Doc choice

[Guest guest]

Any one that has medicare and been in hospital soon learn they don't have many

choices. Medicare tell Dr and hospital what they will pay them. Dr or hospitals

can not charge any more the medicare will pay. So

some don't take medicare. If you have to go in hospital Medcare will tell

hospital to keep you only until you are stable then you go to nursing home if

you need more care. Nursing homes realy don't have proper help to take care of

many that medicare sends to them.

>

> Before a joint committee, it still has to pass the Senate. I don't think it

will, at least in its present form. I do recall a Senate version had " medical

homes " in it. We'll see. The issue for me is not NPs, it is lack of choice.

>

> Val

>

> From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

>

> Bill has to go to joint committee?

>

[Guest guest]

Francis,

Those generalizations do not apply to all states.

I haven't noticed ANY cases not being treated properly - they seem to WANT

the Medicare people - probably has a lot to do with their supplement plans.

One thing is true - a Dr does not have to take on new patients.

They have forms to fill out - I think for credit history and Insurance.

If you have a Dr, try to hold on to them.

Regards

Re: Doc choice

Any one that has medicare and been in hospital soon learn they don't have

many choices. Medicare tell Dr and hospital what they will pay them. Dr or

hospitals can not charge any more the medicare will pay. So

some don't take medicare. If you have to go in hospital Medcare will tell

hospital to keep you only until you are stable then you go to nursing home

if you need more care. Nursing homes realy don't have proper help to take

care of many that medicare sends to them.

>

> Before a joint committee, it still has to pass the Senate. I don't think

it will, at least in its present form. I do recall a Senate version had

" medical homes " in it. We'll see. The issue for me is not NPs, it is lack of

choice.

>

> Val

>

> From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

>

> Bill has to go to joint committee?

>

[Guest guest]

Every time I walk or drive past a marina with yachts I wonder how this can exist in a place where we have no health care for many?

Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MD

Specializing in Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in population's today.

On Wednesday, November 11, 2009, at 01:21PM, " Bindner" <mikeybdc@...> wrote:

>

That depends on how you define "us". 40% pay not federal taxes and have their payroll taxes refunded. The top 1% pay more of a share of their taxes in income and carry much of the federal tax load and might actually pay more than half their income on taxes, especially when local property taxes are included in the calculation. However, I don't believe these folks are suffering too badly. I am almost certain that none of these folks are on this list.

If any of you are, there are a few of your list mates who need an AVS paid for if you could lend a hand.

Bindner

Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs):

http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html

http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com

From: Francis Bill <georgewbill >Subject: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 11:07 AM

It wont be long before taxes take up most of our money

> > > "Unfunded liability" means the liability remaining after considering > > offsetting revenues. This is a dismal picture:> >> >> >> > The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that > > have been promised to current and

future retirees and what will be > > collected in dedicated taxes and premiums.> >> > Future Payroll Tax Burdens. Currently, a 12.4 percent payroll tax > > on wages funds Social Se curity and a 2.9 percent payroll tax funds > > Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance). But if payroll tax rates rise > > to meet unfunded obligations:> >> > When today's college students reach retirement (about 2054), Social > > Security alone will require a 16.6 percent payroll tax, one-third > > greater than today's rate.> > When Medicare Part A is included, the payroll tax burden will rise > > to 25.7 percent - more than one of every four dollars workers will > > earn that year.> > If Medicare Part B (physician services) and Part D are included, the > > total Social Security/Medicare burden will climb to 37 percent of >

> payroll by 2054 - one in three dollars of taxable payroll, and twice > > the size of today's payroll tax burden!> > http://www.ncpa. org/pub/ba662

> >> > Val> >> >> >> > From: hyperaldosteronism > > [mailto:hyperaldosteronism] On Behalf Of > > Bindner> >> >> > You cannot stress the unfunded liabilities without also counting the > > anticipated funding.

The liability is only unfunded if you > > cancelled all tax support today or if society became totally > > automated so that no one need work (of course, if you did this, the > > unfunded liability would be meaningless, since health care would be > > free).> >> > Bindner> >> > ,_._,___> >> >>

[Guest guest]

That would never work, it sounds entirely too practical and logical.  ;-)

Seriously, the health care companies donate way too much money to campaign funds

for that to ever happen.

a

 

I actually favor the employer in-house care model, with doctors on staff, as

well as a sick child (and well child) on-site daycare.  Then you would not have

to worry about taking off to get care for the kid.  Combine this with hospital

based HMOs where your employer pays a fixed fee each month to your local

provider so you can get care and you have enacted the most cost effective health

care possible - of course it totally eases the health insurance companies out of

the picture, so it will never be enacted by the current regime.

[Guest guest]

My guess is that I could manage most HTN over the web esp if I use my webcam and could order lab tests.CE Grim MDOn Nov 11, 2009, at 12:10 PM, a Hall wrote:That would never work, it sounds entirely too practical and logical. ;-)Seriously, the health care companies donate way too much money to campaign funds for that to ever happen.a I actually favor the employer in-house care model, with doctors on staff, as well as a sick child (and well child) on-site daycare. Then you would not have to worry about taking off to get care for the kid. Combine this with hospital based HMOs where your employer pays a fixed fee each month to your local provider so you can get care and you have enacted the most cost effective health care possible - of course it totally eases the health insurance companies out of the picture, so it will never be enacted by the current regime.

[Guest guest]

And sooner or later, you run out of other people's money.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

Econ 101 - you can't tax people with no money.

The rich will hafta pay for it regardless, one way or another.

The other is accumulating more money than needed and it ends up in a

treasury account paying no interest.

Another way is inflation. There are other ways.

Regards

Re: Doc choice

Ouch, don't think I want to go there. The first problem is defining

" rich " .

Ask a person making $25K per year and you'll get a very different answer

than from a person making $500K per year. Then you have McCain's

definition of rich - $5 mil per year. And at what point do you exempt

people from having to pay? The amount deemed poverty level in this country

is a joke. A person making over $10K is not living in poverty? The average

rent for a one bedroom apartment around here is at least $600/mo. There

are still the same pros and cons for a flat tax as for an income tax. It

would be easy and sounds fair but middle and lower incomes, who can afford

it the least, would still pay proportionately more of their income than the

rich. Who is it going to be hurt more and is it equitable? There's just

not going to be an easy solution to this.

..

[Guest guest]

I think that the ....only be able to buy... is not correct. Can you verify that? Just heard an NPR program on that issue but may not have been listening close enough as I emailed.CE Grim MDOn Nov 11, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Valarie wrote: if Pelosicare becomes law, we will only be able to buy insurance through the government exchange. If that is not a government takeover, I do not know what is. There will be levels of coverage and levels of premiums. All policies will be required to provide the same thing. Gone will be Health Savings Accounts. Already half of all health care dollars are spent by governments. How much is enough? Val From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bindner The question is whether the price of insurance reflects just the cost of health care, or if there is a bit more profit extraction going on than companies are willing to admit. BTW, the government is not taking over health care and tax support for buying insurance has been going on for a long, long time. Price supports for poorer Americans are being added and insurance companies are to be more heavily regulated federally (since state regulation, which will also still exist, has failed to deal with pre-existing conditions and the dropping of sick people). If state regulators had not been captured by the firms they regulate, there would be no debate on reform because reform would not be needed, liability would be meaningless, since health care would be free).> >

[Guest guest]

The fairest tax is a sales tax. Can exempt any amount on any thing this way poor

can pay less tax then rich.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

" Any

intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of

genius -- and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. "

--physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

http://i739.photobucket.com/albums/xx40/mmatters/HouseStatistHealthChart1109.jpg

Val

[Guest guest]

On Facebook, I chided my representative, Polis, for his vote for socialized

medicine. I reminded him that he stands to do very well financially through his

company, BridgeHealth, as more and more Americans flee to free market medical

care solutions. Mr. Polis has a conflict of interest. MY POST WAS DELETED.  http://completecolorado.com/polisinvestment.html

This young man is no dummy.  He started bluemountainarts.com and

proflowers.com.  Sold Blue Mountain for

$80 million.  I don't know what

pro-flowers went for.  Now, he's invested

in the coming need for Americans to go offshore to get medical care. 

As long as politicians are involved, we should

expect to see lots of this.

Val

[Guest guest]

Actually, if you get health care through your employer, that won't change. HSAs could be a good part of the system, although they need some of the features of flexible spending - and there must be a non-exclusion provision so that insurers cannot deny or revoke a high deductible policy. Without the ability to access your entire year entitlement in the HSA you simply require medical providers to wait until the HSA balance builds before they get paid - and if some costs are excluded by pre-existing condition clause the HSA will never be enough to pay bills and avoid bankruptcy.

Bindner

From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 4:07 PM

if Pelosicare becomes law, we will only be able to buy insurance through the government exchange. If that is not a government takeover, I do not know what is. There will be levels of coverage and levels of premiums. All policies will be required to provide the same thing. Gone will be Health Savings Accounts. Already half of all health care dollars are spent by governments. How much is enough?

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldost eronism@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Bindner

The question is whether the price of insurance reflects just the cost of health care, or if there is a bit more profit extraction going on than companies are willing to admit.

BTW, the government is not taking over health care and tax support for buying insurance has been going on for a long, long time. Price supports for poorer Americans are being added and insurance companies are to be more heavily regulated federally (since state regulation, which will also still exist, has failed to deal with pre-existing conditions and the dropping of sick people). If state regulators had not been captured by the firms they regulate, there would be no debate on reform because reform would not be needed, liability would be meaningless, since health care would be free).> >

[Guest guest]

I will look for

that. I thought it was beginning

2013 but can't find a reference.

Sec. 202 requires you to enroll in a " qualified plan. " If you get

your insurance at work, your employer will have a " grace period " to

switch you to a " qualified plan. " If you buy your own insurance,

there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as

any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html?mod=wsj_share_facebook

I think that says bye-bye to HSAs.

Sec 202 looks like a government take over by itself.

The

average premium for a relatively low-cost plan on the exchange would be $5,300

for an individual and $15,000 for a family, according to the Congressional

Budget Office. http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20091108/NEWS02/911080355

My 28-yo daughhter has a $3,000 deductible

policy, 80% for preventative, and no deductible for prescriptions. She pays $151 a month.

She buys brand name ADHD meds for $40. Colorado has tort reform.Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Clarence Grim

I

think that the ....only be able to buy... is not correct. Can you verify

that? Just heard an NPR program on that issue but may not have been

listening close enough as I emailed.

On

Nov 11, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Valarie wrote:

if Pelosicare becomes law, we will only be able to buy

insurance through the government exchange. If that is not a government takeover,

I do not know what is. There

will be levels of coverage and levels of premiums. All policies will be required to

provide the same thing. Gone

will be Health Savings Accounts. Already

half of all health care dollars are spent by governments. How much is enough?

_,_._,___

[Guest guest]

That's why I support a VAT as part of the system, however as long as we have a huge national debt, some form of progressive income taxation is necessary.

Bindner

Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs):

http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html

http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com

If you mean a tax with no deductions, a flat tax is a good idea. If you mean that the rich and poor pay the same rate, bad idea - at least while the rich collect interest on the debt on the other end and can own companies which pay employees in a less than free labor market (with more potential employees than jobs available).

Bindner

..

[Guest guest]

Pacificare was not the model I was promoting.

I am usually served by andria Hospital. They should have an HMO for hospitalization and specialist care in their network. The problem with Pacificare is that it was likely run by an insurance company seeking profit.

Bindner

Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs):

http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html

http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com

From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 5:23 PM

I had an HMO where Pacificare paid a set amount per enrollee per month to my doctor group. Anything that was left over at the end of the month was divided among the participating groups. If they could keep you out of the hospital, they saved money. They had everyone in "medical homes" and you were not allowed to go outside that area. They called them "pods." I fought for five months and through five PCPs to get a parathyroid adenoma removed. Never again will I get near an HMO.

At the time, my husband was CFO for the school district. Through his leadership, Pacificare lost the 3,500-member contract. By far, I was not the only one complaining. Everyone hated Pacificare.

Val

Combine this with hospital based HMOs where your employer pays a fixed fee each month to your local provider so you can get care and you have enacted the most cost effective health care possible - of course it totally eases the health insurance companies out of the picture, so it will never be enacted by the current regime.

[Guest guest]

Paying a yearly fee for a doctor, rather than a fee for service, is an HMO by any other name.

Bindner

Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs):

http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html

http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com

From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 5:23 PM

I would love to see a free market across state lines for both physicians and insurance companies. I belong to a forum owned by a retired prof of urogyn at UCLA. I pay a yearly fee for it. While she doesn't prescribe or diagnose per se, her information has been invaluable. I can always go get tests on my own at LabCorp. It was her information that brought me to this group. She picked up on the PA immediately.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldost eronism@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Clarence Grim

My guess is that I could manage most HTN over the web esp if I use my webcam and could order lab tests.

[Guest guest]

A sales tax is only the fairest if there is also an income tax as long as the government pays interest on a national debt.

Bindner

From: Francis Bill <georgewbill@...>Subject: Re: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2009, 5:57 PM

The fairest tax is a sales tax. Can exempt any amount on any thing this way poor can pay less tax then rich. > >>

[Guest guest]

Well I 've heard differently, but the bill's not passed yet.

Isn't Medicare a "gov't takeover"?

I have difficulty with these adjectives.

The gov't has "taken over" and been responsible for a very long time for many things.

Re: Re: Doc choice

I think that the ....only be able to buy... is not correct. Can you verify that? Just heard an NPR program on that issue but may not have been listening close enough as I emailed.

CE Grim MD

On Nov 11, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Valarie wrote:

if Pelosicare becomes law, we will only be able to buy insurance through the government exchange. If that is not a government takeover, I do not know what is. There will be levels of coverage and levels of premiums. All policies will be required to provide the same thing. Gone will be Health Savings Accounts. Already half of all health care dollars are spent by governments. How much is enough?

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bindner

The question is whether the price of insurance reflects just the cost of health care, or if there is a bit more profit extraction going on than companies are willing to admit.

BTW, the government is not taking over health care and tax support for buying insurance has been going on for a long, long time. Price supports for poorer Americans are being added and insurance companies are to be more heavily regulated federally (since state regulation, which will also still exist, has failed to deal with pre-existing conditions and the dropping of sick people). If state regulators had not been captured by the firms they regulate, there would be no debate on reform because reform would not be needed, liability would be meaningless, since health care would be free).> >

__________ NOD32 4389 (20090902) Information __________This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

THEY don't get to vote.

People earning 5$ per hour don't even think about it.

RE: Doc choice

I don't understand how it is "more fair" to punish those who happen to make more money than the next guy. Everyone should pay the same rate after a set allowance for living. If everyone had to pay at least a little, they wouldn't be so eager to vote for every new tax-intense program.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Clarence Grim

No deductions seems more reasonable.

On Nov 11, 2009, at 11:48 AM, Bindner wrote:

If you mean a tax with no deductions, a flat tax is a good idea. If you mean that the rich and poor pay the same rate, bad idea - at least while the rich collect interest on the debt on the other end and can own companies which pay employees in a less than free labor market (with more potential employees than jobs available).

Bindner

..

__________ NOD32 4389 (20090902) Information __________This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

I called it Pa c if I care.

RE: Doc choice

I had an HMO where Pacificare paid a set amount per enrollee per month to my doctor group. Anything that was left over at the end of the month was divided among the participating groups. If they could keep you out of the hospital, they saved money. They had everyone in "medical homes" and you were not allowed to go outside that area. They called them "pods." I fought for five months and through five PCPs to get a parathyroid adenoma removed. Never again will I get near an HMO.

At the time, my husband was CFO for the school district. Through his leadership, Pacificare lost the 3,500-member contract. By far, I was not the only one complaining. Everyone hated Pacificare.

Val

Combine this with hospital based HMOs where your employer pays a fixed fee each month to your local provider so you can get care and you have enacted the most cost effective health care possible - of course it totally eases the health insurance companies out of the picture, so it will never be enacted by the current regime.

__________ NOD32 4389 (20090902) Information __________This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

The "fairest" tax is no tax. But then we wouldn't have roads.

In a county run mostly on sales tax, when the economy drops people buy less, ergo the % must go up. I hear there are states going "bankrupt".

Therefore raise the taxes, and that is exactly what we must do now.

We must dampen the coming inflation with increased taxes.

Sorry.

The guy with the most to lose must pay them.

It's not fair, but life is not fair.

Re: Doc choice

The fairest tax is a sales tax. Can exempt any amount on any thing this way poor can pay less tax then rich. > >>__________ NOD32 4389 (20090902) Information __________This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

What happens when you want to go to MD , Cleveland

Clinic or Mayo Clinic (i.e., choice)?

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Bindner

I actually favor the employer in-house care model, with

doctors on staff, as well as a sick child (and well child) on-site

daycare. Then you would not have to worry about taking off to get care

for the kid. Combine this with hospital based HMOs where your employer

pays a fixed fee each month to your local provider so you can get care and

you have enacted the most cost effective health care possible - of course it

totally eases the health insurance companies out of the picture, so it will

never be enacted by the current regime.

[Guest guest]

Hmmm. I wonder if the drug she is getting has received enough trials so it is not approved by MC.

Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MD

Specializing in Primary Aldosteronism, Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in populations today.

On Wednesday, November 11, 2009, at 09:56PM, "Valarie " <val@...> wrote:

>

I should have said that they

cannot get the drug on Medicare while my friend can get the drug through her

insurance. Problem is, since they are

over 65, they have no choice in insurance companies. I would say that ovarian cancer is

representative of a catastrophic illness that requires insurance.

Val

From:

hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On

Behalf Of Clarence Grim

No u

can pay for anything u need if MC DOES not provide it.

One

of the advantages is that they tend to pay for only what has been proven to

work and I hope thia

On

Nov 11, 2009, at 5:25 PM, Valarie <val@...>

wrote:

Medicare is absolutely a

take-over. Those over 65 have zero choice. My friend with ovarian

cancer can get a certain drug but her Medicare sisters cannot. She is 6.5

years out from diagnosis so her treatment has had value for her and her

family.

[Guest guest]

Hmmm. I wonder if the drug she is getting has received enough trials so it is

not approved by MC.

Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MD

Specializing in Primary Aldosteronism, Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent

evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in populations today.

On Wednesday, November 11, 2009, at 09:56PM, " Valarie " <val@...>

wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

That's investor profit. They are using their gross profit to cover portfolio losses due to the financial collapse.

Bindner

Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs):

http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html

http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com

From: Valarie <val@...>I had an HMO where Pacificare paid a set amount per enrollee per month to my doctor group. Anything that was left over at the end of the month was divided among the participating groups.

..

[Guest guest]

If your local hospital can't handle something, they will send you and pay for it.

Bindner

Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs):

http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html

http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com

From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 1:31 AM

What happens when you want to go to MD , Cleveland Clinic or Mayo Clinic (i.e., choice)?

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldost eronism@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Bindner

I actually favor the employer in-house care model, with doctors on staff, as well as a sick child (and well child) on-site daycare. Then you would not have to worry about taking off to get care for the kid. Combine this with hospital based HMOs where your employer pays a fixed fee each month to your local provider so you can get care and you have enacted the most cost effective health care possible - of course it totally eases the health insurance companies out of the picture, so it will never be enacted by the current regime.