Login to Change.org
Create an Account
Rick Curtis
Recent Activity
-
Rick commented on the article |Mr. Green, I took your suggestion and did the google search. 10 pages in and there are far more links stating Canadian health care stinks than say its wonderful. That is certainly the case with my Canadian friends as well. But that may be a provincial issue.
-
Rick commented on the article |
H Timothy,
I tried the link again. It just goes to a page with several blog posts none of which has the title in the link and a word search shows the page does not contain the words Constitution or unconstitutional.
*I fully understand MEDPAC recommendations are nonbinding, but that is where all this imaging over utilization business sprang from. But at the end of the day imaging over utilization is merely a matter of opinion and can easily be viewed as government limiting access to needed services. One has to go to pretty cynical place to impugn doctor's clinical judgement as greed. I would rather pay for Gold Standard Rule Outs than miss diagnoses due to a guessing game.
*If the CBO estimates it will increase the deficit 239 billion dollars in ten years then it isn't being paid for by premiums, it is costing more than the revenue raised to pay for it. Further, with all of the subsidies built in to cover those who can't pay the stiff premiums or fines,how is it really being paid for by premiums? Medicare doesn't negotiate rates, they simply set them at rates under the cost of providing the care five years ago, so how can you state the public option will negotiate rates? Have you read HR 3200? It mandates coverage levels and sets rates (not free market at all) if they are telling insurance companies what they will provide and what they can charge, then eventually the government will have to tell providers what they will be paid, which of course will cause care to be rationed.
As for the health coverage in Canada and England...they didn't start of being horrible, they devolved into it, like any attempt here would.
*One thing you fail to consider or mention when you state FEHBP is paid for in part by the federal employee, post office and congress included, is that we, the tax payers pay their salary. So, whatever portion they pay, we have paid for via their salary. We pay for their health insurance in totality.
*I don't have DSH and UPL backwards. The government pays these subsidies because:
1. EMTALA forces hospitals to cover without regard to being able to paid anyone walking into the ER resulting in billions in uncompensated care.
2. The government's habit of paying providers under cost for services provided to Medicare and Medicaid patients causes such a sever deficit in hospital finances that many would be forced to close as a result.
So, actually government's meddling via Medicare, Medicaid, and EMTALA causes the cost shift via real cost increases to the rest of payors and through reducing our incomes via increased taxes to pay for the subsidies that the meddling necessitated.
* Do you really think we have these near third world conditions in the health care of our industrialized brethren? Surely you jest. The CDC states average ER wait time in the USA is about an hour. When was the last time you heard of 4,000 women giving birth in elevators, offices, bathrooms, and places outside of the labor unit due to bed shortages in America? That was the news this April in England:
Perhaps you should peruse European Medical Journals and read of their laments in not being able to provide needed care to patients due to rationing, or how they can't innovate due to EU caps on work week hours. Be honest Timothy, we have nothing near the horrid care here as in the socialized countries. Remeber, we aren't clamoring over our borders to get health care in Canada, Mexico, or Europe...they do, however, come here.
-
Rick commented on the article |
Thanks for the welcome back! Unfortunately you have included a link that goes nowhere regarding the unconstitutional issue. But I assume you mean the "general welfare clause" since you mentioned the preamble. The problem with that lies in reading Madison's explanation in the federalist papers stating that the powers in the preamble were intuitively limited by the enumerated powers that followed. Butler, Helvering and Flemming be damned, I will take the explanations its meaning from one who helped draft the document over the the liberal interpretations of idealouge justices in the Supreme Court any day of the week.
1. Actually, no. CMS makes providers send cost reports of every procedure provided, then pays less than the actual cost of providing the procedure, by 10% or more. The costs that they use to undercut the providers are from up to five years in the past. While its true insurance providers do, in some, cases base their rates on a percentage of what Medicare pays, that has nothing to do with Medicare paying under cost, on average, for all procedures. So, for "Cost shift 1" the cost goes to those of us not participating in governement run health insurance, driving up our costs. The larger question is why do they pay less than cost, why do they need to? For "cost shift 2" We the People subsize much of the "uncompensated care" through the Disproportionate Share Hosptial (DSH) and Upper Payment Limit (UPL) programs that the federal government uses to compensate for the losses the hospitals undure due to EMTALA. Again, a government caused cost born by the tax payer.
2. Actually, no. The cuts CMS is making in areas such as MRI "overutilization" have nothing to do the with half trillion Obama is tossing around in his speeches as he says this will help pay for his reform and these cuts have been in the works for a few years (go back to MedPac 2005). FYI, I am fully aware of the cuts being made in imaging areas, the use of credentialling and so forth. If we pass reform what we get is the wonderful healthcare of Canada, England and the like, people pulling there own teeth at home, babies being born in hospital hallways, 24 hr ER wait times, multi-month/year wait times for procedures, etc. I would rather have bupkis than that. Remember 85% of us are happy with our health insurance.
3. Please explain your even more intriquing methodology of how this won't "generally cost most Americans extra money". I guess by "most Americans" You are trying to make the claim that the "rich" will pay for the health care for the rest. If we add 50 million people to the govenmentally sponsored rolls and who do you think will pay for it, those without insurance? When give subsidies to those who can't affor the government mandated exchange programs, who will pay for that, the tooth fairy? When the costs soar like they have under Medicare and the rest of the socialized medicine world, who will pay for that? That gigantic bureaucracy that is needed to manage all of the hokey offices of this and that and the computer networks, buildings, staff, electricty, gas, and such needed to take on the paperwork of providing health care of up to 300 million people (speaking for the pure public option). Who funds that Of, course the answer to all the of above is the tax payer.
The Federal Employee Benefit plan is not like any other becuase we the tax payers pay for it all. So, those of us who are tax payers will cover the uninsured, the subsidized, the state and federal government employees and ourselves. Then what can we expect for our depleted incomes? Horried health care like the other socialized nations!
Senator Kennedy signing the amendment for them all to be on the public option was nice and symbolic, but the plain fact is that he could have just went on Medicare as he was age eligble. He could have saved the tax payers money rather than keep his gold-plated health insurance. Heck, he, being a multi-millionaire, could have foregone the benefit all together and paid for his own...if I recall correctly President Kennedy refused his presidential pay due to his wealth.
I would rather let the free market (a real free market) sort this out. The issues with insurance can be easily tied to government interference in the industry. When a state limits the number of companies that can provide the insurance then choice, of course is limited, and cost goes up...basic economics limited supply = increased cost. When the consumer is free to choose another product then the supplier of the product must satisfy its customer base or be forced out of business...that is real competition. Not Obama competition where companies are forced to offer 3 or 4 options and the costs are fixed (not free to fall or rise), and the government provides an option...ohhhh choice of 3-5...and in all of them the government sets the price artificially (likely low). Forcing hospitals and doctors out of business. Then guess what? They have to take them over or subsidize them...who pays...yep, the taxpayer.
I could go on about how government intervention has screwed up our system and left us with many of the issues we have today. Right down to doctor shortages through the games CMS plays with funding fellowship programs and how the sage idiots there can't seem to think logically in that regard and have, by their foolish intervention, given us the shortages in personnel we are faced with.
So, really where is my information debunked? How is my logic, bite off my nose to spite my face?
-
Rick commented on the article |
The federal government has no constitutional authority to provide any health care for Americans. The shambles they have made with Medicare/Medicaid are proof they are inept in providing it. The only reason healthcare cost is an economic concern is that the feds can't manage the cost of the two programs. Health care is a service, not a right.
1. Medicare/Medicaid pays providers below cost for services, which drives up the cost of all health care and that cost is only borne by self payors and third party payors (insurance companies). There we have the federal government actually contributing to the rising cost of health care to the rest of us. It doesn't effect the government because they set their artificially low prices.
2. There is, according to Obama, half a trillion dollars a year in waste and fraud in the Medicare alone (which should be added to the bogus administrative cost estimates of the government run into shambles health care). Funny thing is, Obama can only get rid of that insanely high waste and fraud if he gets his incredibly expensive "health reform"
3. This moronic plan at most cost estimates will equate to an average 17% tax on us...who the heck can afford an additional 17% of their income to evaporate? Obama and his ilk in government that will never have to worry about paying for their gold-plated health care plans (that we the people will cover as long as they live). Take Ted Kennedy...do you really think he used Medicare (he was of Medicare age) to get treatment for his brain tumor? Funny how he wanted to force this boondoggle on us all but expempt him and his from it.
-
Rick commented on the article |Barbara, this goes to you and Mary Acosta. The United States Constitution applies to its Citizens, not its enemies fighting it on foreign soil. If, in fact a 13 yr old and a 94 yr old were rounded up, then its most likely they were on the battlefield or in some other manner affiliated with combatants against us. Further, the Geneva convention does NOT apply to them in the least bit, you should read it. They are neither under a flag nor in a uniform. They are NOT soldiers they are terrorists. You know the ilk that strap on backpacks and blow up innocent people eating lunch on a sidewalk diner just because they are not of the same religion. Perhaps you recall their ilk flying planes into the the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field, killing our citizens. Maybe you can recall their ilk driving a boat filled with explosives into the USS Cole. I can go on an on about the murderous rampage these animals continue to carry out on a daily basis, all across the globe. So, spend $80 million to get them out of Gitmo and bring them here? No way. I say toss em' onto an Afghan battlefield and off 'em where they stand...get them on the express train to their 72 virgins.
Lastly Barbara, I would expect no rights if I were terrorist imprisoned for whatever reason. The fact that we give them Korans, prayer mats, ethnic food, and in some instances a better existence than they had before is beyond the pale for me. -
Rick commented on the article |What it boils down to Danetta is that health care is not a right. It is a service. Providers of health care should be able to make any level of profit the market will allow them. Plain and simple.
It is definitely not incumbent upon me to pay for your or anyone else's care.
Mike, there is a reason for someone not to be able to see a doctor, if they cannot afford the care. Now if I or any charitable organization choose to pay if you cannot not afford it (like the myriad Christian owned and founded hosptials and clinics on the planet), that is another thing all together. -
Rick commented on the article |
Mike,
I apologize for asking if you were stupid, It was actually meant for another I decided to remove the rant and didn't take the cut up far enough nor did I preview before I posted.
From what I read your ideas are just pinned to your worldview and economy.
The overhead costs of a medical practice aren't a sob story they are just facts not considered in your ideas. You, ignorantly, like others in this thread, think an office visit should cost $10-20. You correctly state that going into business incurs the overhead and training costs. What you don't mention, either purposefully or ignorantly, is that it is then up to the business owner to set their own prices for their services. So, the physician should be free to charge what he or she desires for their services, it is then up to the consumer to decide if they will pay it. What you need to wrap your head around is that your are not entitled to health care, it is not a constitutionally guaranteed right. Its a provided service. If you cannot afford health care so be it, welcome to the big boys world where we take care of ourselves and decide on our own if we will help others out of our increase.
Instead of whining about the cost of items in a hospital stay maybe you should attempt to gain the knowledge of why those costs are what they are. Maybe when you understand the federal, state, and local laws that govern the dispensing of that ibuprofen, the staff costs, the physical plant costs, mandated liability insurance costs, etc, you will understand that it is not a profit center for the hospital. The cost is just covering the overhead of dispensing it. Do you really thing that keeping the physical plant operating, the staff paid, the state, local, and federal laws obeyed, the federally mandated free-care absorbed, the cutting edge technology that we demand purchased, myriad federal and state mandated insurances paid, legally mandated waste storage and removal laws obeyed, losses from being forced to accept medicare and medicaid, HIPPA, hundreds of millions in land and construction costs, (I could go on for pages) are all paid for that your care should cost next to nothing? Do you know the cost of machines like MRI, CT, Fast CT, IT, Lab equipment, Echo, Nuclear Scanners, and cath labs? Should a hospital not make a profit? Do you not want them to expand beds, services and locations? The data exists for you to actually see the real cost of medical services, then you can look at the average payments and calculate the profit...maybe you will change your tune when you see scrounges like Medicare pay, on average, 5-10% below the actual costs for the service, which by the way increases the costs the rest of us pay. What I see in your posts is that you are applying your personal economy to the provision of health care and they are far to disparate for you to do so.
When it comes to our active military and vets I agree with you. There is nothing in health care that should be spared them. The best and the brightest should be employed in their care and the best of technology should be used. They should get it rather than some federal legislator or employee.
I also agree with you about everyone being under federal health care, it will be a wreck like medicare/medicaid. Like you say we should have an emergency fund and take care of ourselves. -
Rick commented on the article |I was a kid in the 70's and the news media and periodicals were making a big deal of global cooling. I remember being afraid my family would freeze to death or starve to death from a lack of food due to cooling.
After reading Fleck and Connolly's piece I find it a contentious, politically charged tome. Simply calling the cooling scare a myth and stating there is too much period news media to track down is shirking the responsibility they assumed when they undertook this work. At the time the populous really only had the news/periodicals to impart such information to them as there was no Internet for the masses to search the scientific literature. As such the recollections of many of us that we were inundated with global cooling is not a myth but a reality. -
Rick commented on the article |
Hmmm Tom...how did the earth get out of that last ice age (glacial age) without the help of the pesky humans and their greenhouse gas emissions? Must have been the dinocarus. If I recall correctly there were other glacial ages and ice-free periods in earth's history long before we could have scewed it up. The only thing more tiresome than listening to people blast Al Gore is the fact that his hypocritcal jetsetting ass is ubiquitous and stands to make a fortune from the idiocy that is Cap and Trade.
-
Rick commented on the article |Nice use of hate speech there Hershey.
Impact
0 Actions
0 Recruits