Liberal Canadian Politician Goes to US for Healthcare

[Timshel]

You quoted a posting of hers specifically to respond to, then cut up one of her paragraphs and replaced it with "blah blah darla not know so switch to ad homonym." I'm guessing because you know she's right.

Because all that was in that paragraph was ad homs about how those that disagree are out of touch with reality.

Here's the point she made about it being "bad business" for insurance companies (and I guess your point was that they don't actually do it because it's bad business). They do it, and they same money doing it. It's that simple.

I never said they do not do it. In fact, I clearly implied they do by stating that Hillary has a way to fix what the market response to that would be and that the government will deny coverage, just as the insurers. Wow, surprising another strawman from ib1.

Learn to read, and lay off the hallucinogens.

 

[ib1yysguy]

Dano, that happens with private insurance. If something happens and you get an infection, you make follow up visits to get it treated. The insurance companies pay for those visits as well.

It's like you pretend as if Medicare is evil an, ergo, caused the infection.

 

[Cancel7]

Try reading next time, your pal, the Danold.

I can't read every post Dano. I missed that one. I might have missed a couple of yours as well, that you insulted me in. My apologies to both of you pompous asses.

 

[Cancel7]

Because all that was in that paragraph was ad homs about how those that disagree are out of touch with reality.



I never said they do not do it. In fact, I clearly implied they do by stating that Hillary has a way to fix what the market response to that would be and that the government will deny coverage, just as the insurers. Wow, surprising another strawman from ib1.

Learn to read, and lay off the hallucinogens.

No, I asked if you had completely missed the testimonies of former insurance company workers? That's not an attack, but if you don't know what's going on out there, and are pontificating here? Then you are out of touch with reality.

 

[uscitizen]

Dano has been out of touch with reality for as long as I have known him on political boards.

butt he is really having trouble since his god emperor Bush fell down.

 

[Bonestorm]

Medicare is extremely inefficient and it results in deaths too, from that bastion of Conservatism the Washington Post:

"In a four-year period, 106 heart patients at Palm Beach Gardens developed infections after surgery, according to lawsuits and government records. More than two dozen were readmitted with fevers, pneumonia and serious blood infections. The lawsuits included 16 patients who died.

How did Medicare, the federal health insurance program for the elderly, respond?
It paid Palm Beach Gardens more.

Under Medicare's rules, each time a patient comes back for another treatment, a hospital qualifies for an additional payment. In effect, Palm Beach Gardens was paid a bonus for its mistakes."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300382.html

I don't know how much more ineffecient you can get than that.

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the Danecdote.

And really, all this shows is that for-profit hospitals have an incentive to provide substandard care. They can ensure that they keep a customer (patient) coming back to consume more healthcare.

Finally, I fail to see how a private insurer would respond differently other than not insuring the patient in the first place, refusing pay for the surgery if the in the first place if the patient was insured, or refusing to pay for the second treatment leaving it up to the customer (patient) to either pay out of pocket of rhe additional healthcare or to consume less healthcare by not getting the additional, necessary treatment.

 

[Timshel]

You assume anyone who isn't you doesn't know jack shit, don't you?

I assumed you had understanding which is why I did not think there was much need to explain how the tax code encourages the employer provision of insurance. It's quite obvious.

You certainly are blah blah blah ad hom.
...
So, because employers get a tax break for health care benefits, the United States became the only Westernized country to move to that system, rather than a government provider system? And with more and more companies saying they can't compete in the global economy because they are saddled with health care costs that companies in other countries aren't saddled with, that is why we still have this system?

Or could there be just a little bit more to it then that? What do you think?

I was explaining to you how our government has encouraged the tying of insurance to employment. Nothing more. The rest of this is your strawman.

 

[TheDanold]

Dano, that happens with private insurance. If something happens and you get an infection, you make follow up visits to get it treated. The insurance companies pay for those visits as well.

It's like you pretend as if Medicare is evil an, ergo, caused the infection.

No of course they didn't cause it directly but the result of it happnening is a reward for the provider, which in turn encourages them not to care about the results as much.
Implictly it ends up amounting to the same thing.

This is the same sort of thinking as to why Communism resulted in so many deaths with so many apologists. The "Well, they didn't MEAN to do it" excuse.
You are so obsessed with the means (profit versus non-profit) that you ignore the results (life versus death).

 

[TheDanold]

Ladies and gentlemen, meet the Danecdote.

And really, all this shows is that for-profit hospitals have an incentive to provide substandard care. They can ensure that they keep a customer (patient) coming back to consume more healthcare.

Finally, I fail to see how a private insurer would respond differently other than not insuring the patient in the first place, refusing pay for the surgery if the in the first place if the patient was insured, or refusing to pay for the second treatment leaving it up to the customer (patient) to either pay out of pocket of rhe additional healthcare or to consume less healthcare by not getting the additional, necessary treatment.

The insurer could view which hospitals cost them more in repeat treatment and add pressure with them to do better or lose their business as a viable place for their own clients to go.
What the fuck does some Medicare bureaucrat care? All he thinks is "Need more treatment, here's more money", without any regard for questiong whether the 2nd treatment is happening too frequently - hence the inefficiency.

 

[Bonestorm]

Dano - I know you think that saying things like "the insurer could . . ." without any actual evidence of insurers doing that is a refuation of the various points I made, but it is not. It is unsubstantiated bluster.

The facts are that healthcare costs in universal healthcare countries are far, far lower than healthcare costs here, while health outcomes are equal or better. If you can explain to me how a system that costs more for the same thing or worse is more efficient, please do. Until then, quit making shit up as you go along. No one is impressed.