Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 86 of 86

Thread: 30% of US Employers Intend to Drop Healthcare in 2014

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Run cheaper than what? Was Medicare ever run by a myriad of companies duplicating administrative efforts that required doctors comply with a complex and inconsistent patchwork of coverage and paperwork? No, of course not. Private insurance companies would never take on a pool of only high risk, guaranteed high claims people. Which is why the government got stuck with it - nobody else would cover old people at a price they could afford. And that is also why there should be a single payer system for the entire country requiring healthy people to participate. The high risk people can't be covered at a reasonable price without the gigantic pool of low risk people paying in to balance the costs. Duh.
    So again the original estimation of the cost of Medicare was way off. The health care debate we had in this country did the same exact thing. Put forth ridiculous estimates that they knew will run over budget.

    Here's the other thing about the 'gigantic pool of low risk people' that you say need to pay for the elderly care. Do you think those people are going to get old too? Odds say yes. Nearly everyone is going to need expensive care at some point.

    In your system how do you ration care? Because the idea that we can just have unlimited care for everyone will not work.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    So again the original estimation of the cost of Medicare was way off. The health care debate we had in this country did the same exact thing. Put forth ridiculous estimates that they knew will run over budget.
    I was under the impression the initial estimates for Medicare were off because old people suddenly started living a lot longer. And don't forget to mention that health care costs keep rising way faster than inflation. Do you think that was predictable back when Medicare was passed?

    Here's the other thing about the 'gigantic pool of low risk people' that you say need to pay for the elderly care. Do you think those people are going to get old too? Odds say yes. Nearly everyone is going to need expensive care at some point.
    Lots will..... and.....?

    In your system how do you ration care? Because the idea that we can just have unlimited care for everyone will not work.
    Right now care is rationed by the ability to buy insurance. And as costs increase, more and more people get rationed out. From a layman's perspective, if rationing become necessary in a single payer universal plan, and I'm not sure its a forgone conclusion as you present it, I think it might be fairly easy to categorize what care is critical to life and health and what is optional. I think sooner than later medical professionals and ethicists are going to have to take a hard look at current end of life care and evaluate what makes sense and what doesn't. And probably a lot of unnecessary procedures - and expense - could be eliminated by changing the pay structure from fee for service. But that would likely result in fewer medical personnel needed, less high tech equipment, maybe fewer facilities, and many doctors taking pay cuts. I wonder how that sort of thing would affect the economy.... unintended consequences and all....
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    I think sooner than later medical professionals and ethicists are going to have to take a hard look at current end of life care and evaluate what makes sense and what doesn't.
    AH HAH! DEATH PANELS!!!!

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    I'm glad you liked the article, but you picked out among the least relevant passages in it. With that said, comparing complex life-and-death matters with relatively simple trivial procedures such as lasik and then running a "thought experiment" is, as you put it, disingenuous.

    Can you reasonably be expected to shop around for every single test associated with a given emergency hospital admission and treatment? What if the competitors are far away from one another? What if they don't have compatible journal systems?

    It's relatively easy to "act like a consumer" with something like lasik.

    Most of our large and steadily expanding healthcare industry isn't life-and-death though *even with the way expenses are currently end-loaded* and even a fair bit of the stuff that is isn't immediate. I realize you're very attached to the idea that money and medicine can't mix, but perhaps your biases are rejecting that there might be some validity to Lewk's alternate approach?
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    AH HAH! DEATH PANELS!!!!
    Fine. Don't be serious.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  6. #66
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    AH HAH! DEATH PANELS!!!!
    You obviously don't know how organ transplants work.
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Most of our large and steadily expanding healthcare industry isn't life-and-death though *even with the way expenses are currently end-loaded* and even a fair bit of the stuff that is isn't immediate. I realize you're very attached to the idea that money and medicine can't mix, but perhaps your biases are rejecting that there might be some validity to Lewk's alternate approach?
    How many people do you know would (or could) thoroughly research something like mitral valve repair/replacement, comparing surgeons and hospitals by state, coordinating transfer of care from referral to second opinion to practitioner, pre and post-op care, insurance coverage in/out of network, charges for Anesthesiology or a Hospitalist, in-patient room rates, levels of care, extras for pharmacy or respiratory therapy....plus getting family or SO to take time off work and travel with them, air fare and hotel rates....in order to "find the best care at the best price"?

  8. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    How many people do you know would (or could) thoroughly research something like mitral valve repair/replacement, comparing surgeons and hospitals by state, coordinating transfer of care from referral to second opinion to practitioner, pre and post-op care, insurance coverage in/out of network, charges for Anesthesiology or a Hospitalist, in-patient room rates, levels of care, extras for pharmacy or respiratory therapy....plus getting family or SO to take time off work and travel with them, air fare and hotel rates....in order to "find the best care at the best price"?
    Most of my family, but that's purely anecdotal. And people already do that sort of research *not necessarily on cost but on their doctors, the recommended treatments, the time-frames and scheduling involved etc.* Not usually across state lines but at a regional level. What's more, doctors and the health-care system "assume" people do this, as fundamental to the concept of informed consent. Further, the health insurance industry is already itself a proxy for everything you've said above.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  9. #69
    Depends on the type of illness and specialty, obviously. This is what the "shopping" model doesn't fully address. Lasik is different from hernia repair or mitral valve replacement.

    Not usually across state lines but at a regional level. What's more, doctors and the health-care system "assume" people do this, as fundamental to the concept of informed consent. Further, the health insurance industry is already itself a proxy for everything you've said above.
    By state means out-of-state, not regional. Doctors mostly give local referrals, either within their formal network or to colleagues. (Very rarely would a patient be referred to Johns Hopkins by their Wisconsin physician.)

    You'll have to explain how the insurance industry is proxy for what we now call medical tourism....

    edit and don't forget Lewk IS talking about shopping based on COST.

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Depends on the type of illness and specialty, obviously. This is what the "shopping" model doesn't fully address. Lasik is different from hernia repair or mitral valve replacement.
    In that it's pretty much entirely elective and has really no sort of time pressure at all, yes. Plainly there are a range of behaviors and situations, from elective procedures like Lasik and some types of cosmetic surgery to a car crash resulting in being brought to the nearest ER by an ambulance. Different contexts have different requirements, restrictions, and ranges of allowable or reasonable behavior, and different approaches will naturally mesh better with different contexts than others.

    By state means out-of-state, not regional. Doctors mostly give local referrals, either within their formal network or to colleagues. (Very rarely would a patient be referred to Johns Hopkins by their Wisconsin physician.)
    That's mostly due to the state-centric administrative and insurance models which presumably will be reformed/removed with any attempt at restructuring our healthcare system. I think you may be interpreting "regional" more broadly than I meant it though. When I say 'regional' I mean something along the lines of Central California or the Tri-State area, not Pacific Northwest or Eastern Seaboard. Local, to me, means something like within the municipality, within the county at it's broadest meaning.

    You'll have to explain how the insurance industry is proxy for what we now call medical tourism....

    edit and don't forget Lewk IS talking about shopping based on COST.
    I was pointing out the insurance industry as someone who was already making all those calculations about cost you were referring to. And yes, Lewk is talking about cost. You alleged or implied most people would not or could not put that sort of effort into seeking the best healthcare they could get, price-wise, and I pointed out that they're already engaged in very similar behaviors regarding other matters involved in their medical care. It's not a stretch to see them doing so wrt costs as well, at least not to the extent required to effect a reduction in prices.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    In that it's pretty much entirely elective and has really no sort of time pressure at all, yes. Plainly there are a range of behaviors and situations, from elective procedures like Lasik and some types of cosmetic surgery to a car crash resulting in being brought to the nearest ER by an ambulance. Different contexts have different requirements, restrictions, and ranges of allowable or reasonable behavior, and different approaches will naturally mesh better with different contexts than others.
    That's what minx and I have been saying. Context matters, it's not black-and-white, like Lewk's examples of Lasik or buying a car. Not even for procedures that aren't emergencies, but also aren't "elective". Like mitral valve surgery.

    That's mostly due to the state-centric administrative and insurance models which presumably will be reformed/removed with any attempt at restructuring our healthcare system. I think you may be interpreting "regional" more broadly than I meant it though. When I say 'regional' I mean something along the lines of Central California or the Tri-State area, not Pacific Northwest or Eastern Seaboard. Local, to me, means something like within the municipality, within the county at it's broadest meaning.
    Yes, I meant more broad interstate "shopping". Including those flying overseas....

    I was pointing out the insurance industry as someone who was already making all those calculations about cost you were referring to. And yes, Lewk is talking about cost. You alleged or implied most people would not or could not put that sort of effort into seeking the best healthcare they could get, price-wise, and I pointed out that they're already engaged in very similar behaviors regarding other matters involved in their medical care. It's not a stretch to see them doing so wrt costs as well, at least not to the extent required to effect a reduction in prices.
    And I'm saying medical tourism (in the broad sense) includes costs no insurer even knows. In addition, we'd be hard pressed to find transparent prices AT ALL. This is a major flaw in our system---you can't just call up three facilities and compare the costs of a procedure, or an inpatient bed for one night. You can't google your way to best care + best price. People end up calling their insurer to find out which costs are reimbursed, but they won't tell you rates. Rates are negotiated between providers and insurers, and the patient is the pawn.

    Even comparison-price shopping for Outpatient procedures and treatment is a difficult task, with stark differences for uninsured or under-insured.

  12. #72
    I would also like Lewk to recognize why he holds the private health insurance model as the best current standard, expects consumers to be the best price-shoppers, and how that will reduce overall healthcare costs. What he really means is......people should be better shoppers for their insurance.

    <<What's covered or excluded 100%, which things are 80/20 hybrids, the co-pays and premiums and deductibles, the cost-containment measures like PPO networks or inpatient vs outpatient, life time maximum caps, dependent limits and fees, how much the employer pays vs how much the employee pays, the cafeteria model of insurance.>>

    It's high time Lewk started seeing the difference between the consumer of healthcare, and the consumer of health insurance.
    Last edited by GGT; 06-12-2011 at 08:08 AM.

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    And its cynical, cruel, and lazy to conclude the best solution to the Medicare and Medicaid cost problem is to simply cut the amount the government will spend on it. That 'solution' doesn't even pretend to try and address the real problem which is the rising cost of healthcare for everyone. That cost is still going to rise and the myriad of resulting problems are still going to get worse, they will just get worse faster for older and poorer Americans. Whatever is driving the cost increase has to be addressed. And I don't believe for a second the driver is simply fast changing technology; as stated by Loki above, that explanation doesn't even make any sense (Loki: I am interested in a more detailed explanation, however).
    It's the sane approach. It's actually insane to suggest that the solution is a blanket government subsidy followed by prayer that policies will also lower costs. Demonstrable cost reductions have to happen first, otherwise you're basically committing a sort of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fallacy that will inflate costs further.

  14. #74
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Most of our large and steadily expanding healthcare industry isn't life-and-death though *even with the way expenses are currently end-loaded* and even a fair bit of the stuff that is isn't immediate. I realize you're very attached to the idea that money and medicine can't mix, but perhaps your biases are rejecting that there might be some validity to Lewk's alternate approach?
    if you accept the health of your people is in the general interest, the next and inescapable conclusion is that sub-universal coverage is against that same general interest. We, can"t really afford it for the full 100% for everybody so what we are really looking at is distribution of a scarce commodity over as big a gruop of people as possible. If private solutions don't achieve that they should be shoved aside for solutions that do achieve the most efficient distribution to the biggest group of people.

    And yes, I do realise that sounds socialist, but other solutions are merely denying the nitter truth that in the end we can't realky afford it.
    Congratulations America

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    It's the sane approach. It's actually insane to suggest that the solution is a blanket government subsidy followed by prayer that policies will also lower costs. Demonstrable cost reductions have to happen first, otherwise you're basically committing a sort of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac fallacy that will inflate costs further.
    But just making a cut is exactly what you just called insane. A cut is NOT a cost reduction. Its a payment/ spending reduction. The costs are still going to be there, its just that some other entity will have to pay them - or NOT pay them and thus be rationed out of the system. I see a LOT of potential for cost reduction by going to a single payer. I see a LOT of potential for cost reduction by dumping the fee-for service payment structure. What COST reduction is just cutting the budget going to achieve???
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  16. #76
    More on costs:

    Private insurance companies that deliver the Medicare prescription benefit say the problem is that drug makers charge too much for the medications, some of which were developed from taxpayer-funded research. The pharmaceutical industry faults insurers, saying copayments on drugs are higher than cost-sharing for other medical services, such as hospital care.
    Others blame the design of the Medicare prescription benefit itself, because it allows insurers to put expensive drugs on a so-called "specialty tier" with copayments equivalent to 25 percent or more of the cost of the medication.
    Drugs for multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis C also wind up on specialty tiers, along with the new anti-cancer pills. Medicare supplemental insurance -- Medigap -- doesn't cover those copayments.
    "This is a benefit design issue," said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, a research firm that collaborated in a recent medical journal study on the consequences of high copayments for the new cancer drugs.
    Cost-sharing should only be used to deter wasteful treatment, he explained. "It is hard to make the argument that someone who has been prescribed an oral cancer medication doesn't need the drug," added Mendelson.
    The study last month in the Journal of Oncology Practice found that nearly 16 percent of Medicare beneficiaries did not fill an initial prescription for pills to treat cancer, a significantly higher proportion than the 9 percent of people with private insurance who did not follow through.
    Forty-six percent of Medicare beneficiaries faced copayments of more than $500, as compared to only 11 percent of patients with private insurance. Among people of all ages, 1 in 4 who faced a copayment over $500 did not fill their prescriptions. Cancer is more prevalent among older people.
    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Senior...56743.html?x=0
    Last edited by Wraith; 06-13-2011 at 03:23 PM.

  17. #77
    Posting this for everyone to have something concrete to discuss. One man's hypothetical scenario on what a universal care / single payer system might look like in the US. Does this sound realistic, or are there too many of his own political opinions and assumptions that influenced the projections? Would you change this scenario in any way....if so, in what way?


    Building An Escape Hatch Into Single Payer Healthcare

    By Bill Frezza

    Several of my recent columns in Forbes and Bio-IT World have critiqued the mess we've made of the healthcare system in this country. Readers took me to task. Don't just criticize, how about offering some concrete alternatives that make economic sense and are politically feasible! While there is every reason to believe that these conflicting requirements produce a null set, let's give it a try and you be the judge.

    Contrary to all other proposals, the only approach that has any chance of working requires that defenders of the free market acknowledge reality. In the words of the tall thin man in the black top hat, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Attempts to maintain a system half-free and half-socialist in which vote-hungry politicians and profit-seeking corporations battle to allocate resources are inherently doomed.

    The die was cast the day the Medicare Act was first passed in 1964, exactly as its opponents predicted. While we have put it off longer than any other advanced democracy, a move from our current catastrophe to a single payer system is inevitable. All democracies do this on their way to bankrupting themselves and there is no reason to believe we are going to be any different.


    So, let's get it over with and cut a deal to save what's worth saving. Give the Progressives what they want and make universal healthcare a unitary government service, provided free of charge to all comers, on one condition. That they agree to legislatively authorize a parallel nationwide healthcare free market enterprise zone.

    The purpose of this escape hatch is twofold. The first is to keep medical innovation alive, for it will surely die if there is not a competitive market somewhere that rewards inventors and entrepreneurs for the outsized risks they take. The second is to provide an alternative for people who would prefer not to leave the country to get care that a public system cannot or will not provide, as do citizens from every other country that has socialized medicine.

    Universal free healthcare would function much like public schools without the neighborhood variation. Everyone would complain but no one would be denied access. The system should be paid for out of general tax revenues subject to whatever annual budget Congress allocates given its other spending priorities. Medicare and Medicaid must cease to exist as separate programs. Everything would operate on a pay as you go basis using current cash accounting with no illusions about "trust funds." Patients in the public system will only get what Congress can afford to buy for them.

    Doctors who contract to work in the public system would be offered free medical education and upon graduation would receive civil service wages, knowing that they would only have to work civil service hours. The public service would be exempt from malpractice lawsuits; aggrieved patients would apply to a specially appointed federal board to receive compensation for pain and suffering. Primary care physicians would dominate the system and the number of specialists would be both strictly limited and geographically assigned to assure interstate equality. Every element of the system would be scientifically planned under the control of a cabinet level healthcare czar.

    Sure, there would be some drawbacks. Over time native born public service doctors could probably be expected to have the same intelligence, work ethic, and attention to detail as the people who deliver your mail or punch your ticket on the Metroliner. And they might even unionize. But this will not matter because everything doctors do will be prescribed by standardized procedures worked out by experts at the National Institutes of Health. To freshen up the gene pool and make up for inevitable doctor shortages, immigrant doctors and nurses from third world countries would be promised citizenship on condition that they serve ten years in the public service.

    Access to medical products and services would be allocated according to federally mandated best practices and all patients would be subject to waiting lists except for Congressmen and their families. (You asked for realism, right?) No new medications, devices, or therapies could be introduced into the public system without passing rigorous cost effectiveness testing and all vendors would have to agree to sell their wares to the government on a cost plus basis. Profiteering would not be allowed.

    People suffering from lifestyle related illnesses caused by things like drinking, smoking, obesity, and sloth would be treated without discrimination, though they may find their access to alcohol, tobacco, and junk food increasingly limited as new public health laws are introduced to control costs. Because it is a violation of human rights to hold individuals responsible for their own self-destructive behavior, businesses that knowingly serve high risk people in contravention to regulations would be fined.

    Got what you asked for? Make the best of it until you drain the treasury dry. Now here is the flip side of the deal.

    In return for making the lifelong dreams of Progressives come true, a new private healthcare industry would be legislatively enabled that would serve cash and private insurance patients only. It would operate under distinct federal free enterprise zone rules that would supersede state laws. Private doctors and hospitals would be legally free to serve whichever patients they choose, charge whatever they like, and deny service to anyone for any reason, including inability to pay. As a condition of service some providers may require patients to sign truly enforceable informed consent forms that would shield them from malpractice suits, directing all disputes to private adjudication.

    All state and federal health insurance regulations would be abolished excepting those regulating fraud. Insurers could sell policies across state lines to whomever they choose at whatever price they want making as much profit as they can with deductibles as high as they please. Insurance would be underwritten, reviving a concept that was abandoned when the words "health insurance" came to mean "free stuff." Insurance applicants could be rejected for any reason or be charged higher prices or have their coverage restricted if they were at higher risk. Like any insurance, once a customer is accepted coverage would be bound by contract. (This is a free enterprise zone, not anarchy.)

    Doctors, hospitals, and Wal-Mart doc-in-a-box centers would have the option of dispensing any medication or treatment they believe is in a patient's best interest whether it is FDA approved or not. The only requirement is that patients be informed. Hospitals could choose to hire only licensed practitioners or not, and may specialize in particular procedures, or offer general services according to whatever business model they wish to pursue.
    Two systems living side by side. One run by the government paid for with taxes and available to all. One run by the market and paid for by willing customers who can afford it. Like public and private high schools these two systems would serve the needs of different constituencies. One system would be a monopoly that designs, allocates, and rations healthcare politically. The other would be a competitive system that balances supply and demand by price.

    There are no workable solutions that blend these two approaches, making it folly to try. The only arguments Progressives can muster to oppose a two-system solution are the same arguments that erected the Berlin Wall. The only arguments libertarians can make to stop the rise of single payer healthcare is the futile belief that their fellow Americans will wake up and rediscover the long since abandoned values of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
    http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/06/13/building_an_escape_hatch_into_single_payer_healthc are_99069.html



  18. #78
    Seems pretty damn close to what happens in Britain.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  19. #79
    Trying to figure out if this guy really knows what he's talking about. Family medicine is among the most challenging specialties in medicine, and also one of the most rewarding. It's gotten an image problem in the US because of greed, laziness and stupidity on the part of both doctors and patients. If you had a working healthcare system and decent doctors there'd be nothing to stop family medicine from becoming an attractive and highly developed specialty. It already attracts the most dedicated and mature doctors

    I'm not sure what the public would gain from selectively giving away the easiest patients to the private sector while keeping the most difficult for itself. Sounds about as smart as your present system.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  20. #80
    [Family Medicine and General Practitioner started losing status in the US years ago, giving way to Internists and Pediatricians *and OB/GYN*. Same thing for General Surgeons, giving way to specialty surgeons. Some of that "blame" can be placed on the AMA and how they have focused on their professional needs, to the exclusion of their patients' needs.]
    Last edited by GGT; 06-13-2011 at 06:43 PM. Reason: *

  21. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Trying to figure out if this guy really knows what he's talking about. Family medicine is among the most challenging specialties in medicine, and also one of the most rewarding. It's gotten an image problem in the US because of greed, laziness and stupidity on the part of both doctors and patients. If you had a working healthcare system and decent doctors there'd be nothing to stop family medicine from becoming an attractive and highly developed specialty. It already attracts the most dedicated and mature doctors

    I'm not sure what the public would gain from selectively giving away the easiest patients to the private sector while keeping the most difficult for itself. Sounds about as smart as your present system.
    I take it you'd want to forbid private practice?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I take it you'd want to forbid private practice?
    Oh yeah, I'm sure that's what minx meant when saying, "If you had a working healthcare system and decent doctors there'd be nothing to stop family medicine from becoming an attractive and highly developed specialty."


  23. #83
    I don't want to abolish private practice. There are private clinics in various parts of Sweden that offload the county hospitals, which is great. There are often problems, however, eg. with continuity and follow-up. Having seen a number of patients suffer because private clinics aren't really responsible for total care, and having seen the wasteful cleanup the county then has to clean up, I'd at least want some strategies for keeping the problems at a minimum. The drug addled fantasy in the article does not represent any such strategy.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  24. #84
    His private sector =

    Doctors, hospitals, and Wal-Mart doc-in-a-box centers would have the option of dispensing any medication or treatment they believe is in a patient's best interest whether it is FDA approved or not. The only requirement is that patients be informed. Hospitals could choose to hire only licensed practitioners or not, and may specialize in particular procedures, or offer general services according to whatever business model they wish to pursue.
    He doesn't delineate what "informed" means. Might that present as a (non-licensed) practitioner at a Walmart doc-in-a-box prescribing and dispensing low dose cyanide pills for the treatment of intestinal worms, by telling the patient it works for canine heart worms? Or a (licensed) practitioner injecting botox into minors' faces?

    Any bad outcome would eventually find its way to the public sector for remedy. Then the same old argument begins again....why should we pay taxes for universal care, if it includes private gains at public loss?

  25. #85
    Do you do anything other than attack strawmen?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #86
    This thread randomly popped up on the Whos Online page. Got a good chuckle out of it.

    Oh and in case anyone is stull curious, no obamacare did not destroy employer based health insurance
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/b...-care-act.html

    Wonder why Dread didn't make a similar thread when similar predictions were being made about the GOP's attempts:
    http://www.nbcnews.com/business/cons...e-plan-n734951
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •