Go Back   iRV2 Forums > iRV2.com COMMUNITY FORUMS > Just Conversation
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Closed Thread
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-03-2009, 11:19 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Jim Stewart's Avatar
 
Monaco Owners Club
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Melbourne & Marathon, Florida
Posts: 1,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspande View Post
The first line is an outrageous misrepresentation of my statements for which a apology is due. The remainder is just plain silly.
Although not the responder to your post, I think the responder did not necessarily intend to offend you, I think they mis-read your post or misunderstood it.

I do not believe that you implied or intended to imply in any way that abortion was the answer to a problem. In a quick read, many posts that the reader believes says one thing or takes a certain position, upon re-reading, the interpretation is completely different.

It would seem that both sides of the issue are somewhat jaded. I have read the scare tactics by one side talking about "page 425" and how it means termination or withholding of care for terminally ill. It is hogwash and page 425 does not say or intend that. Page 425 says that Doctors will now receive reimbursement for end of life discussions including living wills, hospice etc., this should have been done years ago and is totally appropriate. I have also read the defenses of certain aspects of the bill where the defenses are totally opposite of what is specifically called for in the bill.

What everyone seems to agree on is that everyone should have access to care but at what price and what sacrifice. The bill does provide for low cost or no cost care based on income. Of the many people now not insured, it is by choice (the largest percentage) and that choice will no longer exist. I am one of the haves and I have never had a problem in sharing with the have nots. It just seems that I should have a say in how much of what I have, I share.

I also believe in a flat income tax, but the people that pay the least seem to be against it and the people that pay the most seem to be for it. Most of the people I speak to that share my opinion on a flat tax, all agree that they would be willing to pay more than they currently pay if everybody paid the same rate. It seems that what the haves think is fair the have nots will never think is fair.

No offenses meant or taken for any of your posts!

Jim
__________________

__________________
2005 Safari Cheetah 38PDQ - 2009 Ford Flex
Me (Gatogonow), The Boss (DW), Honey Bunny, Maggie May and Mollie Kay (The Gatos)!
Jim Stewart is offline  
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 08-03-2009, 11:30 AM   #58
Registered User
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in Philly for the fall heading to Sunshine before the snow flies
Posts: 1,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lindsay Richards View Post
I guess if you think aborting babies is a cheap solution, why not just shoot old duffers like me when we get sick. That will save a lot of money so Obama can give "free" healthcare to the illegals. Shooting is a little drastic as the plan is to give out pain pills and withhold the expensive care which is now commonplace. Medicare is an insurance program, and I have paid in for 40 years.
I'd rather go the Eskimo way, set adrift on the ice flows, at least that way the Polar Bears will survive
__________________

__________________
hondo122 is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 12:36 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Aguanga, CA, USA
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Stewart View Post
It would seem that both sides of the issue are somewhat jaded. I have read the scare tactics by one side talking about "page 425" and how it means termination or withholding of care for terminally ill. It is hogwash and page 425 does not say or intend that. Page 425 says that Doctors will now receive reimbursement for end of life discussions including living wills, hospice etc., this should have been done years ago and is totally appropriate. I have also read the defenses of certain aspects of the bill where the defenses are totally opposite of what is specifically called for in the bill.

What everyone seems to agree on is that everyone should have access to care but at what price and what sacrifice. The bill does provide for low cost or no cost care based on income. Of the many people now not insured, it is by choice (the largest percentage) and that choice will no longer exist. I am one of the haves and I have never had a problem in sharing with the have nots. It just seems that I should have a say in how much of what I have, I share.
Jim, thanks for the insightful post. I was actually thinking of that same issue as well, but couldn't come up with a good way to say it.

I've been trying to add insight to this issue by posting points which I felt have been overlooked in the national debate, and here's one more stab at making my original point. The current system is unsustainable and will bankrupt our nation if it's not fixed. The first step has to be universal coverage, otherwise any attempts at cost control become a hopeless game of "Whack-a-mole", for example, the uninsured avoiding the cost of Doctor visits and ending in the much more expensive Emergency Room.

But unfortunately, our chances of fixing the terribly complex issue are greatly hampered by the scare tactics and mindless slogans. For example, "Obama (or anyone else) wants to give free care to illegal aliens!". It's been made abundantly clear that his (and our) motivation is to avoid the financial ruin that our health care system is leading us. Everyone would like the illegal immigration issue to be eliminated, but we just haven't seen any solution yet where the "cure isn't worse than the disease". Meanwhile, untreated populations, whether legal or illegal, pose a real danger to everyone's health. For example, a great way for germs to develop into drug-resistant strains is uninsured saving money by breaking their expensive medicine in half to make it "go farther". Epidemics that begin in an untreated population, illegal or legal, will not be confined to just that population.

This isn't "bleeding-heart" liberalism, it's just facing up to reality.
__________________
jspande is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 12:53 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
RovinOn's Avatar
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 667
Lets first get everybody on the Flat Tax system!
Then lets stop giving our money overseas!
Then lets get rid of "Our Freeloading" side of Society

Then maybe we can start talking about some Insurance Coverage using the monies from what we saved up above!

You all know with Washington involved it isn't going to work and cost us all a lot of money and only the free loaders will have benefited!
__________________
LONG LONESOME HIGHWAY
Going down that long lonesome highway,Bound for the mountains and the plains
Michael Parks / Then Came Bronson - 1969
RovinOn is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 01:36 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: where its warmmmmm
Posts: 811
Let me tell you a little trueism..........................................

All fairy tales start with, "Once upon a time "

All truck driver stories start with "Now this aint no stuff"

All promised Govt help starts with "We are going to help the poor"

This aint no multiple choice test. Pick the one you think will be the truth.
__________________
mick is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 01:43 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Ecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by randco View Post
I think the system need some fixing. How can there be different rates for the same care. For example, why does someone with Medicare pay a whole lot less for a procedure than someone that has private insurance. That doesn't sound right to me, but it happens all the time.

.

The difference between actual cost and Medicare reimbursement rates, which do not reflect true cost, has to go somewhere and that is to Private insurance carriers or losses/writeoffs at hospitals or doctors offices. I'm just short of 8o and have had two operations this year. One was done in a outpatient setting; the second in a hospital. Both operations were same problem but due to crazy Medicare reimbursement rates the second operation would have caused the Outpatient clinic to lose money so they shifted me to hospital because they get reimbursed differently and would not lose money even though the hospital setting is far more expensive than outpatient center.
__________________
Ecker
Ecker is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 02:06 PM   #63
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Aguanga, CA, USA
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecker View Post
The difference between actual cost and Medicare reimbursement rates, which do not reflect true cost, has to go somewhere and that is to Private insurance carriers or losses/writeoffs at hospitals or doctors offices. I'm just short of 8o and have had two operations this year. One was done in a outpatient setting; the second in a hospital. Both operations were same problem but due to crazy Medicare reimbursement rates the second operation would have caused the Outpatient clinic to lose money so they shifted me to hospital because they get reimbursed differently and would not lose money even though the hospital setting is far more expensive than outpatient center.
Believe it or not, the "Fee for Service" reimbursement system is worse than this example even. It's not only different for "outpatient" versus "In-hospital". There's an entire industry, called "Coding", that functions simply to determine how to get the most reimbursement by selecting the optimal "code" for a procedure. The Fee-for-Service system uses what are called "CPT" codes (numbers) for every medical procedure and each code has an allowable charge. It's often possible to get far more by simply using a slightly different description for the same basic procedure.

One of the things Obama, and others, have been pushing is to replace the "fee for service" system with some way of reimbursing for outcomes instead. The Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic have both succeeded in doing this and get better results for their patients at lower cost.
__________________
jspande is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 02:10 PM   #64
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
Before demanding an apology, you should check up on what our dear leader is saying and watch the video at the link below of an actual case proving what is already happening in the state of OR.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/0...icide-instead/

Rationing will be commonplace as it is in the UK. 39% is the top bracket, not 36%. Most of us are in this bracket. Oboma is talking about doing it for all healthare plans. How else will he be able to insure an additional 47 million folks and reduce costs as he states? Surely nobody believes the government effeciencies line.
__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 02:32 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Ecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 770
I believe it is just as much a scare tactic to forecast doomsday if we don't change our current system to universal single payer format as any of the others sited in opposition. Second, it can be said, based upon demonstrated implementation of single payer systems in UK and Canada, that these models will either lead to same doomsday, and/or as is these countries, result in unavailability of timely care or total rationing of care, meaning in most cases the elderly are left to die, early treatable disease is allowed to progress to point, even in young, to where irreparable damage is done before surgery or proper medication is allowed, etc.

It is a fallacy to say that the "system" is out of control. Much of the increased cost is the direct result of major improvements in health care and drugs. I doubt any rationale person would want to go back even a decade to the drugs or medical procedures done then as compared to today. This is not to say there isn't room for major improvement in today's cost structure (e.g class law suits, malpractice suits, free gold plated union medical benefits, etc) but the proposed law doesn't address any of them and in fact further reinforces there debilitating status.

I can today in the two areas of country I reside make an appointment to see a doctor today if needed. I'm not special anyone of you reading this message could in the cities I'm talking about do the same. I'm sure the same is normal in most places. I'm absolutely sure that the proposed law will end that ability. I can get emergency surgery within hours and certainly within days for a "normal" problem. You can too. Members of my family, including myself , have had this unforunate requirement this year. I'm sure the proposed law will end that ability. I believe that the proposed law will in fact within a short time after enactment result in my inability to have a good quality of life and/or shorten my life span.

This medical insurance law making is not so hidden agenda of moving the government deeper into our lives with the decisions in the hands of the government bureaucrat. It is designed to eliminate all private insurance and private decison making. It's not necessary and a ratio9nal government woiuld carefully study and take it one piece at a time to really craft a repsosible plan; not add 300 pages of law at !:30 AM which is added to 718 pages (yes, I've read all 1018 pages on government web site)
__________________
Ecker
Ecker is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 02:38 PM   #66
Senior Member
 
Ecker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by jspande View Post
Believe it or not, the "Fee for Service" reimbursement system is worse than this example even. It's not only different for "outpatient" versus "In-hospital". There's an entire industry, called "Coding", that functions simply to determine how to get the most reimbursement by selecting the optimal "code" for a procedure. The Fee-for-Service system uses what are called "CPT" codes (numbers) for every medical procedure and each code has an allowable charge. It's often possible to get far more by simply using a slightly different description for the same basic procedure.

One of the things Obama, and others, have been pushing is to replace the "fee for service" system with some way of reimbursing for outcomes instead. The Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic have both succeeded in doing this and get better results for their patients at lower cost.
I'm very aware of the coding issues and in fact think it is a reasonable and rationale process. What other business would not want to bill at the proper rate. There is in place a check on this coding and it does infact find abuses and doctors or hospitals have been and are being prosecuted where abuse is found.

I'm also aware of the Mayo and Cleveland efforts. These are laudable first steps and certainly some of the things that could be tried and possibly replicated before we dump the exisitng system for this nonsense in this House bill which is simply a smoke screen for single payer.
__________________
Ecker
Ecker is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 03:29 PM   #67
Senior Member
 
Superslif's Avatar
 
Thor Owners Club
Pond Piggies Club
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NE. Ohio USA
Posts: 4,707
Has anyone brought up "medical cost". Being 46 years old, last year was the first time I ever went to the emergency room. I cut my finger so so, I just wanted to wrap it up, no big deal. My wife suggested I go have it checked out. Saw the Dr. maybe 30 seconds, he just instructed the nurse to put some sort of "glue" stuff on it. No stitches.... $1700.....Unbelieveable. Neighbor went in last week for 4 days for testing for a possible pacemaker, Bill $40,000.... My insurance picked most of the $1700 up.

But, my problem is when and if I retire I'm going to have to pay $500 a month for a 80/20 plan. One major hospital stay $100K+ I'm SOL..... Our saying at work is the new retirement plan is "Death".....

Somewhere the people working, wanting to better them selves, living amongst their means, working a full time job plus a side job, Not getting themselves hocked to the hills, are going to give up.....and join the rest of the people who know how to "work the system".
__________________
Jim, Diane & Robert ~ NE. OH.
2018 Outdoors RV Timber Ridge 24 RKS
2014 Toyota Tundra Limited 5.7L
IRV2 Photo Album ~Let's Go Places~
Superslif is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 03:31 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Aguanga, CA, USA
Posts: 238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecker View Post
I believe it is just as much a scare tactic to forecast doomsday if we don't change our current system to universal single payer format as any of the others sited in opposition. Second, it can be said, based upon demonstrated implementation of single payer systems in UK and Canada, that these models will either lead to same doomsday, and/or as is these countries, result in unavailability of timely care or total rationing of care, meaning in most cases the elderly are left to die, early treatable disease is allowed to progress to point, even in young, to where irreparable damage is done before surgery or proper medication is allowed, etc.

It is a fallacy to say that the "system" is out of control. Much of the increased cost is the direct result of major improvements in health care and drugs. I doubt any rationale person would want to go back even a decade to the drugs or medical procedures done then as compared to today. This is not to say there isn't room for major improvement in today's cost structure (e.g class law suits, malpractice suits, free gold plated union medical benefits, etc) but the proposed law doesn't address any of them and in fact further reinforces there debilitating status.

I can today in the two areas of country I reside make an appointment to see a doctor today if needed. I'm not special anyone of you reading this message could in the cities I'm talking about do the same. I'm sure the same is normal in most places. I'm absolutely sure that the proposed law will end that ability. I can get emergency surgery within hours and certainly within days for a "normal" problem. You can too. Members of my family, including myself , have had this unforunate requirement this year. I'm sure the proposed law will end that ability. I believe that the proposed law will in fact within a short time after enactment result in my inability to have a good quality of life and/or shorten my life span.

This medical insurance law making is not so hidden agenda of moving the government deeper into our lives with the decisions in the hands of the government bureaucrat. It is designed to eliminate all private insurance and private decison making. It's not necessary and a ratio9nal government woiuld carefully study and take it one piece at a time to really craft a repsosible plan; not add 300 pages of law at !:30 AM which is added to 718 pages (yes, I've read all 1018 pages on government web site)
First of all, I never said anything like "...doomsday if we don't change our current system to universal single payer format". I have so far never even indicated a preference for single payer, much less claimed it was the only system that would avoid "doomsday".

I said, and virtually every expert agrees, that the cost growth curve of our system is unsustainable and unless we fix it to ("bend the curve") it will bankrupt our nation. And I stand by the opinion that universal coverage in some form is an essential first step in gaining control of costs (otherwise we just play "Whack-a-mole").

While I do not propose a Canada-style system and therefore shouldn't be put in a position of defending it, I believe you do our friends to the north a great insult. After all, polls show Canadians prefer their system to ours overwhelmingly. If it's even remotely as bad as you, and others, say, they'd have to be pretty stupid or even insane, right?

There was an interesting study (by the US Dept of Health as I recall) reported in the media about a year ago, that found that the average wait time in the Emergency Room was far greater in the USA than in Canada, but wait times were greater in Canada for elective procedures. The point is, it's easy to pick and choose your favorite statistic.

I believe most experts have agreed with Obama's statement that in the USA we pay much more for a system where we live sicker and die younger than in other industrialized nations. We need to improve it.
__________________
jspande is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 03:35 PM   #69
Senior Member
 
Lindsay Richards's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Tavares, FL
Posts: 1,644
Quote:
We need to improve it.
Less government usually ends in improvement. More government usually ends in things going down hill. Do you really want the idiots of the Cash for Clunkers to be in charge of your personal healthcare. Not me.
__________________
http://www.linandnancy.com
Lindsay Richards is offline  
Old 08-03-2009, 03:43 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
Superslif's Avatar
 
Thor Owners Club
Pond Piggies Club
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NE. Ohio USA
Posts: 4,707
Quote:
I said, and virtually every expert agrees, that the cost growth curve of our system is unsustainable and unless we fix it to ("bend the curve") it will bankrupt our nation. And I stand by the opinion that universal coverage in some form is an essential first step in gaining control of costs (otherwise we just play "Whack-a-mole").
There are just too many people living off the system and knowing how to work the system.... I'm just the average working "Stiff" trying to provide for me and my families future. But I'm finding it harder and harder to see a future.....Every month more and more is going for new fees, levies and less going into savings....
__________________

__________________
Jim, Diane & Robert ~ NE. OH.
2018 Outdoors RV Timber Ridge 24 RKS
2014 Toyota Tundra Limited 5.7L
IRV2 Photo Album ~Let's Go Places~
Superslif is offline  
Closed Thread



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Good Sam Insurance - Good or Not? JavaJelly Class A Motorhome Discussions 18 09-15-2015 11:16 AM
Good Sam ERS vs. Coach-Net Half Dimes iRV2.com General Discussion 13 04-23-2009 06:42 PM
Good Sam CSP Don Rob iRV2.com General Discussion 6 12-14-2007 07:23 AM
Good ending but - Another "won't start" story - might help someone else in the future Virginia Alpine Coach Owner's Forum 4 10-09-2007 02:36 PM
More 2006 shakedown - good service experience Audrey & John Alpine Coach Owner's Forum 27 07-27-2005 04:45 PM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.