Re: Doc choice

[Guest guest]

Analyzing a bill and pointing

out its features is hardly " smearing " a bill.  That's irrational and a terrible argument.  Can you not argue for the bill on its own

merits?   To infer that I am selfish or want to deny

health care to all because I don't want more and more bureaucracy and more and

more government control is, likewise, irrational.  You have no idea what I give and to whom.  Give me some good argument, not emotional

outbursts.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright



The

fact is, every thing you invest in you can/will lose money even if you think

it's wrong.

I'm

am pragmatic.

I

know rain when I see it.

Smearing

a bill that isn't even passed yet because you think YOU personally will pay for

it is irrational.

Denying

healthcare to all is a totally irrational fear of something that doesn't

exist.

-----

Original Message -----

From:

Valarie

Enron's accountants were not

non-profit organizations and were not part of the Combined Federal

Campaign. If you have a problem with NCPA, critique its data, its

studies. To smear an organization without reason is irrational.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright



[Guest guest]

Pelosi's bill passed in the House, barely.  Its all over the Internet.  Google it. 

The American people have had considerable input into it.  Had they not, it would have passed by a much

larger margin.  Had they not, the president

would not be trying to discredit them by using a vulgar term for them - " those

teabag people. "

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright



There is no bill to analyze yet and

WE have no input to it.

We also have no idea how it will be

implemented.

Your comments remind me of the 1964

pres election.

[Guest guest]



There is no bill to analyze yet and WE have no input to it.

We also have no idea how it will be implemented.

Your comments remind me of the 1964 pres election.

RE: Re: Doc choice

Analyzing a bill and pointing out its features is hardly "smearing" a bill. That's irrational and a terrible argument. Can you not argue for the bill on its own merits? To infer that I am selfish or want to deny health care to all because I don't want more and more bureaucracy and more and more government control is, likewise, irrational. You have no idea what I give and to whom. Give me some good argument, not emotional outbursts.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

The fact is, every thing you invest in you can/will lose money even if you think it's wrong.

I'm am pragmatic.

I know rain when I see it.

Smearing a bill that isn't even passed yet because you think YOU personally will pay for it is irrational.

Denying healthcare to all is a totally irrational fear of something that doesn't exist.

----- Original Message -----

From: Valarie

Enron's accountants were not non-profit organizations and were not part of the Combined Federal Campaign. If you have a problem with NCPA, critique its data, its studies. To smear an organization without reason is irrational.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

__________ NOD32 4389 (20090902) Information __________This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

Her opinion is that MC allows old drugs that don't work for

ovarian cancer. She has responded

to the new drug she's on (but don't ask me what it is), but her friends on MC

have not been able to get it.

Actually, I guess they can get it if they can afford it.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of lowerbp2

Hmmm. I wonder if the drug she is getting has received

enough trials so it is not approved by MC.

Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MD

Specializing in Primary Aldosteronism, Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent

evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in populations today.

On Wednesday, November 11, 2009, at 09:56PM, " Valarie " <val@...> wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

Would be good to know how she responded. MC tries to use only those drugs that have proven to be effective.but we know That the fDrug comlanies can drive. Al la EPO IN renal failure-dialysis. Looked good in early studies and was approved prob Billion was paid for before it was found to I crease risk heart attack and stroke. But then Maybe that is good as an expired pt on dialysis saves money. Sick dr joke here. Tiped sad Send form miiPhone ;-)May your pressure be low!CE Grim MDSpecializing in DifficultHypertensionOn Nov 12, 2009, at 7:50 PM, Valarie <val@...> wrote:

Her opinion is that MC allows old drugs that don't work for

ovarian cancer. She has responded

to the new drug she's on (but don't ask me what it is), but her friends on MC

have not been able to get it.

Actually, I guess they can get it if they can afford it.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of lowerbp2

Hmmm. I wonder if the drug she is getting has received

enough trials so it is not approved by MC.

Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MD

Specializing in Primary Aldosteronism, Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent

evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in populations today.

On Wednesday, November 11, 2009, at 09:56PM, "Valarie " <val@...> wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

yes, but insurance companies are big places with some units subsidizing others. Health is being used to subsidize failed operations of other units.

Bindner

Web Directory (links to my sites and blogs):

http://www.geocities.com/mikeybdc/index.html

http://mikeybdc.blogspot.com

From: Valarie <val@...>Subject: RE: Doc choicehyperaldosteronism Date: Thursday, November 12, 2009, 5:17 PM

This HMO you envision, what happens when you CHOOSE to go somewhere outside of the "relationship"?

Your differentiation between ROI and gross profit of a company makes no sense, . We weren't talking about "insurance operations." We were talking about a corporation. Typical ROI of insurance companies is about 3%; typical ROI of Microsoft is 48%.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldost eronism@gro ups.com] On Behalf Of Bindner

I may or may not get government insurance. Right now I have catastrophic/ HSA, with my wife's employer financing the HSA.

The HMO I am proposing is not like Pacificare. It is more like the relationship you have with your endo where you pay a fee. That is also considered an HMO type plan.

The ROI for investors is different than the gross profit for the insurance operations, which may be subsidizing other parts of the firm that are not doing so well. This also happened after Katrina with insurance companies. Rates went up even though risk did not..

[Guest guest]

From Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/research/200911130002?utm_source=feedburner & utm_medium=feed & utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediamatters%2Flatest+%28Media+Matters+-+Latest+Items%29#4

Cited pages of House bill allow private

individual insurance to be offered, but only through Exchange. According to page 94

of the House health care reform bill

as brought to the floor (page 96 of the bill as passed by the House),

" Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health

insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the

first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan. "

Bill provides for grandfathering in of

existing plans purchased outside of Exchange under certain conditions. According to page 91

of the bill as brought to the floor, " individual health insurance coverage

that is offered and in force and effect before " the bill takes effect can

be grandfathered in and sold outside of the Health Insurance

Exchange if it meets certain conditions.

Y1 = 2013. People can keep their current insurance

" if it meets certain conditions. "

Val

From:

hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On

Behalf Of Valarie

I will look for that. I

thought it was beginning 2013 but can't find a reference.

Dr. Grim wrote:

I think that the ....only be able

to buy... is not correct. Can you verify that? Just heard an NPR

program on that issue but may not have been listening close enough as I emailed.

On Nov 11, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Valarie wrote:

if Pelosicare becomes law, we will only be able to buy insurance through the

government exchange. If

that is not a government takeover, I do not know what is. There will be levels of coverage and

levels of premiums. All

policies will be required to provide the same thing.

[Guest guest]

Write to legislators as bill is still in the making.

Obama's team has a very good (at least easy) way to send in concerns about any issue but don't know what happens with them. I would contact your Colo Senators and express your concerns.

Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MD

Specializing in Primary Aldosteronism, Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in populations today.

On Friday, November 13, 2009, at 10:10AM, "Valarie " <val@...> wrote:

>

From Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/research/200911130002?utm_source=feedburner & utm_medium=feed & utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediamatters%2Flatest+%28Media+Matters+-+Latest+Items%29#4

Cited pages of House bill allow private

individual insurance to be offered, but only through Exchange. According to page 94

of the House health care reform bill

as brought to the floor (page 96 of the bill as passed by the House),

"Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health

insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the

first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan."

Bill provides for grandfathering in of

existing plans purchased outside of Exchange under certain conditions. According to page 91

of the bill as brought to the floor, "individual health insurance coverage

that is offered and in force and effect before" the bill takes effect can

be grandfathered in and sold outside of the Health Insurance

Exchange if it meets certain conditions.

Y1 = 2013. People can keep their current insurance

"if it meets certain conditions."

Val

From:

hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On

Behalf Of Valarie

I will look for that. I

thought it was beginning 2013 but can't find a reference.

Dr. Grim wrote:

I think that the ....only be able

to buy... is not correct. Can you verify that? Just heard an NPR

program on that issue but may not have been listening close enough as I emailed.

On Nov 11, 2009, at 1:07 PM, Valarie wrote:

if Pelosicare becomes law, we will only be able to buy insurance through the

government exchange. If

that is not a government takeover, I do not know what is. There will be levels of coverage and

levels of premiums. All

policies will be required to provide the same thing.

[Guest guest]

Dead on arrival at the senate.

Leiberman say he will filibuster the bill that contains a public option.

Ergo, no bill yet.

Clearly there is a large dispute over who gets access to the MC TRUST FUND.

RE: Re: Doc choice

Pelosi's bill passed in the House, barely. Its all over the Internet.

Google it. The American people have had considerable input into it. Had

they not, it would have passed by a much larger margin. Had they not, the

president would not be trying to discredit them by using a vulgar term for

them - " those teabag people. "

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright



There is no bill to analyze yet and WE have no input to it.

We also have no idea how it will be implemented.

Your comments remind me of the 1964 pres election.

[Guest guest]

I think sending a note to your reps cAn't hurt. Esp the Sentor. Tiped sad Send form miiPhone ;-)May your pressure be low!CE Grim MDSpecializing in DifficultHypertensionOn Nov 12, 2009, at 4:41 PM, jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:



There is no bill to analyze yet and WE have no input to it.

We also have no idea how it will be implemented.

Your comments remind me of the 1964 pres election.

RE: Re: Doc choice

Analyzing a bill and pointing out its features is hardly "smearing" a bill. That's irrational and a terrible argument. Can you not argue for the bill on its own merits? To infer that I am selfish or want to deny health care to all because I don't want more and more bureaucracy and more and more government control is, likewise, irrational. You have no idea what I give and to whom. Give me some good argument, not emotional outbursts.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

The fact is, every thing you invest in you can/will lose money even if you think it's wrong.

I'm am pragmatic.

I know rain when I see it.

Smearing a bill that isn't even passed yet because you think YOU personally will pay for it is irrational.

Denying healthcare to all is a totally irrational fear of something that doesn't exist.

----- Original Message -----

From: Valarie

Enron's accountants were not non-profit organizations and were not part of the Combined Federal Campaign. If you have a problem with NCPA, critique its data, its studies. To smear an organization without reason is irrational.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism [mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

__________ NOD32 4389 (20090902) Information __________This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.http://www.eset.com

[Guest guest]

The problem is that the Senate bill is, so far, secret. It is difficult to comment on a secret

bill. I have contacted them with my

concerns but, so far, they have not had an opportunity to vote on anything (or

even see anything).

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of lowerbp2

Write to legislators as bill is still in the making. Obama's team has a very good (at least easy) way to send in concerns about any issue but don't know what happens with them. I would contact your Colo Senators and express your concerns. Clarence E. Grim, BS, MS, MDSpecializing in Primary Aldosteronism, Difficult High Blood Pressure and recent evolutionary forces on high blood pressure in populations today. On Friday, November 13, 2009, at 10:10AM, " Valarie " <val@...> wrote:

From Media Matters: http://mediamatters.org/research/200911130002?utm_source=feedburner & utm_medium=feed & utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mediamatters%2Flatest+%28Media+Matters+-+Latest+Items%29#4

Cited pages of House bill

allow private individual insurance to be offered, but only through Exchange. According to page 94

of the House health care reform bill

as brought to the floor (page 96 of the bill as passed by the House),

" Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health

insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the

first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan. "

Bill provides for

grandfathering in of existing plans purchased outside of Exchange under certain

conditions. According to page 91

of the bill as brought to the floor, " individual health insurance coverage

that is offered and in force and effect before " the bill takes effect can

be grandfathered in and sold outside of the Health Insurance

Exchange if it meets certain conditions.

Y1 = 2013. People can keep

their current insurance " if it meets certain conditions. "

[Guest guest]

Actually, Americans are not replacing themselves.  Only with illegal + legal immigration is our

growth rate at a replacement rate.  I

think the only populations in the world that are reproducing faster than

replacement are the Muslims.

I find it interesting that your AARP rep says nothing will

change except an increase in price. 

That's been my point.  It will

cost dearly to have 118 new bureaucracies to control every aspect of medicine.  Already, in the stimulus bill, we have an

agency forming to create a health record on every American.     

AARP would like to see this House bill pass because it will

decrease the attractiveness of Advantage plans (if not destroy them completely)

and push people into regular supp plans. 

That's where AARP makes its money.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

OTOH, we need that extra population to try the new

drug to see if it works.

And if it does work, we have an even greater load on the HC system with

increased population.

Regards

----- Original Message -----

From: Valarie

I like your essay, Jack.

I don't actually believe there should be no change. I think health

insurance should be seriously reformed, but that creating 118 new

bureaucracies and making multitudes of new laws is not the way to go about

it.

My senators and rep are all dems. The rep doesn't listen but one of the

senators might; he's up for re-election next year.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ]

On Behalf Of jwwright

Dr Grim,

My sens and reps are reps.

My AARP rep says nothing will change in Texas in MC and supplement plans.

They will increase in cost.

HEW appears to be able to place needed HC in areas where they find a grantee

(I'll call it that of want of a better name). There are no people I know of

that don't have HC, including migrant workers.

The ER's seem to be not crowded now, and HEW places are placed near those

ER's in the areas I visit.

So If an unwed mother can get into the hospital, have full coverage for her

and her baby including welfare afterward and food and diapers for the baby,

I'd say we have pretty good HC.

A removed step gdaughter adult, working, was admitted to Kingwood hospital

for 3 - 4 days for appendicitis review, and did not have insurance, eg.

So there is money available and I think it's the HEW can get funding without

going thru this seemingly terrible process.

And I think I agree with Val, that we don't need what they're proposing but

that's just based on what I see in Texas.

I can see any Dr that will admit MC patients, and if they don't I can still

go there if I want to pay, it seems.

However, no internist I can see in Livingston as easily as in Kingwood, 40

miles south. We've aghd 2 taht could not get their practice started. I

walked in yesterday, made an appt for today and saw a new internist. I

walked into a nephro today and filled out papers and made an appt for next

week, so the system we have works for me.

BUT, I have no major illnesses.

Standing in line to receive meds today, there were 6 people with 6 different

opinions including one that said congress is not authorized to collect

taxes. That gives you an idea of the training that must happen.

There was agreement the congress could not decide when to go to lunchand

both dems and reps wer crooks.

If I was a congressman, I'd have to side with the reps (no change) as it

stands now and for specific things needing fixing allocate that to HEW.

Regards

[Guest guest]

Such An EMR will save $ but better yet lives. Tiped sad Send form miiPhone ;-)May your pressure be low!CE Grim MDSpecializing in DifficultHypertensionOn Nov 14, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Valarie <val@...> wrote:

Actually, Americans are not replacing themselves. Only with illegal + legal immigration is our

growth rate at a replacement rate. I

think the only populations in the world that are reproducing faster than

replacement are the Muslims.

I find it interesting that your AARP rep says nothing will

change except an increase in price.

That's been my point. It will

cost dearly to have 118 new bureaucracies to control every aspect of medicine. Already, in the stimulus bill, we have an

agency forming to create a health record on every American.

AARP would like to see this House bill pass because it will

decrease the attractiveness of Advantage plans (if not destroy them completely)

and push people into regular supp plans.

That's where AARP makes its money.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

OTOH, we need that extra population to try the new

drug to see if it works.

And if it does work, we have an even greater load on the HC system with

increased population.

Regards

----- Original Message -----

From: Valarie

I like your essay, Jack.

I don't actually believe there should be no change. I think health

insurance should be seriously reformed, but that creating 118 new

bureaucracies and making multitudes of new laws is not the way to go about

it.

My senators and rep are all dems. The rep doesn't listen but one of the

senators might; he's up for re-election next year.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ]

On Behalf Of jwwright

Dr Grim,

My sens and reps are reps.

My AARP rep says nothing will change in Texas in MC and supplement plans.

They will increase in cost.

HEW appears to be able to place needed HC in areas where they find a grantee

(I'll call it that of want of a better name). There are no people I know of

that don't have HC, including migrant workers.

The ER's seem to be not crowded now, and HEW places are placed near those

ER's in the areas I visit.

So If an unwed mother can get into the hospital, have full coverage for her

and her baby including welfare afterward and food and diapers for the baby,

I'd say we have pretty good HC.

A removed step gdaughter adult, working, was admitted to Kingwood hospital

for 3 - 4 days for appendicitis review, and did not have insurance, eg.

So there is money available and I think it's the HEW can get funding without

going thru this seemingly terrible process.

And I think I agree with Val, that we don't need what they're proposing but

that's just based on what I see in Texas.

I can see any Dr that will admit MC patients, and if they don't I can still

go there if I want to pay, it seems.

However, no internist I can see in Livingston as easily as in Kingwood, 40

miles south. We've aghd 2 taht could not get their practice started. I

walked in yesterday, made an appt for today and saw a new internist. I

walked into a nephro today and filled out papers and made an appt for next

week, so the system we have works for me.

BUT, I have no major illnesses.

Standing in line to receive meds today, there were 6 people with 6 different

opinions including one that said congress is not authorized to collect

taxes. That gives you an idea of the training that must happen.

There was agreement the congress could not decide when to go to lunchand

both dems and reps wer crooks.

If I was a congressman, I'd have to side with the reps (no change) as it

stands now and for specific things needing fixing allocate that to HEW.

Regards

[Guest guest]

Guess u forgot about most South and Central Am phillipines India Nigeria and most of Africa to mention a few. Tiped sad Send form miiPhone ;-)May your pressure be low!CE Grim MDSpecializing in DifficultHypertensionOn Nov 14, 2009, at 9:50 AM, Valarie <val@...> wrote:

Actually, Americans are not replacing themselves. Only with illegal + legal immigration is our

growth rate at a replacement rate. I

think the only populations in the world that are reproducing faster than

replacement are the Muslims.

I find it interesting that your AARP rep says nothing will

change except an increase in price.

That's been my point. It will

cost dearly to have 118 new bureaucracies to control every aspect of medicine. Already, in the stimulus bill, we have an

agency forming to create a health record on every American.

AARP would like to see this House bill pass because it will

decrease the attractiveness of Advantage plans (if not destroy them completely)

and push people into regular supp plans.

That's where AARP makes its money.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

OTOH, we need that extra population to try the new

drug to see if it works.

And if it does work, we have an even greater load on the HC system with

increased population.

Regards

----- Original Message -----

From: Valarie

I like your essay, Jack.

I don't actually believe there should be no change. I think health

insurance should be seriously reformed, but that creating 118 new

bureaucracies and making multitudes of new laws is not the way to go about

it.

My senators and rep are all dems. The rep doesn't listen but one of the

senators might; he's up for re-election next year.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ]

On Behalf Of jwwright

Dr Grim,

My sens and reps are reps.

My AARP rep says nothing will change in Texas in MC and supplement plans.

They will increase in cost.

HEW appears to be able to place needed HC in areas where they find a grantee

(I'll call it that of want of a better name). There are no people I know of

that don't have HC, including migrant workers.

The ER's seem to be not crowded now, and HEW places are placed near those

ER's in the areas I visit.

So If an unwed mother can get into the hospital, have full coverage for her

and her baby including welfare afterward and food and diapers for the baby,

I'd say we have pretty good HC.

A removed step gdaughter adult, working, was admitted to Kingwood hospital

for 3 - 4 days for appendicitis review, and did not have insurance, eg.

So there is money available and I think it's the HEW can get funding without

going thru this seemingly terrible process.

And I think I agree with Val, that we don't need what they're proposing but

that's just based on what I see in Texas.

I can see any Dr that will admit MC patients, and if they don't I can still

go there if I want to pay, it seems.

However, no internist I can see in Livingston as easily as in Kingwood, 40

miles south. We've aghd 2 taht could not get their practice started. I

walked in yesterday, made an appt for today and saw a new internist. I

walked into a nephro today and filled out papers and made an appt for next

week, so the system we have works for me.

BUT, I have no major illnesses.

Standing in line to receive meds today, there were 6 people with 6 different

opinions including one that said congress is not authorized to collect

taxes. That gives you an idea of the training that must happen.

There was agreement the congress could not decide when to go to lunchand

both dems and reps wer crooks.

If I was a congressman, I'd have to side with the reps (no change) as it

stands now and for specific things needing fixing allocate that to HEW.

Regards

[Guest guest]

This cAn be one of the major benefits of anation wide intergrated health care system. We will be able to collect dAta on all new drugs after they are brought onto the market which big pharm does not do. Recall that to get a new drug approved it may only need to be studied in 10000 folks. So chances of picking up a rAre severe side effect before marketing is nearly zero. Thus many disasters such as with Nsaids Would be picked up much earlier. And lives saved and lAwsuits miniIzed Tiped sad Send form miiPhone ;-)May your pressure be low!CE Grim MDSpecializing in DifficultHypertensionOn Nov 14, 2009, at 9:58 AM, jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:

The one agency I'd like to see is one to prevent disease, brought to mind by

a NYtimes article on the use of finasteride to prevent prostate cancer.

That article indicates a lot of confusion how the body works, and that would

be the state of the new agency as well.

I can't see how to implement providing finasteride since it's a prescription

drug. And many who get severe PCa get it before age 55. So there's a

conumdrum in applying this "good thing" if it actually works.

People don't want to take drugs for HTN, eg, as it is, and an expensive drug

is going to drive people to want that drug free, and it takes years to show

it doesn't work or has side effects.

So it steps us into another "domain" of health care and probably one that is

far more costly, IMO.

We know how to reduce/slow kidney failure by controlling BP, but we can't

control aging.

Yesterday I was told I was not near KF, but eventually it will happen (if I

live long enough). Foregone conclusion.

But I want to do that better.

A "free market" system tends to give me more "hopes" to sell their drugs

which don't work, where a limited supply system tends to fend off the new

ideas because of cost. OTOH, we need that extra population to try the new

drug to see if it works.

And if it does work, we have an even greater load on the HC system with

increased population.

Regards

RE: Re: Doc choice

I like your essay, Jack.

I don't actually believe there should be no change. I think health

insurance should be seriously reformed, but that creating 118 new

bureaucracies and making multitudes of new laws is not the way to go about

it.

My senators and rep are all dems. The rep doesn't listen but one of the

senators might; he's up for re-election next year.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of jwwright

Dr Grim,

My sens and reps are reps.

My AARP rep says nothing will change in Texas in MC and supplement plans.

They will increase in cost.

HEW appears to be able to place needed HC in areas where they find a grantee

(I'll call it that of want of a better name). There are no people I know of

that don't have HC, including migrant workers.

The ER's seem to be not crowded now, and HEW places are placed near those

ER's in the areas I visit.

So If an unwed mother can get into the hospital, have full coverage for her

and her baby including welfare afterward and food and diapers for the baby,

I'd say we have pretty good HC.

A removed step gdaughter adult, working, was admitted to Kingwood hospital

for 3 - 4 days for appendicitis review, and did not have insurance, eg.

So there is money available and I think it's the HEW can get funding without

going thru this seemingly terrible process.

And I think I agree with Val, that we don't need what they're proposing but

that's just based on what I see in Texas.

I can see any Dr that will admit MC patients, and if they don't I can still

go there if I want to pay, it seems.

However, no internist I can see in Livingston as easily as in Kingwood, 40

miles south. We've aghd 2 taht could not get their practice started. I

walked in yesterday, made an appt for today and saw a new internist. I

walked into a nephro today and filled out papers and made an appt for next

week, so the system we have works for me.

BUT, I have no major illnesses.

Standing in line to receive meds today, there were 6 people with 6 different

opinions including one that said congress is not authorized to collect

taxes. That gives you an idea of the training that must happen.

There was agreement the congress could not decide when to go to lunchand

both dems and reps wer crooks.

If I was a congressman, I'd have to side with the reps (no change) as it

stands now and for specific things needing fixing allocate that to HEW.

Regards

[Guest guest]

Of course, she was referring to OUR plans.

The " advantage " plans, tricky name right? Those I hear are disadvantaged in

the new house bill.

I think properly so. Several of these have folded over the years here, and

new ones reappear. A popular one is late in their payments to Dr's.

In Texas, we've had a long history of insurance fraud - I'd call it the

insurance fraud capital of the world, going abck to 1953.

Your wording is funny to me on illegals/legals and Muslims - Mexicans ARE

Christian.

There is an " air " of superiority/elitism in your tone that puzzles me.

Clearly the new bill is going to spend money - something we need to get us

out of the depression and if record keeping puts a lot of people to

work -THEY " LL be paying MC taxes and the MC fund will recover and progress.

We can only advance our way out of the depression by expanding jobs - it

takes money - deficit spending that we have already with 10% unemployment.

We can choose to have 4% if we want.

Now the bill to do that the right way, I dunno. I don't find anyone so far

that likes the house bill.

But there will be one eventually, and they will spend more money than they

take in - HOPEFULLY.

Deficit this year was 1.4 T (that was Bush's last fiscal year)? What was

conservative about that?

Regards

RE: Re: Doc choice

Actually, Americans are not replacing themselves. Only with illegal + legal

immigration is our growth rate at a replacement rate. I think the only

populations in the world that are reproducing faster than replacement are

the Muslims.

I find it interesting that your AARP rep says nothing will change except an

increase in price. That's been my point. It will cost dearly to have 118

new bureaucracies to control every aspect of medicine. Already, in the

stimulus bill, we have an agency forming to create a health record on every

American.

AARP would like to see this House bill pass because it will decrease the

attractiveness of Advantage plans (if not destroy them completely) and push

people into regular supp plans. That's where AARP makes its money.

Val

[Guest guest]

Don't hear too many complaints from Kasier. Tiped sad Send form miiPhone ;-)May your pressure be low!CE Grim MDSpecializing in DifficultHypertensionOn Dec 10, 2009, at 9:10 AM, Valarie <val@...> wrote:

I have no problem with a medical home if you're free to flee it. I don't want to get stuck in a situation

like my HMO where the sole object was to control costs and spread the profit at

the end of the month. My health was

of virtually no concern to the "medical home" (pod). The concept sounds wonderful but the $$

get in the way of medicine. "Capitation"

is an evil word. I learned how

Pacificare worked when my husband had lunch with the President while they were

in negotiations for the next contract.

At Mayo, I was stuck with Young who refused to discuss my symptoms,

insisting there were no symptoms other than those of low K. Had he been my gatekeeper, I would never

have gotten so far in figuring out what really is wrong with me.

Yes, I assume managed care is bad as I've not seen, heard nor

experienced anything to the contrary.

Show me an HMO where people are pleased and get good medical attention.

My niece is in Kaiser.

They had a carbon monoxide scare a while back and her young child

started twitching while sleeping. Its been going on for months. Kaiser says he's fine and it looks like

they're going to have to go outside to see and pay for a private

neurologist. In an idyllic managed

care situation, that is not supposed to happen.

Death isn't the worst thing to face. Dealing with an HMO is probably

worse.

Val

From: hyperaldosteronism

[mailto:hyperaldosteronism ] On Behalf Of Clarence Grim

Not if the concept is held up. If it is a true medical home

that knows all about you and integrates your care what could be better. Not

many tho. Even the great Mayo has problems?

On

Dec 9, 2009, at 9:41 PM, val1198 wrote:

My friend is a malpractice lawyer and

sues Kaiser several times a year. And that's just a small practice.

Kaiser is an HMO. I will die before ever again belonging to an HMO. The concept

of a medical care home = limits on freedom of choice.

Val

> Ah but you are assuming that all managed care is bad.

>

> Kaiser seems to do pretty good. The concept of a medical care home

is an excellent one as then you have a thinking team that knows you.