Much corridors..... so freaking stupid and yes that IS why they are pulling out. You've spent years dismantling it. Now own it. Fix it! You control all three branches. Go get it cowboys.

No more excuses.

(05-17-2017 01:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Now own it. Fix it! You control all three branches. Go get it cowboys.

I don't think you're going to find any conservative that disagrees with this.

(05-17-2017 01:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 09:38 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Then I guess minute clinics will be as ubiquitous as drug stores.

They pretty much are here. Just about every chain drug store and even several of the local ones have minute clinics, and there seems to be at least one kind of urgent care clinic every couple of miles.

Quote:Anything beyond that, though, is screwed. A bill beyond a hundred bucks, most people are going to balk. Maybe a couple hundred. Thousand for the wealthy.

That statement doesn't square up with the rise in concierge medical practices,

yeah, but iirc, you only work in the field as well, so you don't know anything about it and are only making WAGs

(05-17-2017 01:52 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 01:49 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Now own it. Fix it! You control all three branches. Go get it cowboys.

I don't think you're going to find any conservative that disagrees with this.

I agree... although they certainly aren't pulling out in 2017 based on something that wouldn't go into effect until at least 2018... and likely longer since it hasn't actually been passed yet. Of course they don't CONTROL all three branches like Dems did when they passed the ACA, but they certainly have more power... it's just not as absolute.

Any fix that the Republicans can come up with will not get through the Senate; short of a full elimination of the filibuster.

The Dems have no reason to work on a fix. In fact, the Dems have every reason to obstruct any attempt to fix Obamacare.

And of course with the help of the MSM, it will be the Republicans fault, not the arseholes, and their supporters, that rammed it through in 2009.

(05-17-2017 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So 'raising concerns about the state's ability to pay for it' (written by a leftist for a leftist audience) isn't an 'oh ___'? Are you now saying every state needs to use those words?

The spirit and tone of his post, especially considering the foul language, was much, much more dire than the article you cite. Not even close.

(05-17-2017 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  A first year business undergrad knows that by and large, investors don't simply stick to a single area and accept lower returns because it's 'what they know'.

But then again, plenty of times in history investors have done things that don't make sense in a textbook. I motivated a perfectly valid hypothesis for why they might try to return.

(05-17-2017 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  It's what I do for a living and has nothing to do with my ideology, especially in that i do it in California. I've seen it and addressed it every day for years now.
...
Got it... so my professional experience means nothing??

Obviously your experience gives you far more credibility than me, in certain aspects.

But it certainly hasn't tamped down the harshness of the "free" market ideology slant that you add to everything.

I honestly don't know how you would answer the question "are reimbursement rates more important than helping people"?

(05-17-2017 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  so you agree that your hypothesis doesn't even hold water in your OWN mind.

This must mean that you are simplistically equating prowess and interest in scientific research with doctor "quality". Which is borderline ridiculous.

The quality of a doc is how accurately he/she can recognize disease, and prescribe appropriate treatment. It does not take a genius scientific researcher to do that ...

(05-17-2017 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Yeah... because if we just let people who 'really wanted to help others' be doctors, we'd have more of them and they'd be better??

You glossed over 90% of the other parts that I described.

(05-17-2017 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I was an institutional broker... 25 years selling investments to banks, insurance companies etc etc and working for Morgan Stanley... lots of mortgage product... Did well. My namee's on 'rooms' and scholarships. MS wanted me to sell the crap to my banks... money over ethics... wouldn't do it. Expected the bottom to fall out and the 'bad' guys to go broke and my banks and insurers swoop in and make a fortune. Was right on track until the Government bails out the 'bad' guys. I get pissed and 'retire'. Pretty simple. More interested in 'doing good' than 'doing well' anymore. Spent 4 years as an expert witness on all the lawsuits.... got hired by one of my clients.

This is very interesting background, and I thank you for sharing it.

It's too bad that a poor experience with a government decision has led you to subscribe to such extreme "free" market ideals.

(05-17-2017 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Only on pedantic triviality

Nope, on the actual substance of his claim.

(05-17-2017 12:49 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I just wish your uninformed opinion didn't come with a vote.

Well I, on the other hand, don't wish for someone to lose his/her vote simply because I don't agree with his/her viewpoint ... so long as the viewpoint is reasonable, not discriminatory, and intelligently conveyed.

(05-17-2017 01:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  They pretty much are here. Just about every chain drug store and even several of the local ones have minute clinics, and there seems to be at least one kind of urgent care clinic every couple of miles.

Very true. Ubiquitous was the wrong word.

Was just trying to say that since that's about all regular people can afford out of pocket, that's all that would be around.

(05-17-2017 01:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  That statement doesn't square up with the rise in concierge medical practices,

Frankly not familiar with this product, but assuming only the rich can afford it out of pocket, so therefore it does square up with what I was saying.

(05-17-2017 06:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 01:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  That statement doesn't square up with the rise in concierge medical practices,

Frankly not familiar with this product, but assuming only the rich can afford it out of pocket, so therefore it does square up with what I was saying.

you'd be wise to read up on it instead of troting out the tired "only the rich" nonsense.


https://conciergemedicinetoday.org/conci...cine-cost/

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(05-17-2017 06:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(05-17-2017 01:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  They pretty much are here. Just about every chain drug store and even several of the local ones have minute clinics, and there seems to be at least one kind of urgent care clinic every couple of miles.

Very true. Ubiquitous was the wrong word.

Was just trying to say that since that's about all regular people can afford out of pocket, that's all that would be around.

The vast majority of time that's all they need.

Quote:

(05-17-2017 01:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  That statement doesn't square up with the rise in concierge medical practices,

Frankly not familiar with this product, but assuming only the rich can afford it out of pocket, so therefore it does square up with what I was saying.

I suggest you study up on it so that in the future you don't say "only the rich can afford it" because it's far from just a rich people thing. My wife's employer does it to cut insurance costs, and it's the next best thing to the good ol' country doctor IMO. You get a competent physician who is familiar with your history instead of whoever is on duty that day.

(05-17-2017 07:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  The vast majority of time that's all they need.

Agreed, again. I think clearly they're an important part of the overall healthcare system going forward.

(05-17-2017 07:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  it's far from just a rich people thing.

Well I typically associate concierge, as opposed to something more mundane like "doorman", with an upscale apartment or condo building. So I don't think it was an off-base guess. But an incorrect guess, apparently.

(05-17-2017 07:33 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  My wife's employer does it to cut insurance costs, and it's the next best thing to the good ol' country doctor IMO. You get a competent physician who is familiar with your history instead of whoever is on duty that day.

Sounds like an interesting option. Thanks for educating me.

However, if all I do is expand my original statement (that you replied to) to include both minute clinics and concierge medical services as "the only survivors" of a "fee-for-service revolution", then the rest of the spirit of my point remains intact.

John Kasich and Bernie Sanders echoed the sentiment that both parties need to work together to come up with something including fixing Obamacare. The problem is that you have too many ecotistic airheads on both sides want to score a win instead of working together. Democrats have taken some things too far on what needs to be in everybody's health care plan, and the Republicans want to make the health care system even worst repealing everything. There is a common ground. Rework the ACA to a point that all plans that suits people. That way, people can have the health care that they need. Why would someone with MS have a birth control plan on their health care if they can not even have sex? That is just so stupid.

(05-18-2017 12:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Why would someone with MS have a birth control plan on their health care if they can not even have sex? That is just so stupid.

Very simply, because you can't make the numbers work unless they do.

The whole system relies on coming up with the money to provide expanded health insurance by:

1) making healthy people pay for coverage that they don't need, and using the excess to subsidize others, and
2) cutting fees paid to health care providers, without cutting the costs that those providers incur to provide those services, making health care a less financially rewarding profession, which will in turn inevitably reduce supply.

Obamacare basically ignores every fundamental law of economics. That's why it can never work long term. It could probably be "modified" into a single-payer or single-provider or Bismarck system, but any of those would be essentially "throw out the baby with the bath water" modifications.