I could live without healthcare reform! How about you?

I work in the medical field

You never have said in what capacity?

and have never even heard of the ACPE.

Google is your friend

ACPE

Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) is the national agency for the accreditation of professional degree programs in pharmacy and providers of continuing pharmacy education. ACPE was established in 1932 for the accreditation of pre-service education, and in 1975 its scope of activity was broadened to include accreditation of providers of continuing pharmacy education.

ACPE is an autonomous and independent agency whose Board of Directors is derived through the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) (three appointments each), and the American Council on Education (ACE) (one appointment).

Just as I thought...no doctors.

Keep trotting out your figures and I'll keep posting rebuttals.

Oddly, you didn't rebut one thing. You talked all around it, tried to obliquely discredit it, but didn't address one item. What a waste of time.

I don't see that there's any further reason to discuss this until there is in fact a healthcare bill.
I've presented my opinions; you don't like them.
You've presented your opinions; I don't like them.
You think I'm an idiot.
I think you're unable to pull your head out of your ass.
It's not getting either of us anywhere and in fact it's like pissing up a rope.
I'll be happy to come back to this thread when there's something to discuss. The merits and the failings of the final bill are the important things.

Health insurers discourage organ donation

Insurance company attempts to raid brain damaged woman’s long term care trust fund

Insurers deny, deny, deny until frail patients give up or die

Regulators find violations in 100%  of randomly selected cases of policy cancellations

Rescission Scandal Hits Home for Insurers.

Health Insurer to Be Charged With Teen's Murder

Firm cancels health insurance coverage for girl, 17, after celiac disease diagnosis

I started to read a few of these articles. First we are talking about health insurance companies, medicene for people under the age of medicare.

The few articles i read seemed to be about issues with long term care of the elderly and the insurance that goes with that. This is a completely difffernt animal, like life insurnace is a different animal then health insurnace. Lets stay on topic.

The issue of denying someone coverage while they have a health insrunace policy is called recision.

Now due to the fact my wife is a highly paid expert in lawsuits when it comes to recision, i can tell you that 90% of the time its the policy holder either lying on their insurnace application about a preexisting condition or the policy holder demanding some new unproven medicene or thearpy.

No health insurance company is going to pay for expermental medicene, period. Proven science, proven medicene only.

About 20 years ago this because a huge media issue, quacks and cancer patients where demanding treatemet with a apricot pit extract that they claimed cured cancer. The health inusurance companies refused to pay for treatment until this cure was proven. Politicans put huge pressure on them to cover this...and guess what??? it didnt work.

Now if a health inusrane company denys to pay for coverage when they should there is ten thousand laywers and several hundred very hungry politicans just looking for such an oppertunity to make  their careers.
Health insurance companies operate under a microscope of the state insurance regulators.

If you want to see what happens to a bad health insurnace company google the Pasty Bates case. She worked on it as a expert. Bad insurace company  bad insurace agent and lying client. Bad insurance companies dont live long unless they clean up their act.

Formerly Healthy Young Woman Dies Due to Lack of Insurance

Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders

"insurance companies Cigna and Humana routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
~Former Cigna senior executive Wendell Potter

Wendell Potter is making his fortune off of the liberal TV by bashing the health insurnace companies. Hey if he can make his millions by talking bad about the heath insurace companies more power to him. He is laughing all the way to the bank.

shame on those who believe him and dont ask for the hard facks to back up what he is saying.

And the need for those rentless wall street profits are the results of the Clinton asset bubbles. This hyper daily profit examination by wall street started during the Dot Com Bubble...errr scan errr giant ponzie sceme.
Lets all thank Mr Clinton for the lovely asset bubbles...poor baby boomers all their pensions lost, oh well they all want to work until they are 95 who wants to retire, them youngesters dont need jobs....

It's pretty easy to find articles that are negative for ins. companies. The media prints up reams of them every day because they want a single payer plan.
What they don't print are any of the stories of the 85% of the people that are happy with their insurance or any of the stories that are critical of Medicare or those that are unhappy with the plan Canada has in place.
It's selective news reporting and it's biased.
Does anyone read any science articles that don't go along with the failed Al Gore theory of human-caused climate change? Of course not because the media won't print them.

It always amazes me that people fall for this "liberal media" line touted by.... the right wing media. Fox News has more viewers than all the other cable news channels put together. Turn your radio to the AM frequency and you can't move for the worst sort of rabid right wing lunacy. Not that Air America is any better.

In an attempt to steer this thread back toward something productive, I pose this question:

What solutions do conservatives propose for our troubled health care system?

I understand the argument about having faith in markets. That's based on ideology, but we need to find some ways for the market to deliver a better product, to more people, at more affordable rates. I don't remember the Bush administration investing much time on improving health care in this country, and I see the incredible rancor over Democratic initiatives, but what I don't see is conservatives stepping up to the plate and trying to solve the problems. Perhaps I just haven't paid enough attention...


I am willing to listen.

This has been said on this thread several times and probaly million times on TV.

1. Tort reform..preferable a no fault system where everything goes to arbatration.

2. Verify citizenship before anyone can access free  healthcare in the ER

3. Let insurnace companies compete across state lines, having one set of rules and laws on a naotional level instead of 50 sets of rules and laws at the state level.

That reduces healthcare costs by 50% eaisly

4. make people who do not take care of their bodies pay the risks they incure and reward people who do take care of their bodies. This will hopefully reduce obesity which accounts for most of the meds taken and around 75% of hopsital visits.

Problem solved

Then the debate moves to what to do with all the upcoming tecnology which can extend life of the elderly at great costs.

I have no problem with the idea of tort reform, or consistent national standards for insurance companies.

But, I can't see your other points working:

"Verify citizenship before providing free health care in the ER". It sounds right until you confront the reality of turning away someone who is sick, perhaps very sick. Doctors and nurses will not, and should not refuse care, or decide who is worthy. Emergency rooms are where we go when we have no other option. The way to decrease the burden on our ERs is to make basic, preventative care available elsewhere, where it can be delivered at much lower cost.

Secondly, I can't imagine how we would decide who "takes care of their bodies" Sure, you can propose some ways of quantifying things, like body mass index, or cholesterol levels, or baseline blood pressure, or toxicology screening for nicotine etc. But it's a ridiculous project trying  to classify people in a consistent way based on such complex formulae, when so many risk factors are genetic, or otherwise not controlled by the patient. Better to take a positive approach and simply award people for healthy lifestyles with lower premiums. The difference is in approach; carrot vs stick. Eat your carrots.

Thanks for all your contributions to the discussion, now I'm going to bow out because I fear we're starting to spin our wheels here.

Best,

Paul

In an attempt to steer this thread back toward something productive, I pose this question:

What solutions do conservatives propose for our troubled health care system?

I understand the argument about having faith in markets. That's based on ideology, but we need to find some ways for the market to deliver a better product, to more people, at more affordable rates. I don't remember the Bush administration investing much time on improving health care in this country, and I see the incredible rancor over Democratic initiatives, but what I don't see is conservatives stepping up to the plate and trying to solve the problems. Perhaps I just haven't paid enough attention...


I am willing to listen.

This has been said on this thread several times and probaly million times on TV.

1. Tort reform..preferable a no fault system where everything goes to arbatration.

2. Verify citizenship before anyone can access free  healthcare in the ER

3. Let insurnace companies compete across state lines, having one set of rules and laws on a naotional level instead of 50 sets of rules and laws at the state level.

That reduces healthcare costs by 50% eaisly

4. make people who do not take care of their bodies pay the risks they incure and reward people who do take care of their bodies. This will hopefully reduce obesity which accounts for most of the meds taken and around 75% of hopsital visits.

Problem solved

Then the debate moves to what to do with all the upcoming tecnology which can extend life of the elderly at great costs.

I have no problem with the idea of tort reform, or consistent national standards for insurance companies.

But, I can't see your other points working:

"Verify citizenship before providing free health care in the ER". It sounds right until you confront the reality of turning away someone who is sick, perhaps very sick. Doctors and nurses will not, and should not refuse care, or decide who is worthy. Emergency rooms are where we go when we have no other option. The way to decrease the burden on our ERs is to make basic, preventative care available elsewhere, where it can be delivered at much lower cost.

Secondly, I can't imagine how we would decide who "takes care of their bodies" Sure, you can propose some ways of quantifying things, like body mass index, or cholesterol levels, or baseline blood pressure, or toxicology screening for nicotine etc. But it's a ridiculous project trying  to classify people in a consistent way based on such complex formulae, when so many risk factors are genetic, or otherwise not controlled by the patient. Better to take a positive approach and simply award people for healthy lifestyles with lower premiums. The difference is in approach; carrot vs stick. Eat your carrots.

Thanks for all your contributions to the discussion, now I'm going to bow out because I fear we're starting to spin our wheels here.

Best,

Paul

In the old days, way back in the 70's there was a system of private hospitals and public hospital. The private hosptials would turn away anyone who didnt have insurance or couldnt pay and send them to the public hospital, the care there was not as good as the private hosptial but peoeple got treated for free or on payments.

The liberal screamed that it wasnt fair, they called it patient dumping and when the liberal had enough votes first in Calif and then nationwide they passsed a law that said you had to treat anyone who walked or came in a ambalance to your ER.
This opened the floodgates to anyone wanting top care for free just to walk into the ER, Now the answer is to go back to the old system. A private hospital is for those who can pay and the rest go to a public hospital. The Mexicans would not come across the border because this would force them all into one hospital in the area where they are, and they would have to worry about the INS hanging out there.
During this time there was free clinics for all the shots a kid needed, this was  funded both by the taxpayer and the private hospitals and really worked great.

To answer you second concern about how to judge and rate how a person takes care of their bodies its very simple just use the same standards as the life insurnace industry. They have this down to a science, which thanks to the research my wife does is getting better and better every day.

It's pretty easy to find articles that are negative for ins. companies. The media prints up reams of them every day because they want a single payer plan.
What they don't print are any of the stories of the 85% of the people that are happy with their insurance or any of the stories that are critical of Medicare or those that are unhappy with the plan Canada has in place.
It's selective news reporting and it's biased.
Does anyone read any science articles that don't go along with the failed Al Gore theory of human-caused climate change? Of course not because the media won't print them.

It always amazes me that people fall for this "liberal media" line touted by.... the right wing media. Fox News has more viewers than all the other cable news channels put together. Turn your radio to the AM frequency and you can't move for the worst sort of rabid right wing lunacy. Not that Air America is any better.

The "liberal media" is actually 3 big corporations. In the 80's when cable TV came in there was such a dilution of the advertising dollar that the big three networks sold to...

NBC and all the NBC cable affiliates where purchased by General Electric. GE uses their TV stations to push policy's that make money for them. If you dont report the news the way GE wants you to you are fired. GE used NBC to influence elections and to turn global warming from a arcane deforestation theory in the 70's (which i studied in college) to the sky is falling global warming we all know now.

ABC was purchased by Disney to promote their movies and theme parks and now they are using ABC and the kids channels they own to push for universal healthcare so they can dump the cost of their employees healthcare unto the public taxpayer.

CBS was purchased by Viccom. this is the hollywood crowd and they use CBS to push their political views and candidates, nowhing matters to CBS not the truth, facts, morals nothing.

PBS used to be a great source of information and news, but now its only the very left wing that watch it. My friend makes nature documentaries. He got funding from PBS for a series. When PBS found out that one of the cramera men was a registered republican they threaten to pull the finacing unless he was fired.

It is in these companies financial best interest to have the most socialist government in power. A socialist government spends massive amounts of money and rewards the companies that put and keep it in power. Obama gave GE 1.2 billion dollars of the stimulus money for a software program that they have been trying to sell for years with no luck. This was the putting medical records on computer that Obama was touting.

Fox news is showing both sides with a right wing bent to it, but its the only place to find some facts that are truthful. It has become the place where most people go to find the truth even if it has a right wing bend to it, so much so that CNN has had to start being someone what truthful to hold on to what little viewers they have left.

Newspapers are mostly owned by the New york times and a few other.

Fox news is showing both sides with a right wing bent to it, but its the only place to find some facts that are truthful. It has become the place where most people go to find the truth even if it has a right wing bend to it, so much so that CNN has had to start being someone what truthful to hold on to what little viewers they have left.

I wish you had posted this at the outset, then I'd have known I was wasting my time. I'll never, ever be able to get my head round the idea that people seriously believe this to be true.

Fox news is showing both sides with a right wing bent to it, but its the only place to find some facts that are truthful. It has become the place where most people go to find the truth even if it has a right wing bend to it, so much so that CNN has had to start being someone what truthful to hold on to what little viewers they have left.

I wish you had posted this at the outset, then I'd have known I was wasting my time. I'll never, ever be able to get my head round the idea that people seriously believe this to be true.

You know for once i would like some facts on where i am wrong instead of this ummm mindless stuff.
Doesnt it upset you at all that the so called mainstream media is owned by three big corperations who are controling what the viewers see? You know those evil corperations that you all hate......kinda makes you think twice as you turn on the TV or read the paper...who is dictating what is written..who owns this paper?

Fox news is showing both sides with a right wing bent to it, but its the only place to find some facts that are truthful. It has become the place where most people go to find the truth even if it has a right wing bend to it, so much so that CNN has had to start being someone what truthful to hold on to what little viewers they have left.

I wish you had posted this at the outset, then I'd have known I was wasting my time. I'll never, ever be able to get my head round the idea that people seriously believe this to be true.

You know for once i would like some facts on where i am wrong instead of this ummm mindless stuff.
Doesnt it upset you at all that the so called mainstream media is owned by three big corperations who are controling what the viewers see? You know those evil corperations that you all hate......kinda makes you think twice as you turn on the TV or read the paper...who is dictating what is written..who owns this paper?

Interesting that other people should be required to produce facts when the majority of your arguments are simply personal anecdotes or drivel you've cut and pasted from sites that concern themselves with nonsense like "Insurance Medicine". If I founded a journal and called it "The Journal of Socialized Medicine" and then posted links to it as evidence to support my point of view would you take me seriously? If I told you my wife worked in the "Socialized Medicine" industry and did research funded by "big government" that she then sold to "governments" would you take me seriously?

As for the news corporations and media in general; yes it does bother me that a lot of the "news" is bought to me by big corporations. Thats why I don't believe anything I hear or read on face value until I've researched the facts for myself. Unlike yourself, who has decided to simply pick the one corporation whose stream of lies and adverts posing as "news" fits his particular political bent.

However, I don't "hate big corporations", although I'm not surprised to find you once again putting words into my mouth. I don't hate big corporations, I just don't want them deciding whether or not I get healthcare.

In an attempt to steer this thread back toward something productive, I pose this question:

What solutions do conservatives propose for our troubled health care system?

I understand the argument about having faith in markets. That's based on ideology, but we need to find some ways for the market to deliver a better product, to more people, at more affordable rates. I don't remember the Bush administration investing much time on improving health care in this country, and I see the incredible rancor over Democratic initiatives, but what I don't see is conservatives stepping up to the plate and trying to solve the problems. Perhaps I just haven't paid enough attention...


I am willing to listen.

This has been said on this thread several times and probaly million times on TV.

1. Tort reform..preferable a no fault system where everything goes to arbatration.

2. Verify citizenship before anyone can access free  healthcare in the ER

3. Let insurnace companies compete across state lines, having one set of rules and laws on a naotional level instead of 50 sets of rules and laws at the state level.

That reduces healthcare costs by 50% eaisly

4. make people who do not take care of their bodies pay the risks they incure and reward people who do take care of their bodies. This will hopefully reduce obesity which accounts for most of the meds taken and around 75% of hopsital visits.

Problem solved

Then the debate moves to what to do with all the upcoming tecnology which can extend life of the elderly at great costs.

I have no problem with the idea of tort reform, or consistent national standards for insurance companies.

But, I can't see your other points working:

"Verify citizenship before providing free health care in the ER". It sounds right until you confront the reality of turning away someone who is sick, perhaps very sick. Doctors and nurses will not, and should not refuse care, or decide who is worthy. Emergency rooms are where we go when we have no other option. The way to decrease the burden on our ERs is to make basic, preventative care available elsewhere, where it can be delivered at much lower cost.

Secondly, I can't imagine how we would decide who "takes care of their bodies" Sure, you can propose some ways of quantifying things, like body mass index, or cholesterol levels, or baseline blood pressure, or toxicology screening for nicotine etc. But it's a ridiculous project trying  to classify people in a consistent way based on such complex formulae, when so many risk factors are genetic, or otherwise not controlled by the patient. Better to take a positive approach and simply award people for healthy lifestyles with lower premiums. The difference is in approach; carrot vs stick. Eat your carrots.

Thanks for all your contributions to the discussion, now I'm going to bow out because I fear we're starting to spin our wheels here.

Best,

Paul

Well tallpaul, the signal to noise ratio in this thread has been horrible for at least 15 pages and I can certainly see taking a break from this thread.  Against my better judgment, I'd like to address ocean's point about encouraging healthy people.
There is much social engineering that can be accomplished through the tax code.  I am not so much against a welfare state as I am against a welfare bureaucracy.  In health care reform, this can be done with tax incentives.  Have a panel of doctors decide on easily quantifiable baseline numbers for healthy people, and provide a step program for determining tax incentives based upon distance from the baseline.  Clearly, individual baselines will be different in some cases, such as where a traumatic injury has permanent consequences, so there can be allowances made on an individual basis, done through the patient/taxpayer's physician.

Another area that really needs attention is regional monopolies by health insurance companies.  Rates can be regulated just like in any other monopoly, and applications made to the regulatory body for increases in rates.  A regulatory review process can be had to determine if such a monopoly exists, and whether to impose these requirements.  Please, littoral and fishfarmer, don't try to pin me down on specifics, because that will take an army of legislative aids and attorneys weeks to hammer out and I am just one guy.  That doesn't mean that my ideas are bad.

But wait, what about poor people who don't work?  What about the 45,000 people turned away who die on the ER doorsteps, the ones that you do a little dance around and celebrate their deaths?

Well, I'm glad you asked.  Why doesn't Medi-cal/Medicaid already provide for some basic level of care for these people?  Who are these 45,000 people?  Why don't they utilize the program that is already available?  How does having a new government provided safety net help them when the old one didn't work? 

Fox news is showing both sides with a right wing bent to it, but its the only place to find some facts that are truthful. It has become the place where most people go to find the truth even if it has a right wing bend to it, so much so that CNN has had to start being someone what truthful to hold on to what little viewers they have left.

I wish you had posted this at the outset, then I'd have known I was wasting my time. I'll never, ever be able to get my head round the idea that people seriously believe this to be true.

You know for once i would like some facts on where i am wrong instead of this ummm mindless stuff.
Doesnt it upset you at all that the so called mainstream media is owned by three big corperations who are controling what the viewers see? You know those evil corperations that you all hate......kinda makes you think twice as you turn on the TV or read the paper...who is dictating what is written..who owns this paper?

Interesting that other people should be required to produce facts when the majority of your arguments are simply personal anecdotes or drivel you've cut and pasted from sites that concern themselves with nonsense like "Insurance Medicine". If I founded a journal and called it "The Journal of Socialized Medicine" and then posted links to it as evidence to support my point of view would you take me seriously? If I told you my wife worked in the "Socialized Medicine" industry and did research funded by "big government" that she then sold to "governments" would you take me seriously?

As for the news corporations and media in general; yes it does bother me that a lot of the "news" is bought to me by big corporations. Thats why I don't believe anything I hear or read on face value until I've researched the facts for myself. Unlike yourself, who has decided to simply pick the one corporation whose stream of lies and adverts posing as "news" fits his particular political bent.

However, I don't "hate big corporations", although I'm not surprised to find you once again putting words into my mouth. I don't hate big corporations, I just don't want them deciding whether or not I get healthcare.

One of the luxury's i of being housedaddy is i have time. With TVIO i can watch all the different channels, ya ok i am a little bored. Its been interesting seeing how CNN has changed their reporting as the healthcare debate changed, from a ra ra Obama to a wait we are losing to many viewer change to be balanced showing the pros and cons. It was flat out hysterical after the " you lie comment" using Obama's speech as they tried to explain how illegals are not to be covered but they are being covered but not by Obama's health but by the indigent plan but they where, they where, yes no are not.......funniest thing you ever saw.

Another area that really needs attention is regional monopolies by health insurance companies.

Agreed. Way too many monopolies in healthcare, especially in the pharma arena which pioneered the practice of “evergreening” and "patent thickets".

But then there is also a private system siphoning off money from Medicare with subsidies based their inability to operate efficiently. If the government is more efficient at this task open it up and let the private sector finally compete.

And I still maintain that there is a basic conflict of interest in health for profit. Corporations are being asked to choose between their legal fiduciary responsibilities and some faceless policyholder’s health. Money that should be applied to a policy holder’s health is being diverted to lobbyists, politicians, stockholders, marketing, sales junkets and...yes, insane compensation.

Why doesn't Medi-cal/Medicaid already provide for some basic level of care for these people?  Who are these 45,000 people?  Why don't they utilize the program that is already available? 

Medicaid doesn’t automatically scoop up the uninsured, if they did we wouldn’t be having this discussion. There often isn’t a program for these people. The Harvard study concluded that the key problem is that public hospitals have closed or drastically cut back on services. You will not see specialists, you will not get sufficient care, you will most likely be sent to a community health center which is not an adequate substitute for hospital.