Our City Online

Messageboard - Everyday Chit Chat

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

It's not medical rationing

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Everyday Chit Chat It’s not medical rationing

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 102 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #410767

    Brent
    Member

    What a load of shit. CER (Comparative Effectiveness Research) isn’t rationing, it’s not paying for shit that doesn’t work. Like when we used to do bone marrow transplants on women with breast cancer in the 1990s, until we found out that women who had BMTs for their breast cancer fared worse than those who did not. Oh, maybe dropping $50k on a treatment for worse outcomes doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

    Physicians like to cry about lots of things relating to government just like every other citizen. 46% aren’t going to quit just because the changes in the healthcare bill went into effect. They may not like being “told what to do by a government bureaucrat”, but they’re already being told what to do by an insurance company bureaucrat. Same shit, different day. If you don’t like it, provide evidence why your particular treatment recommendations work and/or are better instead of hiding behind the veil that the doctor knows best because that’s how he/she has been doing it for 20-40 years, and isn’t interested in learning what’s new or better.

    Quit crying, spend your energy proving why what you do is better.

    #410768

    gramarye
    Participant

    rus wrote >>

    Cookie wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    “Obmamacare” sounds as much like a slogan or buzzword as “Romneycare”. Both can be used by their opponents, sure, but they also serve to quickly identify the laws and regulations in question, yes?

    Yes, like death panels.

    Explain to me how a deliberate distortion is the same as shorthand identification.

    +1

    If Obamacare were more popular, the president would be encouraging his supporters to use that shorthand at every opportunity.

    You can’t say the same thing about “death panels,” a deliberate pejorative.

    #410769

    joev
    Participant

    Brent wrote >> Physicians like to cry about lots of things relating to government just like every other citizen. 46% aren’t going to quit just because the changes in the healthcare bill went into effect. They may not like being “told what to do by a government bureaucrat”, but they’re already being told what to do by an insurance company bureaucrat.

    + 1 billion. I would much rather have the government making these calls – the government is accountable to us. Insurance companies are only accountable to their shareholders. Large numbers of doctors aren’t going to leave the industry – just the few, vocal crybabies.

    #410770

    Mercurius
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>

    rus wrote >>

    Cookie wrote >>

    rus wrote >>
    “Obmamacare” sounds as much like a slogan or buzzword as “Romneycare”. Both can be used by their opponents, sure, but they also serve to quickly identify the laws and regulations in question, yes?

    Yes, like death panels.

    Explain to me how a deliberate distortion is the same as shorthand identification.

    +1
    If Obamacare were more popular, the president would be encouraging his supporters to use that shorthand at every opportunity.
    You can’t say the same thing about “death panels,” a deliberate pejorative.

    People don’t like uncertainty. All other countries where law requires healthcare, that healthcare is extremely popular. Probably the same will be true of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, once it goes into effect. Until it goes into effect, there is too much uncertainty. For example, does Columbus Foodie know that because of this law, insurers are prohibited from discriminating against or charging higher rates for any individuals based on pre-existing medical conditions – but not ’til 2014. I’d bet come 2014, she likes that?

    There is certainly room to complain – mainly if you are a small business owner who currently does not offer health care, if you make over $200,000 or if you are an individual that is relatively healthy and currently don’t have health care.

    Read the actual bill, and ignore the hyperbole above.

    #410771
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    Mercurius wrote >>
    There is certainly room to complain – mainly if you are a small business owner who currently does not offer health care, if you make over $200,000 or if you are an individual that is relatively healthy and currently don’t have health care.

    http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/10/12/pm-prescription-abandonment-is-on-the-rise/

    Wolters Kluwer Pharma Solutions tracks prescription drugs. The company says abandoned prescriptions are up 86 percent in the second quarter of this year compared to four years ago.

    As health care reform cuts into their profits, insurers may pass on more of their costs to patients, leaving more pill bottles abandoned on pharmacy shelves.

    Can’t say I’m a fan of the changes so far.

    #410772

    joev
    Participant

    There haven’t been any changes so far. So apparently, you’re not a fan of the status quo.

    #410773

    gramarye
    Participant

    joev wrote >>

    Brent wrote >> Physicians like to cry about lots of things relating to government just like every other citizen. 46% aren’t going to quit just because the changes in the healthcare bill went into effect. They may not like being “told what to do by a government bureaucrat”, but they’re already being told what to do by an insurance company bureaucrat.

    + 1 billion. I would much rather have the government making these calls – the government is accountable to us. Insurance companies are only accountable to their shareholders. Large numbers of doctors aren’t going to leave the industry – just the few, vocal crybabies.

    The notion that the government is accountable to us is laced with a particularly bitter irony in this case, given the way Obamacare was maneuvered through the Senate, particularly after the election of Scott Brown, who made the explicit campaign pledge–successfully, even in Massachusetts–of being the critical vote against it.

    #410774

    gramarye
    Participant

    joev wrote >>
    There haven’t been any changes so far. So apparently, you’re not a fan of the status quo.

    People start reacting before laws go into effect.

    #410775

    clamato
    Member

    Well, call it rationing or whatever you want but the fact remains that we have to bring health care costs down. And no, I don’t blame only the insurance industry for runaway costs. I think we are all culpable. We want it all and we don’t want to pay for it. Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of telling us we can have it all with no cost to us.
    I would question the poster who credited their insurance costs going up due to “Obamacare”, however. We saw our rates double one year– long before this bill was passed.

    #410776
    rus
    rus
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>

    joev wrote >>
    There haven’t been any changes so far. So apparently, you’re not a fan of the status quo.

    People start reacting before laws go into effect.

    http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/timeline_chart3-26final.pdf

    2010:

    Federal Insurance Regulations
    Prohibits lifetime limits on coverage, restricts rescission of policies, or exclusions for pre-existing conditions.•
    Establishes a requirement to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26 to all existing health insurance plans • starting six months after enactment.
    Requires that all new group health plans in the individual health insurance market must provide first dollar coverage for • preventative services.
    New Taxes and Tax Credits
    Provides a tax credit for small businesses for up to 35% of their contribution to purchasing health insurance for their employees.• Estimated at $40 billion over 10 years.
    Imposes a 10% tax on indoor tanning.•
    Provides for the adoption tax credit and increases the adoption assistance exclusion by $1,000. Credit is refundable and extended • through 2011.
    Medicare
    Provides a $250 rebate for all Medicare Part D enrollees who enter the “donut hole” in 2010.•
    Medicaid
    Allows States to cover parents and childless adults up to 133% of the Federal Poverty Level and receive Federal Medical • Assistance Percentage (FMAP).
    Other Miscellaneous Provisions
    Physicians are prohibited from referring patients to hospitals they own. The law will provide a limited exception to hospitals that • treat the highest percentage of Medicaid patients in their county and are not the sole hospital.
    The law establishes a new temporary reinsurance program for companies that provide early retirees health benefits for those • aged 55-64.
    The law also provides $5 billion in federal taxpayer funding for health insurance coverage through high-risk pools for eligible • individuals.

    #410777

    Tenzo
    Participant

    Same shit, different day. If you don’t like it, provide evidence why your particular treatment recommendations work and/or are better instead of hiding behind the veil that the doctor knows best because that’s how he/she has been doing it for 20-40 years, and isn’t interested in learning what’s new or better.

    Actually I’d prefer that the doctor who was choosen for their abilities and intellegence, spent 4 years in medical school and then 3-7 years practicing as a resident make the call than an appointed member who may not have ANY experiance in medicine.

    But that is just me

    #410778

    Andrew Hall
    Member

    Brent wrote >>
    What a load of shit. CER (Comparative Effectiveness Research) isn’t rationing, it’s not paying for shit that doesn’t work. Like when we used to do bone marrow transplants on women with breast cancer in the 1990s, until we found out that women who had BMTs for their breast cancer fared worse than those who did not. Oh, maybe dropping $50k on a treatment for worse outcomes doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense.
    Physicians like to cry about lots of things relating to government just like every other citizen. 46% aren’t going to quit just because the changes in the healthcare bill went into effect. They may not like being “told what to do by a government bureaucrat”, but they’re already being told what to do by an insurance company bureaucrat. Same shit, different day. If you don’t like it, provide evidence why your particular treatment recommendations work and/or are better instead of hiding behind the veil that the doctor knows best because that’s how he/she has been doing it for 20-40 years, and isn’t interested in learning what’s new or better.
    Quit crying, spend your energy proving why what you do is better.

    There is a lot of truth in the above and difficult decisions to be made which neither any political party nor the American people as a whole want to confront. People love to drop ‘death panels’ in argument w/o admitting the medical conditions that are given preferential treatment for popular political reasons.

    It is becoming increasingly apparent that some medications or screenings have a much higher number needed to treat/screen than is reasonably cost-effective for the benefit. On the other hand, it is both political suicide and, from a physician’s pov, unethical to not do so.* There is a very serious discussion that is being ardently avoided.

    * Hypothetical example with easy #s. RW obviously much more complicated : You need to treat 1000 people with a drug to prevent 1 heart attack. Drug costs 1000$/yr. That heart attack needs to cost 1M$ for the treatment to make financial sense in aggregate. OTOH if you are a physician w/ 1000 at-risk pts, how do you legitimately not prescribe the drug for those 1000 pts?

    A.

    #410779

    clamato
    Member

    Tenzo wrote >>

    Same shit, different day. If you don’t like it, provide evidence why your particular treatment recommendations work and/or are better instead of hiding behind the veil that the doctor knows best because that’s how he/she has been doing it for 20-40 years, and isn’t interested in learning what’s new or better.

    Actually I’d prefer that the doctor who was choosen for their abilities and intellegence, spent 4 years in medical school and then 3-7 years practicing as a resident make the call than an appointed member who may not have ANY experiance in medicine.
    But that is just me

    I really don’t think recommendations are going to be made by people with no experience in medicine. I don’t think you understand what CER is about.

    #410780

    joev
    Participant

    gramarye wrote >>

    joev wrote >>

    Brent wrote >> Physicians like to cry about lots of things relating to government just like every other citizen. 46% aren’t going to quit just because the changes in the healthcare bill went into effect. They may not like being “told what to do by a government bureaucrat”, but they’re already being told what to do by an insurance company bureaucrat.

    + 1 billion. I would much rather have the government making these calls – the government is accountable to us. Insurance companies are only accountable to their shareholders. Large numbers of doctors aren’t going to leave the industry – just the few, vocal crybabies.

    The notion that the government is accountable to us is laced with a particularly bitter irony in this case, given the way Obamacare was maneuvered through the Senate, particularly after the election of Scott Brown, who made the explicit campaign pledge–successfully, even in Massachusetts–of being the critical vote against it.

    Well, let me ask it this way: Which is more accountable to the general public who use healthcare services, insurance companies or the government?

    #410781

    clamato
    Member

    Andrew Hall wrote >>

    Brent wrote >>
    What a load of shit. CER (Comparative Effectiveness Research) isn’t rationing, it’s not paying for shit that doesn’t work. Like when we used to do bone marrow transplants on women with breast cancer in the 1990s, until we found out that women who had BMTs for their breast cancer fared worse than those who did not. Oh, maybe dropping $50k on a treatment for worse outcomes doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense.
    Physicians like to cry about lots of things relating to government just like every other citizen. 46% aren’t going to quit just because the changes in the healthcare bill went into effect. They may not like being “told what to do by a government bureaucrat”, but they’re already being told what to do by an insurance company bureaucrat. Same shit, different day. If you don’t like it, provide evidence why your particular treatment recommendations work and/or are better instead of hiding behind the veil that the doctor knows best because that’s how he/she has been doing it for 20-40 years, and isn’t interested in learning what’s new or better.
    Quit crying, spend your energy proving why what you do is better.

    There is a lot of truth in the above and difficult decisions to be made which neither any political party nor the American people as a whole want to confront. People love to drop ‘death panels’ in argument w/o admitting the medical conditions that are given preferential treatment for popular political reasons.
    It is becoming increasingly apparent that some medications or screenings have a much higher number needed to treat/screen than is reasonably cost-effective for the benefit. On the other hand, it is both political suicide and, from a physician’s pov, unethical to not do so.* There is a very serious discussion that is being ardently avoided.
    * Hypothetical example with easy #s. RW obviously much more complicated : You need to treat 1000 people with a drug to prevent 1 heart attack. Drug costs 1000$/yr. That heart attack needs to cost 1M$ for the treatment to make financial sense in aggregate. OTOH if you are a physician w/ 1000 at-risk pts, how do you legitimately not prescribe the drug for those 1000 pts?
    A.

    You raise a lot of good points. If only we could have a rational discussion about healthcare costs. Our politicians seem to be happy to kick the can down the road.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 102 total)

The forum ‘Everyday Chit Chat’ is closed to new topics and replies.

KEEP LOCAL JOURNALISM HEALTHY.

Local journalism is more important than ever. Please take a moment to read a bit about our mission and consider financially supporting our cause.

CLICK HERE