(03-16-2017 11:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Test away.

I agree! Mayo CEO may be less inclined to take the risk.

(03-16-2017 11:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  source your claim that healthcare prices are arbitrary

Just because you demand a source, doesn't make such a request valid.

That's like demanding a source for 1+1=2.

(03-16-2017 11:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not all highly communicable diseases are life threatening.

Then what's your point?

My point is that if a wealthy person comes in after a poor person with the exact same condition, there is no moral way for the hospital/clinic to treat the wealthy person first. If the magnitude of their conditions is not equal, then the same can't be said.

(03-16-2017 11:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That is a direct contradiction to the statements he made.

No it's exactly what he said.

(03-16-2017 12:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  (img claiming circular logic

It wasn't circular at all, it was a direct, single causation link.

(03-16-2017 12:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Not in Canada, where the wait was so long my grandmother said "f' it, Ill go across the peace bridge".... Or where they told my 72 year old grandfather he was "too old" for Chemo (which is canada medicine speak for "too old to spend money for chemo on)

This just means Canada should choose to spend more money on healthcare.

There is no way to avoid lines and rationing if a ceiling on spending is installed.

In the USA, we can simply choose to spend more than that.

(03-16-2017 01:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 12:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  (img claiming circular logic)

It wasn't circular at all, it was a direct, single causation link.

I honestly don't think you have a full grasp on the meaning of any word in that sentence....

Saying "it's expensive, so it's arbitrary", is not showing causation.... Hell it's not even demonstrating there is a problem.

Quote:

(03-16-2017 12:07 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Not in Canada, where the wait was so long my grandmother said "f' it, Ill go across the peace bridge".... Or where they told my 72 year old grandfather he was "too old" for Chemo (which is canada medicine speak for "too old to spend money for chemo on)

This just means Canada should choose to spend more money on healthcare.

You do realize if you're argument is "Canada just has to spend more" then you've undercut "us prices are arbitrarily high".... It's the higher spending in the us that gives us more and faster access.

Quote:There is no way to avoid lines and rationing if a ceiling on spending is installed.

There will *always* be a spending ceiling. It's called nature.

Quote:In the USA, we can simply choose to spend more than that.

And some people here call that "arbitrary"

(03-16-2017 01:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  source your claim that healthcare prices are arbitrary

Just because you demand a source, doesn't make such a request valid.

That's like demanding a source for 1+1=2.

http://csnbbs.com/thread-746084.html

defend your position. You say prices are arbitrary. Prove it or admit you can't and STFU.

(03-16-2017 01:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:51 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Not all highly communicable diseases are life threatening.

Then what's your point?

My point is that if a wealthy person comes in after a poor person with the exact same condition, there is no moral way for the hospital/clinic to treat the wealthy person first. If the magnitude of their conditions is not equal, then the same can't be said.

If a wealthy person comes in after a medicaid recipient, your argument is null and void. The guy clearly says " if they seek care at the same time and have comparable conditions."

(03-16-2017 01:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-16-2017 11:52 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  That is a direct contradiction to the statements he made.

No it's exactly what he said.

really?

Quote:MplsBison Wrote:
(Today 11:41 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:
With all else being equal the clinic has the right to make a business decision.

If two with exactly the same condition arrive at exactly the same time, there is no moral dilemma in choosing the wealthy patient to be seen first.


But since that never happens, the CEO is clearly advocating that wealthy people been seen before poor, even though they arrived later. That is the antithesis of the spirit of the Hippocratic Oath.

You took his statement and injected your worthless opinion of what you think he "clearly advocated". He NEVER said "wealthy people would be seen before the poor, even though they arrived later"

Just another example of you lying.

(03-15-2017 09:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  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.

In many states, doctors, hospitals, patients, pharmacies and the state's attorney sue the insurance companies that refused to pay for services. There are still lawsuits against Humana, Anthem, United and some others over this issue. The insurance companies wind up settling in court to pay up what was owed. Many of the health care providers decide not to accept these companies ever again.

(03-16-2017 04:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(03-15-2017 09:10 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  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.

In many states, doctors, hospitals, patients, pharmacies and the state's attorney sue the insurance companies that refused to pay for services. There are still lawsuits against Humana, Anthem, United and some others over this issue. The insurance companies wind up settling in court to pay up what was owed. Many of the health care providers decide not to accept these companies ever again.

and sometimes they dont pay because they were not required to.

and sometimes they dont pay because the medical provider refuses to correctly code and submit the information. Back in the mid-2000's, Humana dropped Baptist from its in-plan plan in the middle of the year, because they refused to code and submit the proper paperwork.

And Humana/Employers Health paid quickly. So spare me the outrage that insurance companies just go around not paying the bills.

(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.

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!

Id recommend you sticking to your day job.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Mayo CEO caves to public backlash:

http://www.startribune.com/mayo-ceo-regr...416629323/

Quote:Mayo Clinic's chief executive is expressing regret over his choice of words in a recent speech that raised concerns among Minnesota regulators that the Rochester-based health system might make it harder for publicly funded Medicaid patients to receive care.

Dr. John Noseworthy said in a written statement released Friday that Mayo would continue to serve Medicaid patients, despite low reimbursement rates paid by the government program, and despite a speech late last year in which he indicated that Mayo would give priority to privately insured patients over publicly funded patients with equivalent conditions.

"In an internal discussion, I used the word 'prioritized' and I regret this has caused concerns that Mayo Clinic will not serve patients with government insurance," Noseworthy said. "Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, about half of the total services we provide are for patients who have government insurance, and we're committed to serving those patients."

...

Health officials in Minnesota expressed surprise over the statement — with some expressing a belief that the practice occurred quietly in hospitals throughout the state but that hospital leaders never talked openly about it.

State Human Services Commissioner Emily Piper, who oversees the federal-state Medicaid program, said her department would be checking to make sure Mayo wasn't violating patients' civil rights or any conditions of its Medicaid contracts with the state.

Noseworthy's latest statement didn't address any specific policy of prioritizing privately insured patients, but he stressed that "patient medical need will always be the primary factor in determining and setting an appointment."

Minnesota has added more than 300,000 people to its Medicaid programs over the last three years, due in part to expanded eligibility rules under the federal Affordable Care Act. While this reduced the number of uninsured patients receiving free care, hospital officials across the state nonetheless have bemoaned the financial ramifications of treating a greater mix of Medicaid patients.

Aww ... poor hospital officials. Bemoaning that they don't get to charge a 500% premium on top of actual cost, for the services they provide.

(03-21-2017 09:28 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Aww ... poor hospital officials. Bemoaning that they don't get to charge a 500% premium on top of actual cost, for the services they provide.

Source?

(03-21-2017 09:36 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Source?

Self-evident

(03-21-2017 09:28 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Aww ... poor hospital officials. Bemoaning that they don't get to charge a 500% premium on top of actual cost, for the services they provide.

You need to learn the difference between "actual cost" and "Medicaid approved reimbursement amounts".

I already do. For example, procedure X:

actual cost: $1000
retail price: $4000
Private insurance, in-network reimbursement: $2300
Medicare reimbursement: $1500

(03-21-2017 10:43 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 09:36 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Source?

Self-evident

(03-21-2017 10:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I already do. For example, procedure X:

actual cost: $1000
retail price: $4000
Private insurance, in-network reimbursement: $2300
Medicare reimbursement: $1500

So your made up example is supposed to be proof of your made up claim???

Child please.

It's not made up.

Prices for medical services, devices, and pills, are vastly inflated. That is the root cause for why so much money is spent on health care in this country: people see medical companies as a way to make money and get rich.

(03-21-2017 11:14 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  It's not made up.

Prices for medical services, devices, and pills, are vastly inflated. That is the root cause for why so much money is spent on health care in this country: people see medical companies as a way to make money and get rich.

So below is an actual cost of an actual procedure with actual retail and actual medicare reimbursement amounts?

(03-21-2017 10:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I already do. For example, procedure X:

actual cost: $1000
retail price: $4000
Private insurance, in-network reimbursement: $2300
Medicare reimbursement: $1500

(03-21-2017 12:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So below is an actual cost of an actual procedure with actual retail and actual medicare reimbursement amounts?

Strawman.

The discussion is if health care providers should be able to charge above cost, and by how much.

(03-21-2017 12:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 12:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So below is an actual cost of an actual procedure with actual retail and actual medicare reimbursement amounts?

Strawman.

The discussion is if health care providers should be able to charge above cost, and by how much.

It's called profit. Yes they are allowed. It's called Capitalism.

Now if you want to make an argument that the charged price is excessive, use real evidence or go back to the conference realignment board because you have proven time and time again you aren't ready for real discussions.

(03-21-2017 12:05 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 12:00 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So below is an actual cost of an actual procedure with actual retail and actual medicare reimbursement amounts?

Strawman.

The discussion is if health care providers should be able to charge above cost, and by how much.

No it means up made up and example to try to prove your made up claim.

(03-21-2017 12:15 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  It's called profit. Yes they are allowed. It's called Capitalism.

Capitalism isn't law. It's an ideology.

The law is the law, and the law can, does, and should put reigns on greed and exploitation (ie, capitalism).

(03-21-2017 12:15 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  if you want to make an argument that the charged price is excessive, use real evidence

I don't have to. I can simply stick to a philosophical argument, which says that excessive prices should not be allowed and every effort should be made to use the federal government to curtail the practice.

Philosophical arguments are all internet discussion is good for, anyway.


Empirical evidence is a waste of time, because if other posters don't like it, they'll just say the source(s) used false methods, are lying, etc. So it's a waste of time to compile.