<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Healthcare</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ian.sundermedia.com/2009/09/healthcare/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ian.sundermedia.com/2009/09/healthcare/</link>
	<description>Science is wicked fun</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 23:49:35 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: woogychuck</title>
		<link>http://ian.sundermedia.com/2009/09/healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-487</link>
		<dc:creator>woogychuck</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:40:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ian.sundermedia.com/?p=67#comment-487</guid>
		<description>@Michael Longver:

As far as medicare goes, it's a bit of a 2 way street. The average American does shoulder more than their fair share of medicare costs, but in many ways medicare suffers from the same problems that face private insurers, mostly malpractice. One thing we can likley both appreciate is that about 300 pages of the current bill focus on increasing the efficiency of medicare.

I agree with you on your second point, and so does most of the US. If memory serves me, recent polls show that only 24% of Americans feel that the government is doing well. That means both liberals and conservatives can agree that our politicians are useless. With a few exceptions, the Bush Administration didn't accomplish much for long-term improvement. Even now,  the Executive and Legislative branches are Democrat controlled and the Judicial branch is pretty evenly split, and change is stagnant.

Politicians care more about making their opponents look bad and winning elections than serving their constituents.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Michael Longver:</p>
<p>As far as medicare goes, it&#8217;s a bit of a 2 way street. The average American does shoulder more than their fair share of medicare costs, but in many ways medicare suffers from the same problems that face private insurers, mostly malpractice. One thing we can likley both appreciate is that about 300 pages of the current bill focus on increasing the efficiency of medicare.</p>
<p>I agree with you on your second point, and so does most of the US. If memory serves me, recent polls show that only 24% of Americans feel that the government is doing well. That means both liberals and conservatives can agree that our politicians are useless. With a few exceptions, the Bush Administration didn&#8217;t accomplish much for long-term improvement. Even now,  the Executive and Legislative branches are Democrat controlled and the Judicial branch is pretty evenly split, and change is stagnant.</p>
<p>Politicians care more about making their opponents look bad and winning elections than serving their constituents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Longver</title>
		<link>http://ian.sundermedia.com/2009/09/healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-486</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Longver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:13:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ian.sundermedia.com/?p=67#comment-486</guid>
		<description>Some of your other ideas are good. I just don't trust our government. Republican or Democrat to do the right thing with our money. Fix Medicare, Soc Sec and the Post office then people might be interested in listening. But right now if you trust a government that couldn't even run a simple cash for clunkers program with 1/6 of the economy your making a fools bet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some of your other ideas are good. I just don&#8217;t trust our government. Republican or Democrat to do the right thing with our money. Fix Medicare, Soc Sec and the Post office then people might be interested in listening. But right now if you trust a government that couldn&#8217;t even run a simple cash for clunkers program with 1/6 of the economy your making a fools bet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael Longver</title>
		<link>http://ian.sundermedia.com/2009/09/healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-485</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Longver</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:09:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ian.sundermedia.com/?p=67#comment-485</guid>
		<description>See the problem with government providing a public option is problem. Let’s take Medicare for example. The government because of its shortfall in money only pays hospitals and doctors so many cents on a dollar. How do you think these hospitals and doctors make up the difference? You! You’re paying more for healthcare because of programs like Medicare. So how can an insurance company compete with someone who just doesn’t play be the same rules?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>See the problem with government providing a public option is problem. Let’s take Medicare for example. The government because of its shortfall in money only pays hospitals and doctors so many cents on a dollar. How do you think these hospitals and doctors make up the difference? You! You’re paying more for healthcare because of programs like Medicare. So how can an insurance company compete with someone who just doesn’t play be the same rules?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian</title>
		<link>http://ian.sundermedia.com/2009/09/healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-484</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ian.sundermedia.com/?p=67#comment-484</guid>
		<description>Details on point #2. Here's a plan I would propose that serves employers, employees and insurers.
Step 1. The employer negotiates a discount rate based on the number of people they insure (Say 10%).
Step 2. The employer chooses a fixed dollar amount to contribute for single and family plans.
Step 3. The employee can choose any plan offered by the insurer. The employee subtracts the discount and employer contribution and responsible for the remainder.

This allows the employee to choose an appropriate plan (HMO, PPO, HSA) without raising costs for the employer. It's also reasonable to assume that a few employees will want better coverage, allowing the insurer to make more money than they would providing a base plan to everybody. As far as I can tell, it's a win-win-win kind of scenario.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Details on point #2. Here&#8217;s a plan I would propose that serves employers, employees and insurers.<br />
Step 1. The employer negotiates a discount rate based on the number of people they insure (Say 10%).<br />
Step 2. The employer chooses a fixed dollar amount to contribute for single and family plans.<br />
Step 3. The employee can choose any plan offered by the insurer. The employee subtracts the discount and employer contribution and responsible for the remainder.</p>
<p>This allows the employee to choose an appropriate plan (HMO, PPO, HSA) without raising costs for the employer. It&#8217;s also reasonable to assume that a few employees will want better coverage, allowing the insurer to make more money than they would providing a base plan to everybody. As far as I can tell, it&#8217;s a win-win-win kind of scenario.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul LeBlond</title>
		<link>http://ian.sundermedia.com/2009/09/healthcare/comment-page-1/#comment-483</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul LeBlond</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2009 14:22:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ian.sundermedia.com/?p=67#comment-483</guid>
		<description>Hey Ian, long time no see. So I will start with this "I am in no way or form an expert on healthcare reform and until recently never gave it much thought" I myself rarely see my doctors unless something is wrong. So... I agree with most of what you had to say except one part.

Hospitals ARE required by law to treat illnesses and injuries regardless of severity. But the hospital system was never designed to be a long term treatment center. This is what PCP or (Primare Care Physicians) are for. To break it down simply, If you show up in the Emergency Room because you are having an asthma attack you are treated. Does that make the ER dock your PCP? of course not. You are instructed to see one at the end of your visit. You are usually prescribed medication to assist. I would call that treatment, wouldnt you?

And if you have another attack you can go back to the ER and they have to legally see you. Again, treatment. 

Is it a perminant solution? Of course not. However your use of the word treatment was a little confusing. They are legally bound to see you but are not long term solutions. Never designed to be that.

Again, I may be wrong and will be the first to apologize if I am but I know many people in the medical field and I do believe that what I stated above is true. Correct me if I am wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey Ian, long time no see. So I will start with this &#8220;I am in no way or form an expert on healthcare reform and until recently never gave it much thought&#8221; I myself rarely see my doctors unless something is wrong. So&#8230; I agree with most of what you had to say except one part.</p>
<p>Hospitals ARE required by law to treat illnesses and injuries regardless of severity. But the hospital system was never designed to be a long term treatment center. This is what PCP or (Primare Care Physicians) are for. To break it down simply, If you show up in the Emergency Room because you are having an asthma attack you are treated. Does that make the ER dock your PCP? of course not. You are instructed to see one at the end of your visit. You are usually prescribed medication to assist. I would call that treatment, wouldnt you?</p>
<p>And if you have another attack you can go back to the ER and they have to legally see you. Again, treatment. </p>
<p>Is it a perminant solution? Of course not. However your use of the word treatment was a little confusing. They are legally bound to see you but are not long term solutions. Never designed to be that.</p>
<p>Again, I may be wrong and will be the first to apologize if I am but I know many people in the medical field and I do believe that what I stated above is true. Correct me if I am wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
