birdog1960

wraiths are evil but i'm not sure about cheap...they have pretty nice rides- don't think they'd be seen in a taurus

all goes back to the oline. they need a running back that can block because the line can't. he can't make decent runs on a consistent basis because there are no holes and he's not a power runner. makes you wonder why they took him instead of a tackle or almost any other player at a position of need. if they thought he'd be helpful here and now, they'd use him. they don't. wonder if they considered this at draft time.

i'm confused...don't most of you free marketers argue that people don't appreciate the true cost of care (and i agree). doesn't that 20% ensure that they do and that they have some skin in the game? medicaid becomes a secondary insurance when you spend down far enough so it wouldn't be forced denial of care just forced use of savings. it might change some decisions about futile care if the 20% was an issue more frequently.

a sizable majority of the elderly remain in traditional medicare (as of 2008-80%). private insurers had a great and loyal friend in bush who approved ridiculous subsidies for the MA programs (which are now being decreased. many enrollees have been unhappy with these and returned to traditional medicare. i hear complaints all the time. the basic medicare coverage is better than a great many private plans and will be improved by covering wellness visits starting jan. 1. the percentage of administrative cost for medicare would be much lower as compared to private insurers if the low risk lives in the population were included in the national risk pool. private insurers cost more administratively despite cherry picking the best patients and dumping the worst on the government. think of what the numbers would look like on an even playing field. traditional medicare (even under the competitive disadvantages mentioned above) still has significantly lower administrative costs than it's private "competitors".

sorry. an op ed in a rag featuring cal thomas as a featured writer with no references to specific parts of the bill doesn't strike me as definitive or objective. midlevels are even shunning primary care at this point being able to make 20% more in specialties and guess what?...because of this, there aren't enough trained in primary care to take up the slack. that and the fact that many refer everything more complicated than a cold (thus eliminating any savings) makes them a poor solution.

agree to some extent but the ace in the hole for primary care is that the envisioned system can't work without it. if you accept that premise and the fact that there exists a dearth of primary care docs, you must conclude that the plan will have to make it a more appealing choice. yes, there are other temporizing patches but no efficient system works without a strong base.

we would be outbid for the top scrubs who wouldn't want to play in buffalo

good point but my money would still be on the *&^%ing pirates.

fine print on the original offer made it clear they weren't responsible for stream quality...#$!*ing pirates!

i'm on staff at a small rural hospital, have served as chief of medicine and on the board there as well as founding and successfully running a multi specialty primary care clinic. i know the challenges well and we have been able to navigate the myriad problems successfully despite a very high percentage of medicare and medicaid patients. admittedly, it isn't easy. i have plenty to say about primary care reimbursement but the new model promises more emphasis and better reimbursement for primary care thus offering incentive and hope for increasing the work force. primary care is clearly undervalued in the current system while specialty care is overvalued and overutilized. we have an extravagant system that bleeds wasted money on whiz bang diagnostic methods and treatments while ignoring the basics. of course major reform is needed as you say. this will have to involve lower utilization and the closing of some redundant, inefficient facilities including some rural hospitals and some urban hospitals. this will be painful and difficult but absolutely necessary and possible. it can only happen in a reasonable time frame by handing the majority payor (the govt) the reins.

years of experience and relative success. remember the elderly saying "don't touch my medicare" while railing against govt run healthcare? in general, they're very happy with the program (not so much for private insurance customers)...and it runs efficiently compared to private insurers- administrative costs as a percentage of total costs are much lower than even the most efficient private insurers...no million dollar salaries or stockhholder dividends to pay, no profit to be made. the case study has already been done and it has worked while private insurance continues to fail and increase in cost while refusing care for huge swaths of the population including the sickest patients.

the govt would've negotiated for you and it - single payer

the gov't already pays for the lions share of health care. that's how insurers get away with this. they're the insurer of last resort after the private insurers cherry pick the low risk lives. why not allow them (us) to spread risk over the good bets and the bad ones? and if you're after efficiency, think of all the personnel costs that could be saved by having a single billing and paying entity- whole billing departments in hospitals, clinics and ancillary services could be eliminated, not to mention all the folks sitting in their cubicles denying care at the other end.

and you would be right. as i've said before, they are superfluous, meddling middle men. they add nothing to the system and subtract lots of dollars.

agree with all of your points, especially your suspicion of the extent of wilson's meddling but...why keep feeding him your money?

as one legislator said in the article: the insurers need to decide if they're in the business of denying care or providing it. those of us who actually provide care have known the answer for years. this bill is just unveiling the truth to everyone else.

both...of mine have blown up

ever heard of the IRA?

crossed the line there...you might want to show a little more class yourself

they were clearly not cut from the same (pajama) cloth!

anyone with a shred of analytical thought knows the bills fortunes or lack thereof emanate from wilson. the converse, that wilson's fortunes emanate from the bills is also true but they are not dependent on winning....and there's the rub. i know quite a few competent 91 yo's (about 50% of 90+ yo's are free of dementia) but not many with the kind of ambition it takes to produce a SB quality team. so yeah, age plays a factor and wilson's mind has surely deteriorated as has his stamina. but winning was never his highest priority. the problem with posting such sentiments here, OP, is that, as you pointed out, the situation becomes hopeless when you accept this. don't be surprised by the blowback.

damn, i'll have to find someone else to start in my fantasy league.... gee, wonder if i can get fitzpatrick off waivers?

who were the coach, gm and owner?

no, i would have hired him

not a lot of choice there....all the big names completely ignored and nearly disrespected wilson...and he deserves it. long suffering bills fans don't (even the boderline psychotic optimists here who think this pair are better than the established names other teams were able to land).