Know this, the company that refused her CAT scan was Aetna. Let's just hope your family doesn;t need anything that is " non textbook" We fought with them moreso than most companies on getting necessary procedeures authorized. That is who I was referring to as being " poor".
Which is why I said if I needed some other type of treatment, I'd simply switchover to Bluecross/Blue shield. If my family needed something more than non-textbook that they have the right to deny me, meh.. so be it. As long as they are not denying me on illegal grounds there is nothing I can do about that. That's called life.
I already know the typical HMO limits specialist visits mainly by doctor's referral, which is why I'd go with a more liberal plan like Blue Cross when open enrollment was available. Ex-state cops from NJ have GOOD health insurance, but thanks for your concern.
He is planning on changing their guidelines yes, but making them more strict, not better care. Did you not hear what the man said? The guidelines will allow for more age groups but less treatment. I do noit see this as an improvement.
You are incorrect in the fact that she would have been covered for the test under Obama, no his guidelines would prohibit that because she had few symptoms and was in the " prime of her life" age group.
It is the guidelines that IADMD is also fighting to change, because they are costing lives not saving them. Our propsals are for the people, his propsals are for government control. Our propsals will save lives, whereas his will result in more loss of life. Our proposals do not put the burden on the tax payers, his do. could you explain exactly how his propsals are better than ours?
No offense, but with as many links as you have provided earlier, I would like to see this link that says she wouldn't have met the criteria. Otherwise its scare tactics and fearful opinion. Show me where this mother wouldn't have gotten a CATscan under Obama's plan or just stop making false accusations.
LINK?! I dealt with insurance companies and medicaid approval evry day for 5 years. This is not "public online information" I do not read about this, I had to deal with this first hand.this is what they are actually doing. You want to confirm? call any doctors office who accepts medicaid and aetna, and ask them how many denials of service they have recieved over the last 2 weeks, and you will hear it from them. That is just the way it works. EVERYONE who has had to deal with the billing department at all has had to deal with this nonsense. He told us that he wishes to make further restrictions in this area verbally on the campaign trail.
IF you call in the approval and they deny, you then have to fill out a form on why they need to have this test and send it in. First they send the doctors office a notice saying they refuse to pay for the procedure, then they require the doctor to give a verbal approval of why this procedure needs to be done, then they send back another reason they denied it, and it goes on and on. This is what I dealt with and I wasn;t even in the billing department I was having people hand me the stupid phone in between patients, or even walking into the exam room and hand me the phone so I could yell at them .
This is the reality of those guidelines in action. listen to the man himself:
And yes, during his campaign there was so much more, but this was the only one I have bothered taking the time to look up again.
The insurance companies go hand in hand with doctors. They go hand in hand with medical and pharacuetical drug companies. All of these interests have been sending free samples, trips, gifts, medical scanners and equipment over the years to help keep the system as it is. Doctors and nurses have benefitted greatly from this patronage.
They do not, they try to limit what the doctors are allowed to do. I know this, I have yelled at them enough to know better than that. Insurance companies have nothing to do with free samples, that is soley due to pharamcuetical companies and is another rant I am not going to get into right now. You are off base in that entire assessment.
You are a part of that system. Your interests are in-league with them. You first say things like "no free anything" then are proven wrong. You now put up an example which is quickly shown as a reason FOR government control, and less private payer insurances where consumers get gipped and now I'm incorrect.
Doctors interests are to treat the patients, insurance companies interests are to keep costs low enough that they turn a profit at all costs, including the lives of their insured. You are incorrect here as well. I strongly oppose the insurance company lobbyists.
So apparently your last tactic is to throw a blanket statement saying Obama's plan wouldn't cover a poor mom's CATscan either. This is getting beyond shameful. Show where there is "less care" under Obama's plan. Don't just throw up a link either.. put in a quote. If you want to link, excerpt the germaine part. I really don't want to wallow through pages of a text just because you say that somewhere in there, is a needle.
This is not beyond shameful, it is the truth. He wants to be able to decide who needs to be in the hospital and who doesn;t using the standard treatment guidelines that are already causing deaths. Listen to the man, read what he is actually proposing and compare it to our plan. You will see big differences. We started this plan years ago to combat this problem he threw his together by the seat of his pants.
Your organization seems to be, at least on the surface without deeper investigation, wanting tax breaks as the main sticking point. I do believe it has an interest in helping people but the main focus seems to be about getting tax breaks:
Why does the IRS allow...
...big business insurance companies to profit uncontrollably
and win their demanded Equal Price Breaks?
This is not only unfair; it’s an insult to all patients!
What lies in the doctors' powers to do,
seems to lie in the insurers' power not to do!
This unfair equal treatment demand causes financial strain and
detriment to all doctors and their patients.
--------------------------------------------
Why does IRS say,
"Yes" to tax credits for donating a C-a-r,
and
"No" to any tax credit for donating C-a-r-e?
With Big Business benefiting from tax breaks,
yet disallowing tax breaks for doctors,
it seems what lies in the doctors' powers to donate,
happens to lie in the government's power not to allow doctors to provide.
Health care reform begins with recognizing this inequality!
I don't think your organization ultimately will be any better longterm than the insurance company/pharmacuetical/medical company love fest we have going on now.
I vote real government healthcare for citizens with private companies doing their own thing, with NO huge tax breaks.
Our organization will use those tax breaks to provide the care ourselves rather than bringing in more government regulation. We already treat these people as it is, you would not be denied no matter what if you came to any of our clinics, offices or hospitals. We have already been doing this, and want to be able to do it better. All you are voting for is textbook healthcare, overregulation and less funding for any non textbook cases. You should spend more time at a free clinic to see what is really going on, and ask the people there what they really need in order to solve the problems. I already know that is what I do.
Our organization will use those tax breaks to provide the care ourselves rather than bringing in more government regulation. We already treat these people as it is, you would not be denied no matter what if you came to any of our clinics, offices or hospitals. We have already been doing this, and want to be able to do it better. All you are voting for is textbook healthcare, overregulation and less funding for any non textbook cases. You should spend more time at a free clinic to see what is really going on, and ask the people there what they really need in order to solve the problems. I already know that is what I do.
And what if your organization decided at certain times to not provide certain things or opt for cheaper methods just like the insurance companies, but STILL received your brand, new tax breaks? Nothing. Nothing would happen because many of those doctors in the "for profit" operation would be legally able to determine course of care and amount to pay for that care. Bascially, your organization's arguments boil down to "Hey, you can trust us to do the right thing with the money. After all... we're doctors!"
Sure you treat some people as it is, but there's nothing saying you HAVE to give them that high cost care you were talking about. You can keep a clinic running, get the breaks, then still decide not to send that mother for the scan. After all, it's just a clinic.
Yes, I want textbook healthcare. I have been saying this over and over and over and I'm glad you finally got it. I want plain, basic and decent healthcare for ALL United States citizens.. that's it. I don't want Beverly Hills General for everyone like you are advocating it seems. Free clinics needs BASICS, not extravagant things. The average person just wants basics when they don't have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of.
I just don't believe that if a doctor had to pay for a CATscan, he'd be any more happy to shell out that money than an insurance company.
One finer point lost in your arguing for tax breaks.. If there is FREE National healthcare.... WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY NEED FOR CLINICS???
Our organization will use those tax breaks to provide the care ourselves rather than bringing in more government regulation. We already treat these people as it is, you would not be denied no matter what if you came to any of our clinics, offices or hospitals. We have already been doing this, and want to be able to do it better. All you are voting for is textbook healthcare, overregulation and less funding for any non textbook cases. You should spend more time at a free clinic to see what is really going on, and ask the people there what they really need in order to solve the problems. I already know that is what I do.
And what if your organization decided at certain times to not provide certain things or opt for cheaper methods just like the insurance companies, but STILL received your brand, new tax breaks? Nothing. Nothing would happen because many of those doctors in the "for profit" operation would be legally able to determine course of care and amount to pay for that care. Bascially, your organization's arguments boil down to "Hey, you can trust us to do the right thing with the money. After all... we're doctors!"
Our loyalties are not to politicians, profit, or any other organziation. Our loyalties are to our Hippocratic Oath to save lives. To protect the best interest of the public, these unbiased doctors would be chosen by the organization, by their peers. Not by personal interest groups. Doctors who are concerned about profits are not the ones that are giving the free care, this organization is made up of doctors who only give free care. There is a difference.
Sure you treat some people as it is, but there's nothing saying you HAVE to give them that high cost care you were talking about. You can keep a clinic running, get the breaks, then still decide not to send that mother for the scan. After all, it's just a clinic.
Yes, there is. It is our Hippocratic Oath to give them the best treatment we can. We are sworn to do so. Now we have created an organization to allow us to get together to monitor this. It is actually the doctors that are concerned about their profits that are more supportive of the universal plan because they are more upset about not getting paid to treat people moreso than they are concerned about just treating the patients themselves. Putting these unbiased doctors on these boards will ensure the quality of care that we wish to provide.
Yes, I want textbook healthcare. I have been saying this over and over and over and I'm glad you finally got it. I want plain, basic and decent healthcare for ALL United States citizens.. that's it. I don't want Beverly Hills General for everyone like you are advocating it seems. Free clinics needs BASICS, not extravagant things. The average person just wants basics when they don't have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of.
Textbook care does not allow for abnormal symptoms, rare diseases, and most of the natural deaths caused in children and young adults. There would be little or no options for them. That is the result of your " textbook " care. Where does my sister with ITP fit in when she came down with it at the age of 19? That is unhread of and does not qualify for testing under your "textbook" guidelines. Medicine does not work that way. I am not referring to " luxuries" I could care less about those, those should not be covered period. What I am speaking of is not luxuries, but the right to live regardless of how "untextbook" your symptoms may be. My sister's antibodies turned against her platlets in her blood and started destroying them/ It would have killed her if we had not paid out of pocket to have her treated. IS that extravagant? Is wanting to live extravagant? under the standard guidelines, yes.
I just don't believe that if a doctor had to pay for a CATscan, he'd be any more happy to shell out that money than an insurance company.
You don;t know the doctors I do, go to the free clinic, I am sure you will find some there. That is where your heros are.
One finer point lost in your arguing for tax breaks.. If there is FREE National healthcare.... WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY NEED FOR CLINICS???
/game over.
With national healthcare, as proposed at this time, There is already a shortage of doctors and medical professionals in this country, this will only increase. With our propsals ,we aim to make our profession more desireable to those that might consider it. If you think that waiting to see a doctor as it is is bad, just wait until after this is implemented. Our volunteers at these clinics take much of that weight off of the local hospitals and offices.
Originally posted by deviliscious Know this, the company that refused her CAT scan was Aetna. Let's just hope your family doesn;t need anything that is " non textbook" We fought with them moreso than most companies on getting necessary procedeures authorized. That is who I was referring to as being " poor".
Ugh. I am under Aetna. You are right, anything non-textbook is troublesome. I have Keratoconus. I'm trying to get them to cover my visits to an ocular specialist. Very difficult.
Originally posted by deviliscious Know this, the company that refused her CAT scan was Aetna. Let's just hope your family doesn;t need anything that is " non textbook" We fought with them moreso than most companies on getting necessary procedeures authorized. That is who I was referring to as being " poor".
Ugh. I am under Aetna. You are right, anything non-textbook is troublesome. I have Keratoconus. I'm trying to get them to cover my visits to an ocular specialist. Very difficult.
yea, with dealing with Aetna, I had to make sure I got the persons name and ID number of who I was speaking with, informed them the call was being recorded and would be sending a copy to my attorney as well as let them know that I would be referring my patient to my attorney and providing full disclosure to the patient as well as the media. I made sure they understood that not only would we be holding them personally accountable, but their company as well to get get anything approved. I had to get pretty viscious to get our patients treated.
I ran a pediatrics clinic, I was not about to have these kids lives in jeopardy over the red tape, so I made sure I did everything in my power to get them the treatment they needed, and fought anyone I had to to get it done quickly. ( that was why they were always chasing me down with the phone, no matter whose patient it was) lol.
Yea they were that bad , even when dealing with childrens lives, it is really sad. Most doctors do not have time to do that at all, and the claims just get left denied, you really have to get mean and fight with them to get things approved in a timely manner, and it shouldn;t be that way.
yea, with dealing with Aetna, I had to make sure I got the persons name and ID number of who I was speaking with, informed them the call was being recorded and would be sending a copy to my attorney as well as let them know that I would be referring my patient to my attorney and providing full disclosure to the patient as well as the media. I made sure they understood that not only would we be holding them personally accountable, but their company as well to get get anything approved. I had to get pretty viscious to get our patients treated. I ran a pediatrics clinic, I was not about to have these kids lives in jeopardy over the red tape, so I made sure I did everything in my power to get them the treatment they needed, and fought anyone I had to to get it done quickly. ( that was why they were always chasing me down with the phone, no matter whose patient it was) lol. Yea they were that bad , even when dealing with childrens lives, it is really sad. Most doctors do not have time to do that at all, and the claims just get left denied, you really have to get mean and fight with them to get things approved in a timely manner, and it shouldn;t be that way.
Originally posted by deviliscious
With national healthcare, as proposed at this time, There is already a shortage of doctors and medical professionals in this country, this will only increase.
Shame about your sister. Sorry to hear that.
One thing you and Dekron have to keep in mind, is that all Aetna plans are not the same. I'm assuming he works for a private employer who has one type of Aetna plan in one state, while I worked for a governmental state agency who was able to provide a different type of Aetna coverage. The FOP was able to help negotiate benefits as a large employee sector which I and my family enjoy until my kids turn 23 or 24 years old (if they don't get married). Right now, they are under 10 years old. The State of NJ buys in bulk. Dekron may work for a private company who's employee rolls are only 50 people and cannot afford to pay huge group insurance rates. One plan does not mean the other plan is exactly the same regarding coverage. I was also able to get AFLAC through our union.
As you pointed out above, that was as proposed. There is no reason to believe that Obama's healthcare plan will be implemented exactly the same as proposed. It may be less, worse, or equally swapped ideas. We should at least wait and see what everything is before saying Nyet to universal healthcare. It's like salaries. My salary for what I did in my state as opposed to a state like Georgia; same job, same conditions.. I made on average 30k more than they did, without overtime. Even Pennsylvania guys doing the same job I did a state away, made considerably less. California and one or two other states were the only other ones topping our pay rate for public service.
One thing I definitely feel, and I think you would too, is that the plans, policies and laws should be made to benefit the MAJORITY of Americans. That is, anything that helps all of us is better than something that helps only some of us. Universal healthcare will NOT cover every single rare, first discovered, once in a lifetime diseases that only a teeny tiny portion of the population gets. There is just no way the system can account for that.. any system public OR private. While I would sympathize with those people only so much can be done. It's patently unfair to hold the nation hostage because a proposed plan will cover 97% of the population but the 3% who have rare maladies arent'.
Progress dictates its prudent to go forward with what helps everyone. Rich people will NOT benefit from universal healthcare. That is a given. They already get the best treatment available as is. Rare condition folks will NOT benefit from universal healthcare by and large. It's just too cost prohibitive to try and keep something like only a head alive in a jar, if you know what I mean. I don't see the need to spend 1 million dollars in surgeries, care and equipment to return someone to only in the best circumstance, a barely functioning member of society. But the vast majority of Americans who are relatively healthy but cannot afford healthcare because their wages aren't high enough will benefit. And it is for these people the law must pass.
yea, with dealing with Aetna, I had to make sure I got the persons name and ID number of who I was speaking with, informed them the call was being recorded and would be sending a copy to my attorney as well as let them know that I would be referring my patient to my attorney and providing full disclosure to the patient as well as the media. I made sure they understood that not only would we be holding them personally accountable, but their company as well to get get anything approved. I had to get pretty viscious to get our patients treated.
I ran a pediatrics clinic, I was not about to have these kids lives in jeopardy over the red tape, so I made sure I did everything in my power to get them the treatment they needed, and fought anyone I had to to get it done quickly. ( that was why they were always chasing me down with the phone, no matter whose patient it was) lol.
Yea they were that bad , even when dealing with childrens lives, it is really sad. Most doctors do not have time to do that at all, and the claims just get left denied, you really have to get mean and fight with them to get things approved in a timely manner, and it shouldn;t be that way.
Originally posted by deviliscious
With national healthcare, as proposed at this time, There is already a shortage of doctors and medical professionals in this country, this will only increase.
Shame about your sister. Sorry to hear that.
One thing you and Dekron have to keep in mind, is that all Aetna plans are not the same. I'm assuming he works for a private employer who has one type of Aetna plan in one state, while I worked for a governmental state agency who was able to provide a different type of Aetna coverage. The FOP was able to help negotiate benefits as a large employee sector which I and my family enjoy until my kids turn 23 or 24 years old (if they don't get married). Right now, they are under 10 years old. The State of NJ buys in bulk. Dekron may work for a private company who's employee rolls are only 50 people and cannot afford to pay huge group insurance rates. One plan does not mean the other plan is exactly the same regarding coverage. I was also able to get AFLAC through our union.
As you pointed out above, that was as proposed. There is no reason to believe that Obama's healthcare plan will be implemented exactly the same as proposed. It may be less, worse, or equally swapped ideas. We should at least wait and see what everything is before saying Nyet to universal healthcare. It's like salaries. My salary for what I did in my state as opposed to a state like Georgia; same job, same conditions.. I made on average 30k more than they did, without overtime. Even Pennsylvania guys doing the same job I did a state away, made considerably less. California and one or two other states were the only other ones topping our pay rate for public service.
One thing I definitely feel, and I think you would too, is that the plans, policies and laws should be made to benefit the MAJORITY of Americans. That is, anything that helps all of us is better than something that helps only some of us. Universal healthcare will NOT cover every single rare, first discovered, once in a lifetime diseases that only a teeny tiny portion of the population gets. There is just no way the system can account for that.. any system public OR private. While I would sympathize with those people only so much can be done. It's patently unfair to hold the nation hostage because a proposed plan will cover 97% of the population but the 3% who have rare maladies arent'.
Progress dictates its prudent to go forward with what helps everyone. Rich people will NOT benefit from universal healthcare. That is a given. They already get the best treatment available as is. Rare condition folks will NOT benefit from universal healthcare by and large. It's just too cost prohibitive to try and keep something like only a head alive in a jar, if you know what I mean. I don't see the need to spend 1 million dollars in surgeries, care and equipment to return someone to only in the best circumstance, a barely functioning member of society. But the vast majority of Americans who are relatively healthy but cannot afford healthcare because their wages aren't high enough will benefit. And it is for these people the law must pass.
Our plans will cover everything, no matter how nontextbook it may be, we will do everything in our power to save those lives, because to us, every life is just as important, not just the "majority". IT can be done, it is a matter of getting the politicians to pull their heads out and listen to us, instead of worrying about lining their pocketbooks or the pocketbooks of insurance companies or for profit only doctors. How much did Michelle Obama make at her " not - for profit" hospital? guess what our doctors make for working at the free clinic less than $0, in fact it costs them money to do that, not the other way around. Keep an eye on the organizations that are actually looking out for your best interests, not the ones advertising all over the place telling you they are.
Yes I do. The fed won't have a choice. But my point was that people in my tax bracket already carry 57% of the burden for the Fed and we are a gross minority. The concept is wrong, it isn't what was intended by the founders of our government, and continuing just because it has been done in the past is not reason it is misfortune. And, yes I can see a change. Just the fact that I pay more in taxes than the median household income of nearly two average American families is enough for me to know there is something wrong and that was with Bush's so-called breaks to the "richest Americans". It was wrong in 1913, and it is wrong now. I am not making a pre-emptive veto of only Obama's policy, it is a declaration of wrongful taxation that goes literally back to the Revolution.
I think you're exaggerating heavily about that tax rate.
But even if you weren't, I don't know what you're complaint is about. You are I cannot say what the founders had in mind, we can only go what's written. And what's written is nothing about the tax code. The tax code is something completely different than what people erroneously lump together with the Constitution. Your argument has to do with tax code, not that.
So, lobby for tax code change. Vote for people who say they will change it to your favor. If enough people think like you do, then there will be enough politicians to change the TAX CODE to your liking.
But if the majority of people feel the tax code is okay as it is for the most part, and they don't want politicians to let rich businesses off the hook, allow rich people to hide in offshore and international tax shelters, and stick them with the excess, then we have what we have now.
If you don't like this system, I'm sure Mexico or Nigeria would be more than happy to have your business and citizenship.
Actually, we do know a little about how they felt about taxes. You are right that they fought against taxation without representation, but we also know, from their correspondence, that they felt liberty was intertwined with personal property rights. We also know that they felt that the Federal government should not promote unfair taxation, and I personally infer that to mean that people who are taxed disproportionately was outside of their intent. In fact, there are several documents that show they were against the Federal government being able to tax citizens beyond it's own needs to maintain itself in it's most limited form. They all agreed that the Fed under the Articles of Confederacy was insufficient to maintain a healthy governing body, but they also felt that the Fed should be limited in it's ability to tax.
As far as my exaggeration. I just took a quick look at wikipedia and I thought the median household income was about 38k, when in truth it is 50k, so my paying 64k in personal income taxes in 2008 is a little low for two households.
As far as lobbying for tax code, I do. Personally, I'd lobby for anything that simplified US tax code and made it more equitable. For reference, just a tidbit straight off wikipedia and The Tax Foundation:
1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns
Lastly, I'm sure that my wife and my six hundredish employees would be grateful for your sentiment that we take our two businesses overseas. For the record, all our business and personal money is in the US invested in Americans except where prohibited by either our government or by foriegn governments which require us to contract locally.
Originally posted by popinjay Dekron may work for a private company who's employee rolls are only 50 people and cannot afford to pay huge group insurance rates. One plan does not mean the other plan is exactly the same regarding coverage. I was also able to get AFLAC through our union.
Nope. I work for a college funded by state appropriations. We have around 1,100 employees. Our plan is not horrible at all, I am not saying that, but coverage on such items are difficult to get them to cover. Why? Contract negotiations. When you have such a rare condition as I have, costs would be higher for everyone if what I needed covered as an individual was included.
And, as you said, the same would be from a universal health care. It would not benefit those with such extraordinary conditions. Granted, mine is a very mild condition, but has the chance to go to an extreme. But see, it is not very universal when it does not benefit the whole. A select group would be left out. I'm not "rich", but I am not poor. I would be, I suppose, what you call upper-middle class. If I ever needed to get surgery for such a procedure, it costs roughly $6,000 minimum - and that only covers the costs of the transplant itself.
Now, where is the universality in the national health coverage if I make too much to qualify for such a plan, make too little too pay for it myself, and my insurance would not cover it?
Universal health care covering only specific groups of people while leaving out other groups because of particular disabilities or conditions is simply a practice of eugenics.
Originally posted by popinjay Dekron may work for a private company who's employee rolls are only 50 people and cannot afford to pay huge group insurance rates. One plan does not mean the other plan is exactly the same regarding coverage. I was also able to get AFLAC through our union.
Nope. I work for a college funded by state appropriations. We have around 1,100 employees. Our plan is not horrible at all, I am not saying that, but coverage on such items are difficult to get them to cover. Why? Contract negotiations. When you have such a rare condition as I have, costs would be higher for everyone if what I needed covered as an individual was included.
And, as you said, the same would be from a universal health care. It would not benefit those with such extraordinary conditions. Granted, mine is a very mild condition, but has the chance to go to an extreme. But see, it is not very universal when it does not benefit the whole. A select group would be left out. I'm not "rich", but I am not poor. I would be, I suppose, what you call upper-middle class. If I ever needed to get surgery for such a procedure, it costs roughly $6,000 minimum - and that only covers the costs of the transplant itself.
Now, where is the universality in the national health coverage if I make too much to qualify for such a plan, make too little too pay for it myself, and my insurance would not cover it?
Universal health care covering only specific groups of people while leaving out other groups because of particular disabilities or conditions is simply a practice of eugenics.
That is just the thing .. ANYONE can be excluded at anytime if they develop something that is not covered, or if they need a procedure that is not covered just to live. In the time it takes to "negotiate" the treatment, the patient can die, and the sad thing is it is like the insurance companies hope for just that to happen so they don;t have to fulfill their obligations. The standard treatment for these conditions is usually covered by the insurance company to begin with, just they always try to find a loophole to get out of it and that causes alot of the problem. They will try to find any reason to not cover a claim, regardless of what they tell you when you sign up for their enrollment packages.
Our plans will cover everything, no matter how nontextbook it may be, we will do everything in our power to save those lives, because to us, every life is just as important, not just the "majority". IT can be done, it is a matter of getting the politicians to pull their heads out and listen to us, instead of worrying about lining their pocketbooks or the pocketbooks of insurance companies or for profit only doctors. How much did Michelle Obama make at her " not - for profit" hospital? guess what our doctors make for working at the free clinic less than $0, in fact it costs them money to do that, not the other way around. Keep an eye on the organizations that are actually looking out for your best interests, not the ones advertising all over the place telling you they are.
Slightly related:
How come you don't have your organization in your sig? You're not using one atm but you've mentioned it plenty of times. Might be a good idea to advertise. The site is well designed.
Back on point:
The argument you are using, is the same one the Republicans tried to use with Social Security. "Trust us. Let us control our own money." With the recent busts in all the funds and 401ks, there would have been tons of people out on the street.
I simply do not believe your organization made up of healthcare people will do any better than the government in that, you have a vested interest. You whole goal is trying to make money. You getting cuts on top of the already heavily subsidized cuts for the existing companies would just be TOO much revenue lost for the government. You're still asking to what amounts to "Trust us". I cannot.
If the government converted, then free clinics like yours would be obsolete. They would put you out of business. You wouldn't need donations, or tax credits or anything else. You could actually have more time to focus on patients because you wouldn't have to worry about billing, forms, finding patients, reimbursements.. none of that. You'd be able to do your job. Nursing, doctoring and all things dealing with care. The government would hire you for a fair wage and you would not go broke. If you want to make more money than that, you can still have your own private practice. The U.S. is not saying no one can have private hospitals still.
The difference is, if you want to work in those places, you'd better be good. You can't just pass out aspirins and your feet will be held to the fire. In the government hospitals, you would simply just do your job.
Nope. I work for a college funded by state appropriations. We have around 1,100 employees. Our plan is not horrible at all, I am not saying that, but coverage on such items are difficult to get them to cover. Why? Contract negotiations. When you have such a rare condition as I have, costs would be higher for everyone if what I needed covered as an individual was included. And, as you said, the same would be from a universal health care. It would not benefit those with such extraordinary conditions. Granted, mine is a very mild condition, but has the chance to go to an extreme. But see, it is not very universal when it does not benefit the whole. A select group would be left out. I'm not "rich", but I am not poor. I would be, I suppose, what you call upper-middle class. If I ever needed to get surgery for such a procedure, it costs roughly $6,000 minimum - and that only covers the costs of the transplant itself. Now, where is the universality in the national health coverage if I make too much to qualify for such a plan, make too little too pay for it myself, and my insurance would not cover it? Universal health care covering only specific groups of people while leaving out other groups because of particular disabilities or conditions is simply a practice of eugenics.
Dekron, rare means just that. Rare. There is no way any system should be written to take care of RARE diseases or conditions. Even if I caught something like that, I'd agree that was too much to ask. It's not cost effective. In medicine you want to treat as many people as possible, but you cannot treat everyone. It's impossible. I think you know that. There is no need to hold the whole hostage. Remember what Spock said, "The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few."
I can see a day coming where many exciting things can happen. If you told me in 1976 that out of these things, which one would be first:
Univeral Health care for all citizens.
Solar, nuclear, and hydropower for all energy needs.
Free universal college for all citizens.
A woman president.
Legalization of marijuana.
A black, male president.
The last thing I would have guessed, not the first, would have been a Black President. But here we are.
I can see a day, when my kids dream of being a doctor. They go through high school, college, and medical school practically free of charge. Then when they graduate, they go to the military or peace corps for a few years serving their country/citizens and then go to private/government practice where they work in a government run healthcare system, just taking care of patients and never once having to worry about a payment or malpractice insurance rates through the roof. Any citizen can walk in, get treated and my children can simple treat the next one.
Then one day, they decide to open their own practice and gain a huge following of patients able to pay the sky's the limit rates for top notch care. They would have paid their dues to society and gotten well rewarded in the end, never once having to worry about a loan to pay back.
Our plans will cover everything, no matter how nontextbook it may be, we will do everything in our power to save those lives, because to us, every life is just as important, not just the "majority". IT can be done, it is a matter of getting the politicians to pull their heads out and listen to us, instead of worrying about lining their pocketbooks or the pocketbooks of insurance companies or for profit only doctors. How much did Michelle Obama make at her " not - for profit" hospital? guess what our doctors make for working at the free clinic less than $0, in fact it costs them money to do that, not the other way around. Keep an eye on the organizations that are actually looking out for your best interests, not the ones advertising all over the place telling you they are.
Slightly related:
How come you don't have your organization in your sig? You're not using one atm but you've mentioned it plenty of times. Might be a good idea to advertise. The site is well designed.
Back on point:
The argument you are using, is the same one the Republicans tried to use with Social Security. "Trust us. Let us control our own money." With the recent busts in all the funds and 401ks, there would have been tons of people out on the street.
I simply do not believe your organization made up of healthcare people will do any better than the government in that, you have a vested interest. You whole goal is trying to make money. You getting cuts on top of the already heavily subsidized cuts for the existing companies would just be TOO much revenue lost for the government. You're still asking to what amounts to "Trust us". I cannot.
If the government converted, then free clinics like yours would be obsolete. They would put you out of business. You wouldn't need donations, or tax credits or anything else. You could actually have more time to focus on patients because you wouldn't have to worry about billing, forms, finding patients, reimbursements.. none of that. You'd be able to do your job. Nursing, doctoring and all things dealing with care. The government would hire you for a fair wage and you would not go broke. If you want to make more money than that, you can still have your own private practice. The U.S. is not saying no one can have private hospitals still.
The difference is, if you want to work in those places, you'd better be good. You can't just pass out aspirins and your feet will be held to the fire. In the government hospitals, you would simply just do your job.
I actually do not have anything personal related in my sig, because I game to relax , and that would just invite debate even when I have been out clubbing and just want to wind down and not discuss anything important.
The reason that doctors, rather than politicians would do a better job at treating people is because that is their primary concern, their sworn oath, that is what they do, and there is simply no better person or group that could possibly make those decisions better.
The difference is not the quality of staff, that would actually decline, because from what I have seen burns doctors out more than anything is the red tape in treatment. When they try to save people and because of the "rules" they must adhere to, they are forced to lose those patients. People like to think that doctors are able to keep it from getting too personal, but the truth is, it is those doctors that genuinely care about every patient, that are willing to go above and beyond their job and break whatever rulles they have to to save a patient are the ones who save the most lives, they are the ones who are truly heros. I have seen so much in my time, that I can tell you that rules are necessarily broken to save lives everyday at every hospital everywhere. We do what we have to do to make that difference, regardless of what is " allowed". With more government control and regulation, that will make it that much harder on those doctors, these are the same doctors that often give up on our system and run off to a misson in a 3rd world country where they can save lives without as much red tape.
The reason that doctors, rather than politicians would do a better job at treating people is because that is their primary concern, their sworn oath, that is what they do, and there is simply no better person or group that could possibly make those decisions better.
The difference is not the quality of staff, that would actually decline, because from what I have seen burns doctors out more than anything is the red tape in treatment. When they try to save people and because of the "rules" they must adhere to, they are forced to lose those patients. People like to think that doctors are able to keep it from getting too personal, but the truth is, it is those doctors that genuinely care about every patient, that are willing to go above and beyond their job and break whatever rulles they have to to save a patient are the ones who save the most lives, they are the ones who are truly heros. I have seen so much in my time, that I can tell you that rules are necessarily broken to save lives everyday at every hospital everywhere. We do what we have to do to make that difference, regardless of what is " allowed". With more government control and regulation, that will make it that much harder on those doctors, these are the same doctors that often give up on our system and run off to a misson in a 3rd world country where they can save lives without as much red tape.
This is not true in every case anymore. The Hippocratic Oath is not a required oath that doctors must take anymore. They are not held to standards of the oath and are free to pursue medical professions of any ethical or moral standard. It is why doctors can participate in things like stem cell research, cloning and transplants. It's why a doctor can fully pursue a lucrative plastic surgery career and perform surgeries such as this. I am surprised someone in the healthcare field still pushes this fallacy. I don't think any of the doctors who performed those surgeries should be getting tax breaks, or be trusted in the future with government money. Oath is not required.
Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians.
It is symbolic nowadays. There is no reason for me to believe that an organization of doctors and dentists who hired lobbyists in Washington, and who are asking as a major part of their platform... tax breaks instead of universal health care has the patients well-being first and foremost in mind.
The reason that doctors, rather than politicians would do a better job at treating people is because that is their primary concern, their sworn oath, that is what they do, and there is simply no better person or group that could possibly make those decisions better. The difference is not the quality of staff, that would actually decline, because from what I have seen burns doctors out more than anything is the red tape in treatment. When they try to save people and because of the "rules" they must adhere to, they are forced to lose those patients. People like to think that doctors are able to keep it from getting too personal, but the truth is, it is those doctors that genuinely care about every patient, that are willing to go above and beyond their job and break whatever rulles they have to to save a patient are the ones who save the most lives, they are the ones who are truly heros. I have seen so much in my time, that I can tell you that rules are necessarily broken to save lives everyday at every hospital everywhere. We do what we have to do to make that difference, regardless of what is " allowed". With more government control and regulation, that will make it that much harder on those doctors, these are the same doctors that often give up on our system and run off to a misson in a 3rd world country where they can save lives without as much red tape.
This is not true in every case anymore. The Hippocratic Oath is not a required oath that doctors must take anymore. They are not held to standards of the oath and are free to pursue medical professions of any ethical or moral standard. It is why doctors can participate in things like stem cell research, cloning and transplants. It's why a doctor can fully pursue a lucrative plastic surgery career and perform surgeries such as this. I am surprised someone in the healthcare field still pushes this fallacy. I don't think any of the doctors who performed those surgeries should be getting tax breaks, or be trusted in the future with government money. Oath is not required.
Although mostly of historical and traditional value, the oath is considered a rite of passage for practitioners of medicine, although it is not obligatory and no longer taken up by all physicians.
It is symbolic nowadays.
There is no reason for me to believe that an organization of doctors and dentists who hired lobbyists in Washington, and who are asking as a major part of their platform... tax breaks instead of universal health care has the patients well-being first and foremost in mind.
It is sad that some of the doctors today view our oath as "symbolic". This does not apply to the doctors that treat patients for free, that tear up thousands of dollars in medical bills , and foot the bill themselves, or the doctors that put it all on the line, even their career just to save one person. No, to those doctors they take that oath very seriously. This does not apply to our organization.
IADMD®-appointed State Board Doctors of all disciplines with more than 25 years as heads of private practices—NOT Big Business, will work out the details to incorporate this IADMD®-Certified Overall Health Care Model that will reduce the price of private insurance to make it affordable for all. The proposal involves the means to enforce a government mandated CAP onto all private insurers that their pricing involves a Health care costs, service and claim processing will significantly improve to a compulsory maximum of $100 per individual per month without discrimination, providing coverage for overall health care for dentistry, medicine, and alternative wellness: regardless of financial standing, income, age, health, gender or marital status, to ensure that private insurance is affordable for all, and to insure to all taxpayers that no one owes any one else a living, least especially the Big Business Insurers and CEOs. This proposal puts and END to the attractiveness of government-subsidized care that will not create a mandate burden of expense onto employers or taxpayers, while its mandates are placed on Big Business Insurers to reimburse providers at 100-cents on every reimbursement dollar, without 'preferred' providers, without provisions and denials for any IADMD®-Certified Practitioners, rules of which are overseen by IADMD®-appointed State Board Doctor Intermediaries together with each states' Insurance Commissioner and Health and Human Services of the Federal Government.
We encourage everyone to be mindful that quality human life is not some unattainable ideal found in people on television or in magazines, or the like; quality human life should be attainable for all.
Let us relate to what IADMD calls bureaucratic madness—a broken system that allows powerful interests to leave people without needed dental or medical treatments that their doctors want them to have. With insurers focused on self-serving financial gains in efforts to do better than the year before, doing what their stockholders need them to do to make record profits, and gifting such actions with competitive perks, powerful interests have been known to make decisions even when it’s unjust to the patient.
IADMD is a membership organization for doctors of all disciplines that
honor the Hippocratic oath—not the bottom line of powerful interests.
Dedicated to promote, protect, and advance human life,
our mission is to put health care back in the hands of doctors.
While this process is being addressed, we want to step in and lift people up that may be falling victims to a broken system that leaves you without access to care for quality human life. We want to open the doors to those who feel there is no place to turn.
If you think this is you, we want to hear from you. We want you to walk no longer lacking hope in the understanding of powerful interests, with treatment of choice excluded because of the ignorance that is in the decision-makers, because of the hardness of their hearts; and their seeing you as a number as opposed to a face, full of life, and with having become callous.?
We want to hear from you if you feel you are nudged into a corner with no where to turn with dental or medical issues for which you or someone you care about:
may not have enough insurance, or;
may possibly have no insurance at all, or;
might possibly have been denied coverage for a needed treatment, or;
may be facing a devastating illness or injury and are overwhelmed with needs that you are unable to handle.
put health care back in the hands of doctors. While this process is being addressed, we want to step in and lift people up that may be falling victims to a broken system that leaves you without access to care for quality human life. We want to open the doors to those who feel there is no place to turn.?
NO ONE was that bad, LOL! Bush was able to do something that no law, protests, affirmative action or Martin Luther King ever could.
Help get an African American male elected President of the United States.
After eight years of Bush, America finally stood up and said, "What the HELL were we doing with this clown, and people like him?" America wanted a complete and total change, and Obama was that change. Hell, only 21% of people today even claim they are Republicans anymore, because of Bush and the right wing crowd. Either they all defected, or they are hiding among the "Independants" now, lol. All of a sudden, there's been this HUGE swing of "Independants, Constitutionalists, Patriots, and Libertarians."
I put it in quotations, because you know that if the Republicans were somehow able to pull themselves off the floor (which they won't), those people will come running back. Check their affiliations and you'll find probably most were Republicans under two years ago. But now that's no longer "cool". Now it's cool to be a teabagger, talk about revolutions and recite John Henry or Ethan Allen on streetcorners and the interwebz. "Don't tread on me" flags... lmao! Those are as silly as the Che Guevara tees the leftists wear. They really have no idea how stupid those flags are on their bumper sticker.
Bush and friends screwed that up so bad, it was going to be either a woman (Hillary Clinton) or an African American (Barack Obama). It helped that Barack Obama was fully qualified, highly intelligent and a charasmatic leader, but Bush made the ticket possible to a wide variety of Americans. Even though 20% claimed they would never vote for him because he was Black, plenty of people realized that whoever got picked was going to be a superior upgrade. Now the right wing has Rush for a leader, Sarah riding shotgun, and only know how to make things worse for themselves daily; all because they let Bush and friends drive drunk.
Bush my friend, was a once in a lifetime gift that just keeps on giving.
In just 100 days, Obama is already worse.
Hey, you're entitled to your opinion. You're just wrong on about every conceivable level.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Dekron, rare means just that. Rare. There is no way any system should be written to take care of RARE diseases or conditions. Even if I caught something like that, I'd agree that was too much to ask. It's not cost effective.
How is it not cost effective? Rare, as you stated, means just that, rare. One in every 50,000 is the incident rate for Keratoconus. That's .00002% of the population that may have it. It's roughly $6,000 for a transplant and $1,000 for after care per eye. That's a total of $14,000. Now, how is that less cost effective than say covering someone who has cancer and the actual treatment costs neary $1,000,000?
Should they not be covered because it is not cost effective? There is a much larger rate of people with cancer and we would be spending billions of dollars covering them per year.
Now, don't take it the wrong way, I am not at all saying we shouldn't, but just comparing what, and what not, is cost effective.
It's difficult to pick and choose on who should get health care. It seems, in our scenario already, that the bureaucracy of the health care industry would already be embedded in a government sponsored plan.
It is the same as private health care, but, instead of who can and cannot pay, it is who will or will not be included based upon ailments. In other words, eugenics.
How is it not cost effective? Rare, as you stated, means just that, rare. One in every 50,000 is the incident rate for Keratoconus. That's .00002% of the population that may have it. It's roughly $6,000 for a transplant and $1,000 for after care per eye. That's a total of $14,000. Now, how is that less cost effective than say covering someone who has cancer and the actual treatment costs neary $1,000,000? Should they not be covered because it is not cost effective? There is a much larger rate of people with cancer and we would be spending billions of dollars covering them per year.
Now, don't take it the wrong way, I am not at all saying we shouldn't, but just comparing what, and what not, is cost effective. It's difficult to pick and choose on who should get health care. It seems, in our scenario already, that the bureaucracy of the health care industry would already be embedded in a government sponsored plan. It is the same as private health care, but, instead of who can and cannot pay, it is who will or will not be included based upon ailments.
So based on you wrote earlier, which is below:
And, as you said, the same would be from a universal health care. It would not benefit those with such extraordinary conditions. Granted, mine is a very mild condition, but has the chance to go to an extreme. But see, it is not very universal when it does not benefit the whole. A select group would be left out. I'm not "rich", but I am not poor. I would be, I suppose, what you call upper-middle class. If I ever needed to get surgery for such a procedure, it costs roughly $6,000 minimum - and that only covers the costs of the transplant itself.
Now, where is the universality in the national health coverage if I make too much to qualify for such a plan, make too little too pay for it myself, and my insurance would not cover it?
Universal health care covering only specific groups of people while leaving out other groups because of particular disabilities or conditions is simply a practice of eugenics.
Are you claiming that as of right now, you are happy with your current health insurance as it is?
"The Obama administration's health care legislation doesn't exist yet, but Senate Republicans are already seeking and getting detailed advice on the best way to attack it."
And they wonder why they're being seen as little more than petty obstructionists at this point.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Saw this, found it interesting: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_go_co/gop_health_care "The Obama administration's health care legislation doesn't exist yet, but Senate Republicans are already seeking and getting detailed advice on the best way to attack it." And they wonder why they're being seen as little more than petty obstructionists at this point.
I wonder when people will finally stop listening to politcians about their healthcare and start listening to those who are actually trying to save their lives. Democrats and Republicans are bought off by the same people. Doctors who already treat the poor, the homeless, and anyone else who comes to them in need do not have the "big business funding " to be represented, no they just have the solutions.
As long as you trust in the political parties to handle this, rather than the free clinic doctors, healthcare will NEVER be solved.
With the "doctors plan" no one will be turned away, everyone will be treated the best way we know how. Cut down the red tape and allow the doctors to do what they do best.
As long as you trust in the political parties to handle this, rather than the free clinic doctors, healthcare will NEVER be solved.
With the "doctors plan" no one will be turned away, everyone will be treated the best way we know how. Cut down the red tape and allow the doctors to do what they do best.
Wow devil,
The way you're hawking your doctor's club for tax rebates, it sounds like Amway.
Originally posted by popinjay Are you claiming that as of right now, you are happy with your current health insurance as it is?
At this particular moment, yes. I am years away from transplants. Now, understand I am simply using my case as an example, not as the bar.
When you justify exclusion of one group, it becomes easier and easier to justify the next and the next.
And, don't think my argument is for the coverage of everyone under a universal care system - it's quite the opposite. I'm with devil - the government should not belong in the health care of its citizens. I'm merely pointing out how groups will continue to be left out as it becomes increasingly important to ration health care to be more cost effective under a government funded plan.
As long as you trust in the political parties to handle this, rather than the free clinic doctors, healthcare will NEVER be solved. With the "doctors plan" no one will be turned away, everyone will be treated the best way we know how. Cut down the red tape and allow the doctors to do what they do best.
Wow devil,
The way you're hawking your doctor's club for tax rebates, it sounds like Amway.
Don't worry Pop, if your insurance company and government run healthcare fail you, we will still be here to help. unless Obama plans on dismantling us, and takes away what little funding we have already. It is amazing that you are so ready to insult those on the front lines that have dedicated their lives to saving your lives, without exclusion and defend a lawyers plan that he has already admitedly said there would be exclusions to. Are you really in it to help everyone? Who is to determine which lives are more precious than the next? I for one am not. Our plan will provide healthcare to everyone, and not put the burden on the tax payer.
Are you seriously that duped by a political party that you would put their best interests in front of the best interests of your own family? your neighbors? those you care about in this world? These not included "nontextbook" symptoms and diagnosis are our only defense at saving lives. The bottom line to me is that we put people first, not "guidelines".
what would it truly take for you to realize that we only want to solve these problems? Tax rebates... you think we just want this money to do what? pad our incomes? if we wanted to do that we would vote for the universal plan that guarantees us payment, not push for insurance caps, not push for EVERYONE being treated, even those with rare diseases. Doctors who are in it "for the money" become plastic surgeons, not work at free clinics. Our organization only accepts doctors who uphold their oath.
And to be honest, tax rebates alone will not be enough to pay for all of the care we provide already, we will need assistance, just that would reduce the amount we need to provide the care the patients need already. We are doing everything we can already, and still do not turn anyone away. You have the number, if you ever need help you can call as well. Why not call and see what we can do for each other?
If you are going to spend your time and effort to defend something, would you not want to be sure it is the right thing to defend?
Who does Obama save every day? Do you think he loses sleep at night because of that person he couldn't save? Does he have to walk into the waiting room and tell their families "I'm sorry." ? does he sleep in a cot in the back because there are not enough doctors to fill the schedule? No, that is left up to those on the front lines, those doctors who uphold their oaths, those doctors who want to save evryones life, including yours.
Even with all that taken into consideration, you still think he knows what is best for you and your family. Amazing, truly amazing.
If your insurance company refused a treatment, is he going to come into your waiting room and tell you ," I'm sorry." ? If his government healthcare fails your family, do you think he is going to so much as send you a letter? Forbid you ever find yourself in that position. There are some things I will never be able to " get over in time." as I was told by coworkers, some of us can never become immune or hardened to truly caring for those we try to save. No, we just have to learn to live with it, which in all honesty is easier said than done.
Comments
I already know the typical HMO limits specialist visits mainly by doctor's referral, which is why I'd go with a more liberal plan like Blue Cross when open enrollment was available. Ex-state cops from NJ have GOOD health insurance, but thanks for your concern.
"TO MICHAEL!"
No offense, but with as many links as you have provided earlier, I would like to see this link that says she wouldn't have met the criteria. Otherwise its scare tactics and fearful opinion. Show me where this mother wouldn't have gotten a CATscan under Obama's plan or just stop making false accusations.
LINK?! I dealt with insurance companies and medicaid approval evry day for 5 years. This is not "public online information" I do not read about this, I had to deal with this first hand.this is what they are actually doing. You want to confirm? call any doctors office who accepts medicaid and aetna, and ask them how many denials of service they have recieved over the last 2 weeks, and you will hear it from them. That is just the way it works. EVERYONE who has had to deal with the billing department at all has had to deal with this nonsense. He told us that he wishes to make further restrictions in this area verbally on the campaign trail.
IF you call in the approval and they deny, you then have to fill out a form on why they need to have this test and send it in. First they send the doctors office a notice saying they refuse to pay for the procedure, then they require the doctor to give a verbal approval of why this procedure needs to be done, then they send back another reason they denied it, and it goes on and on. This is what I dealt with and I wasn;t even in the billing department I was having people hand me the stupid phone in between patients, or even walking into the exam room and hand me the phone so I could yell at them .
This is the reality of those guidelines in action. listen to the man himself:
www.youtube.com/watch
And yes, during his campaign there was so much more, but this was the only one I have bothered taking the time to look up again.
The insurance companies go hand in hand with doctors. They go hand in hand with medical and pharacuetical drug companies. All of these interests have been sending free samples, trips, gifts, medical scanners and equipment over the years to help keep the system as it is. Doctors and nurses have benefitted greatly from this patronage.
They do not, they try to limit what the doctors are allowed to do. I know this, I have yelled at them enough to know better than that. Insurance companies have nothing to do with free samples, that is soley due to pharamcuetical companies and is another rant I am not going to get into right now. You are off base in that entire assessment.
You are a part of that system. Your interests are in-league with them. You first say things like "no free anything" then are proven wrong. You now put up an example which is quickly shown as a reason FOR government control, and less private payer insurances where consumers get gipped and now I'm incorrect.
Doctors interests are to treat the patients, insurance companies interests are to keep costs low enough that they turn a profit at all costs, including the lives of their insured. You are incorrect here as well. I strongly oppose the insurance company lobbyists.
So apparently your last tactic is to throw a blanket statement saying Obama's plan wouldn't cover a poor mom's CATscan either. This is getting beyond shameful. Show where there is "less care" under Obama's plan. Don't just throw up a link either.. put in a quote. If you want to link, excerpt the germaine part. I really don't want to wallow through pages of a text just because you say that somewhere in there, is a needle.
This is not beyond shameful, it is the truth. He wants to be able to decide who needs to be in the hospital and who doesn;t using the standard treatment guidelines that are already causing deaths. Listen to the man, read what he is actually proposing and compare it to our plan. You will see big differences. We started this plan years ago to combat this problem he threw his together by the seat of his pants.
Your organization seems to be, at least on the surface without deeper investigation, wanting tax breaks as the main sticking point. I do believe it has an interest in helping people but the main focus seems to be about getting tax breaks:
I don't think your organization ultimately will be any better longterm than the insurance company/pharmacuetical/medical company love fest we have going on now.I vote real government healthcare for citizens with private companies doing their own thing, with NO huge tax breaks.
Our organization will use those tax breaks to provide the care ourselves rather than bringing in more government regulation. We already treat these people as it is, you would not be denied no matter what if you came to any of our clinics, offices or hospitals. We have already been doing this, and want to be able to do it better. All you are voting for is textbook healthcare, overregulation and less funding for any non textbook cases. You should spend more time at a free clinic to see what is really going on, and ask the people there what they really need in order to solve the problems. I already know that is what I do.
And what if your organization decided at certain times to not provide certain things or opt for cheaper methods just like the insurance companies, but STILL received your brand, new tax breaks? Nothing. Nothing would happen because many of those doctors in the "for profit" operation would be legally able to determine course of care and amount to pay for that care. Bascially, your organization's arguments boil down to "Hey, you can trust us to do the right thing with the money. After all... we're doctors!"
Sure you treat some people as it is, but there's nothing saying you HAVE to give them that high cost care you were talking about. You can keep a clinic running, get the breaks, then still decide not to send that mother for the scan. After all, it's just a clinic.
Yes, I want textbook healthcare. I have been saying this over and over and over and I'm glad you finally got it. I want plain, basic and decent healthcare for ALL United States citizens.. that's it. I don't want Beverly Hills General for everyone like you are advocating it seems. Free clinics needs BASICS, not extravagant things. The average person just wants basics when they don't have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of.
I just don't believe that if a doctor had to pay for a CATscan, he'd be any more happy to shell out that money than an insurance company.
One finer point lost in your arguing for tax breaks.. If there is FREE National healthcare.... WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY NEED FOR CLINICS???
/game over.
"TO MICHAEL!"
And what if your organization decided at certain times to not provide certain things or opt for cheaper methods just like the insurance companies, but STILL received your brand, new tax breaks? Nothing. Nothing would happen because many of those doctors in the "for profit" operation would be legally able to determine course of care and amount to pay for that care. Bascially, your organization's arguments boil down to "Hey, you can trust us to do the right thing with the money. After all... we're doctors!"
Our loyalties are not to politicians, profit, or any other organziation. Our loyalties are to our Hippocratic Oath to save lives. To protect the best interest of the public, these unbiased doctors would be chosen by the organization, by their peers. Not by personal interest groups. Doctors who are concerned about profits are not the ones that are giving the free care, this organization is made up of doctors who only give free care. There is a difference.
Sure you treat some people as it is, but there's nothing saying you HAVE to give them that high cost care you were talking about. You can keep a clinic running, get the breaks, then still decide not to send that mother for the scan. After all, it's just a clinic.
Yes, there is. It is our Hippocratic Oath to give them the best treatment we can. We are sworn to do so. Now we have created an organization to allow us to get together to monitor this. It is actually the doctors that are concerned about their profits that are more supportive of the universal plan because they are more upset about not getting paid to treat people moreso than they are concerned about just treating the patients themselves. Putting these unbiased doctors on these boards will ensure the quality of care that we wish to provide.
Yes, I want textbook healthcare. I have been saying this over and over and over and I'm glad you finally got it. I want plain, basic and decent healthcare for ALL United States citizens.. that's it. I don't want Beverly Hills General for everyone like you are advocating it seems. Free clinics needs BASICS, not extravagant things. The average person just wants basics when they don't have a pot to piss in, or a window to throw it out of.
Textbook care does not allow for abnormal symptoms, rare diseases, and most of the natural deaths caused in children and young adults. There would be little or no options for them. That is the result of your " textbook " care. Where does my sister with ITP fit in when she came down with it at the age of 19? That is unhread of and does not qualify for testing under your "textbook" guidelines. Medicine does not work that way. I am not referring to " luxuries" I could care less about those, those should not be covered period. What I am speaking of is not luxuries, but the right to live regardless of how "untextbook" your symptoms may be. My sister's antibodies turned against her platlets in her blood and started destroying them/ It would have killed her if we had not paid out of pocket to have her treated. IS that extravagant? Is wanting to live extravagant? under the standard guidelines, yes.
I just don't believe that if a doctor had to pay for a CATscan, he'd be any more happy to shell out that money than an insurance company.
You don;t know the doctors I do, go to the free clinic, I am sure you will find some there. That is where your heros are.
One finer point lost in your arguing for tax breaks.. If there is FREE National healthcare.... WHY WOULD THERE BE ANY NEED FOR CLINICS???
/game over.
With national healthcare, as proposed at this time, There is already a shortage of doctors and medical professionals in this country, this will only increase. With our propsals ,we aim to make our profession more desireable to those that might consider it. If you think that waiting to see a doctor as it is is bad, just wait until after this is implemented. Our volunteers at these clinics take much of that weight off of the local hospitals and offices.
Ugh. I am under Aetna. You are right, anything non-textbook is troublesome. I have Keratoconus. I'm trying to get them to cover my visits to an ocular specialist. Very difficult.
Ugh. I am under Aetna. You are right, anything non-textbook is troublesome. I have Keratoconus. I'm trying to get them to cover my visits to an ocular specialist. Very difficult.
yea, with dealing with Aetna, I had to make sure I got the persons name and ID number of who I was speaking with, informed them the call was being recorded and would be sending a copy to my attorney as well as let them know that I would be referring my patient to my attorney and providing full disclosure to the patient as well as the media. I made sure they understood that not only would we be holding them personally accountable, but their company as well to get get anything approved. I had to get pretty viscious to get our patients treated.
I ran a pediatrics clinic, I was not about to have these kids lives in jeopardy over the red tape, so I made sure I did everything in my power to get them the treatment they needed, and fought anyone I had to to get it done quickly. ( that was why they were always chasing me down with the phone, no matter whose patient it was) lol.
Yea they were that bad , even when dealing with childrens lives, it is really sad. Most doctors do not have time to do that at all, and the claims just get left denied, you really have to get mean and fight with them to get things approved in a timely manner, and it shouldn;t be that way.
Shame about your sister. Sorry to hear that.
One thing you and Dekron have to keep in mind, is that all Aetna plans are not the same. I'm assuming he works for a private employer who has one type of Aetna plan in one state, while I worked for a governmental state agency who was able to provide a different type of Aetna coverage. The FOP was able to help negotiate benefits as a large employee sector which I and my family enjoy until my kids turn 23 or 24 years old (if they don't get married). Right now, they are under 10 years old. The State of NJ buys in bulk. Dekron may work for a private company who's employee rolls are only 50 people and cannot afford to pay huge group insurance rates. One plan does not mean the other plan is exactly the same regarding coverage. I was also able to get AFLAC through our union.
As you pointed out above, that was as proposed. There is no reason to believe that Obama's healthcare plan will be implemented exactly the same as proposed. It may be less, worse, or equally swapped ideas. We should at least wait and see what everything is before saying Nyet to universal healthcare. It's like salaries. My salary for what I did in my state as opposed to a state like Georgia; same job, same conditions.. I made on average 30k more than they did, without overtime. Even Pennsylvania guys doing the same job I did a state away, made considerably less. California and one or two other states were the only other ones topping our pay rate for public service.
One thing I definitely feel, and I think you would too, is that the plans, policies and laws should be made to benefit the MAJORITY of Americans. That is, anything that helps all of us is better than something that helps only some of us. Universal healthcare will NOT cover every single rare, first discovered, once in a lifetime diseases that only a teeny tiny portion of the population gets. There is just no way the system can account for that.. any system public OR private. While I would sympathize with those people only so much can be done. It's patently unfair to hold the nation hostage because a proposed plan will cover 97% of the population but the 3% who have rare maladies arent'.
Progress dictates its prudent to go forward with what helps everyone. Rich people will NOT benefit from universal healthcare. That is a given. They already get the best treatment available as is. Rare condition folks will NOT benefit from universal healthcare by and large. It's just too cost prohibitive to try and keep something like only a head alive in a jar, if you know what I mean. I don't see the need to spend 1 million dollars in surgeries, care and equipment to return someone to only in the best circumstance, a barely functioning member of society. But the vast majority of Americans who are relatively healthy but cannot afford healthcare because their wages aren't high enough will benefit. And it is for these people the law must pass.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Shame about your sister. Sorry to hear that.
One thing you and Dekron have to keep in mind, is that all Aetna plans are not the same. I'm assuming he works for a private employer who has one type of Aetna plan in one state, while I worked for a governmental state agency who was able to provide a different type of Aetna coverage. The FOP was able to help negotiate benefits as a large employee sector which I and my family enjoy until my kids turn 23 or 24 years old (if they don't get married). Right now, they are under 10 years old. The State of NJ buys in bulk. Dekron may work for a private company who's employee rolls are only 50 people and cannot afford to pay huge group insurance rates. One plan does not mean the other plan is exactly the same regarding coverage. I was also able to get AFLAC through our union.
As you pointed out above, that was as proposed. There is no reason to believe that Obama's healthcare plan will be implemented exactly the same as proposed. It may be less, worse, or equally swapped ideas. We should at least wait and see what everything is before saying Nyet to universal healthcare. It's like salaries. My salary for what I did in my state as opposed to a state like Georgia; same job, same conditions.. I made on average 30k more than they did, without overtime. Even Pennsylvania guys doing the same job I did a state away, made considerably less. California and one or two other states were the only other ones topping our pay rate for public service.
One thing I definitely feel, and I think you would too, is that the plans, policies and laws should be made to benefit the MAJORITY of Americans. That is, anything that helps all of us is better than something that helps only some of us. Universal healthcare will NOT cover every single rare, first discovered, once in a lifetime diseases that only a teeny tiny portion of the population gets. There is just no way the system can account for that.. any system public OR private. While I would sympathize with those people only so much can be done. It's patently unfair to hold the nation hostage because a proposed plan will cover 97% of the population but the 3% who have rare maladies arent'.
Progress dictates its prudent to go forward with what helps everyone. Rich people will NOT benefit from universal healthcare. That is a given. They already get the best treatment available as is. Rare condition folks will NOT benefit from universal healthcare by and large. It's just too cost prohibitive to try and keep something like only a head alive in a jar, if you know what I mean. I don't see the need to spend 1 million dollars in surgeries, care and equipment to return someone to only in the best circumstance, a barely functioning member of society. But the vast majority of Americans who are relatively healthy but cannot afford healthcare because their wages aren't high enough will benefit. And it is for these people the law must pass.
Our plans will cover everything, no matter how nontextbook it may be, we will do everything in our power to save those lives, because to us, every life is just as important, not just the "majority". IT can be done, it is a matter of getting the politicians to pull their heads out and listen to us, instead of worrying about lining their pocketbooks or the pocketbooks of insurance companies or for profit only doctors. How much did Michelle Obama make at her " not - for profit" hospital? guess what our doctors make for working at the free clinic less than $0, in fact it costs them money to do that, not the other way around. Keep an eye on the organizations that are actually looking out for your best interests, not the ones advertising all over the place telling you they are.
I think you're exaggerating heavily about that tax rate.
But even if you weren't, I don't know what you're complaint is about. You are I cannot say what the founders had in mind, we can only go what's written. And what's written is nothing about the tax code. The tax code is something completely different than what people erroneously lump together with the Constitution. Your argument has to do with tax code, not that.
So, lobby for tax code change. Vote for people who say they will change it to your favor. If enough people think like you do, then there will be enough politicians to change the TAX CODE to your liking.
But if the majority of people feel the tax code is okay as it is for the most part, and they don't want politicians to let rich businesses off the hook, allow rich people to hide in offshore and international tax shelters, and stick them with the excess, then we have what we have now.
If you don't like this system, I'm sure Mexico or Nigeria would be more than happy to have your business and citizenship.
Actually, we do know a little about how they felt about taxes. You are right that they fought against taxation without representation, but we also know, from their correspondence, that they felt liberty was intertwined with personal property rights. We also know that they felt that the Federal government should not promote unfair taxation, and I personally infer that to mean that people who are taxed disproportionately was outside of their intent. In fact, there are several documents that show they were against the Federal government being able to tax citizens beyond it's own needs to maintain itself in it's most limited form. They all agreed that the Fed under the Articles of Confederacy was insufficient to maintain a healthy governing body, but they also felt that the Fed should be limited in it's ability to tax.
As far as my exaggeration. I just took a quick look at wikipedia and I thought the median household income was about 38k, when in truth it is 50k, so my paying 64k in personal income taxes in 2008 is a little low for two households.
As far as lobbying for tax code, I do. Personally, I'd lobby for anything that simplified US tax code and made it more equitable. For reference, just a tidbit straight off wikipedia and The Tax Foundation:
1.93% of all households had annual incomes exceeding $250,000.
The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI over $364,657) earned approximately 21.2 percent of the nation's income (as defined by AGI), yet paid 39.4 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the top 1 percent of tax returns paid about the same amount of federal individual income taxes as the bottom 95 percent of tax returns
Lastly, I'm sure that my wife and my six hundredish employees would be grateful for your sentiment that we take our two businesses overseas. For the record, all our business and personal money is in the US invested in Americans except where prohibited by either our government or by foriegn governments which require us to contract locally.
Nope. I work for a college funded by state appropriations. We have around 1,100 employees. Our plan is not horrible at all, I am not saying that, but coverage on such items are difficult to get them to cover. Why? Contract negotiations. When you have such a rare condition as I have, costs would be higher for everyone if what I needed covered as an individual was included.
And, as you said, the same would be from a universal health care. It would not benefit those with such extraordinary conditions. Granted, mine is a very mild condition, but has the chance to go to an extreme. But see, it is not very universal when it does not benefit the whole. A select group would be left out. I'm not "rich", but I am not poor. I would be, I suppose, what you call upper-middle class. If I ever needed to get surgery for such a procedure, it costs roughly $6,000 minimum - and that only covers the costs of the transplant itself.
Now, where is the universality in the national health coverage if I make too much to qualify for such a plan, make too little too pay for it myself, and my insurance would not cover it?
Universal health care covering only specific groups of people while leaving out other groups because of particular disabilities or conditions is simply a practice of eugenics.
Nope. I work for a college funded by state appropriations. We have around 1,100 employees. Our plan is not horrible at all, I am not saying that, but coverage on such items are difficult to get them to cover. Why? Contract negotiations. When you have such a rare condition as I have, costs would be higher for everyone if what I needed covered as an individual was included.
And, as you said, the same would be from a universal health care. It would not benefit those with such extraordinary conditions. Granted, mine is a very mild condition, but has the chance to go to an extreme. But see, it is not very universal when it does not benefit the whole. A select group would be left out. I'm not "rich", but I am not poor. I would be, I suppose, what you call upper-middle class. If I ever needed to get surgery for such a procedure, it costs roughly $6,000 minimum - and that only covers the costs of the transplant itself.
Now, where is the universality in the national health coverage if I make too much to qualify for such a plan, make too little too pay for it myself, and my insurance would not cover it?
Universal health care covering only specific groups of people while leaving out other groups because of particular disabilities or conditions is simply a practice of eugenics.
That is just the thing .. ANYONE can be excluded at anytime if they develop something that is not covered, or if they need a procedure that is not covered just to live. In the time it takes to "negotiate" the treatment, the patient can die, and the sad thing is it is like the insurance companies hope for just that to happen so they don;t have to fulfill their obligations. The standard treatment for these conditions is usually covered by the insurance company to begin with, just they always try to find a loophole to get out of it and that causes alot of the problem. They will try to find any reason to not cover a claim, regardless of what they tell you when you sign up for their enrollment packages.
Slightly related:
How come you don't have your organization in your sig? You're not using one atm but you've mentioned it plenty of times. Might be a good idea to advertise. The site is well designed.
Back on point:
The argument you are using, is the same one the Republicans tried to use with Social Security. "Trust us. Let us control our own money." With the recent busts in all the funds and 401ks, there would have been tons of people out on the street.
I simply do not believe your organization made up of healthcare people will do any better than the government in that, you have a vested interest. You whole goal is trying to make money. You getting cuts on top of the already heavily subsidized cuts for the existing companies would just be TOO much revenue lost for the government. You're still asking to what amounts to "Trust us". I cannot.
If the government converted, then free clinics like yours would be obsolete. They would put you out of business. You wouldn't need donations, or tax credits or anything else. You could actually have more time to focus on patients because you wouldn't have to worry about billing, forms, finding patients, reimbursements.. none of that. You'd be able to do your job. Nursing, doctoring and all things dealing with care. The government would hire you for a fair wage and you would not go broke. If you want to make more money than that, you can still have your own private practice. The U.S. is not saying no one can have private hospitals still.
The difference is, if you want to work in those places, you'd better be good. You can't just pass out aspirins and your feet will be held to the fire. In the government hospitals, you would simply just do your job.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I can see a day coming where many exciting things can happen. If you told me in 1976 that out of these things, which one would be first:
The last thing I would have guessed, not the first, would have been a Black President. But here we are.
I can see a day, when my kids dream of being a doctor. They go through high school, college, and medical school practically free of charge. Then when they graduate, they go to the military or peace corps for a few years serving their country/citizens and then go to private/government practice where they work in a government run healthcare system, just taking care of patients and never once having to worry about a payment or malpractice insurance rates through the roof. Any citizen can walk in, get treated and my children can simple treat the next one.
Then one day, they decide to open their own practice and gain a huge following of patients able to pay the sky's the limit rates for top notch care. They would have paid their dues to society and gotten well rewarded in the end, never once having to worry about a loan to pay back.
"TO MICHAEL!"
Slightly related:
How come you don't have your organization in your sig? You're not using one atm but you've mentioned it plenty of times. Might be a good idea to advertise. The site is well designed.
Back on point:
The argument you are using, is the same one the Republicans tried to use with Social Security. "Trust us. Let us control our own money." With the recent busts in all the funds and 401ks, there would have been tons of people out on the street.
I simply do not believe your organization made up of healthcare people will do any better than the government in that, you have a vested interest. You whole goal is trying to make money. You getting cuts on top of the already heavily subsidized cuts for the existing companies would just be TOO much revenue lost for the government. You're still asking to what amounts to "Trust us". I cannot.
If the government converted, then free clinics like yours would be obsolete. They would put you out of business. You wouldn't need donations, or tax credits or anything else. You could actually have more time to focus on patients because you wouldn't have to worry about billing, forms, finding patients, reimbursements.. none of that. You'd be able to do your job. Nursing, doctoring and all things dealing with care. The government would hire you for a fair wage and you would not go broke. If you want to make more money than that, you can still have your own private practice. The U.S. is not saying no one can have private hospitals still.
The difference is, if you want to work in those places, you'd better be good. You can't just pass out aspirins and your feet will be held to the fire. In the government hospitals, you would simply just do your job.
I actually do not have anything personal related in my sig, because I game to relax , and that would just invite debate even when I have been out clubbing and just want to wind down and not discuss anything important.
The reason that doctors, rather than politicians would do a better job at treating people is because that is their primary concern, their sworn oath, that is what they do, and there is simply no better person or group that could possibly make those decisions better.
The difference is not the quality of staff, that would actually decline, because from what I have seen burns doctors out more than anything is the red tape in treatment. When they try to save people and because of the "rules" they must adhere to, they are forced to lose those patients. People like to think that doctors are able to keep it from getting too personal, but the truth is, it is those doctors that genuinely care about every patient, that are willing to go above and beyond their job and break whatever rulles they have to to save a patient are the ones who save the most lives, they are the ones who are truly heros. I have seen so much in my time, that I can tell you that rules are necessarily broken to save lives everyday at every hospital everywhere. We do what we have to do to make that difference, regardless of what is " allowed". With more government control and regulation, that will make it that much harder on those doctors, these are the same doctors that often give up on our system and run off to a misson in a 3rd world country where they can save lives without as much red tape.
It is symbolic nowadays.This is not true in every case anymore. The Hippocratic Oath is not a required oath that doctors must take anymore. They are not held to standards of the oath and are free to pursue medical professions of any ethical or moral standard. It is why doctors can participate in things like stem cell research, cloning and transplants. It's why a doctor can fully pursue a lucrative plastic surgery career and perform surgeries such as this. I am surprised someone in the healthcare field still pushes this fallacy. I don't think any of the doctors who performed those surgeries should be getting tax breaks, or be trusted in the future with government money. Oath is not required.
There is no reason for me to believe that an organization of doctors and dentists who hired lobbyists in Washington, and who are asking as a major part of their platform... tax breaks instead of universal health care has the patients well-being first and foremost in mind.
"TO MICHAEL!"
This is not true in every case anymore. The Hippocratic Oath is not a required oath that doctors must take anymore. They are not held to standards of the oath and are free to pursue medical professions of any ethical or moral standard. It is why doctors can participate in things like stem cell research, cloning and transplants. It's why a doctor can fully pursue a lucrative plastic surgery career and perform surgeries such as this. I am surprised someone in the healthcare field still pushes this fallacy. I don't think any of the doctors who performed those surgeries should be getting tax breaks, or be trusted in the future with government money. Oath is not required.
It is symbolic nowadays.There is no reason for me to believe that an organization of doctors and dentists who hired lobbyists in Washington, and who are asking as a major part of their platform... tax breaks instead of universal health care has the patients well-being first and foremost in mind.
It is sad that some of the doctors today view our oath as "symbolic". This does not apply to the doctors that treat patients for free, that tear up thousands of dollars in medical bills , and foot the bill themselves, or the doctors that put it all on the line, even their career just to save one person. No, to those doctors they take that oath very seriously. This does not apply to our organization.
www.iadmd.org/ABOUTUS/WhoWeAre/tabid/116/Default.aspx
IADMD®-appointed State Board Doctors of all disciplines with more than 25 years as heads of private practices—NOT Big Business, will work out the details to incorporate this IADMD®-Certified Overall Health Care Model that will reduce the price of private insurance to make it affordable for all. The proposal involves the means to enforce a government mandated CAP onto all private insurers that their pricing involves a Health care costs, service and claim processing will significantly improve to a compulsory maximum of $100 per individual per month without discrimination, providing coverage for overall health care for dentistry, medicine, and alternative wellness: regardless of financial standing, income, age, health, gender or marital status, to ensure that private insurance is affordable for all, and to insure to all taxpayers that no one owes any one else a living, least especially the Big Business Insurers and CEOs. This proposal puts and END to the attractiveness of government-subsidized care that will not create a mandate burden of expense onto employers or taxpayers, while its mandates are placed on Big Business Insurers to reimburse providers at 100-cents on every reimbursement dollar, without 'preferred' providers, without provisions and denials for any IADMD®-Certified Practitioners, rules of which are overseen by IADMD®-appointed State Board Doctor Intermediaries together with each states' Insurance Commissioner and Health and Human Services of the Federal Government.
IADMD® Foundation Access to Care
We Encourage You to Ask for Help
We encourage everyone to be mindful that quality human life is not some unattainable ideal found in people on television or in magazines, or the like; quality human life should be attainable for all.
Let us relate to what IADMD calls bureaucratic madness—a broken system that allows powerful interests to leave people without needed dental or medical treatments that their doctors want them to have. With insurers focused on self-serving financial gains in efforts to do better than the year before, doing what their stockholders need them to do to make record profits, and gifting such actions with competitive perks, powerful interests have been known to make decisions even when it’s unjust to the patient.
IADMD is a membership organization for doctors of all disciplines that
honor the Hippocratic oath—not the bottom line of powerful interests.
Dedicated to promote, protect, and advance human life,
our mission is to put health care back in the hands of doctors.
While this process is being addressed, we want to step in and lift people up that may be falling victims to a broken system that leaves you without access to care for quality human life. We want to open the doors to those who feel there is no place to turn.
If you think this is you, we want to hear from you. We want you to walk no longer lacking hope in the understanding of powerful interests, with treatment of choice excluded because of the ignorance that is in the decision-makers, because of the hardness of their hearts; and their seeing you as a number as opposed to a face, full of life, and with having become callous.?
We want to hear from you if you feel you are nudged into a corner with no where to turn with dental or medical issues for which you or someone you care about:
may not have enough insurance, or;
may possibly have no insurance at all, or;
might possibly have been denied coverage for a needed treatment, or;
may be facing a devastating illness or injury and are overwhelmed with needs that you are unable to handle.
put health care back in the hands of doctors. While this process is being addressed, we want to step in and lift people up that may be falling victims to a broken system that leaves you without access to care for quality human life. We want to open the doors to those who feel there is no place to turn.?
We are limited in funds but are big in heart and
are ready to lend a hand as a mindful voice for
quality human life for every person.?
Call Tasha Pratt
(603) 382-7675
Email: [email protected]
www.iadmd.org/Foundations/AccesstoCare/tabid/147/Default.aspx
NO ONE was that bad, LOL! Bush was able to do something that no law, protests, affirmative action or Martin Luther King ever could.
Help get an African American male elected President of the United States.
After eight years of Bush, America finally stood up and said, "What the HELL were we doing with this clown, and people like him?" America wanted a complete and total change, and Obama was that change. Hell, only 21% of people today even claim they are Republicans anymore, because of Bush and the right wing crowd. Either they all defected, or they are hiding among the "Independants" now, lol. All of a sudden, there's been this HUGE swing of "Independants, Constitutionalists, Patriots, and Libertarians."
I put it in quotations, because you know that if the Republicans were somehow able to pull themselves off the floor (which they won't), those people will come running back. Check their affiliations and you'll find probably most were Republicans under two years ago. But now that's no longer "cool". Now it's cool to be a teabagger, talk about revolutions and recite John Henry or Ethan Allen on streetcorners and the interwebz. "Don't tread on me" flags... lmao! Those are as silly as the Che Guevara tees the leftists wear. They really have no idea how stupid those flags are on their bumper sticker.
Bush and friends screwed that up so bad, it was going to be either a woman (Hillary Clinton) or an African American (Barack Obama). It helped that Barack Obama was fully qualified, highly intelligent and a charasmatic leader, but Bush made the ticket possible to a wide variety of Americans. Even though 20% claimed they would never vote for him because he was Black, plenty of people realized that whoever got picked was going to be a superior upgrade. Now the right wing has Rush for a leader, Sarah riding shotgun, and only know how to make things worse for themselves daily; all because they let Bush and friends drive drunk.
Bush my friend, was a once in a lifetime gift that just keeps on giving.
In just 100 days, Obama is already worse.
Hey, you're entitled to your opinion. You're just wrong on about every conceivable level.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
How is it not cost effective? Rare, as you stated, means just that, rare. One in every 50,000 is the incident rate for Keratoconus. That's .00002% of the population that may have it. It's roughly $6,000 for a transplant and $1,000 for after care per eye. That's a total of $14,000. Now, how is that less cost effective than say covering someone who has cancer and the actual treatment costs neary $1,000,000?
Should they not be covered because it is not cost effective? There is a much larger rate of people with cancer and we would be spending billions of dollars covering them per year.
Now, don't take it the wrong way, I am not at all saying we shouldn't, but just comparing what, and what not, is cost effective.
It's difficult to pick and choose on who should get health care. It seems, in our scenario already, that the bureaucracy of the health care industry would already be embedded in a government sponsored plan.
It is the same as private health care, but, instead of who can and cannot pay, it is who will or will not be included based upon ailments. In other words, eugenics.
And Spock was a utiltarian - I am not.
So based on you wrote earlier, which is below:
Are you claiming that as of right now, you are happy with your current health insurance as it is?
"TO MICHAEL!"
Saw this, found it interesting:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/ap_on_go_co/gop_health_care
"The Obama administration's health care legislation doesn't exist yet, but Senate Republicans are already seeking and getting detailed advice on the best way to attack it."
And they wonder why they're being seen as little more than petty obstructionists at this point.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
I wonder when people will finally stop listening to politcians about their healthcare and start listening to those who are actually trying to save their lives. Democrats and Republicans are bought off by the same people. Doctors who already treat the poor, the homeless, and anyone else who comes to them in need do not have the "big business funding " to be represented, no they just have the solutions.
As long as you trust in the political parties to handle this, rather than the free clinic doctors, healthcare will NEVER be solved.
With the "doctors plan" no one will be turned away, everyone will be treated the best way we know how. Cut down the red tape and allow the doctors to do what they do best.
The way you're hawking your doctor's club for tax rebates, it sounds like Amway.
"TO MICHAEL!"
At this particular moment, yes. I am years away from transplants. Now, understand I am simply using my case as an example, not as the bar.
When you justify exclusion of one group, it becomes easier and easier to justify the next and the next.
And, don't think my argument is for the coverage of everyone under a universal care system - it's quite the opposite. I'm with devil - the government should not belong in the health care of its citizens. I'm merely pointing out how groups will continue to be left out as it becomes increasingly important to ration health care to be more cost effective under a government funded plan.
The way you're hawking your doctor's club for tax rebates, it sounds like Amway.
Don't worry Pop, if your insurance company and government run healthcare fail you, we will still be here to help. unless Obama plans on dismantling us, and takes away what little funding we have already. It is amazing that you are so ready to insult those on the front lines that have dedicated their lives to saving your lives, without exclusion and defend a lawyers plan that he has already admitedly said there would be exclusions to. Are you really in it to help everyone? Who is to determine which lives are more precious than the next? I for one am not. Our plan will provide healthcare to everyone, and not put the burden on the tax payer.
Are you seriously that duped by a political party that you would put their best interests in front of the best interests of your own family? your neighbors? those you care about in this world? These not included "nontextbook" symptoms and diagnosis are our only defense at saving lives. The bottom line to me is that we put people first, not "guidelines".
what would it truly take for you to realize that we only want to solve these problems? Tax rebates... you think we just want this money to do what? pad our incomes? if we wanted to do that we would vote for the universal plan that guarantees us payment, not push for insurance caps, not push for EVERYONE being treated, even those with rare diseases. Doctors who are in it "for the money" become plastic surgeons, not work at free clinics. Our organization only accepts doctors who uphold their oath.
And to be honest, tax rebates alone will not be enough to pay for all of the care we provide already, we will need assistance, just that would reduce the amount we need to provide the care the patients need already. We are doing everything we can already, and still do not turn anyone away. You have the number, if you ever need help you can call as well. Why not call and see what we can do for each other?
If you are going to spend your time and effort to defend something, would you not want to be sure it is the right thing to defend?
Who does Obama save every day? Do you think he loses sleep at night because of that person he couldn't save? Does he have to walk into the waiting room and tell their families "I'm sorry." ? does he sleep in a cot in the back because there are not enough doctors to fill the schedule? No, that is left up to those on the front lines, those doctors who uphold their oaths, those doctors who want to save evryones life, including yours.
Even with all that taken into consideration, you still think he knows what is best for you and your family. Amazing, truly amazing.
If your insurance company refused a treatment, is he going to come into your waiting room and tell you ," I'm sorry." ? If his government healthcare fails your family, do you think he is going to so much as send you a letter? Forbid you ever find yourself in that position. There are some things I will never be able to " get over in time." as I was told by coworkers, some of us can never become immune or hardened to truly caring for those we try to save. No, we just have to learn to live with it, which in all honesty is easier said than done.