Some numbers on the Senate Health Care Bill

[30ashopper]

Bush did not create the budget deficit. He added to it as every President since 1952 has done. This raises a question. If he created a budget surplus, why did our federal debt increase every year of Clinton's presidency?

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Happy Thanksgiving Trader! Where the heck have you been all these months? Hopfully well. Nice to see you back on SoWal.

 

[traderx]

Happy Thanksgiving Trader! Where the heck have you been all these months? Hopfully well. Nice to see you back on SoWal.

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving. I was trapped in Costa Rica. J/K, just taking care of a few things.

Link is to a free RT streaming chart site. I met a guy who was the timing director for a large pension fund for thirty years. He advised to use VWAP which helps to prevent whipsaws. My trading has improved since I started using it.

Do you ever trade futures like the E-minis?

FreeStockCharts.com - Web's Best Streaming Realtime Stock Charts - Free

 

[30ashopper]

Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving. I was trapped in Costa Rica. J/K, just taking care of a few things.

Link is to a free RT streaming chart site. I met a guy who was the timing director for a large pension fund for thirty years. He advised to use VWAP which helps to prevent whipsaws. My trading has improved since I started using it.

Do you ever trade futures like the E-minis?

FreeStockCharts.com - Web's Best Streaming Realtime Stock Charts - Free

I've been tracking a blog of a guy who does this, I really don't have the time to dedicate to it.

 

[poppy]

Why is it conservatives will only point to the costs of national healthcare and never to any savings that could come from such a plan? Some studies show Americans spend an average of $7,290 a year on health care, more than twice the average for developed countries. Despite that, the United States lags in life expectancy, infant mortality and preventable deaths.
I don't understand why we can't study what does and doesn't work in these countries and apply what is learned in our country instead of screaming socialism everytime national healthcare is mentioned.
There must be some economic advantage to having a nation of happier healthier more productive citizens. The number one concern for parents is the health of their children, imagine employees reporting for work free from this worry.

 

[30ashopper]

Why is it conservatives will only point to the costs of national healthcare and never to any savings that could come from such a plan? Some studies show Americans spend an average of $7,290 a year on health care, more than twice the average for developed countries. Despite that, the United States lags in life expectancy, infant mortality and preventable deaths.
I don't understand why we can't study what does and doesn't work in these countries and apply what is learned in our country instead of screaming socialism everytime national healthcare is mentioned.
There must be some economic advantage to having a nation of happier healthier more productive citizens. The number one concern for parents is the health of their children, imagine employees reporting for work free from this worry.

The simplest way to bring down costs is to ration care, that's how it's done in socialized systems. We don't ration care in our socialized systems here in the states. I don't see rationing in the newly proposed public option either - it provides all you can eat care.

Provider payments reforms in medicare and medicaid might have an effect, but I'm not sure what kind. If you're a doctor caring for a medicare patient, how will a drop in reimbursement rates on procedures effect your decision making? I can't answer that I'm not a doctor, but my guess is you'll charge your private customers more to cover the loss. (I'm not a fan of mixed government/private systems specifically because they result in really bad cost shifting.)

The IMAC (Independent Medicare Advisory Council) idea was good - an idea brought forward by Clinton that Obama adopted support for. Unfortunately it's not in either of the current congressional bills AFAICT.

Generally speaking, studying what we do right and what we do wrong is a good idea. But it seems congress decided to throw that out the window and simply roll together massive spending bills. So much for reform, eh?

 

[30A Skunkape]

The simplest way to bring down costs is to ration care, that's how it's done in socialized systems. We don't ration care in our socialized systems here in the states. I don't see rationing in the newly proposed public option either - it provides all you can eat care.

Provider payments reforms in medicare and medicaid might have an effect, but I'm not sure what kind. If you're a doctor caring for a medicare patient, how will a drop in reimbursement rates on procedures effect your decision making? I can't answer that I'm not a doctor, but my guess is you'll charge your private customers more to cover the loss. (I'm not a fan of mixed government/private systems specifically because they result in really bad cost shifting.)

The IMAC (Independent Medicare Advisory Council) idea was good - an idea brought forward by Clinton that Obama adopted support for. Unfortunately it's not in either of the current congressional bills AFAICT.

Generally speaking, studying what we do right and what we do wrong is a good idea. But it seems congress decided to throw that out the window and simply roll together massive spending bills. So much for reform, eh?

A fun little experiment you can try in the comfort of your own home. Start dialing physicians in your area-choose a specialist or a primary care provider. Once you reach a human, ask if they are accepting new medicaid or medicare patients. Keep score. After several calls a clear trend will develop. My guess is about 75% medicare if you are urban/suburban, higher if rural. Probably less than half will take medicaid no matter where you are.

As I have tried to point out before, having a card that says you are 'insured' does not mean the doors of access will swing wide open. It does not now, nor will it in the future.

 

[poppy]

A fun little experiment you can try in the comfort of your own home. Start dialing physicians in your area-choose a specialist or a primary care provider. Once you reach a human, ask if they are accepting new medicaid or medicare patients. Keep score. After several calls a clear trend will develop. My guess is about 75% medicare if you are urban/suburban, higher if rural. Probably less than half will take medicaid no matter where you are.

As I have tried to point out before, having a card that says you are 'insured' does not mean the doors of access will swing wide open. It does not now, nor will it in the future.

This reads more like a statement about the providers than about the type of insurance one carries.

 

[BeachSiO2]

A fun little experiment you can try in the comfort of your own home. Start dialing physicians in your area-choose a specialist or a primary care provider. Once you reach a human, ask if they are accepting new medicaid or medicare patients. Keep score. After several calls a clear trend will develop. My guess is about 75% medicare if you are urban/suburban, higher if rural. Probably less than half will take medicaid no matter where you are.

As I have tried to point out before, having a card that says you are 'insured' does not mean the doors of access will swing wide open. It does not now, nor will it in the future.

Here's how to fix that pass a new law entitled "Equal Accessibility to Medical Professionals" (i.e. Health Care Reform Part B to be passed at a later date when this becomes a larger problem). The new bill would include a requirement for physicians to accept all reasonable patient requests as determined by HHS.

If more than X number of patients are turned down then an audit is performed and if there aren't "valid reasons" as determined by the Secretary of Health and Human Services then a Physicians license is suspended for six months. If a Physician is suspended twice in any three year period then they lose their license for five years. If in the following 10-year period after the initial five year suspension a patient is refused, then the physician loses their license permanently. It would be like the death penalty in college sports.

How does that sound? ;-) On a more serious note, it sounds like some of the better doctors might find a different means of compensation while the med students who got their degrees from a shady third world college would find more opportunity. :shock:

 

[Here4Good]

A fun little experiment you can try in the comfort of your own home. Start dialing physicians in your area-choose a specialist or a primary care provider. Once you reach a human, ask if they are accepting new medicaid or medicare patients. Keep score. After several calls a clear trend will develop. My guess is about 75% medicare if you are urban/suburban, higher if rural. Probably less than half will take medicaid no matter where you are.

As I have tried to point out before, having a card that says you are 'insured' does not mean the doors of access will swing wide open. It does not now, nor will it in the future.

Try the same thing with your employer-selected group insurance card when you not in the same state in which your office is located.

My company is based in Atlanta, and I'm lucky that Sacred Heart participates in their preferred physician/hospital plan, because no one else in the area does.

The rest of them will see me if I pay for the visit in full and then wait for reimbursement - and then the rates are 30-100% higher than the "negotiated" rates my company will pay, and I am of course out of network.

So, when I need a referral, I have to wait until a SH specialist is available or soak up the difference in cost.

 

[poppy]

Try the same thing with your employer-selected group insurance card when you not in the same state in which your office is located.

My company is based in Atlanta, and I'm lucky that Sacred Heart participates in their preferred physician/hospital plan, because no one else in the area does.

The rest of them will see me if I pay for the visit in full and then wait for reimbursement - and then the rates are 30-100% higher than the "negotiated" rates my company will pay, and I am of course out of network.

So, when I need a referral, I have to wait until a SH specialist is available or soak up the difference in cost.

I feel your pain, my insurance will allow me to see a doctor in Destin but for blood work I must make an appointment and drive to Fort Walton. To have my doctor draw blood would be at my expense. I feel fortunate to have coverage when so many do not.