Blue Shield Won't Pay NorCal Mom's Cancer Treatment

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: fallout manWhat makes you think that UHC would deny her treatment? The government can just print/borrow more money to pay for her treatment.

They certainly did it to kill thousands, so why not do it to save thousands?

No money printing would be necessary. The money would come from the billions of dollars that are wasted on insurance company administrative costs, profits for insurance companies, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies, and outrageous salaries for the CEOs and executives of those organizations.

Right now the U.S. is spending about 17% of its GDP on health care, far more than any other country while still having tens of millions of uninsured and under-insured. Surely we can find a way to dramatically improve the efficiency of the system and to reduce the huge amounts of wasted money we're currently spending.

I agree that there is large overhead inherent in the current system and that is a definite source of potential cost savings. What current plan will accomplish this, however?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Even if we spend same but cover more people, that is still a more efficient health care system.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Just forcing health care providers to work for what medicare/medicaid pays would accomplish that goal. Then once preventative measures start paying their dividends there will be even more saving.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Just forcing health care providers to work for what medicare/medicaid are would accomplish that goal. Then once preventative measures start paying their dividends there will be even more saving.

You might have a point, one which I asked earlier and no one responded. So I will ask you -- if Medicare/Medicaid is so efficient/good, why isn't your proposal being floated? I am not being facetious here, I honestly don't know the answer and hope someone else can explain it to me.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Even if we spend same but cover more people, that is still a more efficient health care system.

I don't dispute that, but no one to my knowledge has presented a plan which can accomplish that.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Even if we spend same but cover more people, that is still a more efficient health care system.

I don't dispute that, but no one to my knowledge has presented a plan which can accomplish that.

Public option.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Public option.

Which plan? The current Democratic plan or are you referring to a plan proposed by someone else?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Public option.

Which plan? The current Democratic plan or are you referring to a plan proposed by someone else?

Current plan.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Public option.

Which plan? The current Democratic plan or are you referring to a plan proposed by someone else?

Current plan.

But the CBO has said no such savings exist with the current plan. What modifications are you proposing?

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Public option.

Which plan? The current Democratic plan or are you referring to a plan proposed by someone else?

Current plan.

But the CBO has said no such savings exist with the current plan. What modifications are you proposing?

CBO is only looking at it from government spending side. So no savings exist to government. But if more people are covered, unpaid expensive ER care at hospital will not get priced into bills, healthcare premiums, and benefit costs, but instead cheaper preventative care will get priced into taxes.
So there is overall savings, plus people get proper treatment with better results.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
But at the same time what is the point of having all this advanced treatments if they never get used because they cost too much.

Over time costs come down AND the treatment becomes more effective as it is developed.

You know....INNOVATION...

 

[theeedude]

I wonder if the BCBS doctor who took it upon himself to deny her care got any bonus for it?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I wonder if the BCBS doctor who took it upon himself to deny her care got any bonus for it?

In this case, care WAS NOT denied.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
In manufacturing ~85% capacity is what they shoot for, health care has become a 100% capacity nearly 100% of the time issue for hospitals, the beds never get a chance to cool off.

In a field where there should be no mistakes, running everything at 100% capacity is just asking for trouble.

But but but we have the best health care system in the world remember?

Are you saying it isn't?

WTF are you even talking about?

 

[Slew Foot]

In all honesty, this is part of the "95% of health care costs occur in the last 2 years of life." If you really want to cut costs, youd give her cheaper treatments. That's exactly how established UHC countries do it.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: senseamp

Public option.

Which plan? The current Democratic plan or are you referring to a plan proposed by someone else?

Current plan.

But the CBO has said no such savings exist with the current plan. What modifications are you proposing?

CBO is only looking at it from government spending side. So no savings exist to government. But if more people are covered, unpaid expensive ER care at hospital will not get priced into bills, healthcare premiums, and benefit costs, but instead cheaper preventative care will get priced into taxes.
So there is overall savings, plus people get proper treatment with better results.

OK, and when government spending increases, who pays for that? Per the CBO, the increasing rate of health care costs will NOT stop under the current plan. They're the ones that said the plan will result in deficit increases (contrary to some claims), not me.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Just forcing health care providers to work for what medicare/medicaid pays would accomplish that goal. Then once preventative measures start paying their dividends there will be even more saving.

The money you would save by slashing our pay wouldn't save much at all, but it would give people a good reason to do something else. That generates more work for the rest which leads to earlier retirement and people will look elsewhere for careers. You can then explain to them that it shouldn't be about money, but working harder for less while being considered leeches of the system.

That will take care of rationing.

 

[Stuxnet]

I have to admit that I am quite surprised that this particular topic was chosen as a plausible vehicle for a UHC offense.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

Not according to the CBO. You apparently have no listening or reading skills.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: jbourne77
I have to admit that I am quite surprised that this particular topic was chosen as a plausible vehicle for a UHC offense.

Yeah, in this particular situation, I am not sure UHC would matter so it is puzzling why this article was posted. Would it cover the gamma knife treatment? Who knows, but it is somewhat irrelevant because just like with private insurance, choices will have to be made. If an alternative treatment is available with an equal chance of increasing the survivability of the individual, but costs much less, the cheaper treatment will be mandated regardless of whether it is an insurance company or the government. Neither private insurance or the government can afford to cover every possible treatment under the sun.

As I mentioned in another post, I really think the mentality of many of the UHC supporters is that UHC will be like an "all-you-can-eat smorgasboard," where you can pick any treatment you want and Uncle Sam will pick up the tab. This obviously will not happen. I think the press is picking these sorts of cases to publish because they do have an agenda and are trying to prey on people's emotions rather than present facts. Nowhere do they comment on the efficacy of the gamma knife treatment vs. the other treatment.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

And yet, no plan has been presented which will accomplish this savings.

Just forcing health care providers to work for what medicare/medicaid pays would accomplish that goal. Then once preventative measures start paying their dividends there will be even more saving.

The money you would save by slashing our pay wouldn't save much at all, but it would give people a good reason to do something else. That generates more work for the rest which leads to earlier retirement and people will look elsewhere for careers. You can then explain to them that it shouldn't be about money, but working harder for less while being considered leeches of the system.

That will take care of rationing.

How many times has big business busted unions and started the same people doing the same jobs over at 2/3 the pay and also reneged oh the retirees health care promises? Send not to know for who the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.

So, what goes around comes around.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: senseamp
The company has no business deciding her care. It's health insurance, they are there to pay for care her treating doctors decide is necessary, not pick and choose care for her. They are just providing a financial product.

I thought you Democrats said we paid too much for health care as it is. You want to pay more?

If you had any thinking skills you would realize that what the Dem's are saying is that for what we are spending on health care, everybody could have it and we could still save some money.

But alas, you have no thinking skills.

Not according to the CBO. You apparently have no listening or reading skills.

I do this thing called INDEPENDENT thinking. I know your not up to it, so NP.

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I do this thing called INDEPENDENT thinking. I know your not up to it, so NP.

So, the CBO, the bipartisan/independent group that is the 'gold standard' is 100% wrong and you are 100% right?

.....oooook

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: Patranus

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I do this thing called INDEPENDENT thinking. I know your not up to it, so NP.

So, the CBO, the bipartisan/independent group that is the 'gold standard' is 100% wrong and you are 100% right?

.....oooook

Yeah, because these guys and these guys obviously have no qualifications.