U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2008, 03:48 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,178 posts, read 10,088,113 times
Reputation: 9620

Advertisements

Hmmmm, Stargazer - then we should make rules like in other states, where restaurants can't sell trans-fat food items? Doesn't that give government too much dictation over peoples' lives - under the guise of 'saving' them?

SC has been going back and forth on smoking bans, and one of the main contentions is that it will lower insurance rates for COPDs and other breathing illnesses, even cancer. Now there is a new movement to ban red meat from restaurants, saying that it increases heart attacks and insurance premiums.

Isn't the problem not so much the people who indulge in "vices" like smoking, red meat, and helmetless driving, but 1) the costs of the uninsured or underinsured being added on to the bills of the insured for payment, as well as 2) the high cost of the medical community being forced (if they want payment) to go through approved procedures for treatment, whether or not the physician feels that they are necessary or not? What about insurers who will not cover surgeries, etc, without several opinions and patient evaluations (and no I'm not talking about elective surgery or unproven new treatments, but every day non-emergent surgeries like hip replacements, etc.)? If an xray shows a broken or severely degenerated hip or knee, why does it take so long and so many evaluations for insurance companies to agree to pay for the surgery? Doesn't all of that add up to far more than emergency and definitive treatment for accidents? Somehow a $5 tylenol pill in a hospital to recoup hospital costs for uninsured patients just doesn't add up, when you can buy a bottle for that much at the pharmacy next door.

Sorry, but it took three years for enough doctors to agree for hubby to get a rotator cuff surgery, two years to get a crushed spine rebuilt, and another three years to get needed surgery on his hip where they found that a 1" broken-off chip of bone was rotating inside the joint. He had to go thru anywhere from 4 to six docs each time, and xrays, MRIs, etc for each doctor throughout those years - just so he could get the surgeries and the docs could all get paid. Not to mention extended physical therapy required for the muscles that degenerated while he was waiting, extended work that had to be done because the injuries continued to impact the surrounding tissues and bones while the doctors deliberated, and the ongoing lifetime medication and treatment that he will need due to the fact that the surgeries were postponed for so long that everything - joints and muscles - degenerated while everyone was chiming in with their opinions? Doesn't that seem considerably more wasteful of insurance dollars, just on one patient?

It just seems to me that it is the insurance companies and procedures that need to be revamped, not to encourage more legislation that restricts people's activities and choices, and lets insurance companies and hospitals and doctors continue to operate as they please, or as dictated by the insurance companies.

Last edited by SCGranny; 01-24-2008 at 03:58 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2008, 08:41 AM
 
Location: west Omaha
475 posts, read 2,122,527 times
Reputation: 207
Smoking participants on my employers group plan are already paying more towards the pot... however, that still isn't sheltering me from the costs they incurr. If a proportion of those participants are hospitalized with emphysema/lung cancer... my rates still go up to compensate for it. I want to be on an entirely separate non-smokers plan... legally exempted from subsidizing any of the losses which the insurer has to cover resulting from smoking related health problems. In the end... the exorbitantly high premiums those high risk individuals end up paying will naturally motivate those people to move to the non-smoking health plan.

And I don't think we stand any better chance 're-vamping' the insurance companies... than we do passing legislation to 'fix it'. Most of what I say here is simply wishful thinking. Of course I know nothing will ever change... and healthcare costs will continue to spiral beyond our means to pay for it.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2008, 09:56 AM
 
Location: Nebraska
4,178 posts, read 10,088,113 times
Reputation: 9620
Absolutely I agree with the separation. I don't want to have to fund a lot of the people I've worked on in EMS in the past; grossly overweight, adult-onset diabetes, heavy drinkers and smokers who refuse to exercise or take care of themselves, who cannot or will not contribute anything to the society or even to their own health. But you are also right that it is a dream to get that kind of separation, or anything close to it!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2008, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Central Nebraska
1,821 posts, read 4,864,703 times
Reputation: 5084
I found this bill to be interesting, concerning merger of Scottsbluff and Gering.
Omaha.com Metro/Region Section
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2008, 01:53 PM
 
Location: Papillion
2,589 posts, read 9,967,336 times
Reputation: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpabes View Post
I found this bill to be interesting, concerning merger of Scottsbluff and Gering.
Omaha.com Metro/Region Section
That was interesting... funny, they indicated the biggest issue would be the new name...
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2008, 06:48 PM
 
Location: Central Nebraska
1,821 posts, read 4,864,703 times
Reputation: 5084
Yeah, good to see them being so cooperative. I would like to see Scottsbluff stay in the name because of the monument. I see no problem with Scottsbluff-Gering, there are crazier names out there.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Nebraska
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top