100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Let The Rationing Begin!!! | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Wed 11/18/09 10:42 AM
|
|
Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director had this to say.
"So what we need to do is start with Medicare and Medicaid, but do so in a way that affects the overall rate of health care-cost growth. Now, let me give you an example: In the early 1980s, Medicare moved to ... a fixed payment for each hospital stay. It created an incentive for hospitals to shorten the number of days that Medicare patients spent in the hospital because they were only getting paid a fixed amount -- not per day. The result, though, was shortened hospital stays not only for Medicare patients but for everyone, because it changed the way hospitals practice medicine. That is what we need to do. ..." He also projects the Obama budget to raise the national debt to 24 trillion over ten years. When questioned by PBS about the realities of the massive deficits in Obama's budget, he said, surprisingly, "Obama needs to tell the truth ...". Source: PBS Frontline "Ten Trillion and Counting". This program is available online at PBS.org. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/ A loose summary of the program would be that Obama projects healthcare costs of CURRENT obligations of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to take up the entire US budget in approximately twenty five years so his solution is to massively increase the programs and ration health care. I am considered an expert in mathmatics and I don't "get it". |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
metalwing
on
Wed 11/18/09 10:38 AM
|
|
double post
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's because, although you may be an expert in mathematics, you aren't an expert in the " fuzzy math " that politicians are famous for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Key word,, recommendation. I dont see the big dilemma. I have had many check ups and doctors visits because of my own concern and guess what.....insurancs still covered it. Insurance covers more than the care that is 'recommended'. If I say I think I feel a lump and I ask to have it checked,, insurance isnt gonna turn it down because it wasnt 'recommended' by some panel. Insurance is gonna work with my DOCTOR to determine what treatment is necessary and then they are going to cover their part of the bill. what are the odds of that being the case when that panel shares office space with the "insurer"?? this "recommendation" is another line of evidence for there to be a buffer between the policy- (i.e. law-) maker and the insurer.. I dont know the odds of the panel sharing office space at every insurance office. I do know however, that what is necessary or recommended for ME is determined by my doctor and not a panel who has not seen me. I go to him, we decide the best course of action, preventive or otherwise, and insurance covers it....quite simple. "sharing office space" I use as a figure of speech.. I'm sure you're not so obtuse as not to realise that.. government panel is in charge of insuring millions of Americans.. government panel recommends that this practice or that is or isn't effective against one thing or the other.. what makes you think your government paid doctor is going to act counter to the recommendations of his/her employer (i.e. the government)?? I am not obtuse, but you are not getting my point. An exam is more than just a practice. It is a case by case recommendation by a personal doctor who knows his patients history. What makes me think my doctor is going to put my interest above a panels recommendations? The fact that a recommendation is just that and doesnt cover EVERY case every time. The details of each case is what determines the end result. Doctors take an oath, they are there to help their patients, I dont happen to think that will change. no, I get your point. I just think you're mistaken if you think that the government "option" or the government "approved" health insurance policies will not be subject to the government determinations as to what is and what is not effective medical care. This breast cancer screening issue is just the first in what is sure to be a litany of similar recommendations for medical care and preventative medicine.. Didn't they say that prevention was cheaper and more effective than treating advanced illness? So why then come out and say that pre-screening is unnecessary and unnecessarily expensive, arguing, in effect that it does more harm than good? whiskey tango foxtrot |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Didn't they say that prevention was cheaper and more effective than treating advanced illness? So why then come out and say that pre-screening is unnecessary and unnecessarily expensive, arguing, in effect that it does more harm than good? Also remember that from an economic standpoiont (what insurance pays) preventive medicine doesn't PAY much regardless of cost to provide (check out the ICD-9 codes) and is therefore already somewhat unpopular in terms of making a buck. That makes this recommendation easier to justify if you are a provider who would rather have more lucrative billable services submitted for payment under either a private or a public insurance plan. |
|
|
|
|
