[jsherman999]

Right now in private industry a lot of jobs come with no-compete clauses, which restrict you from jumping ship to a competitor until some time period has passed after you leave your old job.

I'd be in favor of a law that puts a similar type of restriction in place for government officials, elected or appointed - you can't go work for a lobbying firm until 5 years have passed from your last government job.

Of course, then some trickery would be implemented to change the definition of 'lobbying firm'

[Nesster]

so if I was a hospital negotiating with an insurance co about rates, what is my walk-away price? I.e. at what point do I walk away from the business if the ins co doesn't give me enough money?

[jeffkrol]

Right now in private industry a lot of jobs come with no-compete clauses, which restrict you from jumping ship to a competitor until some time period has passed after you leave your old job.

I'd be in favor of a law that puts a similar type of restriction in place for government officials, elected or appointed - you can't go work for a lobbying firm until 5 years have passed from your last government job.

Of course, then some trickery would be implemented to change the definition of 'lobbying firm'

That already has happened.............

[graphicgr8s]

Right now in private industry a lot of jobs come with no-compete clauses, which restrict you from jumping ship to a competitor until some time period has passed after you leave your old job.

I'd be in favor of a law that puts a similar type of restriction in place for government officials, elected or appointed - you can't go work for a lobbying firm until 5 years have passed from your last government job.

Of course, then some trickery would be implemented to change the definition of 'lobbying firm'

Strangely I'd have to agree with you.

[Rondec]

so if I was a hospital negotiating with an insurance co about rates, what is my walk-away price? I.e. at what point do I walk away from the business if the ins co doesn't give me enough money?

Well, it depends on whether you are a for-profit hospital or not. For profit hospitals (usually tending to focus on a particular specialty like orthopedics or cardiac surgery) walk away from insurance companies all of the time and usually do not take care of Medicaid patients at all. Not for profit entities usually have to take government insurances (Medicaid and Medicare), regardless of the price. However, I have seen hospitals walk away from Anthem because they weren't offering what the hospitals thought was an adequate offer. Generally in such a situation, the hospital will be out of network for awhile, but eventually they do come to terms.

[jeffkrol]

Strangely I'd have to agree with you.

On an oddly related incident:

Has Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) turned the House Oversight Committee into a bank lobbying firm with the power to subpoena and pressure government regulators? ThinkProgress has found that a Goldman Sachs vice president changed his name, then later went to work for Issa to coordinate his effort to thwart regulations that affect Goldman Sachs’ bottom line.

Peter Haller, also known as Peter Simonyi, a former Goldman Sachs VP now working for Chairman Issa to block regulations on Goldman Sachs

Exclusive: Goldman Sachs VP Changed His Name, Now Advances Goldman Lobbying Interests As Top Staffer To Darrell Issa | ThinkProgress

[jeffkrol]

Well, it depends on whether you are a for-profit hospital or not. For profit hospitals (usually tending to focus on a particular specialty like orthopedics or cardiac surgery) walk away from insurance companies all of the time and usually do not take care of Medicaid patients at all. Not for profit entities usually have to take government insurances (Medicaid and Medicare), regardless of the price. However, I have seen hospitals walk away from Anthem because they weren't offering what the hospitals thought was an adequate offer. Generally in such a situation, the hospital will be out of network for awhile, but eventually they do come to terms.

The sad part is where is the "patients" in all of this??.. They are just a "revenue stream"............

[Rondec]

The sad part is where is the "patients" in all of this??.. They are just a "revenue stream"............

Only sort of. The focus of most healthcare providers is the health of their patients. This is true for nursing staff, physicians and other people. However, hospital administration does have a responsibility to see that the a healthcare facility doesn't lose money consistently, or it will go out of business. Equipment needs to be replaced, workers need to be paid and that money is going to come from taking care of patients.

If a hospital goes out of business due to inadequate "revenue stream," it is the patients who suffer as they lose a local option when it comes to their care,

[Tim R]

Comparing ObamaScare to the Republican plan is like comparing standard water to heavy water. They have similarities yes but the devil is in the details.

One is a necessity. One can kill you.

Heavy water is water in which the normal hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium, a form of hydrogen which has two protons instead of just one. Pure heavy water is about 11% more dense than ordinary water (which naturally contains a small amount of heavy water). Heavy water is not radioactive. A small amount of heavy water is naturally present in our bodies. Heavy water can kill you, but only in relatively large quantities; a few glasses would probably be fine. However ordinary water will also kill you in excessive quantities, by thinning the blood or by entering the lungs and prohibiting oxygen exchange. So, water is a necessity, and naturally contains small amounts of heavy water, and they are both quite capable of killing you.

I find American attitudes to healthcare incomprehensible. In Britain the NHS provides healthcare free at the point of service to all, based on need not ability to pay. This is a basic safety net so that the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable should never be denied healthcare. This makes our society stronger and better, more unified. The rich and the strong benefit through the wider gains that society as a whole makes.

I'm sure Obamacare has allowed some people to profit unfairly; I'm sure the NHS does too -- no system is perfect or free from corruption or unethical behaviour. Of course we should try to rid ourselves of such behaviour, but perhaps we also need to accept that some such behaviour is inevitable. I'm sure that the current system which allows private American healthcare providrs and insurers to make vast profits isn't free from unethical self-interested behaviour.

I fear that this may sound like the ravings of a dangerous socialist hardliner to American ears.

[graphicgr8s]

Heavy water is water in which the normal hydrogen atoms are replaced with deuterium, a form of hydrogen which has two protons instead of just one. Pure heavy water is about 11% more dense than ordinary water (which naturally contains a small amount of heavy water). Heavy water is not radioactive. A small amount of heavy water is naturally present in our bodies. Heavy water can kill you, but only in relatively large quantities; a few glasses would probably be fine. However ordinary water will also kill you in excessive quantities, by thinning the blood or by entering the lungs and prohibiting oxygen exchange. So, water is a necessity, and naturally contains small amounts of heavy water, and they are both quite capable of killing you.

I find American attitudes to healthcare incomprehensible. In Britain the NHS provides healthcare free at the point of service to all, based on need not ability to pay. This is a basic safety net so that the weakest, poorest and most vulnerable should never be denied healthcare. This makes our society stronger and better, more unified. The rich and the strong benefit through the wider gains that society as a whole makes.

I'm sure Obamacare has allowed some people to profit unfairly; I'm sure the NHS does too -- no system is perfect or free from corruption or unethical behaviour. Of course we should try to rid ourselves of such behaviour, but perhaps we also need to accept that some such behaviour is inevitable. I'm sure that the current system which allows private American healthcare providrs and insurers to make vast profits isn't free from unethical self-interested behaviour.

I fear that this may sound like the ravings of a dangerous socialist hardliner to American ears.

You can drink water every day and it is of course healthy in many aspects. (Soda is still way better for you of course.) You can drink water all you want and it's just fine. Heavy water however is a different story.

When a large fraction of water (> 50%) in higher organisms is replaced by heavy water, the result is cell dysfunction and death

We aren't getting a small percentage of obamacare so the comparison John made is accurate.

One study likens the effects to those suffered by chemotherapy patients. Heavy water toxicity manifests itself when about 50% of the water in the body has been replaced by D2O. Prolonged heavy water consumption can cause death.