Idiotic writers...

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Madam Broshkina

We did elect a a member of the minority to be the President of the United States. It was in all the papers.

You elected a man half black, half white. And it was and still is a big controversy.

A lot of people in the us still thinks he is the devil incarnate.

Do you really want to get into a discussion of the possibilities of the weak and how they are treated in the USA and in northern Europa? USA represents a lot of great things. But when it comes to your handling of the weak and minorities you're a joke.

if you want do go down that road, let's start with the trailer parks... we don't have any.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Madam Broshkina

We did elect a a member of the minority to be the President of the United States. It was in all the papers.

The fact a black man has been elected does not in any way show that the ingrained racism of the USA has diminished in any meaningful way for the vast majority.

Having said that, the USA is not the only country with racial issues. Here in Australia we certainly have our share of racially motivated problems.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Nate the great]

I think this thread has descended past the point of having any redeeming value.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think this thread has descended past the point of having any redeeming value.

If you or Harry want to close it, I would be thankful. I don't come to MR for political debate, but there are some issues that I simply will not allow to go undefended when they sprout up. And this debate needed some serious counterpoint.

But I would rather debate screen size vs wireless.

[Madam Broshkina]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think this thread has descended past the point of having any redeeming value.

Well we did establish that Denmark does not have any trailer parks. So there was some redeeming value.

[kazbates]

Some of my best friends live in trailer parks.

Laz116, your first question about healthcare in this country seemed to imply that you had an open mind and were seeking information as to why the opposition to standardized healthcare felt the way that they do. However, when Nate and others tried to explain it, you digressed into calling them narrow minded and bashing the policies of the United States and, indeed, pulled out the racist card.

I've worked as both a federal and state employee. I've seen how government agencies work and the LAST thing I want is some government bureaucracy running my healthcare. For the record, I don't like the way my insurance company runs it either, but they've at least got some experience doing it.

Finally, as a teacher in what you call "socialized" education, I would love to get the bureaucrats out of my hair and let educators run the system. At least they would know what actually happens in the classroom.

[Donnageddon]

Kaz, in what way does your insurance company "run your healthcare". What is their "experience" with healthcare? How does their involvement effect your healthcare?

In what way do you think "government" would "run your healthcare" under the current proposals?

Wouldn't it be nice to get the Insurance company bureaucrats out of your doctors hair?

[Donnageddon]

But then again, if you like the way your insurance company "runs your healthcare", no problem. You don't need to choose the public option.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

But then again, if you like the way your insurance company "runs your healthcare", no problem. You don't need to choose the public option.

This is also true in the UK. If a person doesn't want NHS treatment then they are free to go for private treatment. And there are insurance companies, such as BUPA, which organise private healthcare schemes.

I'm quite happy with NHS treatment, though occasionally have private dental work because I prefer my old amalgam fillings to be replaced with more aesthetically pleasing white ones.

[UncleDuke]

i am bothered by the rush to pass the bill, it is a problem that needs a good solution, not 55 new agencies and ahost of new taxes and taxes that are deemed not a tax for tax purposes (p 587)

[Donnageddon]

It's even better than that Patricia. The public option is for those who fall through the system as it exists now. The self employed, the unemployed, those with pre-existing conditions, dropped off the roles because of previous claims, or those who just cannot afford the astoundingly high insurance premiums of the private sector.

For those with insurance provided by their employer, there is no change.

The thing that scares the bejeezuz out of the insurance companies is that the public option will prove to be just as good, or better, at a lower cost than the private insurance companies.

If they feel it will fail, then why are they afraid? Why spread the outlandish lies? They are just afraid of competition and more choice.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by UncleDuke

i am bothered by the rush to pass the bill, it is a problem that needs a good solution, not 55 new agencies and ahost of new taxes and taxes that are deemed not a tax for tax purposes (p 587)

Gosh, that is troubling! Can you post the section on, presumably page 587, that creates these new 55 agencies and host of new taxes?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Kaz, in what way does your insurance company "run your healthcare". What is their "experience" with healthcare? How does their involvement effect your healthcare?

In what way do you think "government" would "run your healthcare" under the current proposals?

Wouldn't it be nice to get the Insurance company bureaucrats out of your doctors hair?

I work for one of those evil insurance companies. What is my companies "experience" with health care? Well, we employ doctors and nurses who work with outside doctors to make the decisions about what kinds of procedures are covered and to what degree. Those types of decisions are not made in a vacuum by business types. (I'm sure there are financial guys involved too, my point is that there are doctors involved on both sides of the negotiating table.)

The whole point of insurance is to create a fund to cover care for all the members. And a good chunk of the medical care needed by the insured isn't provided by the costs of membership - insurance premiums are invested so that those funds grow, and there is more for everyone.

I can't speak for every insurance company certainly, but the one I work for is a not-for-profit company, which means we are limited in the amount of profit we are allowed to make. Our goal is to make just a little bit more than it takes to cover costs, and that "little bit" is put back into the system for a rainy day. I don't think I'm at liberty to share numbers on a public forum, but the percentage of premium dollars that are spent on non-healthcare items is a big deal to us, and something we try to drop every year. As an IT guy I definitely feel that - technology isn't a direct moneymaker, it's an expense. We look for every way to cut costs that we can find.

I'm not saying the system is perfect - it certainly isn't. And insurance companies are indeed part of the problem, in a way. Insurance companies attempt to control costs by stating how much they're willing to pay for a procedure, and providers agree not to charge more than the copay to the insured. So, hospitals raise prices on other parts of their services. A friend of mine recently had a 30 dollar charge on his bill to bring him two aspirin - obviously way more than the cost of the service. Looking at an itemized hospital bill is an eye-opening experience.

From what I can tell the root of a lot of our health care problems in the US is a lack of doctors, particularly family doctors (as opposed to specialists). When we moved to Vancouver (a large suburb of Portland, OR) we had trouble finding a family doctor that had openings for new patients. It wasn't because of money or our insurance (remember, I work for an insurance company!)....there simply aren't enough doctors in the area to provide care to the population. When we had our last child, the nurse at the birthing class mentioned that in some rural counties in Oregon there were women scheduling medically unnecessary c-sections because there was no on-call OB. The only way to make sure there was an attending OB at the birth of their child was to schedule surgery.

If there aren't enough doctors to go around it doesn't matter who is paying or how much.

And frankly, a lot of the reason that a lot of people in the US aren't happy about the idea of government run health care is that we have an inherent mistrust in the governments ability to intelligently manage ANYTHING. Congress has proved over and over again through the years and regardless of which party held a majority that they just can't spend enough. You might say that mistrust of government is a core American value. It wasn't all that long ago that we fought a Revolution over it, after all.

[GlennD]

I guess the data about admin costs per premium dollar is publically shared info:

Regence has consistently called for lower costs and greater efficiency throughout the health care system. It's only fair that others ask what we're doing to help. Everyone would agree insurers should keep costs down—both operational and medical. These are not separate pots of money: Operational funds are invested to temper rising medical costs.

We aggressively reduced administrative expenses to 8.3 cents of the premium dollar, compared to the 13-cent industry average, while 90.6 cents paid medical claims.

To influence medical costs, we help members with chronic conditions follow complicated treatment plans. Certified coaches help members reduce health risks. Nurses work with pregnant members to lower the incidence of early or low-birthweight babies.

Pharmacists research and compare prescription medications, and educate doctors and patients about safety and quality. Investigators recover or prevent millions in fraudulent claims. Legal staff document our compliance with dozens of state and federal agencies' regulations.

Employers receive data to identify risk trends among workers and help to improve their health. Providers get tools to ease their administrative burden. Pilot programs with providers identify best practices and foster innovation.

Operational dollars deliver value. When members call, they get a real person, trained in and committed to first-call resolution. We process 1.5 million claims a month and have one of the highest service ratings in the industry. We successfully manage members' resources, faring far better right now than the Dow.

We've been advocating health care reform for years among state and congressional leaders, and within our industry.

This is what our members get for 8.3 cents of each premium dollar.

The nature of health care is that we all spend each other's money. That makes us all accountable to get the best value for this shared resource—insurers, suppliers, patients and providers alike.

Then again, I suppose some will say that this (and the accompanying information on the Regence web site) is just more lies spread by the insurance industry.

[Donnageddon]

I work for one of those evil insurance companies.

I am sorry to hear that. I know of many insurance companies, but not any "evil" ones.

I can't speak for every insurance company certainly, but the one I work for is a not-for-profit company, which means we are limited in the amount of profit we are allowed to make. Our goal is to make just a little bit more than it takes to cover costs, and that "little bit" is put back into the system for a rainy day.

Well, that is a big exception. You won't find many of the "not for profit" insurance companies these days. Blue Cross/Blue Shield was at one time. But there was no money in it. That goes for the vast majority of insurance companies people use.

From what I can tell the root of a lot of our health care problems in the US is a lack of doctors, particularly family doctors (as opposed to specialists).

From what I understand that is very true.That is a large reason why the AMA is supporting the House of Representatives bill for healthcare reform. not that that will be the final bill voted on, but it has the essence of what the AMA supports.

And frankly, a lot of the reason that a lot of people in the US aren't happy about the idea of government run health care is that we have an inherent mistrust in the governments ability to intelligently manage ANYTHING.

The previous administration has worked hard to encourage that mistrust, and to make themselves worthy of it.

But Regence and all the "For Profit" insurance companies have nothing to worry about a public option. Why would they be worried? The various bills in congress wouldn't put them out of business. Right?