Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

  1. #11
    Always gets his shnook!

    Checkerboard Strangler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    25,729
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    The problem is..no one wants to pay for preventative medicine... no one wants to pay you to prevent a problem.. and its hard to track the value.

    Lots of lip service to preventative medicine... but the actual practice and payment for it? Not likely.
    This isn't just about preventative medicine. If your son is born with five major heart defects, preventative medicine and a good diet won't redesign his defective ticker. Good God, people.
    Quote Originally Posted by aociswundumho View Post
    I wouldn't know, I'm not a big Trump fan. I did vote for him, and I'll vote for him again in 2020.

  2. #12
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,350

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    The problem is..no one wants to pay for preventative medicine... no one wants to pay you to prevent a problem.. and its hard to track the value.

    Lots of lip service to preventative medicine... but the actual practice and payment for it? Not likely.
    Jaeger, I posted this within another internet group's forum. Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. ďan ounce of preventionĒ): Iím a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything thatís effectively a co-payment for whatís a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patientís condition.

    Iím also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nationís medical policies, this policy would improve our nationís economic and social condition.
    The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical providerís grievous failure. An insurance organization directly or indirectly causing or worsening the condition of who was then their client, that eventually caused or increased the amount of the catastrophic medical expense would be the insurerís failure.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,953

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm Supposn View Post
    Jaeger, I posted this within another internet group's forum. Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. “an ounce of prevention”): I’m a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything that’s effectively a co-payment for what’s a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patient’s condition.

    Respectfully, Supposn
    I agree. I think insurance should provide 5 visits a year without copays.

    I’m also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents
    Bad idea.

    The federal government could recover any payments made on behalf of a patient that were due to an insurer or the medical provider’s grievous failure.
    bad idea.. particularly on the part of the providers. We already bear a higher cost in this country due to defensive medicine.
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

  4. #14
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,350

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    I agree. I think insurance should provide 5 visits a year without copays.

    [federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents] Bad idea.

    bad idea.. particularly on the part of the providers. We already bear a higher cost in this country due to defensive medicine.
    Jaeger19, "preventive medicine" is the very best "defensive medicine".
    Why are you opposed to federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents?
    Respectfully Supposn
    ////////////////////////

    Transcript of a post within another internet group.

    Originally Posted by Supposn:
    Regarding preventive medicine; (i.e. ďan ounce of preventionĒ): Iím a proponent of insurance plans not charging anything thatís effectively a co-payment for whatís a reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to the patientís condition.
    Iím also a proponent of federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nationís medical policies, this policy would improve our nationís economic and social condition. ...

    Originally Posted by Into the Night:
    ...WRONG. That money from the federal government is NOT free. YOU pay for it, whether through federal taxation, through the costs of federal regulations, and through the devalued dollar from the federal government printing too many of them. ...

    Response by Supposn: Into the Night, you're correct, we all currently pay for catastrophic medical expenditures that occur in the USA.

    To the extent those catastrophic costs are covered by insurance, they're passed on to those purchasing the insurance which increases prices to consumers, and/or employers, and/or unions, and/or non-profit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
    To the extent those price increases don't recover the additional cost, the deficiency remains with the insurers, that are profit or nonprofit organizations such as schools, charities, or governments.
    Who or whatever entities eventually pay those catastrophic costs are taxpayers or government agencies funded by taxpayers. Catastrophic medical costs consequentially reduce governments tax revenues or are direct costs to governments.

    It would be to insurers benefit to insist their clients avail themselves at no additional costs to themselves, for reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic service or procedure applicable to their conditions. If their clients do not comply, they may be charged additional increased fees because they're failing to prevent medical and financial risks. Regardless of whatever is or will be our nationís medical policies, this policy would improve our nationís economic and social condition.

    The additional fees would be passed on to the government and thus absolve the insurers of any responsibility due in such cases to the patients refusing preventive diagnostic and preventive services.
    Respectfully, Supposn

  5. #15
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,953

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Jaeger19, "preventive medicine" is the very best "defensive medicine".
    Why are you opposed to federal catastrophic medical expenses insurance as an entitlement of USA legal insured or uninsured residents?
    Respectfully Supposn

    Well.. if you are saying that providers can be sued for medical expenses.. above and beyond a civil malpractice lawsuit.. well then.. providers are going to do more defensive medicine.


    Defensive medicine is when you order unnecessary tests.. because the patients thinks they need them.. and so on and you want to avoid that accusation that you did not do all you could for them.
    Defensive medicine is conservatively estimated to cost the US healthcare about 46billion a year.
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

  6. #16
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,350

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Well.. if you are saying that providers can be sued for medical expenses.. above and beyond a civil malpractice lawsuit.. well then.. providers are going to do more defensive medicine.
    Defensive medicine is when you order unnecessary tests because patients may think they need them.. and so on and you want to avoid that accusation that you did not do all you could for them.
    Defensive medicine is conservatively estimated to cost the US healthcare about 46billion a year.
    Jaeger19, unnecessary tests and procedures are excessive or exaggerated medical practices.
    Reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic screening services or procedures applicable to the patients' conditions are prudent defensive medical practices.

    Reread post #14. Respectfully, Supposn

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,953

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm Supposn View Post
    Jaeger19, unnecessary tests and procedures are excessive or exaggerated medical practices.
    Reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic screening services or procedures applicable to the patients' conditions are prudent defensive medical practices.

    Reread post #14. Respectfully, Supposn
    Umm no.. defensive medicine is when you order unnecessary tests and procedures in order to avoid litigation or deal with patients etc. .. that would accuse you of not doing all you could for them.

    That's what defensive medicine is.

    You can make up all the definitions you want.. but I just stated what defensive medicine is.
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

  8. #18
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,350

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    Umm no.. defensive medicine is when you order unnecessary tests and procedures in order to avoid litigation or deal with patients etc. .. that would accuse you of not doing all you could for them.

    That's what defensive medicine is.
    You can make up all the definitions you want.. but I just stated what defensive medicine is.
    Jaeger19, because prudent, reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic screening services or procedures applicable to the patients' conditions are not an absolute necessity, you consider them as entirely unnecessary? Please reconsider what you're contending.

    For an insurer to be found financially liable, the insurance administrative policy would:
    (1) Directly or indirectly CAUSED healthcare providers not to have positively offered the patient what's the prudently recommended conventional preventive or diagnostic screening cost-free services or procedures applicable to the specific patients' condition.
    (2) AND lack of those specific services or procedures were contributing factors to the consequential specific actual catastrophic medical costs behalf of the patient; (e.g. if a patient was not offered a free chest X-ray, that could have consequentially contributed to the catastrophic costs of late stages cancer treatments, but would not have consequentially contributed to the catastrophic costs of a heart transplant).
    (3) OR the insurer did not notify the federal government of the healthcare provider's report of the patient's refusing the no-cost recommended preventative services or procedures. Healthcare providers not reporting such refusals to the insurance administrators would be held legally liable for government's costs; not to offer the recommended free services or procedures would be cases of medical malpractice.

    Respectfully, Supposn

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    23,953

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by I'm Supposn View Post
    Jaeger19, because prudent, reasonably conventional preventive or diagnostic screening services or procedures applicable to the patients' conditions are not an absolute necessity, you consider them as entirely unnecessary? Please reconsider what you're contending.
    Supposn.. that is the most absurd statement I have seen you make. HOW you can make that statement about my position is an absolute mystery. Defensive medicine is not providing "prudent and reasonably conventional preventative services"...

    Its providing unnecessary services merely to avoid litigation and angry patients.

    (1) Directly or indirectly CAUSED healthcare providers not to have positively offered the patient what's the prudently recommended conventional preventive or diagnostic screening cost-free services or procedures applicable to the specific patients' condition.
    So they have to provide all screening and preventative services as cost free? Notice you put cost free services.

    Secondly.. providers already have a legal obligation to offer prudent services to a patient regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. Its then up to the person do decide whether they want to pay or not.

    Sir.. you are not arguing anything that remotely resembles healthcare.
    So we should put you down as supporting putting GPS trackers in everyone to "save lives"?
    Vegas Giants: "Sounds fantastic!"

  10. #20
    Professor

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:38 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,350

    Re: Darwinism relative to healthcare:

    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    ... Its providing unnecessary services merely to avoid litigation and angry patients.

    So they have to provide all screening and preventative services as cost-free? Notice you put cost-free services.

    Secondly.. providers already have a legal obligation to offer prudent services to a patient regardless of their insurance or ability to pay. Its then up to the person do decide whether they want to pay or not.

    Sir.. you are not arguing anything that remotely resembles healthcare.
    Jaeger19, many medical insurance policies currently waive certain medical preventive or screening procedures from being subject to the individual insurance contract's annual deductible clause which absolves the insurer from covering a finite threshold of the patient's annual medical expenses on the patients behalf.

    [I suspect that it may be due to the Affordable Care Act, (ACA). This is a desirable policy from both the nation's economic a social well being.
    The logic is that of a ďstitch in timeĒ. There are many medical procedures and tests and procedures recommended for patients with specified physical conditions or symptoms that are considered to be cost-effective; (they eventually in aggregate reduce those patients lifetime medical costs and sufferings or increase life expectancy.]

    I believe that's good public policy and if it requires government subsidy of medical insurance plans to further expand the policy and eliminate any co-payments due to those costs, that would be federal revenue well spent. The government should subsidize all (government or non-government) qualifying insurance contracts that have those provisions.

    Respectfully, Supposn

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •