Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (214608)	1/25/2007 11:49:01 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I'm not sure this supports you or goes against you. There's probably something in it that will support either side. scstatehouse.net jttmab P.S. I haven't followed the discussion close enough to say who I agree with or don't agree with.

To: neolib who wrote (214608)	1/25/2007 1:10:40 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Declining medicare reimbursements is indeed a problem....govt. mandated for last 7 or 8 yrs. I think. Started during Clinton admin. as formulas were changed to rein in costs by tying reimbursement rates to GDP growth in some way. I think the average differential right now is around 15% lower for Medicare and increasing nos. of docs are refusing to take new medicare patients. Much, much bigger problem for Medicaid. Declining reimbursements there are close to gutting the programs, I've read. I still would be shocked to know that somewhere a state medicaid program is paying for stomach stapling, as you mentioned.

To: neolib who wrote (214608)	1/25/2007 2:09:40 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Neolib, I've asked you many questions most of which you have not bothered to answer. I suspect that it's because you haven't given enough thought to these questions and now have to go back and think outside the box. Our costs, as I have told you repeatedly, are double that of any other country yet our outcomes are not as good. Where do I say that I am in favor of INCREASING costs? I want to get rid of the inefficient, high priced, frequently ineffective system we now have in favor of a much more efficient, full-coverage system that will benefit everyone. Medicare IS CHEAPER than private insurance. CHEAPER = LESS COSTLY. You have also failed to show how making health care widely available will increase consumption. Part of health care is to provide preventive maintenance so that a problem diet, for example, doesn't end up as untreated type II diabetes which then leads to amputation or blindness, surgery and a lifetime of constant care. When someone without the ability to pay for a simple doctor's visit ends up in the ER at thousands of dollars a day, how is that less expensive than providing basic healthcare to begin with? As to doctor's not taking Medicare, I heard there are pediatricians in SF (cheap city) who are given a flat $35/patient/month fee from insurance companies regardless of how much treatment they provide. Exactly how is that different? When the AMA stops suffocating the flow of doctors into the US system, then I'll be more concerned about doctors' bank accounts. You're 'giving up' because you can't answer the many questions that I've posed to you. That's simply 'giving up' on yourself. This is the kind of limited thinking that has our healthcare system heading for utter disaster. When some 45% of bankruptcies happen because of medical bills (including upper middle class people stricken with cancer or other serious diseases) and people are dying because of lack of money for readily available treatments, we have become a dismal country. I don't want to have us to strive for the lowest common denominator where the only thing of 'value' is money. That's disgusting.