You make a great case for single payer, Medicare for all but where we really disagree is making people wait for insurance while we get rid of abuse and fraud. Do 'em both. Be able to buy across state lines put states with higher standards off living at a distinct disadvantage unless every body has the same basic prices. Single payer accomplishes that, and does away with the for profit middleman. Lowering costs for everybody, and no anti trust issues.

All the states have pretty much the same companies as it is or a subsidiary of a larger company.

Currently though, I can see mandating those currently under care with private insurance keeping what they have. It's the insurance companies leaving them high and dry, and NOT honoring the rather broad grandfather clause and saying the devil made me do it. I can leave all that tort reform stuff to a judge myself. A case has merit, or it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

You make a great case for single payer, Medicare for all but where we really disagree is making people wait for insurance while we get rid of abuse and fraud. Do 'em both. Be able to buy across state lines put states with higher standards off living at a distinct disadvantage unless every body has the same basic prices. Single payer accomplishes that, and does away with the for profit middleman. Lowering costs for everybody, and no anti trust issues.

All the states have pretty much the same companies as it is or a subsidiary of a larger company.

Currently though, I can see mandating those currently under care with private insurance keeping what they have. It's the insurance companies leaving them high and dry, and NOT honoring the rather broad grandfather clause and saying the devil made me do it. I can leave all that tort reform stuff to a judge myself. A case has merit, or it doesn't.

---

Well Tal you would think so, but the twist here is the detail which the insurance companies had a hand in writing, you don't think politicians are smart enough to get the detail right, do you, particularly when vested interests are involved. And making it a states issue is a divide and conquer technique. As to Tort, well the insurance companies are pushing the barrow for that and with an election year coming up they just might get it. These things are not about merit but limiting the collateral damage

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Our solutions are well known . "Doing Nothing " was never one of them .

---

I guess one of your solutions wouldn't be having the government get into the private health insurance business.

No, I didn't think so.

Well of course not, it's a democracy, or is it a republic, I get confused, when is a democracy not a democracy. When it is a republic. What is a republic. One thing for sure, it is not government, by the people, for the people. The people can go to hell

Quote:

---

All the states have pretty much the same companies as it is or a subsidiary of a larger company.

---

Hence getting rid of the anti-trust exemptions that create state favored monopolies. I don't see how a single payer system enhances competition... it reduces competition and creates a huge monopoly with the power of the law to back it up. The case I made was NOT for the elimination of the private market.

I can make a case where a medical procedure is NOT regulated and mandated that the pricing goes down as doctors compete for the business. A prime example is lasik surgury or other elective surguries .You see the same dynamics where on-line pharmacies have lowered the prices of some drugs,andfewer dispensing errors than conventional pharmacies .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I can make a case where a medical procedure is NOT regulated and mandated that the pricing goes down as doctors compete for the business. A prime example is lasik surgury or other elective surguries .You see the same dynamics where on-line pharmacies have lowered the prices of some drugs,andfewer dispensing errors than conventional pharmacies .

---

Rubbish the only way doctors reduce their fees is when they are forced to do so. There is no shortage of patients, therefore they can charge what they like

Quote:

---

doctors reduce their fees is when they are forced to do so

---

Forced to by competition . The facts don't lie. Lasik prices have plummetted . Why ? Because it is an elective procedure not covered by insurance mandates. The doctors who perform it have to compete with ads and best pricing .

I think the jury is out on whether the cost of drugs is coming down from global options or patents for drugs expiring and the use of generics has grown widely or a combination of both, but an aging society is also a driver of costs. Speechless has pointed out many times that the shortage of primary doctors especially for less wealthy consumers is greatly underserved and the trend for hospitals to cherry pick doctors and insurance companies in there networks also contributes to higher costs and mark ups of services that leave many with fewer options.

Eliminating the anti trust exemption may well open the market up, but like the law itself, it's only a step in the right direction. States will still have to do their parts and without the frame work of regulation as a bar to meet, an unregulated market can lead to many money making revenue streams being created that don't work, or work badly for consumers.

One of the downsides of reigning in costs is lowering profits, and the free market isn't a good place to do that. Hospitals are already cutting people to keep the bottom line healthy.

Quote:

---

States will still have to do their parts and without the frame work of regulation as a bar to meet, an unregulated market can lead to many money making revenue streams being created that don't work, or work badly for consumers.

---

As you know ,I'm not opposed to reasonable regulation ,and of course prefer it at the state level . Although I continue to allow myself to be inflicted with the burden of living in blue state hell... it's still my choice . One day I may do a Davey Crockett and say "You go to hell....I'm going to Texas" .

No time like the present, get out see a new world and live among those of like mind

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As you know ,I'm not opposed to reasonable regulation ,and of course prefer it at the state level . Although I continue to allow myself to be inflicted with the burden of living in blue state hell... it's still my choice . One day I may do a Davey Crockett and say "You go to hell....I'm going to Texas" .

---

Come on down, it's a whole other world... for now.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

Come on down, it's a whole other world... for now.

---

At least you admit your ideology is dying out.

Go, Wendy, GO!

excon

I bet .they haven't been completely over run with locust... yet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:
At least you admit your ideology is dying out.

Go, Wendy, GO!

excon

---

You mean Wendy "I'm totally pro-life if the child makes it out the womb and don't stand snow ball's chance in hell" Davis? Bwa ha ha!

Making people have babies and not helping support them is hypocritical. To raise a child the parents have to be raised. That's what she said, no matter how you spin it on the right. But listening is something the right hasn't learned yet. You will though.

Not all conservatives in Texan are right wingers, some are darn good people. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Making people have babies and not helping support them is hypocritical. To raise a child the parents have to be raised. That's what she said, no matter how you spin it on the right. But listening is something the right hasn't learned yet. You will though.

---

Straw man bullsh*t.

OK, back to the OP. I forgot something from my saga of helping my daughter navigate the pathetic Medicaid system - my dad is in the "care" of another public health system, the VA. He's been in a VA nursing home since June.

Two weeks ago he went downhill suddenly and was admitted to the VA hospital. The diagnosis went from pneumonia, to multiple organ failure due to congestive heart failure to septicemia and pneumonia. Once they determined he had septicemia he went on a broad spectrum antibiotic and over the next week he improved to where he was eating again and doing pretty good considering. Today or tomorrow he should be back at the nursing home.

Here's the kicker, the doctor said we need to take care of him - that we basically can't count on the nursing home staff to do a damn thing to see to his medical well-being - we need to tell them if he's sick.

What the hell? Is that not what the 24 hour care is for? WE have to be the nurse, too?

Again, I'm living government health care, and this disaster unfolding does not instill confidence. No thank you.

Join the party, Many us have to make the very difficult choice of how best to care for our aging parents including going the nursing home route. Its difficult, but have you looked into arranging for a visiting nurse? Is that a viable option?

My mom isn't ready for a nursing home. And I lost faith in them long ago. Even with your constant participation, just finding a GOOD one that's close enough for frequent family visits is extremely labor intensive. Right now family is the best 24/7 care to be had from what I have seen and so far my elders all want to be at home, not isolated with strangers.

You are not alone my friend. Not by a long shot.

No, my dad needs nursing home care, but one would expect them be proactive, not expect us to make sure he's healthy and safe.

Is his NH close enough for daily visits by family?