TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Are we really comparing Americans seeking to use experimental treatments that have yet to meet with FDA approval to people coming to America for common proceedures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes, because that suits his narrative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) Are we really comparing Americans seeking to use experimental treatments that have yet to meet with FDA approval to people coming to America for common proceedures? Is that what the evidence shows... maybe than actually back it up with evidence? You could easily say that American's are going to other countries because the cost of health care is cheaper and they can't afford the treament in the U.S. My guess is Canadian's are coming to the U.S. for a variety of reasons (to seek out treaments that aren't covered in Canada, to receive elective treatments, to see world renowned specialists) but the basic number of Canadians does not show a failures. 1 in 850 are leaving Canada, vs 1 in 450 in the U.S. I'm not arguing that you can't get first class medical care in the United States, the U.S. has some of the best doctors, health institutions in the world. what I am saying is that arguments should be backed by logic and facts. The article linked by the drudge report was not. Edited January 22, 2014 by JuanGuzman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Target Drops Health-Care for Part-Time Employees Another major American company has announced it will no longer offer health coverage to some of its employees because of Obamacare. “After careful consideration of the impact to our stores’ part-time team members and to Target,” the retail giant announced it will end coverage for its part-time workers starting April 1. A Target executive wrote on a company blog the soon-to-be-dropped employees “may prefer” the coverage options available on the health-care marketplace exchanges. Executive vice president of human resources Jodee Kozlak explained that continuing to cover the part-time workers would have made them ineligible for subsidies on the exchange. Additionally, Target will provide employees losing coverage with a $500 cash payment as compensation. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 (edited) Are we really comparing Americans seeking to use experimental treatments that have yet to meet with FDA approval to people coming to America for common proceedures? who said anything about american medical tourists seeking experimental treatments? from what i've witnessed most go for conventional treatments especially surgeries at much lower cost than even their copay is here. if you search medical tourism sites, it's all about the price. canadians may well go to avoid waits for elective procedures. we don't know from the article since the source noted was only speculating and appears to be biased http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Institute what a coincidence, the koch's are mentioned as donors.... Edited January 22, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 "this is why we can't have nice things" (hip replacement).... http://www.quickmeme.com/p/3vrw3r. disregard the first bit unless you appreciate clever aussie humor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) who said anything about american medical tourists seeking experimental treatments? from what i've witnessed most go for conventional treatments especially surgeries at much lower cost than even their copay is here. if you search medical tourism sites, it's all about the price. canadians may well go to avoid waits for elective procedures. we don't know from the article since the source noted was only speculating and appears to be biased http://en.wikipedia....raser_Institute what a coincidence, the koch's are mentioned as donors.... The medical experiments and elective surgery was like a pre-med assingment for you. Canadians come to the US because they are frustrated with their system. US citizens do their medical shopping based on economics and non FDA control. Edited January 23, 2014 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 "this is why we can't have nice things" (hip replacement).... http://www.quickmeme.com/p/3vrw3r. disregard the first bit unless you appreciate clever aussie humor. You know better than this. Or at least you should. Yes, let's take some random price for a hip replacement that we got from...wherever, and pretend that = the universal price for said procedure. Hey, I know, let me pick a random price from....oh, I don't know....how about Medicare's? http://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-results.aspx?Y=0&T=0&HT=0&CT=3&H1=27130&M=5 Hmmm....total hip arthoplasty for the measily sum of $1,500-1,900. (For the uninitiated, thats a HCPCS code of 27130, with ALL modifiers.) How can this be? I thought all hip replacements cost $41k? Idiocy. Birdog, I could end this post right here, and you'd be done. However, we both know I'm not going to, and we both know why. You deserve a bigger beating, because you are lying to posters here, by trading on your supposed expertise. Now, I wonder. Why is Medicare only paying a fraction of what the supposed, according to your own link, price is for a hip arthoplasty? Couldn't be because Medicare, like all government insurance, "controls" cost...by simply not paying the full bill? And, what do you know? I'm not the only person whose idenitifed this reality: http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0883-5403/PIIS0883540311005559.pdf Yes, the "perception" is that hip arthoplasty costs $14k....not $41k. Now, I wonder what leftist D-bag meme-maker has to say about all of this? And, I wonder how many orthos, going forward with Obamacare, are going to be willing to do ALL their procedures for slave wages, instead of balancing out their Medicare people agains their private insurance people...like they do today. The more healthcare stuff I do, the more I see that same thing: everybody balances out their "government work", which doesn't even cover their costs, with "private" work, and, whenever they run into a problem? They just charge the "private" more. (Um, if that's not wealth redistrubution...what is?) After decades of this....we wonder why "health care costs" keep going up? No. Unless you are an umitigated moron, you KNOW why "health care costs" are going up = the supposedly "well managed" government health care...is nothing more than a codified system for being a deadbeat. Hint: you control costs by managing process. That means: getting better at what you do. You do not "control cost" by simply refusing to pay your bills. I have yet to meet a single government surveyor who deals in "getting better at what you do". Rather, all I see is: Find us a way to not pay. This is what government health care is and does: Find a way not to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The more healthcare stuff I do, the more I see that same thing: everybody balances out their "government work", which doesn't even cover their costs, with "private" work, and, whenever they run into a problem? They just charge the "private" more. (Um, if that's not wealth redistrubution...what is?) Serious question, based your logic, why would people even accept government work if it doesn't cover their cost? Why not just do all private work where they "charge more" according to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Serious question, based your logic, why would people even accept government work if it doesn't cover their cost? Why not just do all private work where they "charge more" according to you. it's called concierge medicine and there are a few such clinics. none that i'm aware of in ortho: it's too expensive for all but the less than 1%. they'd need to charge even more than they are to the private insurers (eg $40k for a hip replacement). btw, that cost is not that far out of line with medicare payments when you factor in what hospitals are paid for theier rooms while the patient is there for the procedure and after care.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Administration fears part of health care system so flawed it could bankrupt insurance companies http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/administration-fears-part-health-care-system-so-flawed-it-could-bankrupt/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The medical experiments and elective surgery was like a pre-med assingment for you. Canadians come to the US because they are frustrated with their system. US citizens do their medical shopping based on economics and non FDA control. or you could simplify and conclude that the us system is far too expensive. You know better than this. Or at least you should. Yes, let's take some random price for a hip replacement that we got from...wherever, and pretend that = the universal price for said procedure. Hey, I know, let me pick a random price from....oh, I don't know....how about Medicare's? http://www.cms.gov/a...=3&H1=27130&M=5 Hmmm....total hip arthoplasty for the measily sum of $1,500-1,900. (For the uninitiated, thats a HCPCS code of 27130, with ALL modifiers.) How can this be? I thought all hip replacements cost $41k? Idiocy. Birdog, I could end this post right here, and you'd be done. However, we both know I'm not going to, and we both know why. You deserve a bigger beating, because you are lying to posters here, by trading on your supposed expertise. Now, I wonder. Why is Medicare only paying a fraction of what the supposed, according to your own link, price is for a hip arthoplasty? Couldn't be because Medicare, like all government insurance, "controls" cost...by simply not paying the full bill? And, what do you know? I'm not the only person whose idenitifed this reality: http://download.jour...40311005559.pdf Yes, the "perception" is that hip arthoplasty costs $14k....not $41k. Now, I wonder what leftist D-bag meme-maker has to say about all of this? And, I wonder how many orthos, going forward with Obamacare, are going to be willing to do ALL their procedures for slave wages, instead of balancing out their Medicare people agains their private insurance people...like they do today. The more healthcare stuff I do, the more I see that same thing: everybody balances out their "government work", which doesn't even cover their costs, with "private" work, and, whenever they run into a problem? They just charge the "private" more. (Um, if that's not wealth redistrubution...what is?) After decades of this....we wonder why "health care costs" keep going up? No. Unless you are an umitigated moron, you KNOW why "health care costs" are going up = the supposedly "well managed" government health care...is nothing more than a codified system for being a deadbeat. Hint: you control costs by managing process. That means: getting better at what you do. You do not "control cost" by simply refusing to pay your bills. I have yet to meet a single government surveyor who deals in "getting better at what you do". Rather, all I see is: Find us a way to not pay. This is what government health care is and does: Find a way not to pay. you're a ball of laughs. did you even glance at the aussie email. i'll bet you sided with the rude mechanical neighbor. didn't you? huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Administration fears part of health care system so flawed it could bankrupt insurance companies http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/administration-fears-part-health-care-system-so-flawed-it-could-bankrupt/ "There's no way to effectively match policies and people," says Holtz-Eakin. So anyone that shows up at an ER with a piece of paper that says they created an account gets taken care of? I don't see how that could be a bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Administration fears part of health care system so flawed it could bankrupt insurance companies http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/administration-fears-part-health-care-system-so-flawed-it-could-bankrupt/ Wasn't that the unstated goal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Wasn't that the unstated goal? Stated goal. "This implementation brings us closer to our ultimate goal, which is single payor." This is a feature, not a flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Stated goal. "This implementation brings us closer to our ultimate goal, which is single payor." This is a feature, not a flaw. Can we be honest and stop using the ridiculous euphemism "single payor." It's socialized medicine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Can we be honest and stop using the ridiculous euphemism "single payor." It's socialized medicine. No, because honesty woud destroy this place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 No, because honesty woud destroy this place. The board, or the country? Yeah, that was rhetorical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 So What Was The Point of Obamacare Again? by Jonah Goldberg As Rich noted the other day, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend that the uninsured haven’t been rushing to sign up for insurance under Obamacare. From the WSJ: Early signals suggest the majority of the 2.2 million people who sought to enroll in private insurance through new marketplaces through Dec. 28 were previously covered elsewhere, raising questions about how swiftly this part of the health overhaul will be able to make a significant dent in the number of uninsured. Insurers, brokers and consultants estimate at least two-thirds of those consumers previously bought their own coverage or were enrolled in employer-backed plans. Note, this is after decades of liberals insisting that the uninsured were desperate to get insurance and years of Obama officials and defenders swearing that this law would make it happen. Indeed, in order to make it happen the Democrats blew up the entire health-care industry casting millions of people off their existing insurance plans. When those people went to exchanges to sign up for new ones, the Obama administration took credit for it, as if they were doing something for the uninsured. But barely 1 in 10 of new Obamacare enrollees were previously uninsured. Look at this chart from Gallup: I joked on Twitter this morning, ”They said if I voted for Mitt Romney, the ranks of the uninsured would continue to swell. And they were right!” The response from some liberals in my feed boiled down to “He inherited a financial crisis!” And that’s absolutely true. But that was a long time ago and this administration long ago declared we were in a recovery. Oh and he also blew up the entire health-insurance industry in response, insisting that it was absolutely necessary not only to fix the bad economy (which was always a stretch) but to deal with the ongoing crisis of the uninsured. It turns out it did neither. It created more uninsured people than it gave insurance to. And it promises to create even more. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JuanGuzman Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Can we be honest and stop using the ridiculous euphemism "single payor." It's socialized medicine. I think its a useful distinction. Single payor to me means 1 insurance provider (generally the government) and private delivery of care services. Whereas in places like U.K. you have government both paying for and delivering health services, which in my mind is more akin to the traditional definition of socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts