Originally Posted by Justin '77

But fortunately, the people he slurs and name-calls are just his imaginary friends -- and all evidence thus far seems to indicate that those particular straw phantoms aren't the super-sensitive types. I've yet to see him express coherent disagreement with something an actual poster has actually posted on more than a tiny number of occasions.

pw's sort of self-regulating that way...

That's some refuge you have there when your arguments are shot to shit - just pretend it was your imaginary friend's argument. Why not, someone has to ride those magic ponies with you.

By the way, where's my video of your revolver getting off 130 rounds with an avg 3 sec/round??? Or, have you disowned that?

Okay, then where's that hyperinflation and bond vigilantes with their strangling interest rates? Disowned?

Or 3D printers in every suburban garage taking out General Electric and General Motors?

Yea, I know, that was just your friends the straw men riding by on their magic ponies!

Originally Posted by Deb C

And they usually defend the corporate bought president to the hilt.

Sorry Debs, but Wall Street went in big time for Romney; Obama owes them noting.

I'd say check your facts, but I know that's pretty much hopeless.

Originally Posted by playwrite

By the way, where's my video of your revolver getting off 130 rounds with an avg 3 sec/round???

Your imaginary friend's claim, not mine. You based it on a massive mischaracterization of the point I made repeatedly (to wit: that the rate of fire achieved during massacre-killings is easily achievable by weapons considered much less threatening than even semiautomatic rifles).

Okay, then where's that hyperinflation and bond vigilantes with their strangling interest rates?

This is one of the most mysterious of your imaginary friends. I've never said a single word about hyperinflation, "bond vigilantes" (whatever the hell those are supposed to be...), or any of that. But you keep bringing them up as if they had anything to do with anything.

Or 3D printers in every suburban garage taking out General Electric and General Motors?

If anything, time is proving that one to be correct. It's a process that is moving in a distinct direction -- very much the one that was anticipated by the writers I tried to draw to your attention. Unless, of course, you're doing another of your mischaracterization things.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Your imaginary friend's claim, not mine. You based it on a massive mischaracterization of the point I made repeatedly (to wit: that the rate of fire achieved during massacre-killings is easily achievable by weapons considered much less threatening than even semiautomatic rifles).

This is one of the most mysterious of your imaginary friends. I've never said a single word about hyperinflation, "bond vigilantes" (whatever the hell those are supposed to be...), or any of that. But you keep bringing them up as if they had anything to do with anything.

If anything, time is proving that one to be correct. It's a process that is moving in a distinct direction -- very much the one that was anticipated by the writers I tried to draw to your attention. Unless, of course, you're doing another of your mischaracterization things.

Rate of fire - again, where's the video?

Hyper - everyone knows you and Zerohedge are tight. Show some loyalty!

Printing - In the long run, we're all dead. However, there is the guy at UofTx that's printed an operable composite 6-shooter. Sorry, no video there yet either.

Originally Posted by Deb C

And they usually defend the corporate bought president to the hilt.

Mitt Romney represents those who want a hostile takeover of our political system. Corporate America might have shifted some votes from the usual conservative free-market type to Obama in 2008 when many people feared a replay of the Great Depression.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Rate of fire - again, where's the video?

Massacre-killers in the USA shoot [per available data] at a rate of one shot every 8-10 seconds. We already posted several videos of even six-shooters beating that.

And that appears to be the only one of the three where you're capable of conversing even seemingly-coherently with anyone besides your imaginary friends. The moment the rest of what you say makes any kind of internally-consistent sense, I'll be glad to find something to say about it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Enough shooting the serfs, back to healthcare ...



Here's how:

How doctor-owned hospitals are circumventing ObamaCare


Suck it, politicians!

IOW, there is a serious danger that one of the unintended concequences of the ACA may be to institutionalize the disparity in treatment outcomes caused by earlier advantages in life chances.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Enough shooting the serfs, back to healthcare ...



Here's how:

How doctor-owned hospitals are circumventing ObamaCare


Suck it, politicians!

Aren't these similar the doctor owned Medicare Advantage programs?

Originally Posted by The Rani

Enough shooting the serfs, back to healthcare ...



Here's how:

How doctor-owned hospitals are circumventing ObamaCare


Suck it, politicians!

*This* is what concerns me about doctor owned hospitals:

"Doctor-owned hospitals "create a potential conflict of interest between a patient's health care needs and the physician's financial interests," said Richard J. Pollack, executive vice president of the hospital association. Moreover, he said, doctor-owned specialty hospitals tend to skim off the more profitable cases, "siphoning resources away from full-service community hospitals." [New York Times]"

I just don't see privatizing healthcare as a good idea for those reasons.

Originally Posted by Deb C

*This* is what concerns me about doctor owned hospitals:

"Doctor-owned hospitals "create a potential conflict of interest between a patient's health care needs and the physician's financial interests," said Richard J. Pollack, executive vice president of the hospital association. Moreover, he said, doctor-owned specialty hospitals tend to skim off the more profitable cases, "siphoning resources away from full-service community hospitals." [New York Times]"

And this:

" They're "expanding operating hours, increasing procedures in ways not restricted by the law, and rejecting patients on Medicare, the federal insurance program for the elderly and disabled," says the Wall Street Journal."

.

The cards are in their favor if they exclude those on Medicare. I just don't see privatizing healthcare as a good idea for many reasons.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Massacre-killers in the USA shoot [per available data] at a rate of one shot every 8-10 seconds. We already posted several videos of even six-shooters beating that.

And that appears to be the only one of the three where you're capable of conversing even seemingly-coherently with anyone besides your imaginary friends. The moment the rest of what you say makes any kind of internally-consistent sense, I'll be glad to find something to say about it.

Wow, you are a slppery one.

Forgot the other factor - a total of 154 shots.

Part of the reason I wanted the video was to see you or Coop fumbling with 30 speed loaders jerry-rigged to your jacket - along with the not so unlikely leg wound.
However, I did get concern when Glick chimed in - there, the likelihood of an unfortunate head shot goes up considerably.

But (to get back on topic) maybe one of Rani's doc-owned hospitals could make some money off of this, hey?

Originally Posted by The Rani

..., I'd rather see my buddies profiting ....

Wow, the Bernie Madoff of the health provider world!


At a minimum, the ACA will now shed a laser light on the doc-hospitals serving the well-to-do while everyone else goes to community hospitals. That, in turn, will help finally bring attention to the fact that high health costs has little to do with the insurers (particularly now with the imposed MLR of 15/20%) and everything to do with (dare I say it?!) very greedy health providers.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I get what you're saying, but honestly, I'd rather see my buddies profiting from this mess than slimeball hospital CEOs and drug companies. They are good doctors and good people.
And even public healthcare systems are prone to corruption, with politicians being the beneficiaries.
The only way around it is consumers becoming more informed and taking control of their own health care decisions. If WE decide not to do that, then WE basically deserve the system that WE get.

Yes, your correct, WE are the ones to work in our best interest. I just get concerned when these doctor owned hospitals are *excluding* a huge number of people to keep their profits high.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Medicare reimbursement rates are so low that many docs (especially surgeons) couldn't stay in business otherwise..

Why they might even have to keep that S-class Mercedes for more than a year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNUr__-VZeQ

Originally Posted by The Rani

You're picking on the wrong people, guy.
But then, that's nothing new.
Keep shining that laser light ... up your own ass.

Now how much is that medical advice going to cost me?

Next time your at a hospital, wonder by the doctors' reserved parking; pay particular note to those running the place.
Brokers, like Bernie, love when these guys come through their doors.

Our son is trying to decide which field of medicine he wants to practice. In his research he has discovered that primary care doesn't pay very well considering the medical school bills that will have to be paid off. It appears that the more lucrative fields are in being a specialist of some type. There's going to have to be major incentives for these kids to enter the primary care, where there is already a growing shortage.

One of the more popular ways to make it as a doctor in the primary care field, is to belong to a doctors group that is managed by the hospital.

We are entering into some major issues in healthcare services that will affect everyone in the lower and middle income brackets. Lots of innovative ideas are going to have to be implemented if we want to avoid these services from turning into a ""for the rich only"" system.

It already is a system for rich people only. Poor people have almost no access except through emergency rooms, because health insurance is a joke for everyone but a very few.

The real question is why can't there be two systems? Why does it have to be all one or the other?

Things seemed to work out when there was a private system alongside a growing public system, but eventually the funding (taxation) for the public system started to cause its own problems when coupled with bureaucrats' insatiable appetite for growing budgets. Costs exploded and will never come down because the supply of money will never shrink. Puttering around the edges of the issues with little 'reforms' of money flows is not going to fix anything.

Of course, the root of all these problems always has been the excess printing of money working in tandem with the growing statism that demanded it. Ballooning costs like healthcare are but a symptom.

But really, must we cram everything into a one size fits all solution as the standard answer? Must government eventually dominate and utterly control everything it touches, or is there some room for non-governmental people to exist? Most of the impetus for health care has come from people who simply want to exercise control over something, and damn the consequences. It is never about actually fixing a problem.

The proposed solutions these days are always more of the same thing that caused the issue to arise in the first place.

Originally Posted by Seattleblue

It already is a system for rich people only. Poor people have almost no access except through emergency rooms, because health insurance is a joke for everyone but a very few.

The real question is why can't there be two systems? Why does it have to be all one or the other?

Things seemed to work out when there was a private system alongside a growing public system, but eventually the funding (taxation) for the public system started to cause its own problems when coupled with bureaucrats' insatiable appetite for growing budgets. Costs exploded and will never come down because the supply of money will never shrink. Puttering around the edges of the issues with little 'reforms' of money flows is not going to fix anything.

Of course, the root of all these problems always has been the excess printing of money working in tandem with the growing statism that demanded it. Ballooning costs like healthcare are but a symptom.

But really, must we cram everything into a one size fits all solution as the standard answer? Must government eventually dominate and utterly control everything it touches, or is there some room for non-governmental people to exist? Most of the impetus for health care has come from people who simply want to exercise control over something, and damn the consequences. It is never about actually fixing a problem.

The proposed solutions these days are always more of the same thing that caused the issue to arise in the first place.

The issues arise in the first place arise because we don't have one system: single payer/medicare for all. Medicare forces the hospitals and drug companies to charge lower prices. It delivers services to those who need them at a fair price without giving excess profits to insurance companies.

If there is a second element to this, it is our responsibility to change our lifestyles and support preventive and holistic methods so that the expensive medical model is not the only one available. Isn't it time we joined the civilized world? (I know, that may be asking too much in a country full of conservatives and libertarians and in which a T.E.A. Party can even arise, let alone dominate congress)

Originally Posted by The Rani

Exactamundo.
I'm glad that my friends in private practice have continued to do well, but sad that community health has continued to deteriorate.
This is what The People have chosen.

H-m-m-m. The ACA is an aggregaion of the bribes and payoffs to get it passed. I assume that most reluctant yes votes came at a high price, and those prices will be paid in real dollars to someone with clout. I hardly consider any of that "what the People have chosen". You have a point, just not that one.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I get what you're saying, but honestly, I'd rather see my buddies profiting from this mess than slimeball hospital CEOs and drug companies. They are good doctors and good people.

And even public healthcare systems are prone to corruption, with politicians being the beneficiaries.
The only way around it is consumers becoming more informed and taking control of their own health care decisions. If WE decide not to do that, then WE basically deserve the system that WE get.

I find the entire scheme so out of balance and excessive that it isn't likley to hold for long. That said, 5 to 10 years of "success" might be eough to grant tenure, no matter how bad the system. The next reform, and there will have to be one at some point, will start with the ACA as the default. Medicare for all is the logical choice. Not perfect, but better.

Originally Posted by The Rani

"Our responsibility to change our lifestyles" ... At first I thought that was quite a libertarian comment (!) but now I realize that you probably mean that it's your responsibility to change everyone else's lifestyle.

No, some things are up to individuals. But obviously I am very much into promoting these alternatives!
http://philosopherswheel.com/haf.htm

Libertarianism is an extreme, simplistic, naive and unwise aberration. What I favor is a good balance between society/community influence and lawful civil and constitutional authority, with individual freedom and self-responsibility. Balance in all things is not always easy to define, and does not necessarily conform to what is considered "moderate" by current opinion.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I find the entire scheme so out of balance and excessive that it isn't likley to hold for long. That said, 5 to 10 years of "success" might be eough to grant tenure, no matter how bad the system. The next reform, and there will have to be one at some point, will start with the ACA as the default. Medicare for all is the logical choice. Not perfect, but better.

I'm thinking along the same lines, but 10 years is a minimum; I'm thinking more twenty. I think the mechanism will be insurers going out of business with the mandatory MLR limits and being replaced by public options in the state/regional exchanges. Those public options will be increasingly able to 'blend' with expanded Medicaid and eventually Medicare to lower and lower age groups. At some point, the efficiency of one single-payer program will emerge.

The other trend is technology particularly robotics and automation that is already cutting into specialists like radiologists and just beginning to take a toll on nursing salaries at large hospitals. Once we get to the point of needing the govt to prop up prices for quality providers to stay in the field, there will be a turn toward nationalization.

Of course, the rich will still leap over whatever is the base and afford the very best the globe has to offer - perhaps jetting off to India for a session with the Rani when they get the urge for clarity and purpose.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No, some things are up to individuals. But obviously I am very much into promoting these alternatives!
http://philosopherswheel.com/haf.htm

I am all for a holistic way of taking care of oneself but I do find that this approach is only a small part of the battle to stay healthy. The air we breath, water we drink and the food we eat, is increasingly bad for us. Not to mention the auto-immune diseases that are now triggered by all of those environmental pollutants.

I eat organic vegetables but our neighbor sprays roundup for weed control. Just because there's a fence between their yard and mine, doesn't mean that I won't somehow be affected by their behavior. Same with corporations that are allowed to spew pollutants into the air or poison our waterways.

There's simply a lot of things that are beyond our control.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Community health centers (which treat sicker patients) have a lot of public funding in addition to Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement fees, but that has been drying up in recent years, as state and local budgets have been shrinking.

And it looks as if it won't get any better.

"Obamacare: Sen. Bernie Sanders criticized the Obama administration for redirecting funds set aside for community health centers to pay for implementation of the Affordable Care Act. “Taking, as I understand, $150 million designed to expand community health centers and putting them into another area is to me very, very disturbing and a real setback."

Originally Posted by Deb C

I am all for a holistic way of taking care of oneself but I do find that this approach is only a small part of the battle to stay healthy. The air we breath, water we drink and the food we eat, is increasingly bad for us. Not to mention the auto-immune diseases that are now triggered by all of those environmental pollutants.

I eat organic vegetables but our neighbor sprays roundup for weed control. Just because there's a fence between their yard and mine, doesn't mean that I won't somehow be affected by their behavior. Same with corporations that are allowed to spew pollutants into the air or poison our waterways.

There's simply a lot of things that are beyond our control.

Indeed so; that's why libertarian ideology fails.