yeefreaking haw!!!! that was funny brew.
Health Care Spin from WH - the truth from doctors
- Thread starter blue fluff
- Start date
yeefreaking haw!!!! that was funny brew.
Walter Reid ring a bell....although I sense some sarcastic typing.
I had an interesting conversation with someone last night and they made some VERY interesting points. There are only a handfull of insurance companies that deal with healthcare, there are only a limited number of people allowed into medical school, and there is a limited number of "approved" healthcare facilities and these facilities MUST treat everyone that walks thru the door.
So if you look at it we already have "socialized medicine" as we are limited to who we can buy insurance from, who we can go see and who those facilities have to see.
From the book Profession and monopoly, a book published in 1975 is critical of the AMA for limiting the supply of physicians and inflating the cost of medical care in the United States. The book claims that physician supply is kept low by the AMA to ensure high pay for practicing physicians. It states that in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals. It points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA's influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.
The easiest way to lower healthcare costs is to open the healthcare system up, NOT stifle it even more. Why should a medical school be limited to a certain number of students? IF the dropout rate is 20%, instead of letting 100 in and only getting 80 Dr.s out why not let 300 in and get 240 Dr.s out. by increasing supply the price will go down.
As was mentioned Tort reform, limit pain and suffering awards, in court (should there have been negligence) no one should be denied the money it cost them for the medical care, but no one needs Millions and Millions of dollars for any reason.
The same should be done with lawyers as well.
So if you look at it we already have "socialized medicine" as we are limited to who we can buy insurance from, who we can go see and who those facilities have to see.
From the book Profession and monopoly, a book published in 1975 is critical of the AMA for limiting the supply of physicians and inflating the cost of medical care in the United States. The book claims that physician supply is kept low by the AMA to ensure high pay for practicing physicians. It states that in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals. It points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA's influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.
The easiest way to lower healthcare costs is to open the healthcare system up, NOT stifle it even more. Why should a medical school be limited to a certain number of students? IF the dropout rate is 20%, instead of letting 100 in and only getting 80 Dr.s out why not let 300 in and get 240 Dr.s out. by increasing supply the price will go down.
As was mentioned Tort reform, limit pain and suffering awards, in court (should there have been negligence) no one should be denied the money it cost them for the medical care, but no one needs Millions and Millions of dollars for any reason.
The same should be done with lawyers as well.
More of a "Maybe the soldiers would get better coverage out of it" line of thought..
ahhh, very nice.
O
Ollie
ACCOUNT CLOSED
For anyone that thinks that government health care is a good thing.
I have a couple questions.
Do you think medicaid is run well and is cost effective?
Do you think medicare is run well and is cost effective?
if you answered yes to either one of those, then logic reason and truth are useless on you.
Do you think the cost of medicine being 2 - 3 times what it is ANYWHERE else is the world is the drug makers fault?
The reason it costs SO much more here than anywhere else in the world is because of government regulation and control as well as a run away legal system that has determined drug makers have huge pots of money to give away.
Why doesn't the government allow the U.S. citizens to import drugs from out of country?
They say it is to protect us. I say it is because they don't get their cut of the taxes.
There are break thru drugs in Europe that we won't see for 10 - 15 years in this country as a DIRECT result of government red tape and control. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug approved in this country. It's a joke.
You want to reform the health industry in this country?
Get government and lawyers out of it and put doctors back in charge.
Just because little johny has the sniffles doesn't mean he has the plague and doesn't mean he should have 300 cat scans to see if there are any internal problems. I don't care how many lawyers you get involved, you still won't know what you are talking about.
I have a couple questions.
Do you think medicaid is run well and is cost effective?
Do you think medicare is run well and is cost effective?
if you answered yes to either one of those, then logic reason and truth are useless on you.
Do you think the cost of medicine being 2 - 3 times what it is ANYWHERE else is the world is the drug makers fault?
The reason it costs SO much more here than anywhere else in the world is because of government regulation and control as well as a run away legal system that has determined drug makers have huge pots of money to give away.
Why doesn't the government allow the U.S. citizens to import drugs from out of country?
They say it is to protect us. I say it is because they don't get their cut of the taxes.
There are break thru drugs in Europe that we won't see for 10 - 15 years in this country as a DIRECT result of government red tape and control. It costs hundreds of millions of dollars to get a drug approved in this country. It's a joke.
You want to reform the health industry in this country?
Get government and lawyers out of it and put doctors back in charge.
Just because little johny has the sniffles doesn't mean he has the plague and doesn't mean he should have 300 cat scans to see if there are any internal problems. I don't care how many lawyers you get involved, you still won't know what you are talking about.
S
snowmobiler
Well-known member
i should have been a doctor.....
http://bend.craigslist.org/hea/1295653455.html
http://bend.craigslist.org/hea/1295653455.html
If you're referring to the article from CNN that Rush quoted, I've looked at some of the sections of the house version of the bill and since what CNN and Rush said lined up with what I myself have read, I took it to mean that they did the same and more research than I did.
The bill is on thomas.gov and it's HR 3200 so you can read it yourself.
The problem I have is that a lot of the articles that get posted start off quoting some fact or source from another place, then expound on that with an interpretation of the meaning of the fact or source that is doused with lots of opinion and bias against the motivation of the person saying it..
Seems like the last part is thrown in with the fact or source and the whole article is looked at as valid, instead of what it really is...
Seems like the articles kind of try to lead a reader to a predetermined conclusion, skipping any valid arguments to the contrary along the way...
My example is the "medical home" issue..... From reading the article, it sounds like it is a really bad thing... That is only the interpretation given by the person writing the article though... Doing research on the purpose of a "medical home" and the improvements leads me to believe that it actually is a good thing.
Thus, I then question the whole interpretation of facts / sources in the article....
The problem I have is that a lot of the articles that get posted start off quoting some fact or source from another place, then expound on that with.
and this is just what your doing is it not... you have a bias for sure!
Seems like the last part is thrown in with the fact or source and the whole article is looked at as valid, instead of what it really is..
what exactly makes it not valid? because its not slanted towards your way of thinking... if thats the case NOTHING is valid... which certainly cant be true... truth has to exist at some level whether you or i recognize it or not!
Seems like the articles kind of try to lead a reader to a predetermined conclusion, skipping any valid arguments to the contrary along the way...
My example is the "medical home" issue..... From reading the article, it sounds like it is a really bad thing... That is only the interpretation given by the person writing the article though... Doing research on the purpose of a "medical home" and the improvements leads me to believe that it actually is a good thing.
Thus, I then question the whole interpretation of facts / sources in the article....
Yah, I got my own bias.. of course...
The problem I have is that the article looks like an explanation of the wording of a bill with an incorrect explanation of it's impact / purpose. Yes there is always going to be bias, as everyone has some / it, but sometimes articles just seem so loaded with it that when they try and hide it as fact, it starts to bother me.
I have lots of bias.. and I try not to confuse that with fact... but it isn't always that easy now is it..
I think this heat is making me reasonable...
The problem I have is that the article looks like an explanation of the wording of a bill with an incorrect explanation of it's impact / purpose. Yes there is always going to be bias, as everyone has some / it, but sometimes articles just seem so loaded with it that when they try and hide it as fact, it starts to bother me.
I have lots of bias.. and I try not to confuse that with fact... but it isn't always that easy now is it..
I think this heat is making me reasonable...
Yah, I got my own bias.. of course...
The problem I have is that the article looks like an explanation of the wording of a bill with an incorrect explanation of it's impact / purpose. Yes there is always going to be bias, as everyone has some / it, but sometimes articles just seem so loaded with it that when they try and hide it as fact, it starts to bother me.
I have lots of bias.. and I try not to confuse that with fact... but it isn't always that easy now is it..
I think this heat is making me reasonable...
cool
p) i will make sure it stays hot!From CNNMoney.com
Freedoms you will lose with this legislation, and remember they will fine you through the IRS if you refuse to purchase one of their plans Swampy
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs and Time Warners and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.
But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.
Freedoms you will lose with this legislation, and remember they will fine you through the IRS if you refuse to purchase one of their plans Swampy
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs and Time Warners and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.
But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.
What is it about CNNMoney.com don't you understand/ I had to leave out about 20% as it was just to be under the 1000 maximum. You will just have to go there if you want to read any more, waste of time though.
I would have though you of all people would have liked the medical home idea... or did you even read that part...
I need to read none of it, first of all there are many sources I trust to analyze it for me. 2 I want no part of any government health program, it is totally unconstitutional and is pushing my country further into marxism and is not within the contract our forefathers signed. 3. I am 65 years old and have not been to a doctor since 1963 and put a lot of effort into keeping it that way. If you think the federal government should have the right to force me or anyone to buy their socialist program or face fines from the IRS you certainly don't represent a true American, may you kiss the boots of those who will eventually controll you I have been sticking their boots up their *** for 40 years and I will never stop. Remember when the marxists do consolidate their power the first ones they will remove are the morons who helped them to power. Swampy
I would have though you of all people would have liked the medical home idea... or did you even read that part...
I need to read none of it, first of all there are many sources I trust to analyze it for me. 2 I want no part of any government health program, it is totally unconstitutional and is pushing my country further into marxism and is not within the contract our forefathers signed. 3. I am 65 years old and have not been to a doctor since 1963 and put a lot of effort into keeping it that way. If you think the federal government should have the right to force me or anyone to buy their socialist program or face fines from the IRS you certainly don't represent a true American, may you kiss the boots of those who will eventually controll you I have been sticking their boots up their *** for 40 years and I will never stop. Remember when the marxists do consolidate their power the first ones they will remove are the morons who helped them to power. Swampy
Where is the link?
I would not base all hospital experiences based on the Mayo clinic... Your right the Mayo is very very good.. but I don't think it is very representative of ALL hospitals.
__________________
Where is the link?
Our company premiums increased by 30% this year...
Where is the link?
A medical home is not an HMO... not at all, and controlling access to specialists? Not sure on that one.. looks like the normal scare tactics as usual. But then again, what else would you be posting?
Lots of large companies are already moving this direction as a means of cutting costs and increasing coverage / services.
__________________
Where is the link?
Where is the link supporting your point?
If it is good enough for our soldiers, shouldn't it be good enough for us?
The problem I have is that the article looks like an explanation of the wording of a bill with an incorrect explanation of it's impact / purpose. Yes there is always going to be bias, as everyone has some / it, but sometimes articles just seem so loaded with it that when they try and hide it as fact, it starts to bother me.
Seems you post alot of your opinion only with no links to support your theory, at least I post the articles with their sources. Swampy
I would not base all hospital experiences based on the Mayo clinic... Your right the Mayo is very very good.. but I don't think it is very representative of ALL hospitals.
__________________
Where is the link?
Our company premiums increased by 30% this year...
Where is the link?
A medical home is not an HMO... not at all, and controlling access to specialists? Not sure on that one.. looks like the normal scare tactics as usual. But then again, what else would you be posting?
Lots of large companies are already moving this direction as a means of cutting costs and increasing coverage / services.
__________________
Where is the link?
Where is the link supporting your point?
If it is good enough for our soldiers, shouldn't it be good enough for us?
The problem I have is that the article looks like an explanation of the wording of a bill with an incorrect explanation of it's impact / purpose. Yes there is always going to be bias, as everyone has some / it, but sometimes articles just seem so loaded with it that when they try and hide it as fact, it starts to bother me.
Seems you post alot of your opinion only with no links to support your theory, at least I post the articles with their sources. Swampy
What is it about CNNMoney.com don't you understand/ I had to leave out about 20% as it was just to be under the 1000 maximum. You will just have to go there if you want to read any more, waste of time though.
I would have though you of all people would have liked the medical home idea... or did you even read that part...
I need to read none of it, first of all there are many sources I trust to analyze it for me. 2 I want no part of any government health program, it is totally unconstitutional and is pushing my country further into marxism and is not within the contract our forefathers signed. 3. I am 65 years old and have not been to a doctor since 1963 and put a lot of effort into keeping it that way. If you think the federal government should have the right to force me or anyone to buy their socialist program or face fines from the IRS you certainly don't represent a true American, may you kiss the boots of those who will eventually controll you I have been sticking their boots up their *** for 40 years and I will never stop. Remember when the marxists do consolidate their power the first ones they will remove are the morons who helped them to power. Swampy
ohhh swampy you are my hero!
W
Wolfrun
ACCOUNT CLOSED
The VA hospitals do real great too!
- Based on MY OWN direct personal experience..
- Based on MY OWN direct personal experience..
IBM site medical home...
IBM site medical home 2
Financial Week..
Seems you post alot of your opinion only with no links to support your theory, at least I post the articles with their sources. Swampy
Cause it is my opinion... I am not stating it as fact.. The only one that should of had a source is the Medical Home idea, but it seems like nobody cares as long as rush says it is bad, then it is.... And you guys call me sheep..
I guess you don't see the difference.. and I have run into this problem with you many times...
Last edited:
Well, I don't know what to say....... except I guess I would have thought you would like to think for yourself. I guess that is not the case.
