checkmate Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Can someone help me out to understand Bush's opposition? He says that Kerry's plan will take choice away from patients and doctors. My biggest problem with healthcare is that HMO's take choice away from patients and doctors. For me to have choice, I have to pay and not use my insurance. My HMO dictates what medications I can use based on its formulary and requires prior approval for most procedures. It seems like Bush is for choice, so long as the HMOs have the choice. Can someone tell me intelligently how I am wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Can someone help me out to understand Bush's opposition? He says that Kerry's plan will take choice away from patients and doctors. My biggest problem with healthcare is that HMO's take choice away from patients and doctors. For me to have choice, I have to pay and not use my insurance. My HMO dictates what medications I can use based on its formulary and requires prior approval for most procedures. It seems like Bush is for choice, so long as the HMOs have the choice. Can someone tell me intelligently how I am wrong? 77979[/snapback] HMO's are a choice - your choice, I suspect. It's cheaper than a PPO. I have a PPO (Paid Provider Option) That plan has a formulary (with literally hundres of medications included). Prior approval has merit, although certainly problems exist. Thanks to trial lawyers such as VP candidate John Edwards and and other's "jury shopping" (see the State of Mississipii), doctors employ defensive medicine, ordering test after test that medical sense says is unnecessary given symptoms, for fear of being hauled in court if they do not do that. What makes you think that a President - mind you, the situation you discuss certainly was the case under the Clinton Administration - needs to be involved in this? A President should manage the Executive Branch and defend us against foreign violence. I am tired of people thinking that the President is our "Daddy". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Can someone help me out to understand Bush's opposition? He says that Kerry's plan will take choice away from patients and doctors. My biggest problem with healthcare is that HMO's take choice away from patients and doctors. For me to have choice, I have to pay and not use my insurance. My HMO dictates what medications I can use based on its formulary and requires prior approval for most procedures. It seems like Bush is for choice, so long as the HMOs have the choice. Can someone tell me intelligently how I am wrong? 77979[/snapback] Don't know...you didn't provide any comparable analysis of Kerry's plan. Honestly, it's kind of hard to answer the question "Bush's health care plan is X, why is he against Kerry's?" Easier to answer "Kerry's health care plan is Y, why is Bush against it." Fundamentally, you're right about Bush's plan...it puts "choice" in the hands of the HMOs (most frequently, the HMO's accountants, from what I've heard from doctors). And fundamentally, aside from the loss of choice of which HMO to get screwed by, I don't see how Kerry's universal health care coverage would limit choice any more. It probably just boils down to the same old division of Republicans and Democrats on socialized medical care, and "choice" is just a convenient tool for marketing it to the masses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Can someone help me out to understand Bush's opposition? He says that Kerry's plan will take choice away from patients and doctors. My biggest problem with healthcare is that HMO's take choice away from patients and doctors. For me to have choice, I have to pay and not use my insurance. My HMO dictates what medications I can use based on its formulary and requires prior approval for most procedures. It seems like Bush is for choice, so long as the HMOs have the choice. Can someone tell me intelligently how I am wrong? 77979[/snapback] So are you saying to get the care you want you would have to pay more and be responsible for your own healthcare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I too have a PPO, and have a question of my own. Whenever I get a statement, it includes charged costs and "negotiated" costs. And of course, whatever I have to pay. Can anyone here (I'm still a believer that there is a lot of worldly knowledge here-and no, !@#$ you Darin I'm not doing my own homework) explain to me what the true deal is behind negotiated costs? I know there are formulas to price services and what not. I'm curious as to whether the hospitals/health corporations can use their charged receivables as a source of showing income using an accrual based accounting system, rather than using what is actually paid under cash accounting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobody Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Can someone help me out to understand Bush's opposition? He says that Kerry's plan will take choice away from patients and doctors. My biggest problem with healthcare is that HMO's take choice away from patients and doctors. For me to have choice, I have to pay and not use my insurance. My HMO dictates what medications I can use based on its formulary and requires prior approval for most procedures. It seems like Bush is for choice, so long as the HMOs have the choice. Can someone tell me intelligently how I am wrong? 77979[/snapback] You are not wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Thanks to trial lawyers such as VP candidate John Edwards and and other's "jury shopping" (see the State of Mississipii), doctors employ defensive medicine, ordering test after test that medical sense says is unnecessary given symptoms, for fear of being hauled in court if they do not do that. 78038[/snapback] I just don't get why everyone is so quick to blame trial lawyer's for our healthcare woes. There are cases of abuse, but there has to be some level of accountability for doctors who blow a diagnosis, or botch a procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I just don't get why everyone is so quick to blame trial lawyer's for our healthcare woes. There are cases of abuse, but there has to be some level of accountability for doctors who blow a diagnosis, or botch a procedure. 79387[/snapback] Yes, there does...but at the same time, doctors are being driven out of practice by skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs, which are directly attributable to the legal practices and awards in malpractice cases. And ultimately, those costs get passed on to the consumer either directly by the insurance company or indirectly by the doctors. Of course doctors need to be held accountable when they botch a procedure (blowing a diganosis...that's a little more murky. You should know as well as I that diagnosis can be as much art as science.) But the system of accountability that we have is arguably a very costly and ineffective one from the public's overall point of view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Yes, there does...but at the same time, doctors are being driven out of practice by skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs, which are directly attributable to the legal practices and awards in malpractice cases. And ultimately, those costs get passed on to the consumer either directly by the insurance company or indirectly by the doctors. Of course doctors need to be held accountable when they botch a procedure (blowing a diganosis...that's a little more murky. You should know as well as I that diagnosis can be as much art as science.) But the system of accountability that we have is arguably a very costly and ineffective one from the public's overall point of view. 79431[/snapback] I agree that the malpractice system is flawed, however it has become popular to blame those problems solely on the trial lawyers themselves. Both Cheney and Bush throw "trial lawyer" around as much as they do "war on terror" and "liberal from Massachusetts." Trial lawyers would not even be an issue in this campaign had Kerry picked someone other than Edwards. They are using a hot-button lable to shift the debate away from their lack of a viable solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 They are using a hot-button lable to shift the debate away from their lack of a viable solution. 79458[/snapback] American politics. It's a lot easier to tell people who they should blame for a problem than it is to explain the problem and offer a solution. Both sides do it...hell, the resaon I'm ultimately voting against Kerry is because he does it so excessively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I agree that the malpractice system is flawed, however it has become popular to blame those problems solely on the trial lawyers themselves. Both Cheney and Bush throw "trial lawyer" around as much as they do "war on terror" and "liberal from Massachusetts." Trial lawyers would not even be an issue in this campaign had Kerry picked someone other than Edwards. They are using a hot-button lable to shift the debate away from their lack of a viable solution. 79458[/snapback] I disagree. The Republican Party has used that as part of their reform platform for years now. Has nothing to do with Edwards, though now there is a convenient fact to put on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I disagree. The Republican Party has used that as part of their reform platform for years now. Has nothing to do with Edwards, though now there is a convenient fact to put on it. 79471[/snapback] They seem to blame a lot on lawyers, however, they were pretty quick to truck them down to Florida by the hundreds in the 2000 election. Lawyers are pretty convenient to have around. I'm marrying one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 They seem to blame a lot on lawyers, however, they were pretty quick to truck them down to Florida by the hundreds in the 2000 election. Lawyers are pretty convenient to have around. I'm marrying one. 79479[/snapback] There are just as many reasons not to like them or be wary of their motives. It's a delicate balance that we have stomped like the "Fat Broad" on B.C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IUBillsFan Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 I agree that the malpractice system is flawed, however it has become popular to blame those problems solely on the trial lawyers themselves. Both Cheney and Bush throw "trial lawyer" around as much as they do "war on terror" and "liberal from Massachusetts." Trial lawyers would not even be an issue in this campaign had Kerry picked someone other than Edwards. They are using a hot-button lable to shift the debate away from their lack of a viable solution. 79458[/snapback] Do you think we would hear Haliburton every day if it weren't for Cheney? Same thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 They seem to blame a lot on lawyers, however, they were pretty quick to truck them down to Florida by the hundreds in the 2000 election. Lawyers are pretty convenient to have around. I'm marrying one. 79479[/snapback] Not ALL lawyers are evil ambulance chasers. My grandfather practiced immigration law, helping hundreds if not thousands of legal immigrants gain their citizenship. He did it to repay America for all the good it had done him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts