• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health care law may mean less hiring in 2013

Bush started undeclared wars ? The one's he got Congressional approval for ? And ex-coke head is a little low. you have any proof ?

Please, deflect away from his cocaine use, whatever. Next is that he was never an alcoholic. And yes, he started undeclared wars as we have no Declaration of War issued against the government of Iraq.

So is deflection all you have to support our other abhorrent President who didn't give 2 ****s about the Constitution?
 
Sux seeing such important discussions become so focused on ideology and political viewpoints. If we focused the discussion on what has worked better than our system, now and in the past, many of these talking points on both sides become completely moot. There are plenty of models to examine around the world that have been heavily studied... Ideology and political affiliation is counter productive to a reasonable debate seeking a solution. Insulting Liberals or bringing Bush into the conversation seems about as productive as calling each other nazis.

The solutions are out there and have been well documented. Americans are passified by the political debate, but not really interested in seeing why other countries get better better care at lower per person costs. It's more fun to try and blow holes in the facts and try to debunk the studies done.

Sorry... really losing my faith lately. Carry on. I'll find another thread to read.
 
Business ALWAYS has min. number of employees.

And reducing hours does not matter, they will STILL get healthcare at a affordable price. All that happens is they avoid the fine.
HC or not is based on income, not any hours worked. If you make 100% of poverty, you get HC.
 
What are you talking about? If I want a pack of hot dogs, I go to (access) the store and buy (pay the cost of) those hot dogs. If I want a cut stitched up, I go to (access) the clinic/hospital and buy (pay the cost of) treatment. The nonsense is now that if you cannot (or simply will not) pay the cost of a good/service that is deemed to be "denying you access" to that good/service. Pure BS, as you are never turned away from the source (denied access) you are simply not allowed to steal (get goods/services for free). Unlike the hot dogs, that one gets "free" by applying for a SNAP card, the stitches are "free" by gov't mandate in the ER or now with the added cost of "private" insurance overhead and profit. It is just plain lying, that adding PPACA mandated insurance overhead and profit to already "free" care is going to save any money (cost) or add any access.

A hot dog is cheap, and if I can't afford it, I'll eat what I have at home, no problem. If my daughter has a serious illness or injury, and I can't afford it, that is an unacceptable situation. Healthcare is not like other market services or widgets. Health is much more important, not something you can always barter. And as a people, and rightly I think, we're not willing to turn people in need away. So no matter how we debate it, absent, that cost will be assed along. The question is do we do it systematically, or ad hoc? Pay more less, or less for more?
 
A hot dog is cheap, and if I can't afford it, I'll eat what I have at home, no problem. If my daughter has a serious illness or injury, and I can't afford it, that is an unacceptable situation. Healthcare is not like other market services or widgets. Health is much more important, not something you can always barter. And as a people, and rightly I think, we're not willing to turn people in need away. So no matter how we debate it, absent, that cost will be assed along. The question is do we do it systematically, or ad hoc? Pay more less, or less for more?

You are right that health care is important. Far too important to be put in the hands of government.

The reason health care is expensive is because there is little competition. Whenever there is a middleman costs go up and services decline.

Once the bureaucracy gets legs it will be too expensive for everyone.

No free lunch, remember?
 
You are right that health care is important. Far too important to be put in the hands of government.

The reason health care is expensive is because there is little competition. Whenever there is a middleman costs go up and services decline.

Once the bureaucracy gets legs it will be too expensive for everyone.

No free lunch, remember?

Which is why countries with UHC spend less?

No, competition is often good and bad. Buyer beware is fine with widgets and other market services, but we have good experience with snake oil salespeople in this country. Health is important, we agree, but don't fool yourself that competition fixes all evil. Long a ago, so hard to link, but there was an article on healthcare titled "The Revolution." Late seventies or early eighties. They noted at the time that no matter how many doctors you brought into the area, the market didn't saturate. Instead, they ordered more test, brought in more and more people. You might recall how doctors owned X-ray machines and such, which promoted red ring more and more tests.

The point is, the market was working, competition was high, and costs were sky rocketing. And even then, the costs for those not paying we're being passed along to those who do.
 
A hot dog is cheap, and if I can't afford it, I'll eat what I have at home, no problem. If my daughter has a serious illness or injury, and I can't afford it, that is an unacceptable situation. Healthcare is not like other market services or widgets. Health is much more important, not something you can always barter. And as a people, and rightly I think, we're not willing to turn people in need away. So no matter how we debate it, absent, that cost will be assed along. The question is do we do it systematically, or ad hoc? Pay more less, or less for more?

Slow down and examine the PPACA "fix"; everyone still gets "free" ER care, only now it comes at GREATER cost, since a "private" insurance company was MANDATED to be ADDED to the mix, and virtually guaranteed a 15% to 20% "cut" of that ER bill. To assert that "free" medical care is more imporatnt than "free" food in really a stretch, even for you. Of course you are not offering that "trade", you simply assert that BOTH should be "free" to those "in need".
 
Which is why countries with UHC spend less?

Did you ever investigate why they spend less? Do you genuinely believe that a doctor working under government supervision and bureaucracy would provide better service than this same doctor working on his private practice?

No, competition is often good and bad.

Some examples please.
Buyer beware is fine with widgets and other market services, but we have good experience with snake oil salespeople in this country.

Moreso than other countries? What makes you think that?

Health is important, we agree, but don't fool yourself that competition fixes all evil.
Of course I never made that claim, but it certainly beats monopolies.
Long a ago, so hard to link, but there was an article on healthcare titled "The Revolution." Late seventies or early eighties. They noted at the time that no matter how many doctors you brought into the area, the market didn't saturate. Instead, they ordered more test, brought in more and more people. You might recall how doctors owned X-ray machines and such, which promoted red ring more and more tests.

So private doctors were harming their patients? It seems that building up a clientele was of no importance to them - an unusual business model. However you might investigate what happens under government run health care, keeping in mind that it will also be difficult to sue for malpractice. If you are interested in what the future holds look up the history of the NHS in the UK, with the understanding that at one time, like the US, they had some of the best doctors in the world. Now the bureaucracy runs the show. This is just a random example Financial pressure in NHS 'worst seen' NHS managers warn - Telegraph but there are thousands more.

The point is, the market was working, competition was high, and costs were sky rocketing. And even then, the costs for those not paying we're being passed along to those who do.

If the market was working, as you claim, costs would not be skyrocketing. Can you be more specific in your example?
 
Slow down and examine the PPACA "fix"; everyone still gets "free" ER care, only now it comes at GREATER cost, since a "private" insurance company was MANDATED to be ADDED to the mix, and virtually guaranteed a 15% to 20% "cut" of that ER bill. To assert that "free" medical care is more imporatnt than "free" food in really a stretch, even for you. Of course you are not offering that "trade", you simply assert that BOTH should be "free" to those "in need".
It's not free. Has never been free and never will be. However, with insurance, you now have a payer, with premiums collected. What I maintain is that no one should have to decide between care for a loved one and money.
 
It's not free. Has never been free and never will be. However, with insurance, you now have a payer, with premiums collected. What I maintain is that no one should have to decide between care for a loved one and money.

Slow down and think about that some more. Now, if a "poor" (133% to 200% of poverty line ) person (say 1 in 100 in a given year) needs ER care they get it "free", and ONLY that cost (for actual ER care) is spread among all paying hospital users. Under PPACA, ALL 100 of these "poor" folks get 90% of their insurance premiums subsidized (that HIGHER cost spread among all citizens) so that 1 out of 100 "poor" person's ER care is now a much higher cost, since insurance subsidy costs for the 99 "poor" requiring no ER care, at all, were paid for as well.
 
Did you ever investigate why they spend less? Do you genuinely believe that a doctor working under government supervision and bureaucracy would provide better service than this same doctor working on his private practice?

I suspect you probably already know the answer, but for just one, they have far less (per citizen) expensive machines. It's easy to keep costs down when you don't purchase tools to assist patients and doctors.

Britain has fewer high-tech medical machines than Estonia and Turkey - Telegraph

The NHS in England had 6 MRI machines per million population in 2010, with figures across Britain putting the country below the Slovak Republic, Turkey, Estonia and Ireland in a league table of provision.

there are over 7,950 MRI scanners in the US, which equals 25.9 MRI machines per million population.
 
Slow down and think about that some more. Now, if a "poor" (133% to 200% of poverty line ) person (say 1 in 100 in a given year) needs ER care they get it "free", and ONLY that cost (for actual ER care) is spread among all paying hospital users. Under PPACA, ALL 100 of these "poor" folks get 90% of their insurance premiums subsidized (that HIGHER cost spread among all citizens) so that 1 out of 100 "poor" person's ER care is now a much higher cost, since insurance subsidy costs for the 99 "poor" requiring no ER care, at all, were paid for as well.

How do you know that what is passed on is the actual cost and not more?

Now, this is also the worse case, but what is the effect to all of us if people who get I'll are not seen? Th
 
So they aren't investing their resources in really helping the patients with techonology, instead investing in a big and bloated bureaucracy? No wonder the left loves them so much.

Or we're heavily invested in revenue producing healthcare, rather than results orientated healthcare.

Unnecessary tests and procedures are just another reason why medical care in the U.S. keeps skyrocketing.

Since MRI scans cost about $2,000 each, their overuse and misuse wastes health care dollars, medical researchers said. “Too often, people try to use the MRI to make a diagnosis,” said Dr. John Froymeyer, director of the McClure Musculoskeletal Research Center at the University of Vermont. “It misleads you often enough that you perform unnecessary surgery, and the results are not very good.”

Moreover, Dr. Froymeyer said Americans have almost 10 times more spinal disc operations than people in other Western countries, far more neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons, and many times more MRI machines. For example, he said, there are more MRI machines in Boston than in all of Canada. Dr. Boyd attributed overuse of MRI's to “insecurity, threat of lawsuits, inexperience and the potential for economic gain.”

MRIs dont tell

The reality, however, is that an MRI is nothing more than a picture–one of the most detailed pictures available…but nonetheless just a picture. By revealing details of every nook and cranny of your spine–most if not all of which will have no relevance to your immediate problem–MRIs have a tendency to add to rather than lessen, the confusion of getting an accurate diagnosis. The more detail, the more confusion over what any of it means. For that reason, the MRI is useful only to the degree with which it correlates with other pieces of the puzzle (e.g. symptom details, physical examination findings, and results of other tests). It is no better at providing a definitive answer than is opening up the hood of your car when you hear it making a funny sound. After all, you’re almost guaranteed to find a grimy engine block, a frayed fan belt, a missing oil cap, maybe some smoke around the radiator or any number of other “abnormalities,” but in and of themselves, these things don’t mean much and may have nothing to do with the sound. In fact, they do little more than prompt the same question that most findings on a spine MRI should: “OK, so what?”

MRI for Back Pain? You Might Want to Think Twice About That… |


MRIs More Likely To Be Negative When The Doctor Profits : Shots - Health News : NPR

Doctors: Chill With All the MRIs, EKGs - With so much unnecessary testing, doctors try to rein in excess

Are MRIs Overused? - Diagnostic Imaging

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/h...mislead-doctors-warn.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

MRI overuse is widespread, and dangerous to patients

Medscape: Medscape Access
 
Or we're heavily invested in revenue producing healthcare, rather than results orientated healthcare.

I have no doubt that Dr's do order unecessary tests for alot of reasons, one of which is defensive medicine. But, I would guess that one of the problem with your point, is that Dr.s in NHS systems are still sending their patients to have MRIs. It's just that those wait times for the MRI are much-much higher there then here. High enough that it could b ecosting lives.

NHS waiting time increases may cost lives, doctors warn | Society | The Guardian

By comparison, I had my MRI just a few days after being told by my MD to get one.

But, the MRI was really just one of countless such examples.

NHS data shows that while in May 2010, 337 patients had waited beyond six weeks for a colonoscopy, that had risen to 2,313 in May this year. Similarly, the number waiting past six weeks for flexible sigmoidoscopy has jumped from 87 to 1,199, and those waiting for echocardiography from 574 to 2,034 over the same period.

As further comparison, I was able to schedule my echo within 2 days.

What I will say, thoguh, is I do like that the MRI/Echo/etc are not performed at my MD's office. Instead, I am sent to a separate and independent location for my tests. I do prefer this to having the test right in the MD's office (Like my old doctor) as I can see the potential for abuse.
 
Last edited:
Or we're heavily invested in revenue producing healthcare, rather than results orientated healthcare.

Unnecessary tests and procedures are just another reason why medical care in the U.S. keeps skyrocketing.

In those cases you describe I think it safe to say that there is a third party involved between the doctor and the patient. Whenever that happens, costs go up. Of course it will go up even more when the government pays for everyone. Any idea that money will be saved, or quality maintained, is an illusion.
 
In those cases you describe I think it safe to say that there is a third party involved between the doctor and the patient. Whenever that happens, costs go up. Of course it will go up even more when the government pays for everyone. Any idea that money will be saved, or quality maintained, is an illusion.

No, the unnecessary test were and are a bigger problem where there is not a third party.
 
Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?

Well, I know the history, but later when I get to a computer and have time, I'm sure something can be easily googled and Ill link it for you. It was once a huge problem.
 
No, the unnecessary test were and are a bigger problem where there is not a third party.

How's that? Are Malpractice lawyers somehow outlawed in the PPACA or something? Oh no, that's right, it didn't address tort at all did it? Yeah, couldn't offend a Presidential constituency now could they?
 
How's that? Are Malpractice lawyers somehow outlawed in the PPACA or something? Oh no, that's right, it didn't address tort at all did it? Yeah, couldn't offend a Presidential constituency now could they?

They are a minor problem. See states with tort reform and notice how little it accomplished (odd how we have to over the same things).
 
Do you have any evidence at all to support this claim?

The doctor-owned laboratories performed almost twice as many tests for each patient as other laboratories, at an average cost of $43 per patient compared with $20. Doctor-owned physical therapy centers typically scheduled more visits per patient but employed fewer licensed therapists.

HEADLINERS - When Doctors Own Their Own Labs - NYTimes.com

HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States with 163 facilities, had uncovered evidence as far back as 2002 and as recently as late 2010 showing that some cardiologists at several of its hospitals in Florida were unable to justify many of the procedures they were performing. Those hospitals included the Cedars Medical Center in Miami, which the company no longer owns, and the Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point. In some cases, the doctors made misleading statements in medical records that made it appear the procedures were necessary, according to internal reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/b...dubious-cardiac-work.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Congressional Budget Office has called the evidence of defensive medicine “not conclusive,” and summarized, “On the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small.”i Researchers at Dartmouth College echoed these conclusions, saying, “The fact that we see very little evidence of widespread physician exodus or dramatic increases in the use of defensive medicine in response to increases in state malpractice premiums places the more dire predictions of malpractice alarmists in doubt.”ii

(snip)

The GAO has also found that doctors may actually practice “defensively” because it generates more income. They identified “revenue-enhancing motives” as one of the real reasons behind the utilization of extra diagnostic tests and procedures.vi In Florida, health authorities determined diagnostic-imaging centers and clinical labs were ordering additional tests because the majority were physician-owned and the tests provided a lucrative stream of income. Federal law now prohibits the referral of Medicare patients to certain physician-owned facilities, many of which charge double the amount in lab fees.vii As Mello and colleagues commented, “In medicine practiced as a business, defensive medicine is understood and may even be profitable.”viii

The Truth About


ANd this is with laws in place to limit such things. It was even a larger problem in the past.
 
The doctor-owned laboratories performed almost twice as many tests for each patient as other laboratories, at an average cost of $43 per patient compared with $20. Doctor-owned physical therapy centers typically scheduled more visits per patient but employed fewer licensed therapists.

HEADLINERS - When Doctors Own Their Own Labs - NYTimes.com

HCA, the largest for-profit hospital chain in the United States with 163 facilities, had uncovered evidence as far back as 2002 and as recently as late 2010 showing that some cardiologists at several of its hospitals in Florida were unable to justify many of the procedures they were performing. Those hospitals included the Cedars Medical Center in Miami, which the company no longer owns, and the Regional Medical Center Bayonet Point. In some cases, the doctors made misleading statements in medical records that made it appear the procedures were necessary, according to internal reports.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/b...dubious-cardiac-work.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The Congressional Budget Office has called the evidence of defensive medicine “not conclusive,” and summarized, “On the basis of existing studies and its own research, CBO believes that savings from reducing defensive medicine would be very small.”i Researchers at Dartmouth College echoed these conclusions, saying, “The fact that we see very little evidence of widespread physician exodus or dramatic increases in the use of defensive medicine in response to increases in state malpractice premiums places the more dire predictions of malpractice alarmists in doubt.”ii

(snip)

The GAO has also found that doctors may actually practice “defensively” because it generates more income. They identified “revenue-enhancing motives” as one of the real reasons behind the utilization of extra diagnostic tests and procedures.vi In Florida, health authorities determined diagnostic-imaging centers and clinical labs were ordering additional tests because the majority were physician-owned and the tests provided a lucrative stream of income. Federal law now prohibits the referral of Medicare patients to certain physician-owned facilities, many of which charge double the amount in lab fees.vii As Mello and colleagues commented, “In medicine practiced as a business, defensive medicine is understood and may even be profitable.”viii

The Truth About


ANd this is with laws in place to limit such things. It was even a larger problem in the past.

Who was paying for these procedures? Were they not covered by insurance of some sort?
 
Back
Top Bottom