billvon 2,994
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote>What's the best beer? "Free" beer.
?? If you insist. By all means, drink whatever beer you like. But I know a great many people who a) disagree, and b) are willing to spend money to get beer they like.
I was a bartender for a lot of years. 100% guaranteed, without a doubt, people will drink free piss over paying for decent beer.
If only we had an example involving free healthcare....
--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.
pirana 0
QuoteSo if 1/2 way thru the year they have had so many claims they are out of money are you going to agree to a mid year rate hike of 200%?
That is why they must mainyain reserves. Depends on the state, but usually something like 3 or 4 months forecasted claims payments. Certain groups are regularly lobbying to operate without reserves, as sort of a co-op. This is almost always denied due to the past history of them going belly up and the government having to bail them out, almost always with the assistance of existing carriers and their reserves.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
pirana 0
QuoteThese kind of entities exist outside of the US and seem to work pretty well.
/Martin
They exist inside the US. Depends on the state. Some mandate that to operate within their borders a company must be not-for-profit. They still face the same problem as any health care financing entity - the amount being financed has been growing way too fast for way too long.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
pirana 0
QuoteNo. It'd be a better use of my time to put together legislation directing $10 million to me per year.
That would make you an employee of Halliburton, or Bechtel, or . . .
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
pirana 0
QuoteWhat's the best beer? "Free" beer.
I'll pay fair market price for good beer rather than drink free shitty beer. Price is important, but it isn't everything.
" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley
mnealtx 0
Quote?? You have described several times how much government provided health care will suck. Why would people choose something that sucks over something that is well-run, efficient and cost effective?
Dunno - even after the sterling examples of such government-run programs as Medicaid and Section 8 housing, people still believe Hopey-Changey when he starts his healthcare spiel.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Let's see -
Nuclear reactors
Nuclear weapons
The X-1 and X-15 aircraft
The space shuttle
The Apollo project
The Internet
Good examples, bill. My statement was too sweeping in its context.
We are all engines of karma
Quote
So I just think you're going to have to try again if you want to really go down that path.
You're right, quade. My statement was far too sweeping in its context.
We are all engines of karma
Darius11 12
QuoteA not-for-profit organization doesn't return its margins to investors, it reinvests them in the business
The business is providing health care and I don’t see why they could not have a balance check at the end of the year. Keep money needed for the budget and return the additional funds. There is nothing to reinvest in other then growth.
QuoteThey require capital investments and upgrades (physical plant and information technology, among other things). How's that gonna work?
Non-profit companies are allowed to use the money for salaries and all business expenses to keep it runing.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain
Lucky... 0
QuoteThat's not to say that I think capitalism is perfect, it is not. But, it has been a major engine of innovation all over the planet, and has greatly increased alot of people's standard of living, including those who didn't take the risk that such standard of living increases typically entail (i.e., the "workers").
Really? Wow, I consider #92 not so good.
http://skeptically.org/economics/id21.html
QuoteI think the changes we need to see in capitalism in America have more to do with corporate governance rather than federal governance.
Agreed, but since corporations run the country, politicians are affraid to buck them.
QuoteFederal governance does _NOT_ create wealth, nor does it _IMPROVE_ overall quality of life, and it most certainly does _NOT_ generate the innovation that capitalism has allowed to happen.
Well_it_does_balance_the_scales_a_little_bit. So the quality of life win't be better after HC reform? Going to the doctor is overrated. Capitalism has "allowed" teh innovation of all kinds of scams. American Capitalism is a giant ponzi scheme.
rushmc 23
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-healthcare-canada27-2009sep27,0,5111855.story
Quotelatimes.com
In Canada, a move toward a private healthcare option
In British Columbia, private clinics and surgical centers are capitalizing on patients who might otherwise pay for faster treatment in the U.S. The courts will consider their legality next month.
By Kim Murphy
September 27, 2009
Reporting from Vancouver, Canada
When the pain in Christina Woodkey's legs became so severe that she could no long hike or cross-country ski, she went to her local health clinic. The Calgary, Canada, resident was told she'd need to see a hip specialist. Because the problem was not life-threatening, however, she'd have to wait about a year.
So wait she did.
In January, the hip doctor told her that a narrowing of the spine was compressing her nerves and causing the pain. She needed a back specialist. The appointment was set for Sept. 30. "When I was given that date, I asked when could I expect to have surgery," said Woodkey, 72. "They said it would be a year and a half after I had seen this doctor."
So this month, she drove across the border into Montana and got the $50,000 surgery done in two days.
"I don't have insurance. We're not allowed to have private health insurance in Canada," Woodkey said. "It's not going to be easy to come up with the money. But I'm happy to say the pain is almost all gone."
Whereas U.S. healthcare is predominantly a private system paid for by private insurers, things in Canada tend toward the other end of the spectrum: A universal, government-funded health system is only beginning to flirt with private-sector medicine.
Hoping to capitalize on patients who might otherwise go to the U.S. for speedier care, a network of technically illegal private clinics and surgical centers has sprung up in British Columbia, echoing a trend in Quebec. In October, the courts will be asked to decide whether the budding system should be sanctioned.
More than 70 private health providers in British Columbia now schedule simple surgeries and tests such as MRIs with waits as short as a week or two, compared with the months it takes for a public surgical suite to become available for nonessential operations.
"What we have in Canada is access to a government, state-mandated wait list," said Brian Day, a former Canadian Medical Assn. director who runs a private surgical center in Vancouver. "You cannot force a citizen in a free and democratic society to simply wait for healthcare, and outlaw their ability to extricate themselves from a wait list."
Yet the move into privatized care threatens to make the delays -- already long from the perennial shortage of doctors and rationing of facilities -- even longer, public healthcare advocates say. There will be fewer skilled healthcare workers in government hospitals as doctors and nurses are lured into better-paying private jobs, they say.
"What it means is that people who have no money, who are chronically ill, disabled, who require medical attention frequently, are going to suffer dramatically," said Leslie Dickout of the B.C. Health Coalition, which is involved in the lawsuit to determine whether the Canadian Constitution guarantees citizens the right to choose their own care.
"There's so much money to be made by the insurance industry," she said. "If this [legal] case succeeds, what we would have is a system of U.S.-style healthcare -- along with a public system that is decimated."
Indeed, an investment group backed by Arizona businessman Melvin J. Howard this year filed a $160-million challenge under the North American Free Trade Agreement, demanding that U.S. healthcare companies gain access into Canada. The consortium hopes to build Canada's largest private health center in Vancouver, offering orthopedics, plastic surgery, general surgery and other services.
In many ways, the prospect of private investment is alluring in British Columbia, where the provincial government, like those all across Canada, funds the healthcare system. Provincial officials recently announced a $360-million shortfall in the $15.7-billion healthcare budget for the fiscal year that ends in March.
The shortage will mean fewer surgeries and longer waits.
The Vancouver Island Health Authority has said it would reduce the number of nonemergency MRIs by 20%; nonemergency patients now are being booked for scans in March.
Vancouver Coastal Health, which serves a quarter of the province's population, said it would eliminate 450 elective surgeries, about 30% of the schedule, during the four weeks of the 2010 Winter Olympics.
And in the rapidly growing suburbs east of Vancouver, the Fraser Health Authority plans to close its spending gap by, among other things, holding the number of MRIs to last year's total, ending $550,000 in service programs for senior citizens and reducing elective surgeries by about 14%.
The authorities also are making administrative cost cuts and looking to pool resources for things like computers and laboratories.
"We need to be crystal-clear. . . . I'm not denying anybody access here to urgent or acute or immediate care," Nigel Murray, the Fraser authority's chief executive, said in an interview. "If our surgeons feel people need access to urgent care, they get it."
The Canadian government has invested a large amount of money nationwide in a successful effort to reduce wait times, especially for life-threatening conditions such as cardiac disease and tumors, and for procedures such as knee replacements and cataract surgery.
Under Canada's system, most doctors run private practices but are paid uniform rates by a government-funded network. (Many Canadians have private or employer-paid insurance that covers things such as dental and eye care, which are not part of the larger plan.)
Murray, a proponent of the system, acknowledged that the growing number of private clinics and public-private partnership hospitals could strengthen government healthcare.
"You can lose staff to the private systems. . . . But the other side of the coin is that you may be keeping nurses in your communities by providing other employment options for them, so that you're adding to the pool of overall healthcare professionals," Murray said. "Additionally, the private system can take some of the strain off the public system."
The heart of the legal case is the 1984 Canada Health Act, which established the framework for the national insurance system known as Medicare. It outlawed most private insurance for essential healthcare and provided the vast majority of Canadians with free medical services.
Canada spends about $172 billion a year on healthcare, which is one reason the nation's taxes are higher than those in the U.S. (Canadians pay about 33% of the gross domestic product in taxes, compared with 28% in the U.S.) British Columbia is the only province that still charges residents an extra health premium of $54 a month, subsidized for those who can't afford it.
The first foot in the door for private medicine came in 2005, when the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the laws in Quebec that banned private insurance. The court found that having people die while on wait lists violated the province's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The ruling does not apply outside the province, because only a minority on the court found that the laws also violated Canada's basic human rights charter.
The case to throw out the law in British Columbia was launched when authorities attempted to audit some clinics that were collecting government payments for surgeries in addition to fees they charged patients for the use of their private operating rooms and nursing staff.
Day's Cambie Surgery Center refused to open its books and filed suit along with other private clinic operators, saying citizens deserved a choice.
"In Canada, the rights of the individual patient are trumped by the welfare of the system," said Richard Baker, who runs a Vancouver-based consulting group that helps patients find quick access to care in private clinics or in the U.S.
"We have patients come from all over Canada, because B.C. has the most liberal rules on private surgical centers, other than Quebec," he said. "They complain, 'They're all jumping the queue!' Well, it's not jumping the queue at all. It's leaving the queue."
In fact, the British Columbian government has been slow to crack down on private clinics. Health Minister Kevin Falcon told the Vancouver Sun newspaper in June: "I don't have an objection to people using their own money to buy private services, just as they do with dentists, just as they do with . . . sending their kids to private school or what have you. I think choice is a good thing, actually."
The outcome of the legal case, most analysts say, probably will determine the future of private healthcare in Canada.
Not all Canadian doctors have flocked to the defense of private clinics; many see the public health system, for all its strains, as a gem that ought to be protected from the out-of-control expenditures and huge inequities that are part of the U.S. healthcare system.
"We can and need to improve [healthcare]. . . . But it's always going to be more effective, and it's certainly going to be more equitable, if it's done within the public system," said Robert Woollard, a longtime family practitioner and member of Canadian Doctors for Medicare, which has applied to join the lawsuit in British Columbia. Woollard said the public system has the nimbleness to provide speedy, quality care to those who truly need it.
"Just six or eight weeks ago, I had a patient come in who needed urgent attention to her knee. She was in severe pain," he said. "She was seen by a [reviewing] team within a week, and she was slated for surgery that will probably happen in the next two to three months."
kim.murphy@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
?? If you insist. By all means, drink whatever beer you like. But I know a great many people who a) disagree, and b) are willing to spend money to get beer they like.
>A program is being proposed that will require me to pay into it whether I
>want it or not.
Correct. This will replace another program that requires you to pay into it whether you want it or not.
>When "choice" means "no choice."
You have come up with that definition, but to most people, "more choices" equals "more choice" not "no choice."
>So Darius's non-profit suggestion? It is done often.
?? Can you list some people who invest in nonprofits in hope of making a profit? They may well exist, but it would be a surprising thing to invest in.
>If these folks were truly altruistic they would have no problem starting it.
Who are "these folks?"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites