On 6/29/2012 9:56 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

I can't claim to speak for everyone but I think there are many who do
not view health care as a proper role for the federal government. I
also think there are many who view most of the federal bureauacracy as
being incompetent, self serving and self perpetuating. Who would
want such an organization to be responsible for their health care?

As opposed to bureaucratic corporations that have done a good job of
extracting profit but not so good at delivering health care...? Tough
call. Perhaps they should compete.

On 7/3/12 1:30 AM, thumper wrote:
On 6/29/2012 9:56 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

I can't claim to speak for everyone but I think there are many who do
not view health care as a proper role for the federal government. I
also think there are many who view most of the federal bureauacracy as
being incompetent, self serving and self perpetuating. Who would
want such an organization to be responsible for their health care?

As opposed to bureaucratic corporations that have done a good job of
extracting profit but not so good at delivering health care...? Tough
call. Perhaps they should compete.




I've never understood this "worship" of corporations. Making sure that
everyone has access to decent health care certainly is a duty for a
government. It certainly isn't anything a for-profit corporation can or
will do.

"Califbill" wrote in message
news

------------------------------------------
A lot of those tests are to cover the health care provider's butt.
With the
litigation sharks out there looking for anything to sue over, is much
more
protective of the doctor to order extra tests.

----------------------------------------

I thought so also for a long time but the statistics prove otherwise.
Malpractice
lawsuits certainly exist but they don't contribute to the overall
health care costs
as much as commonly thought.

It's more because most doctors are now associated with either
hospitals or health
care centers who are looking to generate as much revenue as they can
get away
with. A doctor friend of mine has told me about the pressures
brought on the
staff of doctors by these organizations to maximize insurance claims,
often for
needless or repetitive tests. You really don't need a CAT scan for a
sore throat
or a MRI for a sprained ankle.

On 7/3/12 7:30 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"Califbill" wrote in message
news

------------------------------------------
A lot of those tests are to cover the health care provider's butt. With the
litigation sharks out there looking for anything to sue over, is much more
protective of the doctor to order extra tests.

----------------------------------------

I thought so also for a long time but the statistics prove otherwise.
Malpractice
lawsuits certainly exist but they don't contribute to the overall health
care costs
as much as commonly thought.

It's more because most doctors are now associated with either hospitals
or health
care centers who are looking to generate as much revenue as they can get
away
with. A doctor friend of mine has told me about the pressures brought
on the
staff of doctors by these organizations to maximize insurance claims,
often for
needless or repetitive tests. You really don't need a CAT scan for a
sore throat
or a MRI for a sprained ankle.




My wife is on a professional panel and tells me about the horror stories
she hears every week of the difficulties people have getting their
health insurance companies to approve needed procedures or treatments or
medications, and also the challenges practitioners have handling all the
paperwork the insurance companies require, the difficulties in reaching
responsible, working brain people at insurance companies and the refusal
of insurance companies to open panels to admit more practitioners so six
month to a year waiting periods can be cut down.

We really need to find a way to get away from the for-profit insurance
company model. They are the biggest part of the medical delivery of
services challenge.

"X ` Man" wrote in message
...



My wife is on a professional panel and tells me about the horror
stories
she hears every week of the difficulties people have getting their
health insurance companies to approve needed procedures or treatments
or
medications, and also the challenges practitioners have handling all
the
paperwork the insurance companies require, the difficulties in
reaching
responsible, working brain people at insurance companies and the
refusal
of insurance companies to open panels to admit more practitioners so
six
month to a year waiting periods can be cut down.

We really need to find a way to get away from the for-profit insurance
company model. They are the biggest part of the medical delivery of
services challenge.

----------------------

I agree.

On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:30:38 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 6/29/2012 9:56 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

I can't claim to speak for everyone but I think there are many who do
not view health care as a proper role for the federal government. I
also think there are many who view most of the federal bureauacracy as
being incompetent, self serving and self perpetuating. Who would
want such an organization to be responsible for their health care?

As opposed to bureaucratic corporations that have done a good job of
extracting profit but not so good at delivering health care...? Tough
call. Perhaps they should compete.


=====

Maybe we've been forunate but our health insurance companies have done
a good job for us with only minimal quibbling.

When/if the government gets in the business there will be no
competiion at all, and no legal recourse.

On 7/3/12 9:10 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:30:38 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 6/29/2012 9:56 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

I can't claim to speak for everyone but I think there are many who do
not view health care as a proper role for the federal government. I
also think there are many who view most of the federal bureauacracy as
being incompetent, self serving and self perpetuating. Who would
want such an organization to be responsible for their health care?

As opposed to bureaucratic corporations that have done a good job of
extracting profit but not so good at delivering health care...? Tough
call. Perhaps they should compete.


=====

Maybe we've been forunate but our health insurance companies have done
a good job for us with only minimal quibbling.

That's just bull****, Wayne. Really. The for-profit health insurance
companies are scalping us every single day. The only thing they care
about is maximizing their profit. It's time to come up with better
solutions.

On 7/3/2012 9:10 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:30:38 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 6/29/2012 9:56 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

I can't claim to speak for everyone but I think there are many who do
not view health care as a proper role for the federal government. I
also think there are many who view most of the federal bureauacracy as
being incompetent, self serving and self perpetuating. Who would
want such an organization to be responsible for their health care?

As opposed to bureaucratic corporations that have done a good job of
extracting profit but not so good at delivering health care...? Tough
call. Perhaps they should compete.


=====

Maybe we've been forunate but our health insurance companies have done
a good job for us with only minimal quibbling.

When/if the government gets in the business there will be no
competiion at all, and no legal recourse.


Once the IRS is in charge It'll be a whole new ball game.

On 7/3/2012 9:19 AM, X ` Man wrote:
On 7/3/12 9:10 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:30:38 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 6/29/2012 9:56 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

I can't claim to speak for everyone but I think there are many who do
not view health care as a proper role for the federal government. I
also think there are many who view most of the federal bureauacracy as
being incompetent, self serving and self perpetuating. Who would
want such an organization to be responsible for their health care?

As opposed to bureaucratic corporations that have done a good job of
extracting profit but not so good at delivering health care...? Tough
call. Perhaps they should compete.


=====

Maybe we've been forunate but our health insurance companies have done
a good job for us with only minimal quibbling.

That's just bull****, Wayne. Really. The for-profit health insurance
companies are scalping us every single day. The only thing they care
about is maximizing their profit. It's time to come up with better
solutions.

I'm all for that. But we shouldn't leave the solutions to politicians.
And damn the man in charge who would rubber stamp any crap legislation
just to get his name on it.

In article , dump-on-
says...

On 7/3/12 9:10 AM, Wayne B wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jul 2012 22:30:38 -0700, thumper wrote:

On 6/29/2012 9:56 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

I can't claim to speak for everyone but I think there are many who do
not view health care as a proper role for the federal government. I
also think there are many who view most of the federal bureauacracy as
being incompetent, self serving and self perpetuating. Who would
want such an organization to be responsible for their health care?

As opposed to bureaucratic corporations that have done a good job of
extracting profit but not so good at delivering health care...? Tough
call. Perhaps they should compete.


=====

Maybe we've been forunate but our health insurance companies have done
a good job for us with only minimal quibbling.

That's just bull****, Wayne. Really. The for-profit health insurance
companies are scalping us every single day. The only thing they care
about is maximizing their profit. It's time to come up with better
solutions.

There are plenty of models working better than ours. Every "civilized"
country has a better system. Better care, everybody covered, and much
less cost. No-brainer.
The Reps don't want that - against their philosophy, simple as that.
And anybody calling himself a "conservative" or supporting the Rep party
is just bull****ting when they say they want everybody covered.
They are lying. Mitch McConnell proved that with Chis Wallace on that
Sunday show.
No plan to cover everybody. Basically keep it as it. No surprise
there. Wayne just said the same. No ideas at all to cover everybody.
Won't even make deadbeats pay in. Deadbeats are ok.
At least he doesn't lie about it. I respect that.
Remember, poor and low-income people with little wealth would get almost
the same care as the wealthier, without paying stiff premiums, or
boosted taxes.
Not fair, not the "American way," and anti-thetical to Rep philosophy.
That's the truth. All the rest is pure bull****.
If the Reps are successful at overturning the law, get ready for a new
round of the fight. They'll lose in the end. The old farts will die
off. Can't stay stone-age with health care. The whole world is
watching. It's a disgrace to America. A festering wound brought to you
by the Rep party.