• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 |OT4|: Your job is not to worry about 47% of these posts.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hmmm, good point.

I still have this idea that having true competition will ultimately result in a better system, but you made it really hard to hold on to :p

I think that what you want is somthing that most people can agree to in the general sense, government setting the rules and the businesses play by them, but that doesn't mean that there aren't things that governments are just better at. Fighting Nazis is one, printing money is another. Healthcare is one of these things. You can tell due to the amount of efficency in Medicare vs private insurance (look at percentage of budget going to actual healthcare vs administrative costs.)
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
Hmmm, good point.

I still have this idea that having true competition will ultimately result in a better system, but you made it really hard to hold on to :p

I think true competition at the provider level can result in better care. Because then you can have doctors/nurses/hospitals working for results, rather than a paycheck.

But true competition at the insurer level will never happen, and it would never reduce costs, nor improve care. Because by its design it likes higher overall costs, because then its "percentage" is higher. If you reduce costs, then its margin gets smaller as well. And they have no incentive to improve care, because then they would lose customers.
 
I'm not against the idea of a single payer system. The problem I have is I see a huge bureaucracy opening up around it and being extremely inefficient with more people pushing papers than actually providing healthcare.

Alternatively, I think the government should focus on strict oversight and allow the market to compete while stomping down any idea of cartels or monopolies. Also I don't think that insurance companies etc shouldn't be allowed into the stock market. I have a problem when they become beholden to shareholders.

If that doesn't work, then I think we should ultimately move to a single payer system.

Public (single-payer) systems are vastly, vastly more efficient

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033#t=articleResults said:
Results
Insurance Overhead
In 1999 U.S. private insurers retained $46.9 billion of the $401.2 billion they collected in premiums. Their average overhead (11.7 percent) exceeded that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent). Overall, public and private insurance overhead totaled $72.0 billion — 5.9 percent of the total health care expenditures in the United States, or $259 per capita.
The overhead costs of Canada's provincial insurance plans totaled $311 million (1.3 percent) of the $23.5 billion they spent for physicians and hospital services. An additional $17 million was spent to administer federal government health plans. The overhead of Canadian private insurers averaged 13.2 percent of the $8.4 billion spent for private coverage. Overall, insurance overhead accounted for 1.9 percent of Canadian health care spending, or $47 per capita (Table 1).

Employers' Costs to Manage Health Benefits
U.S. employers spent $12.2 billion on internal administrative costs related to health care benefits and $3.7 billion on health care benefits consultants — a total of $15.9 billion, or $57 per capita (Table 1). Canadian employers spent $3.6 billion for private health insurance and $252 million to manage health benefits, or $8 per capita.

Hospital Administration
The average U.S. hospital devoted 24.3 percent of spending to administration. Hospital administration consumed $87.6 billion, or $315 per capita (Table 1). In Canada, hospital administration cost $3.1 billion — 12.9 percent of hospital spending, or $103 per capita.

Nursing Home Administration
California nursing homes devoted 19.2 percent of revenues to administration in 1999. Nationwide, U.S. nursing homes spent $17.3 billion on administration, or $62 per capita (Table 1). Administration accounted for 12.2 percent ($882 million) of Canadian nursing home expenditures, or $29 per capita.

Administrative Costs of Practitioners
In the United States, administrative tasks consumed 13.5 percent of physicians' time, valued at $15.5 billion. Physicians spent 8.3 percent of their gross income on clinical employees; the administrative portion (13.5 percent) of compensation of these employees was $3.0 billion. Physicians' costs for clerical staff averaged 12.3 percent of physicians' gross income, or $33.1 billion. The one third of physicians' office rent and expenses attributable to administration represented 4.6 percent of physicians' gross income, or $12.4 billion. Finally, the half of “other professional expenses” (a category that includes accounting and legal fees) attributable to administration accounted for 3.2 percent of physicians' income, or $8.6 billion. In total, physicians' administrative work and costs amounted to $72.6 billion — $261 per capita, or 26.9 percent of physicians' gross income.

The administrative costs of dentists and of other nonphysician practitioners totaled $8.6 billion and $8.8 billion, respectively. Overall, U.S. practitioners' administrative costs amounted to $89.9 billion, or $324 per capita (Table 1).

Canadian physicians devoted 8.4 percent of their professional time to practice management and administration, valued at $592 million. They spent 6.1 percent of their gross income on clinical office staff. The administrative portion (8.4 percent) of compensation of these employees amounted to $53 million. Physicians' costs for clerical staff averaged 6.9 percent of their gross income, or $716 million. The one third of physicians' office rent and expenses attributable to administration totaled $193 million. Finally, the 50 percent of “other professional expenses” attributable to administration cost $116 million. In total, physicians' administrative work and costs amounted to $1.7 billion — $55 per capita, or 16.1 percent of their gross income.

The administrative and billing costs of Canadian dentists and of other nonphysician practitioners totaled $928 million and $660 million, respectively. Overall, the administrative expenses of Canadian practitioners totaled $3.3 billion, or $107 per capita (Table 1).

Administrative Costs of Home Care Agencies
U.S. home care agencies devoted 35.0 percent of total expenditures to administration — $11.6 billion, or $42 per capita (Table 1). Administration accounted for 15.8 percent of Ontario's home care expenditures. Throughout Canada, home care administration expenses totaled $408 million, or $13 per capita.

Total Costs of Health Care Administration
In the United States, health care administration cost $294.3 billion, or $1,059 per capita (Table 1). In Canada, health care administration cost $9.4 billion, or $307 per capita. If the difference of $752 per capita were applied to the 1999 U.S. population, the total excess administrative cost would be $209 billion. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States, as compared with 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada.

Trends in Administrative Employment in Health Care
In the United States, 27.3 percent of the 11.77 million people employed in health care settings in 1999 worked in administrative and clerical occupations (Table 2Table 2
Administrative and Clerical Personnel as a Percentage of the Health Care Labor Force in the United States, 1969 through 1999.). This figure excludes 926,000 employees in life or health insurance firms, 724,000 in insurance brokerages, and employees of consulting firms.26 In 1969, administrative and clerical workers represented 18.2 percent of the health care labor force (Table 2). In Canada, administrative and clerical occupations accounted for 19.1 percent of the health care labor force in 1996, 18.7 percent in 1986, and 16.0 percent in 1971. (These figures exclude insurance personnel). Although the United States employed 12 percent more health personnel per capita than Canada, administrative personnel accounted for three quarters of the difference.
 

codhand

Member
Streamlined administration of claims and payments is one of the, although certainly not the only, reasons why single payer systems cost less per capita.

EV I know you call out Obama for not understanding basic economics, but this is Poligaf not Econogaf :p, are you voting for Jill Stein or what?
 

Zzoram

Member
I'm not against the idea of a single payer system. The problem I have is I see a huge bureaucracy opening up around it and being extremely inefficient with more people pushing papers than actually providing healthcare.

Alternatively, I think the government should focus on strict oversight and allow the market to compete while stomping down any idea of cartels or monopolies. Also I don't think that insurance companies etc shouldn't be allowed into the stock market. I have a problem when they become beholden to shareholders.

If that doesn't work, then I think we should ultimately move to a single payer system.

The reality is that there are even more paper pushers in a private system.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa022033

In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

The US spends over 3 times as much on administrative costs per capita than Canada.

Conservatives have long pushed the narrative that government is always less efficient than the private sector but it simply is not true for health insurance.

Free markets are great for most products but not health insurance. This is because EVERYONE uses health care at some point in their life. The choice is get health care or die, which isn't a choice at all. In the US, private insurance companies cover people 1-64 years old and the government already handles insurance for 65+. This is a horrible system that is designed to enrich private insurance companies at taxpayer expense. The whole point of an insurance system is to pool the low and high risk people together. Private insurance companies do not cover people 65+ which is when people use the most health care. However, those people pay into private insurance while they are young and healthy, then the government that didn't collect that money has to pay up when these people get old and sick. In the US private health insurance system, the private companies collect money from people while they are healthy then kick them to the government when they get sick, keeping the money those people paid into the private system as profit. The entire system is corporate welfare.
 

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
Hmmm, good point.

I still have this idea that having true competition will ultimately result in a better system, but you made it really hard to hold on to :p

Let me ask you this: why does the health insurance agency need to be part of a competition? The only time in recent decades that they have competed in any sort of way is with each other for the biggest profit margin. No?

I guess my bigger point is this: why do we have for-profit health insurance? Should it not be non-profit based, and in that case, isn't the government best-equipped to handle the interests of its citizens?
 

Cloudy

Banned
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/grieving-widow-romneys-personal-story/story?id=17434211

"One of the last things my husband said to me before he was killed, when I would ask him, 'Chris, what do you need over there? What can I send you?' he said, 'I need a new president,'" Horton recalled.

Here's a wife who's okay with politicizing her husband's death. Romney should tell this story instead of trying to use one of the deceased in Libya. Ironically she is supporting the guy who would keep other people's husbands there longer
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/grieving-widow-romneys-personal-story/story?id=17434211



Here's a wife who's okay with politicizing her husband's death. Romney should tell this story instead of trying to use one of the deceased in Libya. Ironically she is supporting the guy who would keep other people's husbands there longer

Which is exactly why he won't use it. It makes her lok bad, makes her deceased husband sound stupid and draws attention to Romney's actual foreign policy goals. Which are obviously not even palatable to idiots, just neocons.
 
I guess Montana isn't turning blue anytime soon
PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls

100% of 'very conservative' voters in MT disapprove of Obama. Can't ever think of 100% showing up in our crosstabs for that big a vote group
PublicPolicyPolling ‏@ppppolls

Our Montana poll: a big drop for Obama but Tester holding steady. Bodes well for down ballot Dems more broadly. Results around 4
 
Richard Carmona leading in Arizona 47-43.

DSCC internal, but their sample is pretty heavily Republican (+9 R advantage, whereas it was +6 in 2008).

Excellent news. Here's hoping for a 57 seat majority.

I've been saying 57 for two-three months now. Berkley is the only one worrying me at the moment. Don't think I've seen one poll with her in the lead.

Carmona was also up 75-12 among hispanics in that poll released today that had Obama up 80-14 among that demographic.
 

Magni

Member
The IDP poll looks kind of hilarious.

Obama is getting only 28% of white males. He obviously is going to lose this demo, but he won't poll sub 30%, sorry.

The other hilarious breakdown is this.

Conservative are 76-18 Romney

Moderates are 54-37 Obama

Liberals are 89-4 Obama.


The only way for Romney to be up 5 is if conservatives are higher in number than moderates AND liberals combined. By a lot. The math can't work without that happening since Romney conservative's lead isn't even that high!

that poll smells like trash.
 
But if you never have a surplus you can never pay down debt. How are governments supposed to ever reduce debt load without a surplus?

Governments that create money don't have debt. They just make promises to pay money in the future (if they want to). And since they create their own money, they can pay off their promises whenever they want. Debt for a government is not like debt for you and me. If you had the power to create your own money that everybody accepted in payment for liabilities, would you ever be "in debt"? The debt is just a measure of how much money the government will create in the future. (Technically, it is just the interest on the debt that represents that. The principal on the debt is already accounted for because people turn in dollars to the government to obtain the promise to pay in the future, so the only money being net created is the interest.) It is not unusual--and is even necessary--for the money supply to grow over time. Money is not a commodity in and of itself. It is a tool of exchange. As an economy and population grows, so must its tool of commerce that we know as money.

EV I know you call out Obama for not understanding basic economics, but this is Poligaf not Econogaf :p, are you voting for Jill Stein or what?

Only because I live in a non-swing state. I am a lesser-evil voter, but I actually don't put much stock in electoral politics as such. I think political movements outside Washington DC (or the lack thereof) create policy. Politicians are just empty vessels, so to speak, and should never be counted on to be anything more than that.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/grieving-widow-romneys-personal-story/story?id=17434211


"One of the last things my husband said to me before he was killed, when I would ask him, 'Chris, what do you need over there? What can I send you?' he said, 'I need a new president,'" Horton recalled.
Here's a wife who's okay with politicizing her husband's death. Romney should tell this story instead of trying to use one of the deceased in Libya. Ironically she is supporting the guy who would keep other people's husbands there longer
lol. What a sleaze of a woman. I'm pretty sure that dude who played EVE Online was an Obama supporter. Lets politicize this!
 
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/grieving-widow-romneys-personal-story/story?id=17434211



Here's a wife who's okay with politicizing her husband's death. Romney should tell this story instead of trying to use one of the deceased in Libya. Ironically she is supporting the guy who would keep other people's husbands there longer

I read the entire article but it never explains why her late husband thought he needed "a new president." So I'm left to assume he didn't know what the fuck he was talking about and neither does she.
 

RiccochetJ

Gold Member
What do you think about the efficiency of European systems? Germany has had universal healthcare for as far back as 1883 IIRC. There hasn't really been any problems.

I'm not familiar with the European systems, can anyone chime in on the pros and cons?

I am familiar with the Canadian system though and I'm going to share some personal stories about it.

Last year my Dad had to have a hernia operation. First he had to schedule a meeting with a specialist, but he had to wait 4 months to see them. After that, he had to wait another 4 months for the actual operation. Because they were booked solid.

Just this past week, my Aunt has finally been diagnosed with bone cancer. After 8 months and 3 trips to the emergency room. It started in her legs and because she couldn't get in to have the proper tests, it's now moved to her upper body. She now has to wait to start her chemo.

The good part is that everyone will eventually get treatment. The bad part is all the waiting and there's a chance things will get a lot worse before you get the treatment you need.

Now the question is whether I believe that a private system can fix this. The honest answer is... I don't know. I'm going off the belief that a private system working under a strict set of rules will result in a better efficient system where people can make money but not at the cost of a person's health.

Let's be honest. The US system is completely and utterly broken right now. The only good part about the US system is that you can get treatment extremely quickly. If you have the money. Then there was a chance that you could get dropped by your insurance company. Thankfully that changed.
 

pigeon

Banned
But if you never have a surplus you can never pay down debt. How are governments supposed to ever reduce debt load without a surplus?

The traditional method is to grow our way out. Constantly increasing debt should be expected -- because the economy is also constantly growing. Debt as a percentage of GDP is more important, but growth of debt against growth of GDP (in other words, the first derivative of debt as percentage of GDP) is the really important figure. This is another reason why reasonable levels of inflation are critical to a healthy economy -- it automatically writes down the value of government debt every year.

Hmmm, good point.

I still have this idea that having true competition will ultimately result in a better system, but you made it really hard to hold on to :p

Here's what I would say about true competition -- it works, and it works really well, in a rational market, just like physics works perfectly in a universe of point-masses. But it's critical to recognize the situations in which the market does not behave in a classically rational manner, because those are the situations where government intervention is necessary to protect market functioning. Health care is a great example of this.

* People don't buy health care rationally -- they avoid buying it until their demand is greatest and their bargaining power is weakest. For analogy, if you refused to ever buy food unless you were starving, you would spend very little on groceries and way too much at restaurants, and it would destroy your budget. We all know* that that is an irresponsible financial behavior pattern. But that's exactly how people shop for healthcare.
* People don't analyze the health care market rationally -- because their understanding of what their needs are is controlled by the people who make money by fulfilling those needs. Another analogy: this is like going to buy a car when you don't know anything about cars and have no ability to Google anything. Your ability to get the car you want for the right price is basically up to how good you are at picking a salesperson -- and even then, you're probably going to pay more than you should. That's just how the system works. Now imagine that you actually subscribe to a car service (insurance) where you give them all your car money in advance and they pick out a car for you by working with the salesman. The car service's incentive is to maximize the money they keep, the salesperson's to maximize their margin on your purchase. And you still don't know anything about automobiles. Does this sound like a smart way to buy a car?
* People don't provide health care rationally -- because the people they're providing health care to have no choice but to buy it. This is the classic inelastic demand problem. There is no substitute good for chemotherapy -- you must buy it or die. Even food and shelter are generally not as inelastic as that! When you have a good or service that everybody needs and cannot substitute for, it's very easy for price-fixing, coercion, redlining behavior, and all kinds of other market-warping forces to screw things up. That's why, for many if not most such goods, the government directly or indirectly manages the market -- public utilities being the classic example.

These are the main reasons why free market healthcare is historically a huge mess.

* Well, it took me some years to figure out after college.
 
Currency supply over time:

fredgraph.png
 

Magni

Member
I'm not familiar with the European systems, can anyone chime in on the pros and cons?

I am familiar with the Canadian system though and I'm going to share some personal stories about it.

Last year my Dad had to have a hernia operation. First he had to schedule a meeting with a specialist, but he had to wait 4 months to see them. After that, he had to wait another 4 months for the actual operation. Because they were booked solid.

Just this past week, my Aunt has finally been diagnosed with bone cancer. After 8 months and 3 trips to the emergency room. It started in her legs and because she couldn't get in to have the proper tests, it's now moved to her upper body. She now has to wait to start her chemo.

The good part is that everyone will eventually get treatment. The bad part is all the waiting and there's a chance things will get a lot worse before you get the treatment you need.

Now the question is whether I believe that a private system can fix this. The honest answer is... I don't know. I'm going off the belief that a private system working under a strict set of rules will result in a better efficient system where people can make money but not at the cost of a person's health.

Let's be honest. The US system is completely and utterly broken right now. The only good part about the US system is that you can get treatment extremely quickly. If you have the money. Then there was a chance that you could get dropped by your insurance company. Thankfully that changed.

That's a pretty bad story, wow. But at least they both got/are getting treatment. I've never heard of that in France, where I lived half my life, don't know if we have many EuroGAFfers in this thread to back me up. But as you said, our current system is fucked up and needs reform badly.

I'm hoping demographics will marginalize Republicans enough for Democrats to feel comfortable enough about pushing true substancial healthcare reform (that or for Repubs to actually support such reform, lol).
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
I bet Romney prepares like crazy for the next debate, he knows it is his best chance for more visibility with American, and the only chance he has left to make himself appear knowledgeable and normal.
 

FLEABttn

Banned
Last year my Dad had to have a hernia operation. First he had to schedule a meeting with a specialist, but he had to wait 4 months to see them. After that, he had to wait another 4 months for the actual operation. Because they were booked solid.

Let me tell you a personal anecdote (not data, but my personal experience with wait times in the US system).

I was diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome in November 2010. When it didn't clear up itself by January, I was scheduled to see a neurologist. They couldn't see me for 3 months for a consult, let alone a nerve conduction study (which I was told would be another 1-3 months after the consult, because they didn't actually have the equipment for the test on hand).

So April comes around and I try to check in and I'm told that, whoops, we don't actually take your insurance. Yeah, we said we did when you saw your GP, but we don't actually. I tried to get a referral from my GP to a neurologist who would, but he refused to give me one outside his health group. So, I had to get a new GP. The earliest one I could get to see me had a 2 month wait. June comes around and after 10 minutes with the guy, I have a referral to a neurologist...in September. Another 3 months later. Lucky for me, someone cancelled halfway through August so I had the test done then, but then I needed to be referred to an arms and hands surgeon for a consult. Another 6 week wait. So I see her the first week of October, and get surgery scheduled, for 2 weeks after that.

It had taken 12 months from diagnosis to surgery for the one arm. It was another 4 months to have the second arm done. In my experience, we're by no means a speedy system.
 

SmokeMaxX

Member
That's a pretty bad story, wow. But at least they both got/are getting treatment. I've never heard of that in France, where I lived half my life, don't know if we have many EuroGAFfers in this thread to back me up. But as you said, our current system is fucked up and needs reform badly.

I'm hoping demographics will marginalize Republicans enough for Democrats to feel comfortable enough about pushing true substancial healthcare reform (that or for Repubs to actually support such reform, lol).

The Canadian system works (roughly) like this: each territory gets allocated a certain amount of cash and they decide what they want to spend that money on and when. Since they only have X amount of money, they obviously can't do an infinite number of operations. They have to operate within their means.
 
I am familiar with the Canadian system though and I'm going to share some personal stories about it.

Last year my Dad had to have a hernia operation. First he had to schedule a meeting with a specialist, but he had to wait 4 months to see them. After that, he had to wait another 4 months for the actual operation. Because they were booked solid.

Just this past week, my Aunt has finally been diagnosed with bone cancer. After 8 months and 3 trips to the emergency room. It started in her legs and because she couldn't get in to have the proper tests, it's now moved to her upper body. She now has to wait to start her chemo.

The good part is that everyone will eventually get treatment. The bad part is all the waiting and there's a chance things will get a lot worse before you get the treatment you need.

Now the question is whether I believe that a private system can fix this. The honest answer is... I don't know. I'm going off the belief that a private system working under a strict set of rules will result in a better efficient system where people can make money but not at the cost of a person's health.

Let's be honest. The US system is completely and utterly broken right now. The only good part about the US system is that you can get treatment extremely quickly. If you have the money. Then there was a chance that you could get dropped by your insurance company. Thankfully that changed.

Well, when my father-in-law got diagnosed with lymphoma, he didn't have to wait at all to get treatment in Ontario. In fact, I was diagnosed with lymphoma at nearly the same time in Michigan and we were on nearly identical schedules. I had to wait a week or two in between procedures and doctor visits before I was even diagnosed. Now that I live in BC, I was able to get a family doctor and an appointment with an oncologist (who I am going to see in about an hour) almost instantaneously. So waiting times are vastly overblown and can be just as long or short in the US.

Having lived in Canada for about a year, I have yet to meet a single Canadian who would trade their system and aren't completely baffled as to why some people hate Obamacare.
 

Amir0x

Banned
lol. What a sleaze of a woman. I'm pretty sure that dude who played EVE Online was an Obama supporter. Lets politicize this!

what if that really was one of the last things he said before he was killed? It's not sleazy to try to fulfill a husband's wish... is it?

There is a great documentary called "How to Die in Oregon", and this one guy living in Washington State was in so much pain wanted to die with assisted suicide but it was illegal in Washington. He said 'ok I'll move to Oregon then', but then his Doctors said 'you'll be dead before you could establish residency'. So he told her 'if there is anything you can do, try to get that law changed.' He died, and she did. That was political, but I agreed with the outcome. I can't be happy only when someone politicizes something I like, ya know? It's not exactly analogous, i'm just speculating that maybe it is something he really said in which case I feel uncomfortable judging her actions. People tend not to always act rationally after the death of someone very close.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I'm not against the idea of a single payer system. The problem I have is I see a huge bureaucracy opening up around it and being extremely inefficient with more people pushing papers than actually providing healthcare.

If that doesn't work, then I think we should ultimately move to a single payer system.
You have absolutely no idea how the current system works, do you?

Every single insurance company has a different set of forms and documents and rules regarding claims. A field that might be marked C on a certain field on 9/10 providers might be marked D on another provider's form. If you mark it C, even though al lthe other documentation makes it 100% clear what you intended to file, do you know what the insurance company does?

They mail you back the form with a note: "Please resubmit this claim with a new form using the correct code of D instead of C." Or something along those lines.

It is horribly inefficient. I'm not making this stuff up, as my mother has worked as a medical receptionist/ transcriptionist for the last 20 years.

And every single provider has a different set of forms and documentation standards you have to comply with. If you screw up a form, they send the whole thing back and make you fill it all out again. Each one has their own storage methods for documentation using multiple subcontractors so when you're trying to track down an old claim you have to go from one provider to another to a subcontractor and so forth.

And when you go to a doctor's office, you have to give information about the government-issued ID you have, the private insurance company you're with, and your employer, and all three of these things get checked against each other and verified. Single payer would just have your government ID.

The massive decentralization of the bureaucratic side of the health care system is an enormous drain, costing hundreds of billions of dollars per year, and several percentage points of GDP.
 
Only because I live in a non-swing state. I am a lesser-evil voter, but I actually don't put much stock in electoral politics as such. I think political movements outside Washington DC (or the lack thereof) create policy. Politicians are just empty vessels, so to speak, and should never be counted on to be anything more than that.

My mind is blown, man!
 

pigeon

Banned
You have absolutely no idea how the current system works, do you?

Every single insurance company has a different set of forms and documents and rules regarding claims. A field that might be marked C on a certain field on 9/10 providers might be marked D on another provider's form. If you mark it C, even though al lthe other documentation makes it 100% clear what you intended to file, do you know what the insurance company does?

They mail you back the form with a note: "Please resubmit this claim with a new form using the correct code of D instead of C." Or something along those lines.

It is horribly inefficient. I'm not making this stuff up, as my mother has worked as a medical receptionist/ transcriptionist for the last 20 years.

For similar reasons, my father is a doctor who quit taking insurance patients about ten years ago because it's way too much trouble and the companies always try to avoid paying you. Most doctors can't do this, not least because you need a private practice to do so, but I know a few others (mostly specialists in specific fields) who have. It's definitely not great for the ability of insurance patients to get the best care, but at the same time, it should make it clear how difficult it is to deal with the conventional insurance structure.
 

Hop

That girl in the bunny hat
For similar reasons, my father is a doctor who quit taking insurance patients about ten years ago because it's way too much trouble and the companies always try to avoid paying you. Most doctors can't do this, not least because you need a private practice to do so, but I know a few others (mostly specialists in specific fields) who have. It's definitely not great for the ability of insurance patients to get the best care, but at the same time, it should make it clear how difficult it is to deal with the conventional insurance structure.

Yea, my old therapist was 'off the grid' for this same reason.
 
what if that really was one of the last things he said before he was killed? It's not sleazy to try to fulfill a husband's wish... is it?

There is a great documentary called "How to Die in Oregon", and this one guy living in Washington State was in so much pain wanted to die with assisted suicide but it was illegal in Washington. He said 'ok I'll move to Oregon then', but then his Doctors said 'you'll be dead before you could establish residency'. So he told her 'if there is anything you can do, try to get that law changed.' He died, and she did. That was political, but I agreed with the outcome. I can't be happy only when someone politicizes something I like, ya know? It's not exactly analogous, i'm just speculating that maybe it is something he really said in which case I feel uncomfortable judging her actions. People tend not to always act rationally after the death of someone very close.

I see your point, but it's different in this case. The person you're talking about in Washington was martyr for his cause. He died trying to change something, and naturally became the poster child for the movement. This person (killed in Benghazi) was a victim of a terrorist attack. Even if he did say something like that, why use it for campaigns to throw around in their dirty ads? Which by the way I kinda doubt if he said that. Really? "Get me a new President?" I mean, the President was instrumental in achieving consensus and victory in Libya. Why would he hate his boss for that? We all know Amb. Stevens absolutely loved Libya and it's culture/history. But anyways, some people are walking bags of contradictions and hypocrisy. Who knows what he said.

Edit: oops, confused the genders.
 

Stinkles

Clothed, sober, cooperative
Let me tell you a personal anecdote (not data, but my personal experience with wait times in the US system).

I was diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome in November 2010. When it didn't clear up itself by January, I was scheduled to see a neurologist. They couldn't see me for 3 months for a consult, let alone a nerve conduction study (which I was told would be another 1-3 months after the consult, because they didn't actually have the equipment for the test on hand).

So April comes around and I try to check in and I'm told that, whoops, we don't actually take your insurance. Yeah, we said we did when you saw your GP, but we don't actually. I tried to get a referral from my GP to a neurologist who would, but he refused to give me one outside his health group. So, I had to get a new GP. The earliest one I could get to see me had a 2 month wait. June comes around and after 10 minutes with the guy, I have a referral to a neurologist...in September. Another 3 months later. Lucky for me, someone cancelled halfway through August so I had the test done then, but then I needed to be referred to an arms and hands surgeon for a consult. Another 6 week wait. So I see her the first week of October, and get surgery scheduled, for 2 weeks after that.

It had taken 12 months from diagnosis to surgery for the one arm. It was another 4 months to have the second arm done. In my experience, we're by no means a speedy system.


But but but in Europe they have waiting LISTS. At least yours wasn't caused by a socialist LIST.
 
I'm telling it now. Poligaf and many others are vastly overestimating Obama's "come back performance" in the next debates. He's never been a great debater, and can just hold his own in appearance. He won't trounce Mittens.

Because of this, the narrative afterwards will once again be negative (or mixed) for Obama.


Also, if he's not trained enough for multiple scenario's, he might fall once again for a trap set by Romney's team. Perhaps we'll see a more agressive Obama, and Mittens will counter by being suuuuper sweet, personable and warm hearted, once again taking the upper hand appearance wise in the debate. Obama better be ready for all possible Mittens incarnations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom