(03-15-2017 10:09 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Just because the government does not set the price does not mean the price is "arbitrary".

Just because non-government set the prices does not mean they aren't arbitrary!

(03-15-2017 10:09 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  long wait times for procedures.

Obviously it is more convenient, for you and your family, to get to skip ahead of the non-wealthy people.

But that's not what's best for the public health of society.

(03-16-2017 08:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Letter writer to the Star Tribune published today nailed it right on the head:

Quote:I was stunned to read that Mayo Clinic has decided to discriminate against Medicare and Medicaid recipients in the provision of services (“Private payers get priority at Mayo,” March 15). Such discrimination is specifically prohibited by Minnesota’s Human Rights Act. Specifically, Minnesota Statute 363A.12 provides: “It is an unfair discriminatory practice to discriminate against any person in the access to, admission to, full utilization of or benefit from any public service because of … status with regard to public assistance … unless the public service can demonstrate that providing the access would impose an undue hardship on its operation.”

“Status with regard to public assistance” means the condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements.” (363A.03, Subd. 47.)

Class-action lawyers undoubtedly are licking their chops.

Sic' em boys!

Most reasonable people consider operating at a loss or at best having someone else set their fees for them below market value to be an "undue hardship".

(03-16-2017 08:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 08:42 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Letter writer to the Star Tribune published today nailed it right on the head:

Quote:I was stunned to read that Mayo Clinic has decided to discriminate against Medicare and Medicaid recipients in the provision of services (“Private payers get priority at Mayo,” March 15). Such discrimination is specifically prohibited by Minnesota’s Human Rights Act. Specifically, Minnesota Statute 363A.12 provides: “It is an unfair discriminatory practice to discriminate against any person in the access to, admission to, full utilization of or benefit from any public service because of … status with regard to public assistance … unless the public service can demonstrate that providing the access would impose an undue hardship on its operation.”

“Status with regard to public assistance” means the condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements.” (363A.03, Subd. 47.)

Class-action lawyers undoubtedly are licking their chops.

Sic' em boys!

Most reasonable people consider operating at a loss or at best having someone else set their fees for them below market value to be an "undue hardship".

Correct. Now, if Bison would start paying her fair share, then the people of MN wouldnt be in this condition.

(03-15-2017 10:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:31 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 08:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Its a private organization, right?

Tough.

Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

I love that Tom always proves the case for small government in his presentation of true authoritarian leftist thinking. If you get a penny, we own you...

Why are we subsidizing businesses that discriminate against people? That money should be going to the hospital that will serve all equally. Its all of our money right?

So you are good with shutting down subsidies to planned parenthood?

Planned Parenthood serves all equally.

Let's not pretend that the Mayo Clinic is the only option for care either. It' a top hospital in the country, you're probably going to pay more to be treated there. It's as if some people are completely ignorant to basic economic principles.

(03-16-2017 08:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:31 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

I love that Tom always proves the case for small government in his presentation of true authoritarian leftist thinking. If you get a penny, we own you...

Why are we subsidizing businesses that discriminate against people? That money should be going to the hospital that will serve all equally. Its all of our money right?

So you are good with shutting down subsidies to planned parenthood?

Planned Parenthood serves all equally.

yep, regardless of your race or income they'll brutally slaughter an unborn child for you. #specialplaceinhell

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-16-2017 08:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  [quote='Bull_Is_Back' pid='14181637' dateline='1489590563']Just because the government does not set the price does not mean the price is "arbitrary".

Just because non-government set the prices does not mean they aren't arbitrary!

Circular argument for which you have no proof of your position. You are blindly claiming the prices set are arbitrary with ZERO evidence.

(03-16-2017 08:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  [quote='Bull_Is_Back' pid='14181637' dateline='1489590563']long wait times for procedures.
Obviously it is more convenient, for you and your family, to get to skip ahead of the non-wealthy people.
But that's not what's best for the public health of society.

Invalid comparison. If a wealthy person has a highly communicable disease, it is absolutely best for public health in general if they go to a premier medical facility like the Mayo Clinic for treatment and are seen ahead of a less wealthy person with an ACL tear.

(03-16-2017 08:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:31 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

I love that Tom always proves the case for small government in his presentation of true authoritarian leftist thinking. If you get a penny, we own you...

Why are we subsidizing businesses that discriminate against people? That money should be going to the hospital that will serve all equally. Its all of our money right?

So you are good with shutting down subsidies to planned parenthood?

Planned Parenthood serves all equally.

Not all. Just sayin......

Private company, can do as it pleases, also maybe those prices are inflated because of sue happy people like yourself that created the demand for malpractice insurance.

(03-16-2017 08:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:09 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Just because the government does not set the price does not mean the price is "arbitrary".

Just because non-government set the prices does not mean they aren't arbitrary!

Show me some evidence that they are capricious and arbitrary about the price of a procedure.

Quote:

(03-15-2017 10:09 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  long wait times for procedures.

Obviously it is more convenient, for you and your family, to get to skip ahead of the non-wealthy people.

I'm not wealthy cupcake.... I do "ok" but because my wife and I prioritize our life around time with the kids, she does not work. It's a choice we make but there is a reason I had to wait untl the last real-estate crash to find a foreclosure on a modest home in the first rung suburbs.

And asking a 75 year old woman with a heart attack to wait several hours for treatment, is not "inconvenient", it's life threatening.

(03-16-2017 08:53 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:49 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:31 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

I love that Tom always proves the case for small government in his presentation of true authoritarian leftist thinking. If you get a penny, we own you...

Why are we subsidizing businesses that discriminate against people? That money should be going to the hospital that will serve all equally. Its all of our money right?

So you are good with shutting down subsidies to planned parenthood?

Planned Parenthood serves all equally.

Aborted babies disagree. But leave it to the liberals healthcare system to require DEATH be a viable option.

And I thought you told us that people are born gay. In that case, PP is killing gay people.

(03-15-2017 10:40 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 09:02 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  If I went there and was prepared to pay for their services, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone on the dole was taken ahead of me.

And feel free to call me any name you want; it won't change anything.

For clarification, I was not including emergency room treatment where a standard triage procedure would treat the most critical first.

How is having Medicare being on the dole?

I don't see the problem.

With all else being equal the clinic has the right to make a business decision.

They aren't hurting anybody.

I will jump sides if it is proven they make the decision when all things are not equal.

(03-16-2017 08:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Most reasonable people consider operating at a loss or at best having someone else set their fees for them below market value to be an "undue hardship".

If that were true, I'd probably agree.

Sounds like we need to test this case in court! CEOs love risks like that, by the way.

(03-16-2017 08:54 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Let's not pretend that the Mayo Clinic is the only option for care either. It' a top hospital in the country ...

It does operate one of the top hospitals as well as health science research centers, in the world. Which is why foreign heads of state often visit.

But that's just in Rochester, MN.


Mayo also operates a whole network of regular clinics and hospitals across MN, including a new one in Downtown Mpls, which have a great name, but are just regular clinics otherwise.

(03-16-2017 08:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You are blindly claiming the prices set are arbitrary with ZERO evidence.

The prices themselves are self-evidently arbitrary.

(03-16-2017 08:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  If a wealthy person has a highly communicable disease

If any person has a life threatening condition, he/she should and I would assume very likely will be seen before any person with a non-life threatening condition.

That doesn't prove that a wealthy person with the same life-threatening condition as a poor person, who shows up to the hospital slightly after the poor person, should get treatment before the poor person.

If they show up at exactly the same time, then there is no moral dilemma.

(03-16-2017 09:03 AM)DexterDevil Wrote:  Private company

- billions in public money from medicaid/medicare
- billions in public money from NIH research grants
- most recently the beneficiary of a $600M proposal funded by the state and the city of Rochester, MN to make it a "destination city", which the direct result of the Mayo's asking

Try again.

(03-16-2017 09:47 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Show me some evidence that they are capricious and arbitrary about the price of a procedure.

The price itself proves that.

If a bag of Doritos was priced at $100, you would think the same thing.

(03-16-2017 09:47 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  I do "ok" but because my wife and I prioritize our life around time with the kids, she does not work.

Obviously this is an aside, but my person opinion is that I agree with such a choice. And I think as the price of everything continues going up, especially the cost of child care, more people will give it a second look over dual incomes, at least for some amount of time.

(03-16-2017 09:47 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  asking a 75 year old woman with a heart attack to wait several hours for treatment, is not "inconvenient", it's life threatening.

Of course. Such a case would obviously be prioritized over all other non-life threatening conditions. And should be so done regardless of wealth -- is the point.

(03-16-2017 10:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  With all else being equal the clinic has the right to make a business decision.

If two with exactly the same condition arrive at exactly the same time, there is no moral dilemma in choosing the wealthy patient to be seen first.


But since that never happens, the CEO is clearly advocating that wealthy people been seen before poor, even though they arrived later. That is the antithesis of the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath.

(03-15-2017 09:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Evidence: the prices for all procedures done in this country are set by a small board of doctors, and are all arbitrary.

Other countries negotiate the prices, we should too.

Sounds like you would be on board with Bismarck. Unfortunately neither gang has considered it. Neither proposal will EVER give us great insurance coverage.

From what I've read about Bismarck on here (posted by Owl or in one the the links he provided), I would have to say that I think I would be on board with something like that.

(03-16-2017 11:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 08:48 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Most reasonable people consider operating at a loss or at best having someone else set their fees for them below market value to be an "undue hardship".

If that were true, I'd probably agree.

Sounds like we need to test this case in court! CEOs love risks like that, by the way.

Test away. Mayo Clinic will more than likely win

(03-16-2017 11:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 08:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  You are blindly claiming the prices set are arbitrary with ZERO evidence.

The prices themselves are self-evidently arbitrary.

You aren't even trying anymore. There are rules here that say you have to back up and source a claim. Usually I'm not a stickler and enjoy back and forth with the trolls if they are entertaining, but you are no long entertaining. Your'e just a pain in the ass troll who adds absolutely nothing to the board. As such, and per the AUP, source your claim that healthcare prices are arbitrary.

(03-16-2017 11:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 08:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  If a wealthy person has a highly communicable disease

If any person has a life threatening condition, he/she should and I would assume very likely will be seen before any person with a non-life threatening condition.

That doesn't prove that a wealthy person with the same life-threatening condition as a poor person, who shows up to the hospital slightly after the poor person, should get treatment before the poor person.

If they show up at exactly the same time, then there is no moral dilemma.

I never said anything about a "life-threatening" condition. Not all highly communicable diseases are life threatening. You are moving the goal posts.


I also like how you selective pick and chose which parts of the article you quoted. I suppose you didn't like this little nugget:

Quote:The number of patients affected would probably be small, but the selective strategy reveals the financial pressures that Mayo is facing in part due to federal health reforms. For while the Affordable Care Act has reduced the number of uninsured patients, it has increased the share covered by Medicaid, which pays around 50 to 85 cents on the dollar of the actual cost of medical care.

Mayo will always take patients, regardless of payer source, when it has medical expertise that they can’t find elsewhere, said Dr. John Noseworthy, Mayo’s CEO.

Or this one detailing the spike in unreimbursed costs:

Quote:Mayo reported a sharp increase in the amount of unreimbursed costs related to Medicaid patients, from $321 million in 2012 to $548 million in 2016. The figures include its campuses in Arizona and Florida. Mayo nonetheless remained profitable in 2016, with income of $475 million.

Then there is this:

Quote:Mayo officials expect it to be applied often, because it would be rare for equivalent patients with different insurance to show up at the same time and force a choice.

(03-16-2017 11:19 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 10:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  With all else being equal the clinic has the right to make a business decision.

If two with exactly the same condition arrive at exactly the same time, there is no moral dilemma in choosing the wealthy patient to be seen first.


But since that never happens, the CEO is clearly advocating that wealthy people been seen before poor, even though they arrived later. That is the antithesis of the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath.

That is a direct contradiction to the statements he made. Now you are just lying about what he said.

(03-16-2017 11:17 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 09:47 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Show me some evidence that they are capricious and arbitrary about the price of a procedure.

The price itself proves that.

Quote:

(03-16-2017 09:47 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  asking a 75 year old woman with a heart attack to wait several hours for treatment, is not "inconvenient", it's life threatening.

Of course. Such a case would obviously be prioritized over all other non-life threatening conditions. And should be so done regardless of wealth -- is the point.

Not in Canada, where the wait was so long my grandmother said "f' it, Ill go across the peace bridge".... Or where they told my 72 year old grandfather he was "too old" for Chemo (which is canada medicine speak for "too old to spend money for chemo on)