Its NOT a choice between government run healthcare and death. Though the left now loves to trot out those false choices.

That is the type of blatant intellectual dishonesty that is destroying our country.

(06-30-2016 03:36 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Its NOT a choice between government run healthcare and death. Though the left now loves to trot out those false choices.

That is the type of blatant intellectual dishonesty that is destroying our country.

But death is a good motivator, right?

(06-29-2016 11:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Nomad,

I respect your point of view. But to just accept that our tax revenues are going to be wasted on crap is nonsense to me. Why do we accept a choice of either funding personal financial irresponsibility or some stupid pork project of a government official. Why not reject both? Is that not a better goal? I'm mad as hell, and nobody with a government title seems to understand that government is there to meet basic Constitutional goals, not continually milking me for more money to fund stupid crap and stupid people that have somehow become entitled to the fruits of my labor.

Maybe I am an idealist, or naïve, but are we so far gone as to say that the societal parasites (both people and government) are a necessary evil that we cannot correct?

Striving towards that ideal should be at the forefront. Which is why the advocacy of larger gov't healthcare is baffling. Bureaucracies are by definition inefficient and uncaring, yet despite the examples provided by the VA, the DOD, USPS and DOE, people somehow believe this time it will be different.

The family shouldn't have had to suffer and I have no problem with the letter, but these and other issues will become more prevalent as the gov't roll expands in this arena. Never forget the government work does not attract quality people because it is immune from responsibility.

(06-30-2016 03:25 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  A quote from the audience of a 2008 republican debate. "Let 'em die!"

I guess thats their only choice left, since "Let'em work" is completely out of the question.

So from what I can tell many on here want to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security, snap, and every other safety net program that is in place. I think you are living in a idealized fantasy world.

(06-30-2016 07:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So from what I can tell many on here want to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security, snap, and every other safety net program that is in place. I think you are living in a idealized fantasy world.

The people living in the fantasy world are those who think we can be 20+ trillion in debt and sustain all these programs indefinitely while still taking on massive numbers of poor people from around the word to add to the tab.

But the left feels much more comfortable just lying and pretending its a choice of all or none.

(06-30-2016 07:43 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So from what I can tell many on here want to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security, snap, and every other safety net program that is in place. I think you are living in a idealized fantasy world.

The people living in the fantasy world are those who think we can be 20+ trillion in debt and sustain all these programs indefinitely while still taking on massive numbers of poor people from around the word to add to the tab.

Yet here we are...doing just that...and the world just keeps right on spinning.

(06-30-2016 08:02 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:43 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So from what I can tell many on here want to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security, snap, and every other safety net program that is in place. I think you are living in a idealized fantasy world.

The people living in the fantasy world are those who think we can be 20+ trillion in debt and sustain all these programs indefinitely while still taking on massive numbers of poor people from around the word to add to the tab.

Yet here we are...doing just that...and the world just keeps right on spinning.

Venezuela says hi. And they ask you to send some toilet paper....

(06-30-2016 08:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:02 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:43 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So from what I can tell many on here want to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security, snap, and every other safety net program that is in place. I think you are living in a idealized fantasy world.

The people living in the fantasy world are those who think we can be 20+ trillion in debt and sustain all these programs indefinitely while still taking on massive numbers of poor people from around the word to add to the tab.

Yet here we are...doing just that...and the world just keeps right on spinning.

Venezuela says hi.

Hi Venezuela!

(06-29-2016 08:19 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Lets be clear....The supplies in question are FULLY covered by Medicaid. The problem is one of a clerical nature. ANY Pharmacist or Pharmacy worth a damn should have handled this...

Exactly. I do this in the pharmacy at least 5 times a day. It usually can be fixed with one phone call. The prescriber simply needs to write the prescription for the brand the insurance will cover or write it for generic supplies. On rare occasions, it can't be corrected right away, for example on Friday evening and the doctor's office is closed. In those instances, if the patient has totally run out of supplies, then she can purchase enough to get through the weekend until the pharmacy can contact the doctor on Monday. We're talking about $3 for alcohol swabs, $5 for lancets and $20 for a 25-count box of test strips. Diabetes patients learn to stay on top of their prescriptions and supplies so that they don't run out.

Bingo.

Yet we have people in society writing their state reps for redress.

Ask an ER doc in a large city how may people they see per week who show up with a headache to get free advil.

(06-30-2016 08:06 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:03 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 08:02 AM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:43 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 07:33 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  So from what I can tell many on here want to eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, social security, snap, and every other safety net program that is in place. I think you are living in a idealized fantasy world.

The people living in the fantasy world are those who think we can be 20+ trillion in debt and sustain all these programs indefinitely while still taking on massive numbers of poor people from around the word to add to the tab.

Yet here we are...doing just that...and the world just keeps right on spinning.

Venezuela says hi.

Hi Venezuela!

They dont have to talk to you now. They are too busy experiencing the fabulous life of socialism after spending everyone else's money.

(06-30-2016 06:03 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Nomad,

I respect your point of view. But to just accept that our tax revenues are going to be wasted on crap is nonsense to me. Why do we accept a choice of either funding personal financial irresponsibility or some stupid pork project of a government official. Why not reject both? Is that not a better goal? I'm mad as hell, and nobody with a government title seems to understand that government is there to meet basic Constitutional goals, not continually milking me for more money to fund stupid crap and stupid people that have somehow become entitled to the fruits of my labor.

Maybe I am an idealist, or naïve, but are we so far gone as to say that the societal parasites (both people and government) are a necessary evil that we cannot correct?

Striving towards that ideal should be at the forefront. Which is why the advocacy of larger gov't healthcare is baffling. Bureaucracies are by definition inefficient and uncaring, yet despite the examples provided by the VA, the DOD, USPS and DOE, people somehow believe this time it will be different.

The family shouldn't have had to suffer and I have no problem with the letter, but these and other issues will become more prevalent as the gov't roll expands in this arena. Never forget the government work does not attract quality people because it is immune from responsibility.

I got pretty good care growing up as an Army dependent and good care when I was on active duty myself. I've never tried to use VA, but I believe part of the problem is it's understaffed and underfunded.

I could be wrong. Government-run healthcare could be as bad as its detractors say it is and as bad an idea as there is.

But that said, I also believe all folks should have access to health care and it should be affordable.

As for your comment, "government work does not attract quality people," I beg to differ. I've known quite a few 'quality' government employees over the years - at the local, state and federal level - from cops to firefighters to teachers to the military, and even a few in bureaucratic posts who cared about their jobs and were truly public servants.

Why can't that be the same in health care?

(06-30-2016 03:27 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 06:03 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Nomad,

I respect your point of view. But to just accept that our tax revenues are going to be wasted on crap is nonsense to me. Why do we accept a choice of either funding personal financial irresponsibility or some stupid pork project of a government official. Why not reject both? Is that not a better goal? I'm mad as hell, and nobody with a government title seems to understand that government is there to meet basic Constitutional goals, not continually milking me for more money to fund stupid crap and stupid people that have somehow become entitled to the fruits of my labor.

Maybe I am an idealist, or naïve, but are we so far gone as to say that the societal parasites (both people and government) are a necessary evil that we cannot correct?

Striving towards that ideal should be at the forefront. Which is why the advocacy of larger gov't healthcare is baffling. Bureaucracies are by definition inefficient and uncaring, yet despite the examples provided by the VA, the DOD, USPS and DOE, people somehow believe this time it will be different.

The family shouldn't have had to suffer and I have no problem with the letter, but these and other issues will become more prevalent as the gov't roll expands in this arena. Never forget the government work does not attract quality people because it is immune from responsibility.

I got pretty good care growing up as an Army dependent and good care when I was on active duty myself. I've never tried to use VA, but I believe part of the problem is it's understaffed and underfunded.

I could be wrong. Government-run healthcare could be as bad as its detractors say it is and as bad an idea as there is.

But that said, I also believe all folks should have access to health care and it should be affordable.

As for your comment, "government work does not attract quality people," I beg to differ. I've known quite a few 'quality' government employees over the years - at the local, state and federal level - from cops to firefighters to teachers to the military, and even a few in bureaucratic posts who cared about their jobs and were truly public servants.

Why can't that be the same in health care?

Those folks bolded above, do not do it for the money, generally. But there has rarely ever been money in those fields.

There's a lot of money in being a doctor, after the loans are paid. Sure some, if not a significant chunk, do it to "help people". But its going to be hard to convince a guy making $300k-500k a year in private practice, that they need to work for the government for half that amount.

(06-29-2016 05:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 05:20 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So its life and death, but not so life and death that they want to spend their own money?

Just wait until single payer. This becomes the norm.

That is just an ignorant statement. Do you really think they didn't spend out of pocket to get what they needed while they tried to fix the problem? The lady was just trying to get a problem resolved that she hadn't had success in doing herself. Also do you have any idea of what the cash price is for a vial of humalog or lantus or test strips for a blood sugar meter?

not disagreeing with your other statements, but a glucose meter is less than $10 and most hospitals will give you one because a single visit to the ED costs them far more than that... Strips are pennies... Humalog and lantus are different issues. Very expensive without insurance.... but I've had plenty of situations where I've had to pay hundreds, even thousands out of pocket and get reimbursed later. It's a problem, but it's not unique to her, nor is it addressed by the ACA

(06-30-2016 03:43 PM)muffinman Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 03:27 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 06:03 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Nomad,

I respect your point of view. But to just accept that our tax revenues are going to be wasted on crap is nonsense to me. Why do we accept a choice of either funding personal financial irresponsibility or some stupid pork project of a government official. Why not reject both? Is that not a better goal? I'm mad as hell, and nobody with a government title seems to understand that government is there to meet basic Constitutional goals, not continually milking me for more money to fund stupid crap and stupid people that have somehow become entitled to the fruits of my labor.

Maybe I am an idealist, or naïve, but are we so far gone as to say that the societal parasites (both people and government) are a necessary evil that we cannot correct?

Striving towards that ideal should be at the forefront. Which is why the advocacy of larger gov't healthcare is baffling. Bureaucracies are by definition inefficient and uncaring, yet despite the examples provided by the VA, the DOD, USPS and DOE, people somehow believe this time it will be different.

The family shouldn't have had to suffer and I have no problem with the letter, but these and other issues will become more prevalent as the gov't roll expands in this arena. Never forget the government work does not attract quality people because it is immune from responsibility.

I got pretty good care growing up as an Army dependent and good care when I was on active duty myself. I've never tried to use VA, but I believe part of the problem is it's understaffed and underfunded.

I could be wrong. Government-run healthcare could be as bad as its detractors say it is and as bad an idea as there is.

But that said, I also believe all folks should have access to health care and it should be affordable.

As for your comment, "government work does not attract quality people," I beg to differ. I've known quite a few 'quality' government employees over the years - at the local, state and federal level - from cops to firefighters to teachers to the military, and even a few in bureaucratic posts who cared about their jobs and were truly public servants.

Why can't that be the same in health care?

Those folks bolded above, do not do it for the money, generally. But there has rarely ever been money in those fields.

There's a lot of money in being a doctor, after the loans are paid. Sure some, if not a significant chunk, do it to "help people". But its going to be hard to convince a guy making $300k-500k a year in private practice, that they need to work for the government for half that amount.

They wouldn't necessarily have to result in the doctor having to work for the government.

(06-30-2016 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 05:32 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 05:20 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  So its life and death, but not so life and death that they want to spend their own money?

Just wait until single payer. This becomes the norm.

That is just an ignorant statement. Do you really think they didn't spend out of pocket to get what they needed while they tried to fix the problem? The lady was just trying to get a problem resolved that she hadn't had success in doing herself. Also do you have any idea of what the cash price is for a vial of humalog or lantus or test strips for a blood sugar meter?

not disagreeing with your other statements, but a glucose meter is less than $10 and most hospitals will give you one because a single visit to the ED costs them far more than that... Strips are pennies... Humalog and lantus are different issues. Very expensive without insurance.... but I've had plenty of situations where I've had to pay hundreds, even thousands out of pocket and get reimbursed later. It's a problem, but it's not unique to her, nor is it addressed by the ACA

Meters are almost given away. It is something you buy once every few years. They do that so that you will buy the strips that only work with that meter. Strips aren't cheap. We go through between 4 and 10, sometimes more a day.

The situation isn't unique to her as she clearly pointed out. She was asking for help not just for her child but for all the families in the same situation. Nobody's orders were being processed.

I don't think anyone mentioned the ACA.

(06-29-2016 05:36 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 03:40 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  Sometimes elected officials forget who they serve. A mother wrote Mississippi state house members looking for some assistance. He daughter is insured through Medicaid/CHIP. She is a type 1 diabetic. The supplies (insulin, test strips, lancets etc.) were not being processed when the provider switched suppliers. These are standard and life and death supplies for any diabetic. Others were having the same problem her family was and she had worked diligently to resolve the problem prior to appealing to the house members. She hoped that one or more of the legislators would or would have one of their staff members make some inquires and try and get the problem resolved. She got only three responses. The rest didn't even bother to respond. Two responses were positive but the third from State Rep. Jeffrey Guice, R-Ocean Springs, responded, "I am sorry for your problem. Have you thought about buying the supplies with money that you earn?" What an idiot. This is a family doing everything right, working hard, playing by the rules and he blows her off like she is some kind of freeloader. Guice by the way serves on the Insurance Committee as well as the Public Health and Human Services Committee. This guy needs to be challenged in his next primary.

http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/.../86464972/

I feel for her, I really do. But it bares point out that this is the result of collectivism, the rise of and herd-mentality use of insurance, and lawyers and plaintiffs being granted ridiculous judgments. Basically, everything the progressives pushed for. There is NO WAY insulin should cost what it does... nor most anything else medical.

You CAN'T sue a doctor or a hospital for any real punitive damages in Texas. Haven't been able to do so for years. Did prices come down? Nope.

(06-30-2016 04:30 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 03:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  not disagreeing with your other statements, but a glucose meter is less than $10 and most hospitals will give you one because a single visit to the ED costs them far more than that... Strips are pennies... Humalog and lantus are different issues. Very expensive without insurance.... but I've had plenty of situations where I've had to pay hundreds, even thousands out of pocket and get reimbursed later. It's a problem, but it's not unique to her, nor is it addressed by the ACA

Meters are almost given away. It is something you buy once every few years. They do that so that you will buy the strips that only work with that meter. Strips aren't cheap. We go through between 4 and 10, sometimes more a day.

The situation isn't unique to her as she clearly pointed out. She was asking for help not just for her child but for all the families in the same situation. Nobody's orders were being processed.

I don't think anyone mentioned the ACA.

a) I can assure you that the ones we give away aren't because we make it back on the strips. We give $7.99 retail (at Wal-Mart) meters that use the most generic strips... also from Wal-Mart... on purpose. If you're taking the one you got the free coupon for in the mail, absolutely they're trying to make it up on the strips, no different than the cost of printer ink being higher than the cost of many printers. You don't HAVE to buy that one, just because it's 'free'.
b) I agreed that her situation isn't unique, even for people without a change in their provider or DM1... and I mentioned the ACA because it is the law of the land supposedly intended to address these problems. LOTS of people have to pay out of pocket for things and wait to be reimbursed when someone processes the claim. Been that way for as long as I can remember having Insurance. Why would these people be immune to it?

I work in healthcare and I have to jump through hoops to get my kids care handled... and while I agree that it sucks to have to do that, it's not my State Senator's fault... even if he DID respond petulantly. Medicare/CMS sets the standards and everyone else follows it. Fix that, and you've fixed the problems. The ACA (or its replacement) are the means to do so.

(06-30-2016 05:35 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You CAN'T sue a doctor or a hospital for any real punitive damages in Texas. Haven't been able to do so for years. Did prices come down? Nope.

Really? Lasik in 2010 was over $1000 per eye. Now it's often less than $300. the cost of MANY procedures including invasive surgery has gone way down. I can't attribute it to any single cause, but you also can't claim they haven't come down.

Now it's certainly true that Dexilant (on patent) is more expensive than Pantoprazole (now off patent)... but it's also a different drug, different formula, works slightly different and for some people, better. So the price of GERD treatment has either come down, or has gotten better.

It's hard to sue docs in Texas for sure... but it's impossible to sue them in your preferred solution.

(06-30-2016 03:27 PM)gsu95 Wrote:  

(06-30-2016 06:03 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-29-2016 11:15 PM)ODUsmitty Wrote:  Nomad,

I respect your point of view. But to just accept that our tax revenues are going to be wasted on crap is nonsense to me. Why do we accept a choice of either funding personal financial irresponsibility or some stupid pork project of a government official. Why not reject both? Is that not a better goal? I'm mad as hell, and nobody with a government title seems to understand that government is there to meet basic Constitutional goals, not continually milking me for more money to fund stupid crap and stupid people that have somehow become entitled to the fruits of my labor.

Maybe I am an idealist, or naïve, but are we so far gone as to say that the societal parasites (both people and government) are a necessary evil that we cannot correct?

Striving towards that ideal should be at the forefront. Which is why the advocacy of larger gov't healthcare is baffling. Bureaucracies are by definition inefficient and uncaring, yet despite the examples provided by the VA, the DOD, USPS and DOE, people somehow believe this time it will be different.

The family shouldn't have had to suffer and I have no problem with the letter, but these and other issues will become more prevalent as the gov't roll expands in this arena. Never forget the government work does not attract quality people because it is immune from responsibility.

I got pretty good care growing up as an Army dependent and good care when I was on active duty myself. I've never tried to use VA, but I believe part of the problem is it's understaffed and underfunded.

I could be wrong. Government-run healthcare could be as bad as its detractors say it is and as bad an idea as there is.

But that said, I also believe all folks should have access to health care and it should be affordable.

As for your comment, "government work does not attract quality people," I beg to differ. I've known quite a few 'quality' government employees over the years - at the local, state and federal level - from cops to firefighters to teachers to the military, and even a few in bureaucratic posts who cared about their jobs and were truly public servants.

Why can't that be the same in health care?

I doubt they're under staffed or funded. I think it's a cushy government jobs. I know of a couple docs in my town who retired from their private practice but go work at the VA part time because it's an easy job with good pay, no call, and they aren't expected to see many patients in a day.