Jackson Jambalaya

I would prefer to have a single payer system because it would be more efficient and not be a master-slave relationship with my employer. Employers should have backed a single payer health system if they didn't want to provide it. The employment-based system is medieval, but it is as American as slavery.

1:52, you aren't much of a student of history and you're trying too hard to figure out a way to insert the word slavery into some argument for Obamacare. Well trained. Good boy. Sit, Ubu, sit.

Slavery existed long before America, but don't let the facts get in the way of an opportunity to pull slavery out of the liberal tool pouch.

Single-payer may well indeed lower certain costs; or, at the very least, if it doesn't address the actual cost of healthcare, it may lower the immediate, out-of-pocket cost for some individuals.

Unfortunately, it would also likely be accompanied by a decrease in the quality of care and an increase in bureaucratic administration. Most importantly, any cost savings would be accomplished by rationing, as it is in Canada and other single-payer systems. Need a procedure? Put your name on a list and hope your name comes up before things get too serious.

At least Canadians have the option of crossing the border and paying out-of-pocket for urgent procedures. If we had a single-payer system, where will we go when our government tells us that our procedure really isn't that urgent?

If we had a single-payer system, where will we go when our government tells us that our procedure really isn't that urgent?

If we have no health insurance coverage, and can't afford the high cost of medical care for a serious health condition, where will we go then?

If we could otherwise afford health insurance, but were ineligible due to a pre-existing condition, where would we go then?

Your side lost, except to the extend they forced us into this private health insurance boondoggle compromise instead of a single-payor system. Get over it.

Your side lost. Get over it.

Hope you remember your words when you or a loved one are facing a healthcare shortage, government waitlists, and black-market practitioners.

Want a real eye-opener? Check out the pricing model at the Surgery Center of Oklahoma. Procedure costs are not hidden, nor are they inflated with additional fees. In order to get this pricing, however, patients must pay in full in advance in cash. This allows the Surgery Center to do procedures that are around 1/5 of the typical cost when billed to insurance.

http://www.surgerycenterok.com/pricing.php

That is how you make healthcare affordable. Subsidizing healthcare will only result in increasing (and ultimately, infinite) demand and thus rising real cost.

If we have no health insurance coverage, and can't afford the high cost of medical care for a serious health condition, where will we go then?

In other words you consider yourself entitled to whatever care you feel is necessary regardless of cost or your ability to pay and should you not be able to afford the care you expect someone else to pay the bill for you.

Back to the insurance exchange. I understand why so many people want Mississippi to join others in their strategy to refuse to set up the state exchanges, but isn't there a risk that the federal government will indeed set up an exchange for us and take away what little control we might have? I need a little more explanation of the potential downside before I can support that option. And don't tell me that if enough of us band together that we can kill Obamacare because they won't be able to set up the exchange. Of course they will. What happens then?

Well said, Bill.

I'm amazed that 3:45 pm is so clueless that he imagines most Americans could afford the Oklahoma surgical center and that this would be a way to bring down medical costs.

I guess it would since most would just die sooner since they couldn't afford surgery at all.

What a pity we've politicized health care instead of looking at what systems function best.

I wouldn't say clueless but the prices are low enough on many procedures that as Karl Denninger wrote, many Americans can take out a loan or other means of financing to actually pay for the procedure. Its not the $7,000 procedures that are killing patients, its the procedures that cost $15,000, $50,000, $100,000 or more.

You assume KF, that everyone who needed the $7000 surgery could qualify for the loan.

How are you going to address health care for those who are the working poor and can't afford current costs? Or how will you provide care for the children of the poor who can't be blamed if their parents didn't succeed?

Then there is the fact that we pay more for medicines than any other nation because we don't negotiate nationally. A medicine at UMC which is in the negotiated lot can cost less than the co pay on a first rate plan. It's insane for the same pill to cost one American $100 for 30 and another American gets the exact same medication for $20. Or that a single young female pays $360 a month for health insurance in one state and $260 in another state with the same company for the same policy.

Everyone agrees that medical costs are going through the roof and have a big role to play in our national debt.

It's fine not to like Obamacare. I just want to hear a rational alternative that insures those who, through no fault of their own, don't die because they weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths or with the highest IQ on the block.

December 5, 2012 5:33 PM = Liberal who thinks insurance is a piggybank where others pay in and he gets to take out

Excellent article on OK lawsuit in National Review Online Corner by Jillian Kay Melchior. OK is suing Feds over Federal Exchange.

I don't like the idea of going to work everyday to pay for someone else to sit on their ass, but I admit there's a dollar value to having a healthy workforce, and that there are plenty of people who perform valuable work in our economy who are too poor to afford healthcare. Providing healthcare is the same concept behind having free, public education. I cannot run my business with a sick, stupid workforce.

You can either pay some now, or a lot more later...

No, I do not assume it. You missed the point which is at a lower, actual price, more people can afford the procedure or be able to realistically finance it. Check out supply, demand, and elasticity. There are still many people who can't afford it but its not out of reach for money below a certain price.

Actually I didn't think McCain's was a bad plan in 2008. The $8,000 or so tax credit.

You can either pay some now, or a lot more later...

Actually we'll be doing both.

Let us know if you are onboard with free legal and dental care too. You can't run your business with employees with bad teeth who can't afford legal representation when they need it.

Let them learn the hard way. They voted for this. They wanted it. Let them enjoy it.

In a few years medical technology will be available to take over many diseases at the gene level. Mothers will pick their babies gene set from the Mass General, Cedar Sinai, or other holders of a patent. Other medical advances will have to be democratized. Sorry to use that word. You can sub the word "socialized" if you like, but the political dilemma will remain.

Since when did the service provided by doctors and nurses become a right? They provide a service - if you can pay for it, you get it.

I swear, to hear the discussion over "healthcare" you would think every blasted American is walking up to death's door decades before their time and only Obamacare or a single-payer system is going to save them. Guess what folks, everyone dies. Period.

I understand no one wants their loved one to die, but most people going to the doctor are going for their sinus infections, flus, broken arms/legs, vaccinations, etc. If health INSURANCE worked like it should, you could buy a policy to cover major medical expenses for catastrophic injuries or illnesses. Couple that with a reformed pricing system (i.e., Government get the hell out of it and let competition happen) and most people would probably save money on a yearly basis - which they could put aside for future medical expenses as they get older.

I'm sick of the fear that is generated by stupid liberals. That is how they are controlling everything. I'm just sick of it.

I am a primary care doctor. I see 30-40 patients a day. 15-20 of those patients are those with chronic disease states that need to be managed on an interim basis like diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or all of the above. I am the cheapest medical provider that one can see. It costs about 225 bucks per visit for me to run labwork to monitor medications and metric values that are quality indicators of the success of treatment. I write pretty much all generic medications and have good results. If you figure that a 50 year old with Diabetes, Hypertension and elevated cholesterol has to be seen 4 times a year for evaluation, then his medical cost from me would be 900 dollars a year. If you count of 6 pills a day to treat his issues that are 4-10 bucks a month generic then that is 60(high end)bucks a month or 720 dollars a year. If you paid cash for the above it would run 1620 dollars out of pocket. Compare that to insurance, he would get charged 700 a month minimum and have no coverage for his conditions for a year. Tell me who is the bad guy?

If the same guy chooses to ignore his problems and do nothing, he is going to statistically have either a stroke, heart attack, or renal failure. The costs to us as a society if he goes to the hospital and gets a stent, clotbuster, and a bunch of cardiovascular drugs after the fact, not to mention scans and imagining, is in the range of 150,000 dollars just for one event. Compare the cost of management at 1620 dollars a year verses 150,000 a year if something goes wrong. 20 times more expensive.

The problem is that getting people to come to the doctor to stay healthy when they would rather be eating at Olive Garden and buying a new cell phone is difficult at best. Even well educated people are not great at managing their problems or following up. Most people look at chronic disease management as a grudge purchase like having to buy a new washing machine or having an A/C guy come out at the start of winter and clean out the furnace at very best. The drop out rate of patients is at least 50%. A man will take a day off work to get a viagra script if his nature isn't working, but will cuss out my nurse if his metformin for his diabetes isn't refilled cause he hasn't been in the office in a year. Sadly, those of us charged with taking care of chronic disease, not the sub-specialists who have a gimmick or procedure, are treated like dirt by the general public. As I have illustrated above, it isn't that expensive to be managed even if you have multiple problems and no insurance, but the cost of not taking care of yourself is 20 times higher should you have an event. This is not a problem of medicine, it is a problem of culture and priorities. I preach this daily, often to deaf or angry ears in my office. It frankly pisses off entitled and selfish people, but if I don't try, who will? Cheers!

Thank you Doctor 6:59 am !

10:48 pm perhaps the doctor's comments will help you understand that we are not talking about " rights".

In is in the interest of society and our Nation to have a healthy populace.

We also know that the physical and mental development of our children is dependent on good health care.

Healthy people are more productive and productivity is important to our Nation.

Historically, humanity has made distinctions between commerce and professions and government as separate entities for a reason.

And, then there is the " life" part in " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

I do not want our doctors to be at the mercy of either insurance companies or the government when it comes to delivering health care services.

Unfortunately, we have so politicized this issue that we cannot find a way to navigate back to a system where doctors and patients get to make care decisions which are facilitated, not dictated by either system.

Doctor you are not the bad guy. But,surely you would not argue that one orthopedist cannot set a broken wrist and a broken ankle without referring that patient to a second in house colleague. Indeed, I expect you could treat a simple fracture. And, I expect you know that any opthalmologist should be able to know if a patient needed a specialist in macular degeneration rather than have the macular degeneration specialist referral to determined if macular degeneration was present.

Unfortunately, we have so politicized this issue ...

Pot-Kettle-Black

Your comments are well taken, but I cannot manage anything but simple fractures with my malpractice carrier. The legal profession is going to have to let up as much as the medical profession is going to have to quit referring for a good old boy kickback. Many sub specialists are so far down the speciality ladder that they only work on one joint or part of a system. You have orthos that only do knees, gastros that only fix liver problems and ENTs that only work on inner ears. I agree that we had become too sub specialty oriented, but one lawsuit will linger in the mind of a jack of all trades as long as the standard of care is a sub sub specialist treating diseases. Case in point, we have many excellent oncologists in the area, but how many people of money run off to mayo or MD Anderson when they get a diagnosis for a second or even third opinion. I face the general public desire to have the very best treatments money can buy all the time. So many people are unwilling to even consider a generic medication or allow a primary care doctor to treat a common problem
And demand to see a specialist. You are the exception, not the rule to the problem. I just shrug my shoulders and say sure when faced with that kind of mentality. Why argue, all you get for trying to save someone money is a poor review on all the medical rating websites and talked poorly about at church Sunday schools. No good dead goes unpunished.

What do we want?

FREE LEGAL REPRESENTATION

When do we want it?

NOW

Who should pay for it?

SOMEBODY ELSE. SOAK SOMEBODY ELSE.

The same people who kick & scream about having to pay $600 a month for health insurance don't think twice about paying that much for their auto loan. They cry about the $100 a month Fri a prescription med but don't blink an eye when it comes to their $200 Comcast cable tv bill, their $125 celebrity name tennis shoes or their $100 "designer" blue jeans.

The same people who kick & scream about having to pay $600 a month for health insurance ...

No problem really. They'll have no choice but to sell the car, turn off the cable TV then stop buying the shoes and clothes.

They'll lose their jobs, go on food stamps and then be forced by the Kenyan to stop paying to heat/cool their homes so that can either pay the Obamacare tax penalty (Muslim's call it tribute) or pay for the mandatory insurance.

And the bonus is that your sorry altruistic ass gets to backstop ALL of it. YOU get to pay and do without too. Isn't redistribution grand!