http://www.startribune.com/mayo-to-pick-...416185134/

Quote:Mayo Clinic’s chief executive made a startling announcement in a recent speech to employees: The Rochester-based health system will give preference to patients with private insurance over those with lower-paying Medicaid or Medicare coverage, if they seek care at the same time and have comparable conditions.

...

Mayo will always take patients, regardless of payer source, when it has medical expertise that they can’t find elsewhere, said Dr. John Noseworthy, Mayo’s CEO. But when two patients are referred with equivalent conditions, he said the health system should “prioritize” those with private insurance.

Disgusting!!

Sue these clowns, and fire this jerk!

Its a private organization, right?

Tough.

Hey, they take Medicare and Medicaid. A lot of places don't.

If I went there and was prepared to pay for their services, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone on the dole was taken ahead of me.

And feel free to call me any name you want; it won't change anything.

So, he's basically saying that private insurance is actually paying them a fair reimbursement for the work they do. And the government is trying to stiff them. I thought the libturds kept telling us how private insurance tries to do their best not to pay, and we needed the government involved.

Obamacare is the epitome of a business that is guilty of racketeering. Forcing people to pay an exorbitant amount for insurance, and then setting deductibles so high it never has to pay anything. Refusing to reimburse doctors and hospitals for the actual work they do. If Obamacare was a private business, the owners would be in prison for their business practices.

(03-15-2017 09:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  he's basically saying that private insurance is actually paying them a fair reimbursement for the work they do. And the government is trying to stiff them.

If someone was trying to pay you 3x the actual worth of the work you had done for him/her, would you deny it? Doubtful. Neither would I.

Well, there you go. The root cause of the health care spending crisis is ... no surprise! The prices for health care, pills, and devices are artificially high!

(03-15-2017 09:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 09:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  he's basically saying that private insurance is actually paying them a fair reimbursement for the work they do. And the government is trying to stiff them.

If someone was trying to pay you 3x the actual worth of the work you had done for him/her, would you deny it? Doubtful. Neither would I.

Please show me where Mayo is charging 3x the amount needed for a procedure.

Quote:Well, there you go. The root cause of the health care spending crisis is ... no surprise! The prices for health care, pills, and devices are artificially high!

Evidence?

Evidence: the prices for all procedures done in this country are set by a small board of doctors, and are all arbitrary.

Other countries negotiate the prices, we should too.

(03-15-2017 09:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Evidence: the prices for all procedures done in this country are set by a small board of doctors, and are all arbitrary.

Evidence? Just because the government does not set the price does not mean the price is "arbitrary". In fact usually the government is far more arbitrary about their price controls than the market would be about their fees.

Quote:Other countries negotiate the prices, we should too.

And many of those countries suffer the consequence of price controls, namely death panels and long wait times for procedures.

My kids were horsing around the other day, one decied to play "CPR" with her younger sister. The younger one cried in pain and then started getting a slight bruise on her ribs.

You don't mess around with that. Compression of the chest, pain, and brusing can be as simple as some soft tissue strain or far worse. So I took her to an urgent care and had an x-ray done within 30 minutes.

This was a non-emergency visit that got taken care of in 30 minutes, just to see an ER doctor in Ontario can take upwards of 6 hours. I've had my grandmother decide crossing the US / Canada border while having a heart attack was better than waiting for a dr in fort Erie.

(03-15-2017 08:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Its a private organization, right?

Tough.

Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

(03-15-2017 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 08:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Its a private organization, right?

Tough.

Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

I love that Tom always proves the case for small government in his presentation of true authoritarian leftist thinking. If you get a penny, we own you...

(03-15-2017 09:24 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 09:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  he's basically saying that private insurance is actually paying them a fair reimbursement for the work they do. And the government is trying to stiff them.

If someone was trying to pay you 3x the actual worth of the work you had done for him/her, would you deny it? Doubtful. Neither would I.

Who determines that?

(03-15-2017 10:31 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 08:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Its a private organization, right?

Tough.

Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

I love that Tom always proves the case for small government in his presentation of true authoritarian leftist thinking. If you get a penny, we own you...

Why are we subsidizing businesses that discriminate against people? That money should be going to the hospital that will serve all equally. Its all of our money right?

(03-15-2017 09:02 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  If I went there and was prepared to pay for their services, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone on the dole was taken ahead of me.

And feel free to call me any name you want; it won't change anything.

For clarification, I was not including emergency room treatment where a standard triage procedure would treat the most critical first.

(03-15-2017 10:40 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 09:02 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  If I went there and was prepared to pay for their services, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone on the dole was taken ahead of me.

And feel free to call me any name you want; it won't change anything.

For clarification, I was not including emergency room treatment where a standard triage procedure would treat the most critical first.

Just curious, what did you mean by "someone on the dole"? Was that a reference to someone with private health insurance?

(03-15-2017 09:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Evidence: the prices for all procedures done in this country are set by a small board of doctors, and are all arbitrary.

Other countries negotiate the prices, we should too.

The concept behind the Consumer Driven Health Care model is that costs should be published, along with outcomes, thus allowing the patient to compare providers and select the most efficient and economical.

(03-15-2017 10:43 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:40 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 09:02 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  If I went there and was prepared to pay for their services, I'd be pretty pissed off if someone on the dole was taken ahead of me.

And feel free to call me any name you want; it won't change anything.

For clarification, I was not including emergency room treatment where a standard triage procedure would treat the most critical first.

Just curious, what did you mean by "someone on the dole"? Was that a reference to someone with private health insurance?

Bad choice of words.

Therefore for non-emergency treatment, I'd put paying customers at the head of the line of those who cannot pay.

(03-15-2017 10:37 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:31 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 08:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Its a private organization, right?

Tough.

Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

I love that Tom always proves the case for small government in his presentation of true authoritarian leftist thinking. If you get a penny, we own you...

Why are we subsidizing businesses that discriminate against people? That money should be going to the hospital that will serve all equally. Its all of our money right?

So you are good with shutting down subsidies to planned parenthood?

(03-15-2017 10:31 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 10:17 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 08:52 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Its a private organization, right?

Tough.

Do they get research grants paid for by the taxpayers?
Who built their buildings?
Any Cert of Need funding?
How about equipment?
Tax free bond issuance for facilities?

You sure they are private?

I love that Tom always proves the case for small government in his presentation of true authoritarian leftist thinking. If you get a penny, we own you...

That's why we've got to stop taking federal funding. Better yet, stop giving it.

Letter writer to the Star Tribune published today nailed it right on the head:

Quote:I was stunned to read that Mayo Clinic has decided to discriminate against Medicare and Medicaid recipients in the provision of services (“Private payers get priority at Mayo,” March 15). Such discrimination is specifically prohibited by Minnesota’s Human Rights Act. Specifically, Minnesota Statute 363A.12 provides: “It is an unfair discriminatory practice to discriminate against any person in the access to, admission to, full utilization of or benefit from any public service because of … status with regard to public assistance … unless the public service can demonstrate that providing the access would impose an undue hardship on its operation.”

“Status with regard to public assistance” means the condition of being a recipient of federal, state, or local assistance, including medical assistance, or of being a tenant receiving federal, state, or local subsidies, including rental assistance or rent supplements.” (363A.03, Subd. 47.)

Class-action lawyers undoubtedly are licking their chops.

Sic' em boys!