GOP Debate...

[mdn82 26,344]

One topic I don't hear discussed is how to get our healthcare costs under control We are the highest in the world...It MUST start with Tort Reform!!!!
I can hear you lawyers screaming right now! lol
To damned many lawsuites going on which drives up the costs to Docs, Hospitals, Pharma Co's. etc. That cost is going to go somewhere and its going to US!!

To many "Breck Boys" out there..........lol Yeah, you all remember that little cockroach...

The answer to that solution is simple. I work in healthcare. Make people pay their bills. A "good" hospital gets paid $.50 on the dollar while the rest never gets collected. The majority of people think the ER is a doctors office. When 90% of the people who come through the doors and half don't intend on paying of this expensive option costs are going to rise. Plus it's not the poor not paying. They have Medicare.

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

The answer to that solution is simple. I work in healthcare. Make people pay their bills. A "good" hospital gets paid $.50 on the dollar while the rest never gets collected. The majority of people think the ER is a doctors office. When 90% of the people who come through the doors and half don't intend on paying of this expensive option costs are going to rise. Plus it's not the poor not paying. They have Medicare.

Medicaid.

 

But, how do you generally feel about single payer/medicaid-for-all? Would that help hospital administrators by ensuring all bills get paid or would the loss of negotiating power and mandated acceptance of a particular reimbursement level result in a similar situation? Though, from my standpoint with the insurer, we didn't give you negotiating power anyway, so it may be a moot point. Hospitals are very easy to strong arm for a major insurer. The prospect of being made "out-of-network" is too great a burden.

 

Not that anything like that would ever happen. What politician wants to be responsible for the loss of half-a-million jobs? Though, a ton of those industry people could be rehired by whatever state or federal entity is in charge of administering the new plans. But, there still would be a net loss of a few hundred thousand. It's an industry powered by bureaucracy and inefficiency. Though of course, so is the government.

[OliviaPope40 7,532]

I work in healthcare more specifically the claims portion and oh my goodness some of the things that I have seen will blow your mind. We get all the time providers who are listed as out of network and say that their in network and are wondering why we deny a claim for no authorization because the way we see it in network providers shouldn't have to get an authorization for services. Oh and you guys would love the phone part of it.

[HoosierReb01 7,596]

 

 

Before any of the front runners make some ludicrous comment about how they should ignore Federal Judges (whether they're ordering you to issue marriage licenses or whatever else), I want them first to say "I think the Founders got it wrong when they wrote the Constitution and we shouldn't have to..."

 

 

There is precedent for Presidents ignoring Federal judges decisions, although I've yet to see one which I would want repeated. But before we get all fired up about Presidential candidates ignoring Federal judges, we might give the same indignation to Federal judges who routinely ignore legislative intent in their decisions. 

 

"Judges ought to remember, that their office is jus dicere, and not jus dare; to interpret law, and not to make law, or give law." Francis Bacon, The Essays of Counsels, Civil and Moral, 1625

 

In the recent SCOTUS decision regarding gay marriage, five justices decided to make the law. THIS is far more important than the 

content of the new law. This is not a new thing, they didn't just break it out for this one case. Nor do I believe that it is something more prevalent on the left wing than the right wing. If the US Constitution needed to speak on the subject of gay marriage, there is a amendment process and a legislative body with the power to begin it. Truthfully, this was exactly the kind of case that should have been decided on the (mostly ignored) 10th amendment instead of the 14th. I would challenge anyone to show legislative intent in the drafting of the 14th amendment that shows any consideration of its application to gay marriage. If any part of the Constitution should have been used in support of gay marriage, I would of thought that the full faith and credit clause would have been the obvious choice. I realize that would not require any state to issue licenses, but it definitely could be construed to require a state to recognize licenses issued by any other state. 

 

I find it repulsive that judges do a end around on the Constitution, by applying loose constructionism whenever they feel a need to change a law. I think there are a lot of Federal judicial decisions that need to start with  "I think the Founders got it wrong when they wrote the Constitution and we'll just take the power unto ourselves to change it."

[MartintheMopMan 7,765]

There is precedent for Presidents ignoring Federal judges decisions, although I've yet to see one which I would want repeated. But before we get all fired up about Presidential candidates ignoring Federal judges, we might give the same indignation to Federal judges who routinely ignore legislative intent in their decisions. 

 

"Judges ought to remember, that their office is jus dicere, and not jus dare; to interpret law, and not to make law, or give law." Francis Bacon, The Essays of Counsels, Civil and Moral, 1625

 

In the recent SCOTUS decision regarding *** marriage, five justices decided to make the law. THIS is far more important than the 

content of the new law. This is not a new thing, they didn't just break it out for this one case. Nor do I believe that it is something more prevalent on the left wing than the right wing. If the US Constitution needed to speak on the subject of *** marriage, there is a amendment process and a legislative body with the power to begin it. Truthfully, this was exactly the kind of case that should have been decided on the (mostly ignored) 10th amendment instead of the 14th. I would challenge anyone to show legislative intent in the drafting of the 14th amendment that shows any consideration of its application to *** marriage. If any part of the Constitution should have been used in support of *** marriage, I would of thought that the full faith and credit clause would have been the obvious choice. I realize that would not require any state to issue licenses, but it definitely could be construed to require a state to recognize licenses issued by any other state. 

 

I find it repulsive that judges do a end around on the Constitution, by applying loose constructionism whenever they feel a need to change a law. I think there are a lot of Federal judicial decisions that need to start with  "I think the Founders got it wrong when they wrote the Constitution and we'll just take the power unto ourselves to change it."

Be honest with me. Should I actually dedicate the time it will take to break down your post and explain how wrong you are? Or am I better off leaving it alone?

 

Also, "gay" is censored?

[HoosierReb01 7,596]

 

Also, "***" is censored?

That's because its used as a slur to many times I believe.

[HoosierReb01 7,596]

Be honest with me. Should I actually dedicate the time it will take to break down your post and explain how wrong you are? Or am I better off leaving it alone?

 

Probably not. In the end, I suspect that its a matter of entirely different belief systems. I would probably be interested in seeing the breakdown, but I don't believe that I'm wrong, although I am not a lawyer, and have to leave some room for error.

[mdn82 26,344]

Medicaid.

But, how do you generally feel about single payer/medicaid-for-all? Would that help hospital administrators by ensuring all bills get paid or would the loss of negotiating power and mandated acceptance of a particular reimbursement level result in a similar situation? Though, from my standpoint with the insurer, we didn't give you negotiating power anyway, so it may be a moot point. Hospitals are very easy to strong arm for a major insurer. The prospect of being made "out-of-network" is too great a burden.

Not that anything like that would ever happen. What politician wants to be responsible for the loss of half-a-million jobs? Though, a ton of those industry people could be rehired by whatever state or federal entity is in charge of administering the new plans. But, there still would be a net loss of a few hundred thousand. It's an industry powered by bureaucracy and inefficiency. Though of course, so is the government.

Sorry didn't realize I said Medicare. Autocorrect f I don't know but I think a lot goes beyond what people see. 41 can attest to this because this is his area, a large problem as bad as billing is technology costs. Governments will never hamper a company's ability to make money. That is why Government control on billing and technology won't happen any time soon. The Government doesn't have the capability to take on healthcare. They cannot maintain the US currently. Do we really want them trying to control costs? We would have doctors saying you want them to control what I make? Then I have the right to refuse you. We don't want that. Technology wise in Healthcare has a shelf life of about 3 years. I work at Parkview and on January 1 we are getting rid of 1500 IV pumps and replacing with new. Why? IV pump technology hasn't changed ever. Each pump costs us over $4000 plus contract cost for library upgrades... It's because medical companies constantly are putting equipment out of service so they can make more money. Our defibs that have ETCO2 have to be replaced every 5 years and those are f'ing expensive. It's not a billing issue that will be resolved the way portrayed in public. It goes far beyond rising costs. Hell a box of 50-200 mL syringes for injectors costs well over $1000. For f'ing Iodine...

My thing working in this industry is how funny I truly see this discussion. Hospitals are getting if they are lucky $.50 on the dollar. Then they pay an inordinate amount of money in technology because the government has 0 control over the manufacturers when it comes to setting rules for rendering a product obsolete or controlling the service costs by not allowing in house Biomed to work on equipment. We had to pay over $10k last week for an Utrasound repair of a harness (was replaced in 30 min).

[JSHoosier 22,319]

Sorry didn't realize I said Medicare. Autocorrect f I don't know but I think a lot goes beyond what people see. 41 can attest to this because this is his area, a large problem as bad as billing is technology costs. Governments will never hamper a company's ability to make money. That is why Government control on billing and technology won't happen any time soon. The Government doesn't have the capability to take on healthcare. They cannot maintain the US currently. Do we really want them trying to control costs? We would have doctors saying you want them to control what I make? Then I have the right to refuse you. We don't want that. Technology wise in Healthcare has a shelf life of about 3 years. I work at Parkview and on January 1 we are getting rid of 1500 IV pumps and replacing with new. Why? IV pump technology hasn't changed ever. Each pump costs us over $4000 plus contract cost for library upgrades... It's because medical companies constantly are putting equipment out of service so they can make more money. Our defibs that have ETCO2 have to be replaced every 5 years and those are f'ing expensive. It's not a billing issue that will be resolved the way portrayed in public. It goes far beyond rising costs. Hell a box of 50-200 mL syringes for injectors costs well over $1000. For f'ing Iodine...

My thing working in this industry is how funny I truly see this discussion. Hospitals are getting if they are lucky $.50 on the dollar. Then they pay an inordinate amount of money in technology because the government has 0 control over the manufacturers when it comes to setting rules for rendering a product obsolete or controlling the service costs by not allowing in house Biomed to work on equipment. We had to pay over $10k last week for an Utrasound repair of a harness (was replaced in 30 min).

Damn, replacing pumps every 3 years when the technology hasn't changed while I work in IT and my company still has a large XP footprint.

[Naturalhoosier 15,499]

Also, "gay" is censored?

The bad word filter is a standard upload.

[Alford Bailey 13,233]

The health care issue won't be solved in my life time. We have to focus on prevention and everything that goes with it vs. treating the symptoms which we are are very good at. Best in the world. If you don't get sick in the first place then the medical industry (we can debate which part is doing the damage) doesn't have a chance to screw you. Pretty simple. Expecting a politician to come up with a solution will do you about as much good as pissing into the wind.

[mdn82 26,344]

The health care issue won't be solved in my life time. We have to focus on prevention and everything that goes with it vs. treating the symptoms which we are are very good at. Best in the world. If you don't get sick in the first place then the medical industry (we can debate which part is doing the damage) doesn't have a chance to screw you. Pretty simple. Expecting a politician to come up with a solution will do you about as much good as pissing into the wind.

This is absolutely correct, and why there is a lot of change with insurance companies going to preventative care.  Hospitals make money.  Insurance companies make money.  Premiums are lower.  Win-win for everyone. 

[mdn82 26,344]

Damn, replacing pumps every 3 years when the technology hasn't changed while I work in IT and my company still has a large XP footprint.

Yeah man it is nuts.  The worse part is the wireless card they use that is supposed to automatically new drug libraries will have to be replaced throughout the hospital.  So, the whole network structure we use for this pump will have to be changed.  This pump project is going to cost over $25 million easy.  With how much Indiana is cracking down on drug usage, it is something everyone just has to do.  Cost of doing business.  But it is stupid.  There are ways around everything.  If someone wanted to go through their drugs in an IV Pump or a PCA style pump there is a training program on the main screen Biomeds use to do PMs.  So.  The cost of doing Parkview Regional Medical Center is millions in networking to satisfy the FDA on how we give drugs.  Yet, if someone wanted to abuse their drugs (A pain med pump is the typical in this scenario) it is easy and on the front screen.  If a patient is on a drip, they just have to click on training versus meds.  There are 2 options.  Our network tracks meds.  Doesn't track training.  Now I am an idiot, but come the f### on. 

 

There is just such a big disconnect between the Government, Hospitals, Drug suppliers, Device manufacturers, and Insurance companies that will not be fixed unless there are sweeping changes in all areas.  Money controls all things, and the ones that take the heat are the hospitals.  People see their bills going up.  Insurance rates are going up.  It is easy to say, "well that is what the hospitals bill us".  Its really not a black and white issue.  This will never be fixed, because there is too much money involved for changes to take place.  Hospitals want the Government to better regulate drug suppliers and device manufacturers.  The drug suppliers and device manufacturers want things to stay the same.  The Government is fine until people stop voting for them.  Always look at the whole issue and hear from all sides.  That wasn't generalized to you, just more of a generic statement.  When you hear from everyone, the happiest people are usually the ones who should have more changes than others. 

[Walking Boot of Doom 18,170]

The health care issue won't be solved in my life time. We have to focus on prevention and everything that goes with it vs. treating the symptoms which we are are very good at. Best in the world. If you don't get sick in the first place then the medical industry (we can debate which part is doing the damage) doesn't have a chance to screw you. Pretty simple. Expecting a politician to come up with a solution will do you about as much good as pissing into the wind.

Very little will be solved in your lifetime or mine (born 1992). The U.S. has a lot of work to do on healthcare, education, and tax reform before we can hope to regain a truly elite status in the world.

[Yogi'sBicep 1,048]

Very little will be solved in your lifetime or mine (born 1992). The U.S. has a lot of work to do on healthcare, education, and tax reform before we can hope to regain a truly elite status in the world.

elite status is made by military, by world perception. I'm also in the military, so that is why I can say things like this :)

[HoosierAloha 30,102]

What do you mean?  What'd she do to them?

 

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

 

This link has a few stories on it that explains her attitude.  How a candidate treats their protective detail shouldn't be the reason they're elected; however, Hilary is a complete ass to those who put their life on the life to protect her.  She also completely failed at a lesser post so let's make her the leader of the free world!  (sarcasm font)

 

Apologies for being off topic!

[OliviaPope40 7,532]

Did Jeb really say stuff happens unbelievable. 

[Naturalhoosier 15,499]

Did Jeb really say stuff happens unbelievable.

Is it insensitive? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Not at all. Stuff does happen. That phrase however will not sit well with this PC driven society that we live.

[Stuhoo 91,891]

Is it insensitive? Absolutely. Is it wrong? Not at all. Stuff does happen. That phrase however will not sit well with this PC driven society that we live.

 

It will not sit well because it is dismissive, and we don't expect the future President to be dismissive on issues that matter.

[Naturalhoosier 15,499]

Did anyone watch the debate last night?  I had other things going on so I didn't watch.

 

I did however, just watch the 2-minute clip of Ted Cruz taking on the moderators and mainstream media.  That was pretty funny to watch the moderators and media get called out for what it is.  lol  I'm not a huge Cruz fan, but that was great!