would go that far. :)

My Opinion Matters
8/4/2009, 08:54 AM
Think about the largest entitlement programs the govt runs currently. And think about how much time we spend debating when (not if) they'll go bankrupt.

Yeah, we should definitely let the govt take overone of the largest industries in the world.

First off, I would like to qualify any statement regarding healthcare with the following disclaimer: it is an incredibly complex, non-partisan issue that is in such a state of advanced decay that I'm not sure it can be fixed.However, it is important to recognize that the current system is broken and it does need to be fixed. Anyone that says differently is ignorant, uninformed, or politically motivated.

Now on to the point of my response...I bolded the last sentence of this post because I found it particularly interesting. Healthcare operations absolutely, positively should not be administered as corporate endeavors. The fact it's been run this way for so long is why we're in this mess.

OklahomaTuba
8/4/2009, 09:05 AM
Pfft, you and your details.

Obama has no time for you and your details on how to pay for his trillions in crazy *** spending. He has an Agenda, and nothing, not even the collapse of the US economy or federal tax base can deviate him from socializing America.

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090803/capt.55ddbd49a6c744cc9d88043ffe1f9eba.plummeting_t axes_gfx652.jpg

OklahomaTuba
8/4/2009, 09:09 AM
BTW, speaking of streamlining stuff, go back and see how much Medicare was supposed to cost when it was created.

And then look and see how much it actually costs.

LBJ miscalculated by an order of 1000%.

And now SS may be bankrupt by 2013.

2013.

My Opinion Matters
8/4/2009, 09:41 AM
So the new Owasso Neighborhood Market is pretty nice, don't you think Tuba?

NormanPride
8/4/2009, 09:49 AM
2013 is a heck of a lot longer than i thought it would last.


Our country needs a reset button.

OKC-SLC
8/4/2009, 09:53 AM
it is important to recognize that the current system is broken and it does need to be fixed.

One option when a car is broken is to fix it. Another option is to buy a new car.

Sometimes (often, in fact) the wise move is to repair what's broken rather than replace it.

MojoRisen
8/4/2009, 10:18 AM
Can someone breakdown the serious problem it will cause for small business which many people believe are the backbone of our country and provide a lot of inovation.

I am assuming a lot of people start their own LLC's or S Corps and operate in the 250k-1 million a year range with employee's or just themselves in the 100K+ range.

I would assume that the business pays tax, now they would also paid increased income tax and also be fined if they did not pay for employee's health benefits. Clearly if they employ anyone they would probably buy the government plan instead of facing an additional 8% payroll tax.

13% on someone's income in the 250K range would hurt them pretty bad, keep in mind this is in addition to what they already pay. That would be about 50% for being slightly more successful with income than the norm biz executive.

30K in additional taxes/fines and or benefits not previously provided basically defeats the purpose earning the additional 60K to pay it.

They will cut jobs, increase biz expense and pay less income tax in my opinion.

Harry Beanbag
8/4/2009, 10:43 AM
They will cut jobs, increase biz expense and pay less income tax in my opinion.

That's not just your opinion, it's reality.

achiro
8/4/2009, 11:16 AM
Fix medicare and the VA medical, then come ask if they can take over the whole enchilada

I've been saying this since the campaign. McCain missed a HUGE chance during one of the debates when all he needed to say in response to Obama's gubment health care idea was "ok, so if gubment healthcare is so great why are medicare/medicaid failing miserably?

JohnnyMack
8/4/2009, 12:03 PM
Unfortunately the masses are more excited about what can be given to them instead of what their government can do about simply facilitating things to allow private inviduals to do it themselves. That's why "federal programs" that in theory are well intentioned turn into an inoperable cancer on our society.

SoonerBorn68
8/4/2009, 12:23 PM
BTW, speaking of streamlining stuff, go back and see how much Medicare was supposed to cost when it was created.

And then look and see how much it actually costs.

LBJ miscalculated by an order of 1000%.

And now SS may be bankrupt by 2013.

2013.

Quit making sense Tuba--people can't handle the truth. I'm not worried though, the end of the world happens in 2012. ;)

Harry Beanbag
8/4/2009, 12:31 PM
Unfortunately the masses are more excited about what can be given to them instead of what their government can do about simply facilitating things to allow private inviduals to do it themselves. That's why "federal programs" that in theory are well intentioned turn into an inoperable cancer on our society.

:les: NICE TO KNOW YER PASSWORD'S NOT SAFE!!!!!1!111!!

;)

GrapevineSooner
8/4/2009, 01:10 PM
I've been saying this since the campaign. McCain missed a HUGE chance during one of the debates when all he needed to say in response to Obama's gubment health care idea was "ok, so if gubment healthcare is so great why are medicare/medicaid failing miserably?

Perhaps.

I've heard some right wingers suggest that if McCain had come out solidly as a fiscal conservative, he would have won the election. And to be sure, I think the lack thereof cost him votes in Ohio where Obama won despite getting fewer votes than Kerry got in 2004.

But I still think Obama would have won the election.

Frozen Sooner
8/5/2009, 04:37 PM
"Fix" Medicare?

People using Medicare like it a hell of a lot better than people on employer-sponsored insurance like their coverage:

linkydo (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2002/Oct/Survey--Medicare-Beneficiaries-Report-Greater-Satisfaction-With-Insurance--Better-Access-To-Care-Tha.aspx)

Same goes for VA Medical:

You want the truth? Click here for the truth! (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560)

Not saying that both couldn't stand some improvement, but the end-users seem to think both are doing pretty well.

Care for a breakdown on how much these "broken" systems pay out of each dollar for administrative costs as opposed the "just fine" private insurers?

achiro
8/5/2009, 04:58 PM
"Fix" Medicare?

People using Medicare like it a hell of a lot better than people on employer-sponsored insurance like their coverage:

linkydo (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2002/Oct/Survey--Medicare-Beneficiaries-Report-Greater-Satisfaction-With-Insurance--Better-Access-To-Care-Tha.aspx)

Same goes for VA Medical:

You want the truth? Click here for the truth! (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560)

Not saying that both couldn't stand some improvement, but the end-users seem to think both are doing pretty well.

Care for a breakdown on how much these "broken" systems pay out of each dollar for administrative costs as opposed the "just fine" private insurers?

Dude, you are using a 2001 SURVEY of 3500 people over 19! Medicare has changed, a LOT in that time. Many private insurers have also changed. and this isn't even the part most of us mean when we mention that it is "broken".
Now survey doctors and find out how much THEY like medicare. Also, I guarantee that if the patients really knew what was happening behind the scenes they would have responded different. Like if they actually had to pay the parts of the bill that medicare doesn't pay instead of the doctor writing it off. Or if the doctor billed every procedure instead of just not billing it if medicare doesn't pay for it. Etc...etc...etc

and don't forget, it's running out of money.

Frozen Sooner
8/5/2009, 05:22 PM
Ha, my fault, didn't check the date on the article. I'll dig up something more recent:

This one's from June of this year (http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.php)

Veritas
8/5/2009, 07:23 PM
They will cut jobs, increase biz expense and pay less income tax in my opinion.
That's exactly the move I'll make if Obama and his posse of retards get this thing passed.

Tiptonsooner
8/5/2009, 09:06 PM
That's exactly the move I'll make if Obama and his posse of retards get this thing passed.

^^^^^^^^This.

Why should I be responsible for my employees health care? If I have to pay for it, I will either have to lower their salary to compensate or eliminate them. Who does that help?

jkjsooner
8/5/2009, 09:30 PM
Reasonably asked. Typing on phone so answer will be short. The theory is that while taxes would have to go up the total cost of health care would go down due to streamlining of processes and incentives to cover preventative care. Much more to it but phone typing sucks. H

Also consider that employers would no longer have to pay for healthcare so much of the increse in taxes could be offset by that.

I'm not saying that to support the plan. (I don't even know the details.) Just making a point...

mdklatt
8/5/2009, 09:39 PM
Also consider that employers would no longer have to pay for healthcare so much of the increse in taxes could be offset by that.


Yeah, I can't imagine there's any employer that wouldn't gladly give up having to administer an insurance plan. Even if they gave all the money they pay as insurance benefits directly to the employee as salary they'd be better off.

But doesn't the current proposal try to expand employer-provided coverage? Any plan that doesn't scrap employer-provided coverage altogether completely misses the point.

mdklatt
8/5/2009, 09:41 PM
Why should I be responsible for my employees health care? If I have to pay for it, I will either have to lower their salary to compensate or eliminate them. Who does that help?

If you lower their salary but pay for their insurance, isn't it mostly break even as far as they're concerned? Of course now you're stuck with higher administration costs.

jkjsooner
8/5/2009, 09:44 PM
They will cut jobs, increase biz expense and pay less income tax in my opinion.

Maybe for small businesses. For companies that provide healthcare I think it would be a benefit to them and might actually increase their competitiveness.

soonerhubs
8/5/2009, 09:56 PM
What says everyone about making health care nonprofit across the board? Bad idea? I've heard that it may cut out alot of the mark ups needed to negotiate with care providers, Insurance companies, and medicaid/care folks, but then again it's just hearsay.

mdklatt
8/5/2009, 10:26 PM
What says everyone about making health care nonprofit across the board? Bad idea? I've heard that it may cut out alot of the mark ups needed to negotiate with care providers, Insurance companies, and medicaid/care folks, but then again it's just hearsay.

That sounds good to me. I don't see why health care is fundamentally different from policing and firefighting. Nobody blinks twice about those being nonprofit functions.

OKC-SLC
8/5/2009, 10:42 PM
That sounds good to me. I don't see why health care is fundamentally different from policing and firefighting. Nobody blinks twice about those being nonprofit functions.

Compare my student loans, increased debt from living on residency and fellowship salaries, and lack of financial "running start" on my kids' college educations and my retirement savings to that of a police officer or firefighter's.

They are underpaid. Physicians are not overpaid.

soonerhubs
8/5/2009, 11:58 PM
Just to be clear, I would never compare what a Doctor does to police work or firefighting. Not that I don't appreciate their work as well.

From what I heard on the radio show, the idea was that a nonprofit organization could pay the salaries of the Doctors and thus eliminate the need for the Doctors to have to fight with the insurance peeps.

Again, it's only a small piece of the puzzle, and I'm unsure what other complications such a plan might entail.
I do know this: Speeding up the process to get a Bill passed through congress is unwise.

SoonerKnight
8/6/2009, 01:16 AM
Maybe a public plan will save money?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/jan-june09/publicplan_06-24.html

http://commonwealthfund.org/Content/Publications/Fund-Reports/2009/Jun/Fork-in-the-Road.aspx

Okla-homey
8/6/2009, 06:45 AM
I just hope that if the administration does pull this off, there are significant co-pays and deductibles, indexed to some kind of means testing. I maintain, people tend to abuse free stuff. We'll need those co-pays and deductibles to make sure people think twice before they go to the doc.

Harry Beanbag
8/6/2009, 07:55 AM
(I don't even know the details.)

That's ok, neither does Congress.

1890MilesToNorman
8/6/2009, 07:58 AM
I've always paid my doctor in chicken and pigs, I guess now they will require gubment cheese instead.

mdklatt
8/6/2009, 09:22 AM
Compare my student loans, increased debt from living on residency and fellowship salaries, and lack of financial "running start" on my kids' college educations and my retirement savings to that of a police officer or firefighter's.

They are underpaid. Physicians are not overpaid.

I didn't say pay doctors or nurses less, just take for-profit corporations out of the picture. Why is it okay for a corporation to make money by deciding who lives or dies from illness--and make no mistake, that's what insurance companies do--but not okay to do the same thing for crime or fires? Why has there never been any movement to privatize police or firefighters? They are no more a public service than health care.

Bourbon St Sooner
8/6/2009, 09:23 AM
"Fix" Medicare?

People using Medicare like it a hell of a lot better than people on employer-sponsored insurance like their coverage:

linkydo (http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/News/News-Releases/2002/Oct/Survey--Medicare-Beneficiaries-Report-Greater-Satisfaction-With-Insurance--Better-Access-To-Care-Tha.aspx)

Same goes for VA Medical:

You want the truth? Click here for the truth! (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=14560)

Not saying that both couldn't stand some improvement, but the end-users seem to think both are doing pretty well.

Care for a breakdown on how much these "broken" systems pay out of each dollar for administrative costs as opposed the "just fine" private insurers?

No, I want the breakdown of how we're going to find the money for the $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Oh yes, printing presses.

jkjsooner
8/6/2009, 09:24 AM
They are underpaid. Physicians are not overpaid.

I think we need to totally rethink our entire healthcare industry.

Nine times out of ten, when I go to the doctor I don't need someone who spent 10 years of post-graduate education.

Plus, part of the problem is with the exploding cost of education....

One more thing, it isn't productive to have doctors spending half their time filling out paperwork for insurance companies...

jkjsooner
8/6/2009, 09:25 AM
I just hope that if the administration does pull this off, there are significant co-pays and deductibles, indexed to some kind of means testing. I maintain, people tend to abuse free stuff. We'll need those co-pays and deductibles to make sure people think twice before they go to the doc.

I do agree with that.

Bourbon St Sooner
8/6/2009, 09:27 AM
Reasonably asked. Typing on phone so answer will be short. The theory is that while taxes would have to go up the total cost of health care would go down due to streamlining of processes and incentives to cover preventative care. Much more to it but phone typing sucks. H

So what you're saying is that pencil-pushing is what's causing health care costs to rise at 2 to 3 times the rate of inflation? I would really like to hear the explanation of the public option is going to control costs, because I don't see it.

Bourbon St Sooner
8/6/2009, 09:29 AM
I didn't say pay doctors or nurses less, just take for-profit corporations out of the picture. Why is it okay for a corporation to make money by deciding who lives or dies from illness--and make no mistake, that's what insurance companies do--but not okay to do the same thing for crime or fires? Why has there never been any movement to privatize police or firefighters? They are no more a public service than health care.

What I would like to know is why people are allowed to make a profit growing food? I mean if health care is a right, certainly a more basic human right is the right to nourish yourself.

Harry Beanbag
8/6/2009, 09:34 AM
Why has there never been any movement to privatize police or firefighters?

There are plenty of privatized fire districts in this country, and from what I understand, they are much cheaper to operate than government run districts.

I think you may run into Constitutional issues with private police forces.

They are no more a public service than health care.

I don't agree.

mdklatt
8/6/2009, 09:36 AM
What I would like to know is why people are allowed to make a profit growing food? I mean if health care is a right, certainly a more basic human right is the right to nourish yourself.

I didn't say it was a right, I said it was a public service. It doesn't effect you if the guy who sneezes on you is hungry. It does effect you if he has swine flu.

Harry Beanbag
8/6/2009, 09:37 AM
I didn't say it was a right, I said it was a public service. It doesn't effect you if the guy who sneezes on you is hungry. It does effect you if he has swine flu.

So is the government going to force people to have weekly checkups to make sure they aren't sick?

Bourbon St Sooner
8/6/2009, 09:44 AM
I didn't say it was a right, I said it was a public service. It doesn't effect you if the guy who sneezes on you is hungry. It does effect you if he has swine flu.

So are we only talking about contagious illnesses here or everything? My guess is that treatment of contagious illness is a small fraction of all health care cost, compared to diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc.

I agree that the gov't should provide free care for contagious illnesses.

1890MilesToNorman
8/6/2009, 10:44 AM
The more I hear about Obama's and Congress' healthcare plan the more I like. Too bad I won't get the same coverage they do under their plan?????

Curly Bill
8/6/2009, 10:50 AM
The more I hear about Obama's and Congress' healthcare plan the more I like. Too bad I won't get the same coverage they do under their plan?????


:D

No foolin, if the plan they're trying to ram down our throats is all kinds of wonderful, they should be willing to accept it for themselves right.

SCOUT
8/6/2009, 11:48 AM
One more thing, it isn't productive to have doctors spending half their time filling out paperwork for insurance companies...

Are you making the assertion that a government run...anything...would result in less paperwork?

Curly Bill
8/6/2009, 11:51 AM
Are you making the assertion that a government run...anything...would result in less paperwork?


WINNAR!

Animal Mother
8/6/2009, 06:10 PM
i hate obama, good night

Please don't wake up!

Animal Mother
8/6/2009, 06:12 PM
Quit making sense Tuba--people can't handle the truth. I'm not worried though, the end of the world happens in 2012. ;)

It ended the day Tuba first posted his b*/llsh!t.

Animal Mother
8/6/2009, 06:15 PM
BTW, speaking of streamlining stuff, go back and see how much Medicare was supposed to cost when it was created.

And then look and see how much it actually costs.

LBJ miscalculated by an order of 1000%.

And now SS may be bankrupt by 2013.

2013.


Is your maiden name Lyndon LaRouche?

I like this post because almost a full minute has passed since some sandwich has announced the bankrupturing of social security.

OH MY GAWD! I SAID SOCIAL WHICH IS ALMOST SOCIALISM!

Harry Beanbag
8/6/2009, 06:37 PM
Ah, I love the smell of troll in the evening.

The Remnant
8/6/2009, 07:35 PM
I think he needs to put down the company keyboard and get back to work. The meat he is cooking for the happy meal is beginning to burn.

jkjsooner
8/6/2009, 08:04 PM
:D

No foolin, if the plan they're trying to ram down our throats is all kinds of wonderful, they should be willing to accept it for themselves right.

I see you got the memo of the latest GOP talking point.

Why don't you limit the discussion to the merits of the plan instead of bringing up irrelevant issues such as this?

Congress members give themselves sweet deals whether it's pensions or health care. It sucks but that is an issue for another thread and quite frankly we're all free to try to our hand at running for office.

Whether or not they give themselves a great deal, that really means nothing to the merit of Obama's plan. It just means that Congress members will give themselves perks - something we've known for quite a long time.

Curly Bill
8/6/2009, 09:08 PM
I see you got the memo of the latest GOP talking point.

Why don't you limit the discussion to the merits of the plan instead of bringing up irrelevant issues such as this?

Congress members give themselves sweet deals whether it's pensions or health care. It sucks but that is an issue for another thread and quite frankly we're all free to try to our hand at running for office.

Whether or not they give themselves a great deal, that really means nothing to the merit of Obama's plan. It just means that Congress members will give themselves perks - something we've known for quite a long time.

derp...derp...derp...that's a good one. :O

Octavian
8/6/2009, 10:56 PM
some of you should just take a painkiller

JLEW1818
8/6/2009, 10:56 PM
natty

sooner ngintunr
8/6/2009, 10:59 PM
and vikes

Bourbon St Sooner
8/7/2009, 12:49 PM
So nobody on this board wants to tell me how this plan is going to drive costs out of the system?

Maybe Nancy Pelosi can inform me.

Scott D
8/7/2009, 01:09 PM
I'm skeptical of the plan as it's been set forth so far, and no I haven't been bored enough to read the 1000+ pages as it sits now. The primary facets that I personally think need to be covered in creating the reform are as follows.

1) Easing the burden on small business and companies by either taking over a percentage of the cost for those businesses to provide health coverage, or by providing tax cuts and/or incentives to businesses to go with providing coverage.

2) Streamlining the process for health care providers to be paid in a timely fashion by insurance for their services, and cut out some of the current red tape in regards to individuals and their prescriptions.

3) Funding programs that tie into other federal social programs such as drug treatment for individuals on welfare or unemployment.

To answer your question Bourbon, if by just streamlining the process where a Dr. writes a prescription, and a patient gets it filled at the pharmacy without needing a "Prior Authorization" from the doctor being sent to the insurance company, you're going to be saving money both short term and in the long run.

It's not a pretty situation when you see an 80 y/o on a fixed income not being able to afford a medication because their insurance company will only cover a certain generic of that med. that the patient can't take because of how it reacts (and yes, some generics don't work the same as the name brand drug). Seeing that 80 y/o frustrated and in tears because of the cost they have to pay to take name brand is just heart breaking. I've seen it upset the pharmacists as well because they're frustrated by the system in that regard.

OklahomaTuba
8/7/2009, 01:13 PM
So nobody on this board wants to tell me how this plan is going to drive costs out of the system?

Maybe Nancy Pelosi can inform me.

Just email [email protected], or contact your friendly local union thug. I'm sure they will be more than happy to "educate" you. :cool:

Bourbon St Sooner
8/7/2009, 03:50 PM
I'm skeptical of the plan as it's been set forth so far, and no I haven't been bored enough to read the 1000+ pages as it sits now. The primary facets that I personally think need to be covered in creating the reform are as follows.

1) Easing the burden on small business and companies by either taking over a percentage of the cost for those businesses to provide health coverage, or by providing tax cuts and/or incentives to businesses to go with providing coverage.

2) Streamlining the process for health care providers to be paid in a timely fashion by insurance for their services, and cut out some of the current red tape in regards to individuals and their prescriptions.

3) Funding programs that tie into other federal social programs such as drug treatment for individuals on welfare or unemployment.

To answer your question Bourbon, if by just streamlining the process where a Dr. writes a prescription, and a patient gets it filled at the pharmacy without needing a "Prior Authorization" from the doctor being sent to the insurance company, you're going to be saving money both short term and in the long run.

It's not a pretty situation when you see an 80 y/o on a fixed income not being able to afford a medication because their insurance company will only cover a certain generic of that med. that the patient can't take because of how it reacts (and yes, some generics don't work the same as the name brand drug). Seeing that 80 y/o frustrated and in tears because of the cost they have to pay to take name brand is just heart breaking. I've seen it upset the pharmacists as well because they're frustrated by the system in that regard.

I appreciate what you're saying Scott. As I've stated on this forum before, I'm no fan of the current system. I just hear proponents of the health care 'reform' say that it will reduce costs. I just want to know how it's going to do that. I'm skeptical that streamlining paperwork is going to lead to significant reductions in cost.

Okla-homey
8/7/2009, 03:55 PM
My thought on "red tape." Sure, we all hate it. But know this, there are literally thousands of former health care providers cooling their formerly well-heeled heels in various federal hoosegows for committing Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

That red-tape exists to make it harder to bilk Uncle Sammy for services provided for patients that were not medically necessary, or otherwise faked.

Scott D
8/7/2009, 04:08 PM
My thought on "red tape." Sure, we all hate it. But know this, there are literally thousands of former health care providers cooling their formerly well-heeled heels in various federal hoosegows for committing Medicare and Medicaid fraud.

That red-tape exists to make it harder to bilk Uncle Sammy for services provided for patients that were not medically necessary, or otherwise faked.

Understand Homey, I'm not referring to the Medicare/Medicaid fraud red tape. It's the preferred agreement with individual drug company red tape that is the most frustrating to the people I deal with on a regular basis. When your insurance company won't cover a medication that is documented by your physician as working, as compared to a medication that is their 'preferred' version which is documented as not working for you there is something inherently wrong with that system. When you are required every six months to have your Physician send in an authorization form to the Insurance Co. for them to partially approve your prescription, there is a problem. When you are elderly and on a fixed income and learn that your insurance no longer covers your prescription and it goes from $5 or $0 to $45 for a 30 day supply, there is a problem.

When there is enough frustration with the system that you have people going without their medications because they can't afford them because they aren't covered for not being the 'right' medication according to your insurance company, there is a problem.

Scott D
8/7/2009, 04:15 PM
I appreciate what you're saying Scott. As I've stated on this forum before, I'm no fan of the current system. I just hear proponents of the health care 'reform' say that it will reduce costs. I just want to know how it's going to do that. I'm skeptical that streamlining paperwork is going to lead to significant reductions in cost.

You'd be surprised how much in terms of man hours that goes into the paper trail when it comes to the insurance co./physician/pharmacist triangle. Also, consideration for the idea of medical records being more accessible between hospitals and doctors in different locales would in some ways be more cost effective. Just cutting down the potential amount of files that you could have if you are someone who has moved multiple times and is not in the military would be more cost effective.

Considering the hoops one has to jump through to get their medical files released to another doctor now, it's another sign of the inefficiency of the system. Truthfully, in any business you'll hear finding ways to reduce the amount of paperwork is always a reduction in man hour costs which is where most of the excess cost that gets rolled over onto the individual comes from.

Rogue
8/7/2009, 06:16 PM
In gubmint healthcare, docs get charts that compare their use of more expensive drugs, tests, etc, and patient outcomes averaged over time for similar DRGs. In the private sector, the doc that uses the most expensive stuff, regardless of or even in spite of oucomes, gets rewarded. Strange system that pays a healthcare system more the sicker it's patients get.

Rogue
8/7/2009, 06:20 PM
Ok, unfair to docs, but not to hospital board types. And bag on VA all you want. I only keep Blue Cross for Mrs. Rogue. I use VA and have lots of choies. I also have access to comparison data betweencal providers and clinics. And I choose the VA. What may suffer the most in a public plan is drug research and certai drug marketing.

Rogue
8/7/2009, 06:26 PM
HIPPA did nothing to improve record portability. Another oxymoronic outcome. To get back to Homey's question, the only plus I can see is all the savings. Current systems necessitate too much care (medicare/medicaid pays for nursing homes but not assisted livings in most states) and there is a lot of fat in the system. But to cut tot the chase, my bet is on a tax increase. And I'm for it if it is modest and fixes the system. But I'd like a peek at the real numbers first. My thumbs are about to fall off. Verizon Ampitheater in Va Beach rocks.

Animal Mother
8/13/2009, 05:44 PM
Ah, I love the smell of troll in the evening.

It's your upper lip Hairless d__sh bag