Important Health Care Announcement
Jim Thompson
Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
accept future Medicare patients, etc...
http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-medicare-payments/
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
Jim Yanik
wrote in news:hk75k51pg4h31qt06...@4ax.com:
> Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
> http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-med
> icare-payments/
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Pre-emptive strike.
thanks to Comrade Obama. GREAT healthcare reform....[not]
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Archimedes' Lever
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote:
>Important Health Care Announcement...
>
>Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
>accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
>http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-medicare-payments/
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Belongs on the Arizony retard group(s). Not here, idiot.
Oppie
wrote in message news:hk75k51pg4h31qt06...@4ax.com...
> Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
> http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-medicare-payments/
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Was listening to the radio today. I think that it was the substitute for
Rush Limbaugh...
They mentioned the Amish communities that put aside a cash reserve for
health care. When someone needs medical care (at a hospital), they negotiate
a cash price rate. This rate is substantially lower than the normal
insurance rate.
What does this say about another layer of middlemen and bureaucrats that
would only further raise the costs of care when government gets involved?
Obama care aside. It is pretty pathetic that insurance as it is increases
the care provider's costs so. A while back I needed to get an orthotics
device (drop foot brace) for my wife. Surgical supply store quoted something
like $275. I balked but took out my checkbook. The owner thought a minute
and reduced the price by almost 50% since I paid 'cash' and he wouldn't have
to wait for reimbursement.
...Oppie
Jon Slaughter
> "Jim Thompson"
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote in
> message news:hk75k51pg4h31qt06...@4ax.com...
>> Important Health Care Announcement...
>>
>> Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
>> accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>>
>> http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-medicare-payments/
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> Was listening to the radio today. I think that it was the substitute
> for Rush Limbaugh...
> They mentioned the Amish communities that put aside a cash reserve for
> health care. When someone needs medical care (at a hospital), they
> negotiate a cash price rate. This rate is substantially lower than
> the normal insurance rate.
>
Be quite!!! If Nancy Reed hears that they will outlaw it!
Joel Koltner
news:Q0y0n.14634$DY5....@newsfe08.iad...
> They mentioned the Amish communities that put aside a cash reserve for
> health care. When someone needs medical care (at a hospital), they negotiate
> a cash price rate. This rate is substantially lower than the normal
> insurance rate.
Are you sure they weren't claiming to negotiate a substantially lower rate
than the normal *hospital* rate?
I mean -- insurance companies have plenty of incentive to negotitate very
tight deals (more money for them), and they have a lot more leverage (many
thousands of subscribers) they a few Amish do.
There is something to be said for hospital-run HMOs, though, where there's
only one entity (the hospital) that needs to make a profit or at least break
even rather than the more typical two (the hospital and the insurer).
---Joel
Rich Webb
It's probably been mentioned before, but this graphic from that
well-known lefty marxist rag, National Geographic (*National*, get it?
How much more of an admission of a socialist -- or National Socialist --
agenda is needed? Scary stuff!) is pretty telling:
http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
MooseFET
> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker>
> wrote in messagenews:hk75k51pg4h31qt06...@4ax.com...
>
> > Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> > Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> > accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
>
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> Was listening to the radio today. I think that it was the substitute for
> Rush Limbaugh...
> They mentioned the Amish communities that put aside a cash reserve for
> health care. When someone needs medical care (at a hospital), they negotiate
> a cash price rate. This rate is substantially lower than the normal
> insurance rate.
>
> What does this say about another layer of middlemen and bureaucrats that
> would only further raise the costs of care when government gets involved?
It doesn't say a lot about just "government". The Amish likely pay
more
than Canadians or the French. In both those cases the providers are
private companies and the government pays them to provide the care.
> Obama care aside. It is pretty pathetic that insurance as it is increases
> the care provider's costs so.
Holding costs down is hard work. Raising rates is easy. Unless there
is
something requiring the insurance companies to increase profits the
hard
way, they will do it the easy way. Right now they are exempt from
antitrust
etc so they can work together to do it the easy way.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:06:24 -0500, "Oppie" <Op...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> >wrote in messagenews:hk75k51pg4h31qt06...@4ax.com...
> >> Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> >> Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> >> accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
>
> >Was listening to the radio today. I think that it was the substitute for
> >Rush Limbaugh...
> >They mentioned the Amish communities that put aside a cash reserve for
> >health care. When someone needs medical care (at a hospital), they negotiate
> >a cash price rate. This rate is substantially lower than the normal
> >insurance rate.
>
> >What does this say about another layer of middlemen and bureaucrats that
> >would only further raise the costs of care when government gets involved?
>
> >Obama care aside. It is pretty pathetic that insurance as it is increases
> >the care provider's costs so. A while back I needed to get an orthotics
> >device (drop foot brace) for my wife. Surgical supply store quoted something
> >like $275. I balked but took out my checkbook. The owner thought a minute
> >and reduced the price by almost 50% since I paid 'cash' and he wouldn't have
> >to wait for reimbursement.
>
> >...Oppie
>
> It's probably been mentioned before, but this graphic from that
> well-known lefty marxist rag, National Geographic (*National*, get it?
> How much more of an admission of a socialist -- or National Socialist --
> agenda is needed? Scary stuff!) is pretty telling:
>
> http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
Of course socialized medicine is socialist. Why do its promoters
cringe at that description? When I lived in Europe there were a
number of people who thought socialism was a good thing, and they
proudly called themselves socialists.
The caption says: Americans have shorter life expectancies. Yes, but
for non-medical reasons.
The caption says: lack of insurance contributes to 45,000 deaths a
year. Absolutely false--that's a bogus figure.
The caption says: we spend more on health care.
a) If we did, is that by itself a bad thing? Maybe we want more
stuff and we're willing to pay for it.
b) I'm not so sure how much more we spend, if we do. We've all
taken this as a given, but based on figures from unreliable sources.
Knowing how sleazy our gov's figures are on this--just look at the
current health bills--one wonders how upright the comparison gov's
are.
c) Milton's comment in that article is intriguing--the OECD doesn't
report costs in US dollar equivalents, but after a giant fudge
factor. (e.g. Milton says the UK counts UKP 1 as US $1.60, but as
only $1.10 worth of healthcare.)
d) The euro's jumped. Have the European costs been adjusted upwards
accordingly?
The caption criticizes fee-for-service. Agreed--it creates a bogus
incentive, the incentive to produce a lot of line-item charges rather
than fix the patient's problem. Not fixed in the current bills. Who
benefits? The AMA. They own the copyrights to the billing
classification system--those procedure codes your doctors check off--
and get big royalties from it.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-sun-health-ama-1227dec27,0,4125322.story
Another view on those codes, and how the AMA misuses them to raise the
cost of care:
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/DHHSfordummies.htm
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Ouroboros Rex
> Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
> http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-medicare-payments/
Old news. From October:
Mayo Clinic performance rating comes under scrutiny
"The White House has praised the Mayo Clinic and other Midwest clinics for
performance ratings, but critics argue that Mayo's low- to no-acceptance of
Medicare/Medicaid skews the results.
Critics say the high scores in the Dartmouth College rankings do not reflect
Mayo's refusal to accept Medicare for patients in its Arizona facility or
that only five percent of patients in its flagship Minnesota facility are on
Medicaid.
The clinics have collectively leveraged their high-performance rankings,
critics say, to insert favorable language in healthcare legislation
provisions to reward themselves with higher Medicare payments. The language
would also punish facilities with low rankings--primarily in the South and
in larger U.S. cities."
Looks like their plan to sucker legislators suckered you.
Ouroboros Rex
> "Jim Thompson"
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com/Snicker> wrote in
> message news:hk75k51pg4h31qt06...@4ax.com...
>> Important Health Care Announcement...
>>
>> Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
>> accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>>
>> http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-medicare-payments/
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> Was listening to the radio today. I think that it was the substitute
> for Rush Limbaugh...
> They mentioned the Amish communities that put aside a cash reserve for
> health care. When someone needs medical care (at a hospital), they
> negotiate a cash price rate. This rate is substantially lower than
> the normal insurance rate.
>
> What does this say about another layer of middlemen and bureaucrats
> that would only further raise the costs of care when government gets
> involved?
That it can negotiate for lower costs, making your characterization a lie.
Ouroboros Rex
> they're baby talk simplistic.
>
> For example, one of the reasons for the "unneeded treatment," as they
> put it, is ass covering for law suits due to the "absolute liability"
> principle U.S. courts have placed on the system.
No such thing has occurred.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_liability
"Government"
> healthcare sure does solve that 'problem' because you can't sue the
> government and the 'remedy' is whatever the government, not a
> 'sympathetic' jury, decides to provide.
Sorry, Obamacare uses private providers.
>
> Whether you think that's 'better' is another matter but there are ways
> to improve the problem without government running everything.
>
> Another is that equipment and treatment is much more readily available
> in the U.S., and that costs money. Another is that, in the U.S.,
> 'heroic' effort at end of life is common, and that costs a heap of
> money. Now, whether you think it's 'better' to wait 6 months to see a
> specialist and that when you get a 'terminal illness' it's appropriate
> to just die off and get out of the way to 'save money' is a 'good
> thing'
The graphic is of life expectancies, making this a line of bullshit. lol
Ouroboros Rex
Someone has their parties switched.
It was given away to the republicans. They will not pass a bill
containing it, same as they crippled it for medicare meds. No negotiating
based on scale on the republicans' watch. lol
Bill Sloman
> On Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:23:37 -0500, Rich Webb
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 22:06:24 -0500, "Oppie" <Op...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
> >>wrote in messagenews:hk75k51pg4h31qt06...@4ax.com...
> >>> Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> >>> Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> >>> accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
>
> >>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> >>Was listening to the radio today. I think that it was the substitute for
> >>Rush Limbaugh...
> >>They mentioned the Amish communities that put aside a cash reserve for
> >>health care. When someone needs medical care (at a hospital), they negotiate
> >>a cash price rate. This rate is substantially lower than the normal
> >>insurance rate.
>
> >>What does this say about another layer of middlemen and bureaucrats that
> >>would only further raise the costs of care when government gets involved?
>
> >>Obama care aside. It is pretty pathetic that insurance as it is increases
> >>the care provider's costs so. A while back I needed to get an orthotics
> >>device (drop foot brace) for my wife. Surgical supply store quoted something
> >>like $275. I balked but took out my checkbook. The owner thought a minute
> >>and reduced the price by almost 50% since I paid 'cash' and he wouldn't have
> >>to wait for reimbursement.
>
> >>...Oppie
>
> >It's probably been mentioned before, but this graphic from that
> >well-known lefty marxist rag, National Geographic (*National*, get it?
> >How much more of an admission of a socialist -- or National Socialist --
> >agenda is needed? Scary stuff!) is pretty telling:
>
> >http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
>
> they're baby talk simplistic.
>
> For example, one of the reasons for the "unneeded treatment," as they
> put it, is ass covering for law suits due to the "absolute liability"
> healthcare sure does solve that 'problem' because you can't sue the
> government and the 'remedy' is whatever the government, not a
> 'sympathetic' jury, decides to provide.
In fact you can sue for negligence and it does happen outside the US.
Few legal systems are as over-provided with lawyers as the US and
lawyers outside the US tend to want to b paid up-front, rather than
being prepatred to work for a proportion of the eventual damages.
Medical liability insurance in the US is lot more expensive in the US
than anywhere else - when I was in medical electronics in the late
1970's, it was claimed that half what you paid to US doctors went to
cover thier malpractice insurance - and it does seem to be one of the
less admirable features of the culture.
Various states have tried to set up "no fault" compensation systems,
which save the court costs and reduce the payouts for the more tear-
jerking claims, but the lawyers don't want to lose the income and -
surprise, surprise - the legislation has been thrown out by the
courts.
> Whether you think that's 'better' is another matter but there are ways
> to improve the problem without government running everything.
>
> Another is that equipment and treatment is much more readily available
> in the U.S., and that costs money.
The French, Dutch and German systems aren't short of equipment, but it
isn't used quite as frivolously as it is in the US. In the late 1970
individual physicians were buying a couple of million dollars of X-ray
body scanner, figuring to be able to push enough of their patients
through the machine at the rate of couple an hour to cover the
interest on the investment and make a decent profit; X-ray body scans
were then rather too low resolution to be generally useful, but
everybody could understand the pictures, even if they were only
excluded a few relatively low frequency conditions.
> Another is that, in the U.S.,
> 'heroic' effort at end of life is common, and that costs a heap of
> money. Now, whether you think it's 'better' to wait 6 months to see a
> specialist
The long waiting lists to get to see a specialist did happen - to some
extent - in the UK when Margaret Thatcher was trying to cripple the
National Health Service to force everybody who could afford it into US
style private health insurance, but it was corrected - tolerably
quickly, when her Conservative administration was finally thrown out,
back in 1997.
It doesn't happen in the French German and Dutch systems.
"Heroic efforts at the end of life" don't make a lot of economic sense
for the community, and they don't do that much for the patients, who
don't actually enjoy the heroic efforts all that much, but they do
make a bundle of money for the medical practitioners involved, who can
trot around blackmialing the family with "your money or their life"
stories.
> and that when you get a 'terminal illness' it's appropriate
> to just die off and get out of the way to 'save money' is a 'good
> thing' is a matter of opinion, and perhaps different depending on
> whether it's you who are sick or the government trying to meet budget.
One of my friends died of leukemia. Chemotherapy was known to offer
very little chance of cure in his case, and the rational response
would have been to skip it, but he was pressured "not to give up" - by
his kids, not his Australian doctors - so that its was a perforated
ulcer, brought on by the stress of the chemotherapy, that killed him ,
rather than the leukemia. It didn't make any difference to his
survival time, but the chemotherapy was pretty unpleasant, while it
lasted.
> There are other issues as well but the point is that simply comparing
> one country to another without going into the demographics (try
> breaking U.S. 'life expectancy' by demographics), underlying reasons,
> and causes is deceptive baby talk.
Not as deceptive as trying to deny that the US medical system is
outrageously expensive and doesn't deliver any extra value for the
extra money.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
Perhaps. Obesity isn't - strictly speaking - a medical problem, but
there are medical treatments for it that do work.
> The caption says: lack of insurance contributes to 45,000 deaths a
> year. Absolutely false--that's a bogus figure.
Not necessarily. People without insurance tend to avoid seeing their
doctors until their problems are painfully compelling. Early treatment
is cheaper and has better outcomes than treatment initiated when
disease is well-established.
There has been a claim that the unisured die earlier because they are
sicker to start with; apparently if you compared unisured smokers with
insured smokers (who are a smaller proportion of the insured
population than uninsured smokers are of the uninsured population) the
increased death rate largely goes away
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/aug/20/second-opinion-deaths-totals-uninsured/
but this does neglect that fact that healthy people can get their
insurance cheaper than those with evident health risks, and part of
extra health care thye insured get nvolves advice on avoiding
unhealthy habits and activities.
> The caption says: we spend more on health care.
> a) If we did, is that by itself a bad thing? Maybe we want more
> stuff and we're willing to pay for it.
But you can get the same stuff in France and Germany for about two
thirds of the price.
> b) I'm not so sure how much more we spend, if we do. We've all
> taken this as a given, but based on figures from unreliable sources.
> Knowing how sleazy our gov's figures are on this--just look at the
> current health bills--one wonders how upright the comparison gov's
> are.
The French and German health care payments come from a heatlh
insurance system that isn't part of the government, even though it is
fairly closely regulated by the government - their figures are regular
business financial reports.
> c) Milton's comment in that article is intriguing--the OECD doesn't
> report costs in US dollar equivalents, but after a giant fudge
> factor. (e.g. Milton says the UK counts UKP 1 as US $1.60, but as
> only $1.10 worth of healthcare.)
The usual figure for comparison is the proportion of the GDP devoted
to health care. This neatly avoids exchange rate problems.
> d) The euro's jumped. Have the European costs been adjusted upwards
> accordingly?
The usual figure for comparison is the proportion of the GDP devoted
to health care. This neatly avoids exchange rate problems.
> The caption criticizes fee-for-service. Agreed--it creates a bogus
> incentive, the incentive to produce a lot of line-item charges rather
> than fix the patient's problem. Not fixed in the current bills. Who
> benefits? The AMA. They own the copyrights to the billing
> classification system--those procedure codes your doctors check off--
> and get big royalties from it.
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-sun-health-ama-1227dec27,0,4...
>
> Another view on those codes, and how the AMA misuses them to raise the
> cost of care:
> http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/DHHSfordummies.htm
The AMA is a medical trade union. Their take on medical education has
been described as imposing professional birth control. They are
definitely part of the problem.
One of my cousins practices as a medical specialist in the US. He
worked in Australia as a medical professor for a few years, fairly
late in his career, but the money wasn't anything like as good as it
had been in the US.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
> Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
>
http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-medicare-payments/
>
> ...Jim Thompson
This illustrates the problem that all of the current approaches to "the
healthcare mess" seem to share. In practically every case, the problem has
been sold to the public as one of how to get more people covered with no
concerns for the pricing powers of the providers.
Every news story I've seen has been about those big, evil insurance
companies denying coverage (or pricing it out of reach) of the poor folks.
But insurance companies are heavily regulated, so the premiums they charge
just reflect the prices that they have to pay the providers. Meanwhile, any
moves to allow for single payers systems (the public options) or insurance
companies pooling their purchasing power to get better pricing out of the
providers has been fought by those providers. And that hasn't made to news
to the same degree as the behavior of 'big insurance'.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
Ouroboros Rex
> dictates.
Must be why it had to be specifically prohibited by law. lol
>
>> making your characterization a lie.
>
> Says the serial liar.
Poor floppy is projecting again. lol
Ouroboros Rex
>
>>
>> "Government"
>>> healthcare sure does solve that 'problem' because you can't sue the
>>> government and the 'remedy' is whatever the government, not a
>>> 'sympathetic' jury, decides to provide.
>>
>> Sorry, Obamacare uses private providers.
>
That doesn't save your point. If you have evidence that Obamacare
providers are to be lawsuit-proof, now would be a good time.
>
>
>>> Whether you think that's 'better' is another matter but there are
>>> ways to improve the problem without government running everything.
>>>
>>> Another is that equipment and treatment is much more readily
>>> available in the U.S., and that costs money. Another is that, in
>>> the U.S., 'heroic' effort at end of life is common, and that costs
>>> a heap of money. Now, whether you think it's 'better' to wait 6
>>> months to see a specialist and that when you get a 'terminal
>>> illness' it's appropriate to just die off and get out of the way to
>>> 'save money' is a 'good thing'
>>
>> The graphic is of life expectancies, making this a line of
>> bullshit. lol
>
> It is a combined graph of cost, life expectancies, and 'number of
> visits' and cutting 'cost' spent for 'marginal return', meaning the
> elderly and young, is precisely the mechanism espoused by Obama
> appointees in their writings..
That doesn't save your point. You can't have America so low on the life
expectancies axis, then claim that the alternative under universal health
care in case of terminal illness is just 'dying off'.
Ouroboros Rex
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:54:12 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
So, it is your actual claim that government cannot be sued? lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:47:00 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
> Medicare does not 'negotiate' ANY thing.
Not now, anyway, they prohibited it by law. lol
Next you will be telling us the VA does not 'negotiate'.
Oh, wait, you already did that. HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW
Ouroboros Rex
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:18:04 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
Really?
>>>>>> healthcare sure does solve that 'problem' because you can't sue
>>>>>> the government
Sure looks like you made the claim. lol
What was that about a 'lying ass'...?
Ouroboros Rex
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:27:09 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
>
>
>> Next you will be telling us the VA does not 'negotiate'.
>>
>> Oh, wait, you already did that. HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW
>>
>> http://www.cov.com/files/Publication/d05e72c1-f6bf-4d37-89f4-1058aca707a1/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/8b94d7ef-c6dc-4675-8e74-1fd27894e79b/DoD%20Final%20Rule%20Mandates%20Deeply%20Discounted%20Pricing%20for%20TRICARE%20Retail%20Pharmac.pdf
>>
>>
>
> Final Rule Mandates..."
>
> "which requires..."
>
> "every manufacturer must offer... equal to or below the Federal
> Ceiling Price ("FCP")."
>
> "despite the "voluntary" label, DoD states... pricing to TRRx at or
> below FCP to be mandatory.."
>
> There's your lying ass 'negotiation'.
"WAIVER
Under the Final Rule, DoD has indicated that the obligation to pay refunds
for TRRx
prescriptions filled in 2008 could be waived in whole or in part pursuant to
a negotiation of
"voluntary" agreements regarding the prospective availability of covered
drugs to TRRx at
or below FCP."
Why, you're right, there it is, right there. "Negotiation". Gawrsh,
reading really IS fundamental!
Keep lying, ass.
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> Jim Thompson wrote:
> > Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> > Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> > accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
>
>
>
> > ...Jim Thompson
>
> This illustrates the problem that all of the current approaches to "the
> healthcare mess" seem to share. In practically every case, the problem has
> been sold to the public as one of how to get more people covered with no
> concerns for the pricing powers of the providers.
>
> Every news story I've seen has been about those big, evil insurance
> companies denying coverage (or pricing it out of reach) of the poor folks.
> But insurance companies are heavily regulated, so the premiums they charge
> just reflect the prices that they have to pay the providers. Meanwhile, any
> moves to allow for single payers systems (the public options) or insurance
> companies pooling their purchasing power to get better pricing out of the
> providers has been fought by those providers. And that hasn't made to news
> to the same degree as the behavior of 'big insurance'.
There are multiple problems, all of which are fixed by simply
restoring feedback--making sure the people (the patients) using the
services are aware of how much they cost. Ideally, users would pay at
least a portion.
Do that, and the system will optimize itself. Which drives down the
cost of medicine, which makes it easier for everyone to afford
everything.
One thing keeping down the cost of insurance is that, like anything
else, if it costs too much many people won't buy it. Well, before
Reid / Pelosi / Obamacare made them, that is.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 5, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 10:23 pm, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> > > It's probably been mentioned before, but this graphic from that
> > > well-known lefty marxist rag, National Geographic (*National*, get it?
> > > How much more of an admission of a socialist -- or National Socialist --
> > > agenda is needed? Scary stuff!) is pretty telling:
>
> > >http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
>
> > Of course socialized medicine is socialist. Why do its promoters
> > cringe at that description? When I lived in Europe there were a
> > number of people who thought socialism was a good thing, and they
> > proudly called themselves socialists.
>
> > The caption says: Americans have shorter life expectancies. Yes, but
> > for non-medical reasons.
>
> Perhaps. Obesity isn't - strictly speaking - a medical problem, but
> there are medical treatments for it that do work.
>
> > The caption says: lack of insurance contributes to 45,000 deaths a
> > year. Absolutely false--that's a bogus figure.
>
> Not necessarily.
This addresses what she's repeating:
http://www.john-goodman-blog.com/does-lack-of-insurance-cause-premature-death-probably-not/
> People without insurance tend to avoid seeing their
> doctors until their problems are painfully compelling. Early treatment
> is cheaper and has better outcomes than treatment initiated when
> disease is well-established.
Prevention is more expensive. A scandinavian study established that,
I think Swedish. Smokers actually cost less--they die early.
Ditto mammograms for younger women. Those save a few lives, but not
many, and screening everyone to detect those costs more, naturally.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Oppie
"flipper" <fli...@fish.net> wrote in message
news:m72ak5h95pgurs7o9...@4ax.com...
>
> You're not even the biggest or best liar I've run across, just an
> average liberal.
I heard an interesting quote yesterday on Fox radio (AM970 in NYC)
"The difference between a cannibal and a liberal
is that a cannibal only eats its enemies" - originally attributed to Lyndon
Johnson
Bill Sloman
> On Jan 5, 12:18 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Jan 4, 10:23 pm, Rich Webb <bbew...@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote:
> > > > It's probably been mentioned before, but this graphic from that
> > > > well-known lefty marxist rag, National Geographic (*National*, get it?
> > > > How much more of an admission of a socialist -- or National Socialist --
> > > > agenda is needed? Scary stuff!) is pretty telling:
>
> > > >http://blogs.ngm.com/blog_central/2009/12/the-cost-of-care.html
>
> > > Of course socialized medicine is socialist. Why do its promoters
> > > cringe at that description? When I lived in Europe there were a
> > > number of people who thought socialism was a good thing, and they
> > > proudly called themselves socialists.
>
> > > The caption says: Americans have shorter life expectancies. Yes, but
> > > for non-medical reasons.
>
> > Perhaps. Obesity isn't - strictly speaking - a medical problem, but
> > there are medical treatments for it that do work.
>
> > > The caption says: lack of insurance contributes to 45,000 deaths a
> > > year. Absolutely false--that's a bogus figure.
>
> > Not necessarily.
>
> This addresses what she's repeating:
>
> > People without insurance tend to avoid seeing their
> > doctors until their problems are painfully compelling. Early treatment
> > is cheaper and has better outcomes than treatment initiated when
> > disease is well-established.
>
> Prevention is more expensive. A scandinavian study established that,
> I think Swedish. Smokers actually cost less--they die early.
Perhaps. But this isn't what I was talking about. Going to see your
doctor when you feel off-colour, rather than waiting until you've got
blood coming out of some orifice or other, is the kind of difference
that does save money in the long run.
> Ditto mammograms for younger women. Those save a few lives, but not
> many, and screening everyone to detect those costs more, naturally.
Not to mention the PSA - prostate serum antigen - test for potential
prostate cancer which happens to be essentially worthless, except as a
revenue generator for doctors.
The are doctors who run the numbers for the cost-benefit for this kind
of prevention (ever heard of quality-adjusted-years of life?) The
American medical establishment does seem to be more interested in
finding more dubious screening tests that they can charge for, than in
working out what the test results are worth to the patient.
The way malpractice insurance works, American doctors are formally
obliged to run lots of cover-your-ass tests of very dubious value,
just to make life easier for the insuring company's defence lawyers if
some patient is moved to sue.
--
Bil Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
> On Jan 5, 2:10 pm, "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <p...@hovnanian.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Jim Thompson wrote:
> > > Important Health Care Announcement...
>
> > > Mayo Clinic (Glendale, AZ) announced today that they will no longer
> > > accept future Medicare patients, etc...
>
> >http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10001573/mayo-clinic-bridles-at-m...
>
> > > ...Jim Thompson
>
> > This illustrates the problem that all of the current approaches to "the
> > healthcare mess" seem to share. In practically every case, the problem has
> > been sold to the public as one of how to get more people covered with no
> > concerns for the pricing powers of the providers.
>
> > Every news story I've seen has been about those big, evil insurance
> > companies denying coverage (or pricing it out of reach) of the poor folks.
> > But insurance companies are heavily regulated, so the premiums they charge
> > just reflect the prices that they have to pay the providers. Meanwhile, any
> > moves to allow for single payers systems (the public options) or insurance
> > companies pooling their purchasing power to get better pricing out of the
> > providers has been fought by those providers. And that hasn't made to news
> > to the same degree as the behavior of 'big insurance'.
>
> There are multiple problems, all of which are fixed by simply
> restoring feedback--making sure the people (the patients) using the
> services are aware of how much they cost.
Twaddle. The European systems that cost half to two thirds of what
your system costs don't include any such provision. And many medical
procedures aren't optional - I need a new aortic valve, and if I don't
get it I'll be dead in a couple if years. How much the operation is
going to cost doesn't really affect my decision - either I can afford
it, and it happens or I can't and I die.
> Ideally, users would pay at
> least a portion.
Less than ideal if you need the operation and can't afford that
portion of the cost.
> Do that, and the system will optimize itself. Which drives down the
> cost of medicine, which makes it easier for everyone to afford
> everything.
Dream on.
> One thing keeping down the cost of insurance is that, like anything
> else, if it costs too much many people won't buy it. Well, before
> Reid / Pelosi / Obamacare made them, that is.
Funny how well the system works in France and Germany. But the system
that Bismark invented is "socialist" (which would have surprised him)
so it can't possibly be relevant.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
>
> > The caption says: we spend more on health care.
> > a) If we did, is that by itself a bad thing? Maybe we want more
> > stuff and we're willing to pay for it.
>
> But you can get the same stuff in France and Germany for about two
> thirds of the price.
We've not established that. The claim is these countries spend 2/3rds
as much of their GDP on health care; that doesn't automatically mean
they're getting lower prices. They could simply be buying less care.
> > b) I'm not so sure how much more we spend, if we do. We've all
> > taken this as a given, but based on figures from unreliable sources.
> > Knowing how sleazy our gov's figures are on this--just look at the
> > current health bills--one wonders how upright the comparison gov's
> > are.
>
> The French and German health care payments come from a heatlh
> insurance system that isn't part of the government, even though it is
> fairly closely regulated by the government - their figures are regular
> business financial reports.
>
> > c) Milton's comment in that article is intriguing--the OECD doesn't
> > report costs in US dollar equivalents, but after a giant fudge
> > factor. (e.g. Milton says the UK counts UKP 1 as US $1.60, but as
> > only $1.10 worth of healthcare.)
>
> The usual figure for comparison is the proportion of the GDP devoted
> to health care. This neatly avoids exchange rate problems.
No, not if the OECD is using PPP (parity purchasing power) adjusted
figures as Milton claimed. I don't know if the OECD's doing that, but
it would make a very substantial difference. +45% in his example.
> > d) The euro's jumped. Have the European costs been adjusted upwards
> > accordingly?
>
> The usual figure for comparison is the proportion of the GDP devoted
> to health care. This neatly avoids exchange rate problems.
No, that's inadequate for the reason I gave earlier--Americans may
simply be using more services. We're infamous for having lots of
fancy equipment, and making it widely available.
A better measure would be direct comparison: how much it costs for a
given procedure in each place, and how much is spent on a patient with
a given problem in each place.
That's not easily done--it's hard to compare different cohorts--but
that's what's needed.
> > The caption criticizes fee-for-service. Agreed--it creates a bogus
> > incentive, the incentive to produce a lot of line-item charges rather
> > than fix the patient's problem. Not fixed in the current bills. Who
> > benefits? The AMA. They own the copyrights to the billing
> > classification system--those procedure codes your doctors check off--
> > and get big royalties from it.
>
> > http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-sun-health-ama-1227dec27,0,4...
>
> > Another view on those codes, and how the AMA misuses them to raise the
> > cost of care:
> > http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/DHHSfordummies.htm
>
> The AMA is a medical trade union. Their take on medical education has
> been described as imposing professional birth control. They are
> definitely part of the problem.
Yep.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
Bill Sloman
> On Jan 5, 12:18 pm,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 4:46 pm, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > The caption says: we spend more on health care.
> > > a) If we did, is that by itself a bad thing? Maybe we want more
> > > stuff and we're willing to pay for it.
>
> > But you can get the same stuff in France and Germany for about two
> > thirds of the price.
>
> We've not established that. The claim is these countries spend 2/3rds
> as much of their GDP on health care; that doesn't automatically mean
> they're getting lower prices. They could simply be buying less care.
They almost certainly are, since they don't have to practice defensive
medicine and administer every possible test to keep potential defense
lawyers happy in hypothetical malpractice suits, but most commentators
attribute the difference to America's ridiculously elaborate and
extravagant health care administration costs
> > > b) I'm not so sure how much more we spend, if we do. We've all
> > > taken this as a given, but based on figures from unreliable sources.
> > > Knowing how sleazy our gov's figures are on this--just look at the
> > > current health bills--one wonders how upright the comparison gov's
> > > are.
>
> > The French and German health care payments come from a heatlh
> > insurance system that isn't part of the government, even though it is
> > fairly closely regulated by the government - their figures are regular
> > business financial reports.
>
> > > c) Milton's comment in that article is intriguing--the OECD doesn't
> > > report costs in US dollar equivalents, but after a giant fudge
> > > factor. (e.g. Milton says the UK counts UKP 1 as US $1.60, but as
> > > only $1.10 worth of healthcare.)
>
> > The usual figure for comparison is the proportion of the GDP devoted
> > to health care. This neatly avoids exchange rate problems.
>
> No, not if the OECD is using PPP (parity purchasing power) adjusted
> figures as Milton claimed. I don't know if the OECD's doing that, but
> it would make a very substantial difference. +45% in his example.
The OECD's figures line up with the usual percentage of GDP figures;
you are just trying to confuse the issue.
> > > d) The euro's jumped. Have the European costs been adjusted upwards
> > > accordingly?
>
> > The usual figure for comparison is the proportion of the GDP devoted
> > to health care. This neatly avoids exchange rate problems.
>
> No, that's inadequate for the reason I gave earlier
You didn't give any reason earlier - you just expressed rather
unspecific doubt, which is to say you don't like the facts and want to
ignore them.
> --Americans may simply be using more services.
As you are, because of your malpractice culture, amongst other things,
but most commentators say you spend most of the excess on
rococo administration.
> We're infamous for having lots of
> fancy equipment, and making it widely available.
>
> A better measure would be direct comparison: how much it costs for a
> given procedure in each place, and how much is spent on a patient with
> a given problem in each place.
>
> That's not easily done--it's hard to compare different cohorts--but
> that's what's needed.
It has been done, and the US system doesn't deliver value for money
> > > The caption criticizes fee-for-service. Agreed--it creates a bogus
> > > incentive, the incentive to produce a lot of line-item charges rather
> > > than fix the patient's problem. Not fixed in the current bills. Who
> > > benefits? The AMA. They own the copyrights to the billing
> > > classification system--those procedure codes your doctors check off--
> > > and get big royalties from it.
>
> > > http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-sun-health-ama-1227dec27,0,4...
>
> > > Another view on those codes, and how the AMA misuses them to raise the
> > > cost of care:
> > > http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/DHHSfordummies.htm
>
> > The AMA is a medical trade union. Their take on medical education has
> > been described as imposing professional birth control. They are
> > definitely part of the problem.
>
> Yep.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Ouroboros Rex
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 15:47:33 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
>
>>
>>>>>>>> healthcare sure does solve that 'problem' because you can't sue
>>>>>>>> the government
>>
>> Sure looks like you made the claim. lol
>>
>> What was that about a 'lying ass'...?
>
>>>>>>> "Government"
>>>>>>>> healthcare sure does solve that 'problem' because you can't sue
>>>>>>>> the government and the 'remedy' is whatever the government, not
>>>>>>>> a 'sympathetic' jury, decides to provide.
"Out of context" = pathetic lie. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:05:13 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
> is "right there" and the supposed 'negotiation' line you quote is that
> the RETROACTIVE penalty (required refund for not complying with rules
> that didn't exist at the time. How so 'liberal') 'might' (could) be
> 'waived' if one 'voluntarily' agrees to the MANDATE.
>
> And a mugger 'might' not shoot you if you 'voluntarily' hand over your
> wallet.
>
> As I said, Liberals love to mangle the language, a generous alternate
> description to what the average person would understandably call
> "lying."
OK, have it your way - government never negotiates. The republicans paid
the price in 2008 for preventing medicare from negotiating drug prices when
no such thing was ever possible - and Obama got a health care deal out of
the Pharma companies by promising the bill would not do something that was
already impossible. lol
Apparently, under your scenario, republicans are real dupes.
UltimatePatriot
wrote:
You're a goddamned idiot.
The American people have been duped and idiots like you help perpetuate
it.
Ouroboros Rex
About all you ever say around here, innit? lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:19:12 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
> equate to "pathetic lie."
Poor floppy, once again, believes he is the only one here with a command
of the english language. lol
Ouroboros Rex
> On Mon, 11 Jan 2010 11:23:09 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
> how it's done by 'negotiating' a different tax rate for yourself and
> see how far you get. How about 'negotiating' a lower gasoline tax too?
>
>> The republicans paid
>> the price in 2008 for preventing medicare from negotiating drug
>> prices when no such thing was ever possible
>
> link proved, mangle the language to hide the truth.
>
>> - and Obama got a health care deal out of
>> the Pharma companies by promising the bill would not do something
>> that was already impossible. lol
>
> that don't happen.
>
>> Apparently, under your scenario, republicans are real dupes.
>
> mandated pricing 'negotiation', who are duped.
heh heh heh
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
> On Jan 8, 5:35 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > A better measure would be direct comparison: how much it costs for a
> > given procedure in each place, and how much is spent on a patient with
> > a given problem in each place.
>
> > That's not easily done--it's hard to compare different cohorts--but
> > that's what's needed.
>
> It has been done, and the US system doesn't deliver value for money
>
> http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1862/International-Comparisons-Heal...
That 'study' in no way compares matched cohorts. Quite the opposite--
it repeats, relies on, and amplifies a number of errors, including
comparing unmatched cohorts. By that illogic a nation of fat people
having higher heart disease rates would be their medical care's fault.
"...considers three health outcomes—measures used to assess the health
of a population—including life expectancy at birth, infant mortality,
and the incidence of cancer, to determine the extent to which
Americans citizens derive health benefits from record-high outlays for
medical care."
If that's the quality of your evidence, you're hopeless--we've already
debunked the first two. They're wrong, yet you rely on them once
again. So we come full circle.
Further discussion seems pointless.
Have a nice day.
--
Cheers,
James Arthur
dil...@dilavni.uk
>On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:58:25 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
>First link: The VA Drug Pricing Model: What Senators Should Know
>
>"But the VA does not simply negotiate prices; rather, it **fixes**
>prices and then reduces the range of drugs offered to enrollees.
>.
>.
>.
>While the VA's pricing practices do not consist of price-fixing
>mechanisms alone, they are not "negotiation" either. The VA does not
>use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies for lower
>prices. Instead, the government, acting through the VA, uses its power
>to deny manufacturers market access as a way to extort lower prices.
>But these lower prices come at the expense of fewer drugs for
>patients."
>
>
>> heh heh heh
>
>Thanks for posting links to how liberals mangle the language to
>promulgate falsehoods and lies.
>
>
--
THIS POSTING HAS NOTHING AT ALL TO DO WITH ELECTRONICS
WHY DON'T YOU INSTEAD POST A QUESTION ABOUT A CIRCUIT?
Michael A. Terrell
flipper wrote:
>
> First link: The VA Drug Pricing Model: What Senators Should Know
>
> "But the VA does not simply negotiate prices; rather, it **fixes**
> prices and then reduces the range of drugs offered to enrollees.
> .
> .
> .
> While the VA's pricing practices do not consist of price-fixing
> mechanisms alone, they are not "negotiation" either. The VA does not
> use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies for lower
> prices. Instead, the government, acting through the VA, uses its power
> to deny manufacturers market access as a way to extort lower prices.
> But these lower prices come at the expense of fewer drugs for
> patients."
The VA also imports some medicines and medical supplies from Canada.
Several times my prescriptions were from Canadian companies.
From a VA newsletter for January, 2010:
VA Statement about 2010 Benefits and Programs
WASHINGTON � The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) wants to inform
Veterans and other beneficiaries of the following changes that will take
effect in 2010:
� VA will Freeze Increase in Prescription Copayments: Any
increase in Veterans out-of-pocket payments for pharmaceuticals will be
delayed until June 30, 2010. This means the department will delay a
scheduled $1 increase � to $9 � in the copayments facing Veterans for
each 30-day supply of medicine for the treatment of conditions not
related to military service. During this period, VA will also keep $960
as the maximum, annual out-of-pocket payments for pharmaceuticals for
non-service-related conditions. The $960 cap will not apply to Veterans
in priority groups seven and eight. The yearly maximum out-of-pocket
payment was scheduled to increase to $1,080. There are no copayments
associated with the treatment of conditions related to military service.
--
Greed is the root of all eBay.
Jim Yanik
news:hq0vk55tde2fb1o5f...@4ax.com:
in response to;
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:54:50 -0600, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com>
> wrote:
Pointless back-n-forth stuff deleted....
>
> Whether or not I have a superior command of the English language is
> not the point nor relevant. What I say is what I say and you mangling
> it into something equates to a "pathetic lie."
>
again,you're "debating" with a KILLFILE candidate.(AKA "troll")
Why,I don't know.
Can't you guys recognize when a debate is going nowhere?
without going on and on and on....
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
Michael A. Terrell
flipper wrote:
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:40:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.t...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >flipper wrote:
> >>
> >> First link: The VA Drug Pricing Model: What Senators Should Know
> >>
> >> "But the VA does not simply negotiate prices; rather, it **fixes**
> >> prices and then reduces the range of drugs offered to enrollees.
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> While the VA's pricing practices do not consist of price-fixing
> >> mechanisms alone, they are not "negotiation" either. The VA does not
> >> use its buying power to negotiate with drug companies for lower
> >> prices. Instead, the government, acting through the VA, uses its power
> >> to deny manufacturers market access as a way to extort lower prices.
> >> But these lower prices come at the expense of fewer drugs for
> >> patients."
> >
> >
> > The VA also imports some medicines and medical supplies from Canada.
> >Several times my prescriptions were from Canadian companies.
>
It's one of their attempts to control costs, and provide care for
more Veterans on their fixed budget. If they can't get an item in the US
for the budgeted price, they look elsewhere. Generic medicines, and
things like bandages or other consumables are allowed to be bought
outside the US.
Bill Sloman
> On Jan 8, 6:15 am,Bill Sloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 8, 5:35 am, dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > A better measure would be direct comparison: how much it costs for a
> > > given procedure in each place, and how much is spent on a patient with
> > > a given problem in each place.
>
> > > That's not easily done--it's hard to compare different cohorts--but
> > > that's what's needed.
>
> > It has been done, and the US system doesn't deliver value for money
>
> >http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1862/International-Comparisons-Heal...
>
> That 'study' in no way compares matched cohorts. Quite the opposite--
> it repeats, relies on, and amplifies a number of errors, including
> comparing unmatched cohorts. By that illogic a nation of fat people
> having higher heart disease rates would be their medical care's fault.
Since there are effective medical treatments for obesity, your
position is the illogical one.
> "...considers three health outcomes—measures used to assess the health
> of a population—including life expectancy at birth, infant mortality,
> and the incidence of cancer, to determine the extent to which
> Americans citizens derive health benefits from record-high outlays for
> medical care."
>
> If that's the quality of your evidence, you're hopeless--we've already
> debunked the first two. They're wrong, yet you rely on them once
> again. So we come full circle.
You may claim to have debunked them, but you haven't said where they
were debunked.
Since the claim about the origin of the higher US costs doesn't seem
to have anything to do with cohort comparisons
"The authors cited several factors contributing to higher U.S. health
costs—a fragmented financing system that generates higher
administrative costs; and health care providers with greater market
power than health care purchasers, which allows prices to rise above
levels of other countries where the government intervenes to control
prices."
you seem to be making one of your usual specious claim.
> Further discussion seems pointless.
I don't think that your habit of decrying international cost
comparisons as pointless actually constitutes discussion - it's more a
way of declaiming your ideological purity in the face of embarrassing
facts.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen