- Joined
- 15 Aug 12
- Moves
- 11620
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by DanTriolaGood article.
Let me add this: http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/10-signs-that-obamacare-is-going-to-wreck-the-u-s-economy
Not that the US medical system was not falling apart on its own, but now Mr Obama has added the final straw. not in ignorance of the consequences, but with malice aforethought.
Who does he work for?
I've for the past several years been pointing out to people the downs of the ACA, sadly we are now experiencing them.
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by King TigerThank you for reading it. The problem as I see it is that those who style themselves as "liberals" in support of Obama have no appreciation of what he is doing past the superficial window dressing. In actuality, I see Obama as a supporter of government-by-big business, which was called National Socialism in the old days. He would be an anathema to the liberal of yesteryear. Trouble is, no one thinks for themselves. Nor read anything with more than one paragraph. (That can fit on the screen of an IPhone.) They just watch TV.
Good article.
I've for the past several years been pointing out to people the downs of the ACA, sadly we are now experiencing them.
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by DanTriolaYou have to understand that pretty much all of Obama's supporters favor crashing a system that they see as fundamentally corrupt. The free market is the devil and they are out to slay that devil under any cost.
Thank you for reading it. The problem as I see it is that those who style themselves as "liberals" in support of Obama have no appreciation of what he is doing past the superficial window dressing. In actuality, I see Obama as a supporter of government-by-big business, which was called National Socialism in the old days. He would be an anathema to the libe ...[text shortened]... ing with more than one paragraph. (That can fit on the screen of an IPhone.) They just watch TV.
01 Nov 13
Originally posted by whodeyThe free market in health care was slain in the 60s by Medicare and Medicaid.
You have to understand that pretty much all of Obama's supporters favor crashing a system that they see as fundamentally corrupt. The free market is the devil and they are out to slay that devil under any cost.
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by normbenignThat has been my thesis as well, for the last 38 years.
The free market in health care was slain in the 60s by Medicare and Medicaid.
Which is how long I've been practicing medicine.
Never heard another say it, till now.
Before Medicare: GP's saw everyone who showed up at their office. They averaged 100 patients a day, and worked till after midnight. Charged them $5 for a visit; $1 for a shot of penicillin. If the patient could not afford that, the doctor often let it slide. If they needed an EKG, the doctor wheeled out his machine and ran one, no charge.
Then Medicare came along and said: "We will pay you $50 to do an EKG". And thus the wrong sort of people were attracted to medicine. The ones who wanted to be rich. All downhill from there.
Also, I ran my practice by NOT charging the Medicare patients the 20% not covered. In 1993, I contracted with a billing company, on the advice of my accountant. (Whose firm had just acquired said company! But, he was a long-time friend, so, I went along.) The billing company told me I HAD to bill that 20%, or else I was breaking federal law, by illegally "enticing" patients! So, I did. But, I never accepted Medicaid. I just treated those people for free. And wound up delivering most of the welfare mothers in town. As, no one else wanted to, even with accepting Medicaid payments.
Doctors have always had an obligation to provide free care to the indigent, is what I was taught. Whatever happened to that?!
But then, I've never been rich.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by DanTriolaWe need to hear more from you and your generation of docs.
That has been my thesis as well, for the last 38 years.
Which is how long I've been practicing medicine.
Never heard another say it, till now.
Before Medicare: GP's saw everyone who showed up at their office. They averaged 100 patients a day, and worked till after midnight. Charged them $5 for a visit; $1 for a shot of penicillin. If the patient could n ...[text shortened]... he indigent, is what I was taught. Whatever happened to that?!
But then, I've never been rich.
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by DanTriolaOur family GP made house calls for $5, and collected as people could afford to pay.
That has been my thesis as well, for the last 38 years.
Which is how long I've been practicing medicine.
Never heard another say it, till now.
Before Medicare: GP's saw everyone who showed up at their office. They averaged 100 patients a day, and worked till after midnight. Charged them $5 for a visit; $1 for a shot of penicillin. If the patient could n ...[text shortened]... he indigent, is what I was taught. Whatever happened to that?!
But then, I've never been rich.
02 Nov 13
Originally posted by normbenignExactly. "They" will point to the advances in medicine and say: "The old doctors had none of the remarkable tools we have today! Medicine is not what it was, and good care costs money." However, the difference between peoples' ills then and now is nil. People remain the same mechanism that they were in Hippocrates' time. The difference is perception, foisted on us by TV and advertising, in order to gather more wealth for pharmaceutical companies and insurers. And then, there are the lawyers. How many ads did one see before the 70's by law firms on TV. Today, there is one every commercial break. Without the big bucks that government has injected into the medical system, those parasites would go away. And so would the "doctors" who practice just to acquire wealth, and deservedly need to be penalized. The trouble is, the line has been blurred so much, for, as lawsuits have risen, so have insurance premiums. While reimbursement from insurance continues to fall, leading even the good physicians to cut corners to meet their overhead. A very simple solution to rising medical costs would be a cap on lawsuits. But then, the bad doctors already in circulation would have a field day. It is too late to correct by any such device. The government has stepped in, starting with LBJ's Medicare, and the system is wrecked. Now comes the coup-de-grace with Obamacare. In 1970, the yearly premium for malpractice insurance in Pennsylvania was $50/year for OB/Gyne. (Of which I am one) When I started my practice in 1978 on my own, it was $5,000. When I stopped obstetrics in 2001, it was because my $68,000 premium was going to $78,000 in 2002. So, limiting practice to gynecology dropped me to $25,000/year. Now, the feds insist on the use of EMR (electronic medical records), which not only adds to one's overhead, but allows for the push of a button to generate a patient's record, individuality be damned. I can no longer write a note for a visit that differs at all from one a PA (physician's assistant) will write, nor can I easily access the record of the prior visit as I could on a paper chart. I am no smarter than the programmer who wrote the EMR software! In truth, the EMR program's main intent is to generate a correct ICD-9 code, so that the federal government will not put me in jail for Medicare fraud! Quality of care is no longer of value, only quantity of patients "correctly" coded. The Walmart business plan: Quantity over Quality, is now in force in our medical system. And, Obamacare will increase the number of ICD-09 codes by another 50%!. Instead of one code for "animal bite", there is now a code specifically for "turtle bite" along with codes for numerous other species!
Our family GP made house calls for $5, and collected as people could afford to pay.
Well, I've gone on long enough. Most people cannot force themselves to read anything longer than a Twitter post these days, let alone a book. And, it would take a book to put down what I'd like to say!
03 Nov 13
Originally posted by DanTriolaSeems like the care for the fellow human has gone to just caring about the money. I bet in the olden days the saw bones made many a house call in the middle of the night for free. As long as he could make a living from some he could still care for all.
That has been my thesis as well, for the last 38 years.
Which is how long I've been practicing medicine.
Never heard another say it, till now.
Before Medicare: GP's saw everyone who showed up at their office. They averaged 100 patients a day, and worked till after midnight. Charged them $5 for a visit; $1 for a shot of penicillin. If the patient could n ...[text shortened]... he indigent, is what I was taught. Whatever happened to that?!
But then, I've never been rich.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Nov 13
1 edit
Originally posted by DanTriolaI and others (I hope) are reading every word. Maybe that book needs to be written.
Exactly. "They" will point to the advances in medicine and say: "The old doctors had none of the remarkable tools we have today! Medicine is not what it was, and good care costs money." However, the difference between peoples' ills then and now is nil. People remain the same mechanism that they were in Hippocrates' time. The difference is perception, foist ...[text shortened]... r post these days, let alone a book. And, it would take a book to put down what I'd like to say!
03 Nov 13
Originally posted by JS357Sadly, I am not a writer. Got a 'C' in English Comp. (And a 'B' second semester, but that was from the class taught by Carol Huntress, the football coach's wife. She had all his players in it, and never gave lower than a 'B'!)
I and others (I hope) are reading every word. Maybe that book needs to be written.
Was a chemistry major. Most physicians these days cannot write either, but then, most new doctors are no longer the cream of the crop, as the med schools will take anyone who pays the tuition. After all, "They" want doctors who do not think, just follow their protocols and act as the legally required middleman between the patient and the drug companies and HMO's in order to market their products. A physician who thinks and questions a protocol or a drug would be an impediment! But even in 1968, my mentor in chemistry, a Nobel nominee in 1955 and a member of the Manhattan Project, who had his doctorate from MIT, said to me: "Anyone can get an MD. You must be smart to get a PhD." in an attempt to discourage me from a career in medicine. And, the bar has been much lowered since. Unfortunately, I listened to my mother, who wanted a doctor. But I've always looked on medicine as an outsider as a result.
And I say to you, and any who would listen: Question everything your doctor tells you, and ask what is his motivation? Is he treating me as the unique individual I am, or, as a commodity?
03 Nov 13
Originally posted by DanTriolaMedically related lawsuits, while certainly wasteful, only contribute to a small part of US health care costs. Most of the costs are related to inefficiencies in the way the market is organized, overtreatment due to financial incentives to prescribe drugs and treatment, poor preventive care due to financial incentives not to give any and another major factor is the simple fact that people live to be older and thus require more treatment. The latter factor is not something one can do much about, but by tackling the other issues it is quite straightforward to slash costs in half by copying a more efficient health care system.
Exactly. "They" will point to the advances in medicine and say: "The old doctors had none of the remarkable tools we have today! Medicine is not what it was, and good care costs money." However, the difference between peoples' ills then and now is nil. People remain the same mechanism that they were in Hippocrates' time. The difference is perception, foist ...[text shortened]... r post these days, let alone a book. And, it would take a book to put down what I'd like to say!
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
03 Nov 13
Originally posted by whodey'Obamacare' foes used to be idea's biggest fans
Some would say that the massive glitches for Obamacare were an "accident". However, what if they were planned all along?
Just imagine if there were no glitches and the turn out for signing up was pathetic. This way they can attribute the lack of enthusiasm on the glitches instead of making the legislation look retarded.
My only question is, can Obama ...[text shortened]... ng gone wrong in his life to date, so my guess is we will have a single payer in 10 to 20 years.
Robert Reich
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Obamacare-foes-used-to-be-idea-s-biggest-fans-4947747.php
quote:
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says Republicans will seek to delay a requirement of the 2010 Affordable Care Act that all Americans obtain health insurance or face a tax penalty.
"With so many unanswered questions and the problems arising around this rollout, it doesn't make any sense to impose this 1 percent mandate tax on the American people," Cantor said.
While Republicans plot new ways to sabotage the Affordable Care Act, it's easy to forget that for years they've been arguing that any comprehensive health insurance system should be designed exactly like the one that officially began Oct. 1, glitches and all.
For as many years, Democrats tried to graft health care onto Social Security and Medicare and pay for it through the payroll tax. But Republicans countered that any system must be based on private insurance and paid for with a combination of subsidies for low-income purchasers and a requirement that the younger and healthier sign up.
Not surprisingly, private health insurers cheered on the Republicans while doing whatever they could to block Democrats from creating a public insurance system.
In February 1974, Republican President Richard Nixon proposed, in essence, today's Affordable Care Act. Under Nixon's plan, all but the smallest employers would provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, an expanded Medicaid-type program would insure the poor, and subsidies would be provided to low-income individuals and small employers. Sound familiar?
Private insurers were delighted with the Nixon plan, but Democrats preferred a system based on Social Security and Medicare, and the two sides failed to agree.
More than 30 years later, a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, made Nixon's plan the law in Massachusetts. Private insurers couldn't have been happier, although many Democrats in the state had hoped for a public system.
When today's Republicans rage against the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, it's useful to recall that this was their idea as well.
In 1989, Stuart M. Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation came up with a plan that would "mandate all households to obtain adequate insurance."
Insurance companies loved Butler's plan so much that it found its way into several bills introduced by Republican lawmakers in 1993. Among the supporters were Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa (who now oppose the mandate under the Affordable Care Act). Newt Gingrich, who became speaker of the House in 1995, was also a big proponent.
Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts included the same mandate to purchase private insurance. "We got the idea of an individual mandate from Newt Gingrich, and Newt got it from the Heritage Foundation," said Romney, who thought the mandate "essential for bringing the health care costs down for everyone and getting everyone the health insurance they need."
Now that the essential Republican plan for health care is being implemented nationally, health insurance companies are jubilant.
Last week, after the giant insurer WellPoint raised its earnings estimates, CEO Joseph Swedish pointed to "the long-term membership growth opportunity through exchanges." Other major health plans are equally bullish. "The emergence of public exchanges, private exchanges, Medicaid expansions ... have the potential to create new opportunities for us to grow and serve in new ways," UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen J. Hemsley effused.
So why are today's Republicans so upset with an act they designed and their patrons adore? Because it's the signature achievement of the Obama administration.
There's a deep irony to all this. Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler and more widely accepted by the public. And Republicans would be hollering anyway.