Seattle Doctors Try Flat-Rate, No-Limit Primary Care

Judged:

2

2

2

Skeptical Thinker wrote:

No one is waiting because they have more doctors and appointment slots than they need. Why do you think they are losing money? It's called inefficiency.

Judged:

2

1

1

GAPatriot65 wrote:

I would rather pay the suppliers of my medical services a monthly fee and not deal with insurance, than pay the insurance company and have them decide what they are willing to pay for.

Joe wrote:

<quoted text>
That works on costs up to a certain financial point then it doesn't work. Then what? You'll just dip into your savings for the major hospital stay? Or you'll pay them direct too? LOL.
That's like saying I'll pay to fix my own dishwasher and change my light bulbs. But what do you do if the house burns down?
California is our future under Obama and the Democrats, they're totally inept and clueless.

Judged:

1

1

david wrote:

See who needs the govt?

Judged:

1

1

1

PooPoo Platter wrote:

A creative entrepreneur has cobbled together a Rube Goldberg scheme as an alternative to dealing with insurance companies. Let's see how he does.
He reports losing money and having no waiting time to see a doctor. Most businesses would consider that excessive capacity and look to cut costs by laying off enough doctors and staff to eliminate the idle time.
But what the heck? Give him some time and let's revisit Dr Garrison Bliss and his merry band every so often to see how they're doing.

Judged:

1

1

1

GAPatriot65 wrote:

If you actually read the story - there are several doctors involved in the venture, and it only one of some 18 centers operating similiarly - but under varying business models.
You seem to know how to stick both feet in your mouth so far that your toes are sticking out your @$$.
But of course - you have to crap over anything that hasn't been endorsed by your beloved Obama. Keep on sucking away at that one - you may eventually get something for your blind devotion. Like herpes or something -
<quoted text>

Judged:

1

1

1

PooPoo Platter wrote:

<quoted text>
1) I read your little article, Gappy boy.
2) No doubt my response fixated far too much on the following sentence:
"...He said many costs are fixed so the firm, now losing money, will turn to profit as business grows..."
What part of "the firm, now losing money..." isn't taking root in the mush inside your skull?
The company is losing money! It's too early to say "Hey everybody, here's an alternative!"
I know you and your heroes at your precious Newsmax desperately want to say a publicly paid option is not necessary. Unfortunately, your private "solutions" cannot be money losers, or they won't attract investors. One of your 18 centers has to run in black ink. And the business plan must prove viable in a number of communities.
So let's see what Dr Bliss has to teach us, and take whatever is useful to other communities.

Mizz Bee Haven wrote:

So it's kind of like membership in a health club?

Judged:

1

1

1

Mizz Bee Haven wrote:

So it's kind of like membership in a health club?

Judged:

2

1

1

GAPatriot65 wrote:

Again oh whorish one - they just opened the center - so they are still building a clientele. What part of that can't penetrate your STD infested mind?
<quoted text>

PooPoo Platter wrote:

<quoted text>
Read slowly; maybe you'll grasp reality.
They're
losing
money.
It's
not
a
viable
alternative,
yet.

GAPatriot65 wrote:

Maybe you missed the part there are 18 other centers working on the same principal, just using different business structure.
It is viable
The Seattle location is only losing money because it just recently opened. Every business runs in the red the first year or so - some businesses don't become truly profitable till their third year.
It's obvious you haven't ever owned your own business or even managed one.
But I understand your failure to understand or accept this alternative. A liberal didn't think of it, nor did Obama bless it.
<quoted text>