boycott walmart

[BucNY]

It's not that all people wouldn't like healthcare. It's not that I think certain people do or don't deserve that security. All of our elected officials are focusing on the wrong problems. They are trying to force corporations pay for their workers healthcare which is a large sum of money. The truth is that for unskilled labor type positions it's simply to expensive to do. We all complain about who's going to pay for this or that instead of focusing on lower healthcare costs so people can pay for it themselves.

1. Tort reform to stop defensive medicine and unneeded testing
2. Re-reimbursement system that pays for patients feeling better, rather than how much treatment they receive
3. Fraud

We should be focusing on these aspects. What family can afford 15-20K a year for healthcare? What Wal-mart, K-Mart, Target can afford to pay this for their employees who run cash registers, stock shelfs, clean the stores? We have good doctors in this country and our citizens get good care, it's just to expensive at this point for anyone to buy it on their own or have it covered by their employer.

[spartan]

I think it takes about 5 minutes to train most Walmart employees. Coupled with the current unemployment rate, I am thinking that now is probably not the best time to go on strike.

[JavaRay]

I think it takes about 5 minutes to train most Walmart employees.

LOL!    I'd never thought of that before, but you are right.   Then again people at GM and Hostess were making big money, getting great benefits and a pension for unskilled jobs that take very little training to master.

[CBWx2]

It's not that all people wouldn't like healthcare. It's not that I think certain people do or don't deserve that security. All of our elected officials are focusing on the wrong problems. They are trying to force corporations pay for their workers healthcare which is a large sum of money. The truth is that for unskilled labor type positions it's simply to expensive to do. We all complain about who's going to pay for this or that instead of focusing on lower healthcare costs so people can pay for it themselves.

You cannot possibly lower healthcare costs to a level that someone at or near minimum wage would be able to pay for it themselves. These are people who cannot even pay rent or buy groceries without assistance. It would not be possible for them to pay for healthcare too. I think it basically boils down to this; either you are in favor of the private sector paying for it, are in favor of the public sector paying for it, or are in favor of millions going without it. Any of those three is going to cost us, and that 3rd option is what costs the most.

1. Tort reform to stop defensive medicine and unneeded testing

Tort reform is a code word for eliminating or limiting the patient's right to legal recourse should negligence occur. I'm sure doctors and hospitals, as well as businesses that manufacture harmful products love it, but it does virtually nothing to bring down costs. Frivolous lawsuits and excessive judgments are not a major driving factor of healthcare costs. Over the years, as healthcare costs have steadily increased, the amount of malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors and hospitals has remained virtually stagnant. Malpractice litigation accounts for about 1.5% of all healthcare costs.

2. Re-reimbursement system that pays for patients feeling better, rather than how much treatment they receive

This is part of the problem, but the bigger issue is to lower the cost of sed procedures, and the main way to do that is to stop forcing providers to absorb the cost of treating people who don't have insurance, because they make up for that loss by increasing the cost of care for those who do. If hospitals were assured of payment for every single patient that they treated, that would instantly lead to cheaper care for all.

3. Fraud

This one is a huge problem that must be a big part of any sustainable solution.

[BucNY]

CBWx2

Unfortunately most of what you just said is inaccurate.

1. Can you lower healthcare cost to a point where minimum wage earners could afford it? Probably not really. But lower it would undoubtedly help a lot in the fight to insurance all Americans. Either way, it needs to be done

2. I'm not referring to litigation. I'm referring a term coined "defensive medicine" when the a doctor orders a test that is likely to be negative to cover his/her butt because the patient has been deemed likely to sue. You also have a very skewed idea of what people are suing for. On a whole Americans take very poor care of themselves. When they get sick or something bad happens, they want someone to blame and it's never their own fault. A lot of times it's a family member with power of attorney that starts a lawsuit. Go work in a hospital or Drs office and you'll very quickly see the general attitude of the people that are come in.

3. You think that a person goes to the ER, has no money for the care they get and they walk away scott free? Nope they bill that person, they send that person to collections. What they DONT DO is charge an insurance carrier more to offset that. That statement there is what tells me you don't know the true workings of a doctors office or hospital. Next time you meet a doctor ask them who determines how much they get paid? The insurance companies gives you x amount for the procedure. They can bill whatever they like but they get the reimbursement determined by insurance carrier. In very very few instances the doctor charges what he likes and it gets paid. SO LET ME BE CLEAR, NO COST WHATSOEVER IS PASSED ON TO THE NEXT PATIENT WITH HEALTH INSURANCE. The hospital is eating that loss! If this were the case then many private practices/offices wouldn't be going out of business or consolidating.

4. We agree on the fraud.

[VinBucFan]

1. Tort reform to stop defensive medicine and unneeded testing

Tort reform is a code word for eliminating or limiting the patient's right to legal recourse should negligence occur. I'm sure doctors and hospitals, as well as businesses that manufacture harmful products love it, but it does virtually nothing to bring down costs. Frivolous lawsuits and excessive judgments are not a major driving factor of healthcare costs. Over the years, as healthcare costs have steadily increased, the amount of malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors and hospitals has remained virtually stagnant. Malpractice litigation accounts for about 1.5% of all healthcare costs.

Hillarious. I expose you as a fraud in one thread only to come to another and find you posting stuff like THAT ^^^^^^.  That is total BS talking points.  You have no idea what you are actually talking about.  ROFLMAO.  (One of the funniest comments up there is this "malpractice litigation accounts for about 1.5% of healthcare costs"  hahahahahahahahahaah . . . )

[VinBucFan]

2. I'm not referring to litigation. I'm referring a term coined "defensive medicine" when the a doctor orders a test that is likely to be negative to cover his/her butt because the patient has been deemed likely to sue. You also have a very skewed idea of what people are suing for. On a whole Americans take very poor care of themselves. When they get sick or something bad happens, they want someone to blame and it's never their own fault. A lot of times it's a family member with power of attorney that starts a lawsuit. Go work in a hospital or Drs office and you'll very quickly see the general attitude of the people that are come in.

You are not referring to "litigation" because it sounds like you live in the real world.  CBW made that very funny comment about "litigation" accounting for "1.5% of healthcare costs" because he cut and pasted it from a liberal blog without actually THINKING about it.

Besides the defensive medicine issue you correctly raise malpratice litigation and other healthcare related litigation DRAMATICALLY increase the cost of healthcare.  Doctors and hospitals and other healthcare providers pay huge rates for malpractice coverage. manufacturers and service providers build in cost associated with litigation etc... Worse than that, part of the current Medicare "reform" includes turning private citizens into government foot soldiers by creating LIABILITY for people who do not safeguard THE GOVERNMENT's money.  That means that people of all stripes pay LAWYERS (as one group) to spend extra time on every injury case (as one example) to ensure the GOVERNMENT recovers money.  Oh boy . . . .

BTW, at the risk of bringing a little logic to the discussion, if "tort reform" in healthcare was as insignificant as CBW claims why wouldnt the Democrats have given in on that issue a long time ago . .  it only accounts for 1.5% 

[Dolorous Jason]

CBWx2

Unfortunately most of what you just said is inaccurate.

Unfortunately , that is par for the course with CBW...

[VinBucFan]

CBWx2

Unfortunately most of what you just said is inaccurate.

Unfortunately , that is par for the course with CBW...

my prediction would be at least 4 more pages to follow with CBW explaining "what he really meant"

[spartan]

2. I'm not referring to litigation. I'm referring a term coined "defensive medicine" when the a doctor orders a test that is likely to be negative to cover his/her butt because the patient has been deemed likely to sue. You also have a very skewed idea of what people are suing for. On a whole Americans take very poor care of themselves. When they get sick or something bad happens, they want someone to blame and it's never their own fault. A lot of times it's a family member with power of attorney that starts a lawsuit. Go work in a hospital or Drs office and you'll very quickly see the general attitude of the people that are come in.

You are not referring to "litigation" because it sounds like you live in the real world.  CBW made that very funny comment about "litigation" accounting for "1.5% of healthcare costs" because he cut and pasted it from a liberal blog without actually THINKING about it.

Besides the defensive medicine issue you correctly raise malpratice litigation and other healthcare related litigation DRAMATICALLY increase the cost of healthcare.  Doctors and hospitals and other healthcare providers pay huge rates for malpractice coverage. manufacturers and service providers build in cost associated with litigation etc... Worse than that, part of the current Medicare "reform" includes turning private citizens into government foot soldiers by creating LIABILITY for people who do not safeguard THE GOVERNMENT's money.  That means that people of all stripes pay LAWYERS (as one group) to spend extra time on every injury case (as one example) to ensure the GOVERNMENT recovers money.  Oh boy . . . .

BTW, at the risk of bringing a little logic to the discussion, if "tort reform" in healthcare was as insignificant as CBW claims why wouldnt the Democrats have given in on that issue a long time ago . .  it only accounts for 1.5% 

Liability insurance can cost upwards of 200K depending where you work. That is more than what most Doctors earn. OB/GYN's appear to be the worst hit and they tend to be "self employed"; That is, run their own practices. Therefore, they need to earn 200K per year before they start making money, and that is without paying their staff. The problem is not the number of malpractice suits, it's the cost of the pay outs being made. The average payout has more than quadrupled in the last ten years because people think "it's only the insurance company and they have lots of money."

[Dolorous Jason]

CBWx2

Unfortunately most of what you just said is inaccurate.

Unfortunately , that is par for the course with CBW...

my prediction would be at least 4 more pages to follow with CBW explaining "what he really meant"

spin , black hole , spin.

[VinBucFan]

2. I'm not referring to litigation. I'm referring a term coined "defensive medicine" when the a doctor orders a test that is likely to be negative to cover his/her butt because the patient has been deemed likely to sue. You also have a very skewed idea of what people are suing for. On a whole Americans take very poor care of themselves. When they get sick or something bad happens, they want someone to blame and it's never their own fault. A lot of times it's a family member with power of attorney that starts a lawsuit. Go work in a hospital or Drs office and you'll very quickly see the general attitude of the people that are come in.

You are not referring to "litigation" because it sounds like you live in the real world.  CBW made that very funny comment about "litigation" accounting for "1.5% of healthcare costs" because he cut and pasted it from a liberal blog without actually THINKING about it.

Besides the defensive medicine issue you correctly raise malpratice litigation and other healthcare related litigation DRAMATICALLY increase the cost of healthcare.  Doctors and hospitals and other healthcare providers pay huge rates for malpractice coverage. manufacturers and service providers build in cost associated with litigation etc... Worse than that, part of the current Medicare "reform" includes turning private citizens into government foot soldiers by creating LIABILITY for people who do not safeguard THE GOVERNMENT's money.  That means that people of all stripes pay LAWYERS (as one group) to spend extra time on every injury case (as one example) to ensure the GOVERNMENT recovers money.  Oh boy . . . .

BTW, at the risk of bringing a little logic to the discussion, if "tort reform" in healthcare was as insignificant as CBW claims why wouldnt the Democrats have given in on that issue a long time ago . .  it only accounts for 1.5% 

Liability insurance can cost upwards of 200K depending where you work. That is more than what most Doctors earn. OB/GYN's appear to be the worst hit and they tend to be "self employed"; That is, run their own practices. Therefore, they need to earn 200K per year before they start making money, and that is without paying their staff. The problem is not the number of malpractice suits, it's the cost of the pay outs being made. The average payout has more than quadrupled in the last ten years because people think "it's only the insurance company and they have lots of money."

+1 

funny thing is I think the growth in premium rates (when considering health care in aggregate as opposed to focusing on a particular specialty) has actually slowed recently, but that is more a commentary on how fast rates were growing for years than an indication of some change.

[CBWx2]

CBWx2

Unfortunately most of what you just said is inaccurate.

1. Can you lower healthcare cost to a point where minimum wage earners could afford it? Probably not really. But lower it would undoubtedly help a lot in the fight to insurance all Americans. Either way, it needs to be done

I didn't say anything that is at odds with this statement. My point was that low wage earners, not just minimum wage earners, but those close to it, won't be able to afford whatever you lower it to, because it is highly unlikely that it could be lowered to any level that would fit in the budget of people who are already struggling to make it and live check to check as it is. And unless you cover these people, you won't be fixing the problem.

2. I'm not referring to litigation. I'm referring a term coined "defensive medicine" when the a doctor orders a test that is likely to be negative to cover his/her butt because the patient has been deemed likely to sue. You also have a very skewed idea of what people are suing for. On a whole Americans take very poor care of themselves. When they get sick or something bad happens, they want someone to blame and it's never their own fault. A lot of times it's a family member with power of attorney that starts a lawsuit. Go work in a hospital or Drs office and you'll very quickly see the general attitude of the people that are come in.

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2010/09/16/Study-Tort-reform-no-healthcare-cost-fix/UPI-56631284688620/#axzz2Ctft3yC6
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2010/03/ohios_tort_reform_law_hasnt_lo.html
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-care-/nRpcp/

BucNY, virtually any metric you choose to look at, number of lawsuits brought, amount of money in rewards, cost to the hospital or doctor in litigation or settlements, none of that has drastically increased, yet the overall cost of care has skyrocketed. What people sue for is irrelevant. What matters is how many people sue, and how that affects costs, and the answer is, not very many and not very much. Look at the statistics in state after state that has implemented tort reform. It hasn't lead to savings in any one of them. Not a single one. Even those that can point to lower premium costs for liability insurance have failed to see that materialize into lower costs for services rendered. Tort reform is a cop out. A red herring. Study after study suggests this.

3. You think that a person goes to the ER, has no money for the care they get and they walk away scott free? Nope they bill that person, they send that person to collections.

Of course they bill the person, but have you ever heard of the phrase, "you can't get blood from a turnip"? The number one cause of bankruptcy filing is due to unpaid medical bills. Regardless of the amount of billing done, on average, uninsured families end up paying only 12% of their hospital bills in full. Who eats the rest of that? The hospitals. How do they mitigate that loss? By increasing costs.

What they DONT DO is charge an insurance carrier more to offset that. That statement there is what tells me you don't know the true workings of a doctors office or hospital. Next time you meet a doctor ask them who determines how much they get paid? The insurance companies gives you x amount for the procedure. They can bill whatever they like but they get the reimbursement determined by insurance carrier. In very very few instances the doctor charges what he likes and it gets paid. Next time you meet a doctor ask them who determines how much they get paid? The insurance companies gives you x amount for the procedure. They can bill whatever they like but they get the reimbursement determined by insurance carrier. In very very few instances the doctor charges what he likes and it gets paid. SO LET ME BE CLEAR, NO COST WHATSOEVER IS PASSED ON TO THE NEXT PATIENT WITH HEALTH INSURANCE.

Where your explanation falls short is in that it implies that hospitals are beholden to insurance companies, and have no say in what they charge for a procedure. That is horse spit. Insurance companies don't run rough shot over providers and set rates in a take it, or leave it fashion. These reimbursements are negotiated, and often times, what happens if a hospital raises the cost of a procedure, and insurance companies refuse to raise the reimbursement rate for sed procedure, it simply leads to higher co-pays and deductibles to the insured. Even in cases where it doesn't directly lead for premium increases, it often times leads to a reduction in benefits.

The hospital is eating that loss! If this were the case then many private practices/offices wouldn't be going out of business or consolidating.

How many private practices treat uninsured patients?

[CBWx2]

1. Tort reform to stop defensive medicine and unneeded testing

Tort reform is a code word for eliminating or limiting the patient's right to legal recourse should negligence occur. I'm sure doctors and hospitals, as well as businesses that manufacture harmful products love it, but it does virtually nothing to bring down costs. Frivolous lawsuits and excessive judgments are not a major driving factor of healthcare costs. Over the years, as healthcare costs have steadily increased, the amount of malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors and hospitals has remained virtually stagnant. Malpractice litigation accounts for about 1.5% of all healthcare costs.

Hillarious. I expose you as a fraud in one thread only to come to another and find you posting stuff like THAT ^^^^^^.  That is total BS talking points.  You have no idea what you are actually talking about.  ROFLMAO.  (One of the funniest comments up there is this "malpractice litigation accounts for about 1.5% of healthcare costs"  hahahahahahahahahaah . . . )

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

[VinBucFan]

1. Tort reform to stop defensive medicine and unneeded testing

Tort reform is a code word for eliminating or limiting the patient's right to legal recourse should negligence occur. I'm sure doctors and hospitals, as well as businesses that manufacture harmful products love it, but it does virtually nothing to bring down costs. Frivolous lawsuits and excessive judgments are not a major driving factor of healthcare costs. Over the years, as healthcare costs have steadily increased, the amount of malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors and hospitals has remained virtually stagnant. Malpractice litigation accounts for about 1.5% of all healthcare costs.

Hillarious. I expose you as a fraud in one thread only to come to another and find you posting stuff like THAT ^^^^^^.  That is total BS talking points.  You have no idea what you are actually talking about.  ROFLMAO.  (One of the funniest comments up there is this "malpractice litigation accounts for about 1.5% of healthcare costs"  hahahahahahahahahaah . . . )

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

spin. spin. spin . .  . lots of spin in the world:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100904271.html