Obamacare
Quote: SOOPOODoc.... you know that if you accept Medicare you only get paid 80% of the fee from the government and have to go after the remaining 20% from the patient... If you accept Medicaid, which now pays me FOURTEEN PERCENT of what real insurance pays, you are legally prevented from billing the difference. The same holds true for other government run 'insurances', like No Fault and Workman's Comp. They pay me around 30% of what real insurance pays, and I am forbidden from billing the patient the difference.
I didn't know the percentages, but I think I understood the principles. If you are prevented from billing the difference, and if you consider the 14% or 30% too low for your services, you are still permitted to decline that small percentage and bill the patient directly, are you not? I have known a few physicians who have declined to participate in Medicare, and it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few do not accept Medicaid. Do you just accept the low percentages from patients that you expect would not pay (or not be able to pay) themselves? Under that policy, it seems as if you would be choosing to receive small payments vs. going unpaid vs. declining to provide service. Accepting the lower percentage seems like a charitable service which you can provide or not. Some lawyers do pro bono work, too.
Quote: estebanreyAs a Brit I'll never understand the opposition to national healthcare you get from large parts of the American right wing. The thought of losing the NHS would scare the hell out of me. I also don't understand why the word 'socialism' is used as an pejorative word in the States either; where I'm from it's just a political viewpoint you can either agree or disagree with. Nor is it an all or nothing like a lot of [paranoid] Americans seem to be (from reading this thread), you can have 'socialised' healthcare alongside private healthcare, nor does having national healthcare mean you're suddenly going to turn into communist China.
Life and health are a human right and shouldn't be dependent on how rich you are. The NHS prioritises by need, the US health system seems to prioritise by the wealth of the patient which is wrong is my opinion.
The part about "prioritize by need" is the scary part. Who is to say who needs what more? To allow people to pay for what they want themselves is most fair. Why should I go without when I am inv to pay just because some burr rat somewhere says someone else 'needs' it more?
Socialism is a dirty word here because we know socialism destroys wealth and initiative while sapping freedom.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe part about "prioritize by need" is the scary part. Who is to say who needs what more? To allow people to pay for what they want themselves is most fair. Why should I go without when I am inv to pay just because some burr rat somewhere says someone else 'needs' it more?
"Prioritize" by ability to pay is also scary when it comes to healthcare. Who says you should have a bigger right to a better quality of life because your wallet is bigger? Why should I go with when I am able to pay something, just because some burr rat somewhere else has a more money, and says they can pay more?
It's moot though, as Obamacare isn't socialized healthcare. It's a Frankenstein's beast of a system that solves none of the problems and results in the problems that both private and government run healthcare have. It's quite remarkable in fact, that you could take the system you have (which is quite wasteful and inefficient already (*)) and actually make it worse.
(*) you can tell me all about the wonderful care, but the amount of money that goes to administration is the sort of shocking levels that would get some businesses shut down.
Quote: estebanreyNor is it an all or nothing like a lot of [paranoid] Americans seem to be (from reading this thread), you can have 'socialised' healthcare alongside private healthcare, nor does having national healthcare mean you're suddenly going to turn into communist China.
I think the main problem is that you have the government in Obamacare telling insurance companies what they can and can't offer me. Maybe I don't care if less than 85% of my premium dollars are going to actual healthcare.
I have an HSA plan right now that covers essentially none of the first $5000 of my medical expenses and as a result the premiums as compared to a PPO type plan are roughly $400 per month cheaper. I put those premium savings in my own HSA account and use the dollars to pay my out of pocket expenses. I shop for my medical care because I am paying for the first $5,000 each year. Some years are better than others and I can roll dollars over to the next year. Others not so great.
From what I have read, this HSA plan as is, will fail this 85% test and the insurance co. will have to change the plan to cover more care and as a result increase my premiums for the increased care coverage. I don't want that, I want coverage for catestrophic type stuff and I will bear the burden of the $5,000 per year. High deductible plan options are going to go away under Obamacare.
We need changes to the system as is. Portability of insurance is a key component that needs to be addressed. If you provide portability of insurance, the pre-existing condition problem will go away over time. Those with pre-existing conditions today need to have an option for insurance they can afford, not sure how that problem is solved but it needs to be.
But penalties for lack of insurance, forcing insurance companies to allow kids on their parents plan till age 26 (why is that so important again.....get them their own plan when they are healthy and young....what exactly is the gameplan for these "kids" when they turn 27, force the ins. co's to keep them on until they are 40!), telling a private insurance company how they are to spend their premium dollars, ect. some of the provisions of Obamacare are just not the right approach in my opinion
loopholes. Not gonna happen !
Quote: thecesspit"Prioritize" by ability to pay is also scary when it comes to healthcare. Who says you should have a bigger right to a better quality of life because your wallet is bigger? Why should I go with when I am able to pay something, just because some burr rat somewhere else has a more money, and says they can pay more?
It is called freedom and a free market. Why should you not get a house you want because you are outbid? Just because it is "health care" makes no difference.
Quote:(*) you can tell me all about the wonderful care, but the amount of money that goes to administration is the sort of shocking levels that would get some businesses shut down.
A decision for the stockholders, not the government.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is called freedom and a free market. Why should you not get a house you want because you are outbid? Just because it is "health care" makes no difference.
Well then, you get the short supply of a cancer drug before a 5 year old kid maybe. Donald Trump gets a heart, and some families 16 y/o kid dies waiting for one.
That's the party of mean, that I recognize.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is called freedom
How does the absence of options brought on by poverty equal the presence of freedom?
Quote: rxwineWell then, you get the short supply of a cancer drug before a 5 year old kid maybe. Donald Trump gets a heart, and some families 16 y/o kid dies waiting for one.
That's the party of mean, that I recognize.
Why should either of them go to the front of the line?
Quote: rdw4potusHow does the absence of options brought on by poverty equal the presence of freedom?
Freedom does not mean equal outcomes.
The ussr tried "to each according to his needs" and all they got was poverty and starvation.
Quote: AZDuffmanFreedom does not mean equal outcomes.
Sure, but it does mean equal access. Which is lacking from your system.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe ussr tried "to each according to his needs" and all they got was poverty and starvation.
Also, that's not all the USSR got. Some became incredibly wealthy while others got the poverty and starvation. Hey, that sounds familiar. What's happening here again??
Quote: AZDuffmanWhy should either of them go to the front of the line?
Romney should run on that idea. Show Donald Trump getting a heart while some kid dies, because Trump outbid the kid's family.
Normally, sickest get help first, even now.
Quote: rxwine
Normally, sickest get help first, even now.
Shhhhh...you're making too much sense! We shouldn't work to avoid needless suffering if there's a way to make more money via a different method!
Quote: estebanreyAs a Brit I'll never understand the opposition to national healthcare
How about this? 90% of the people in Scotland receive
more in benefits from the UK gov't than they pay in
taxes. How long do you think thats sustainable? How
long before you run out of other peoples money, as
Thatcher said. You talk about scared, thats pretty damn
scary.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is called freedom and a free market. Why should you not get a house you want because you are outbid? Just because it is "health care" makes no difference.
I would claim it does, and health care is a very different service than a house. And we are always going to disagree on that.
Quote:A decision for the stockholders, not the government.
Indeed, and there in lies the problem... you don't have the freedom from government interference for it to be a stockholder decision even in the current system. Plus health care is not a simple good where one dose of health care is equal to another at a later date. Time and outcomes are important. Much like a fire service, having access to health care NOW is different from having access in 6 months.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: estebanreyAs a Brit I'll never understand the opposition to national healthcare you get from large parts of the American right wing. The thought of losing the NHS would scare the hell out of me. I also don't understand why the word 'socialism' is used as an pejorative word in the States either; where I'm from it's just a political viewpoint you can either agree or disagree with. Nor is it an all or nothing like a lot of [paranoid] Americans seem to be (from reading this thread), you can have 'socialised' healthcare alongside private healthcare, nor does having national healthcare mean you're suddenly going to turn into communist China.
Life and health are a human right and shouldn't be dependent on how rich you are. The NHS prioritises by need, the US health system seems to prioritise by the wealth of the patient which is wrong is my opinion.
The part about "prioritize by need" is the scary part. Who is to say who needs what more?
Um medical science. A heart transplant gets done before an ingrowing toenail, it's not rocket science.
Quote: AZDuffmanTo allow people to pay for what they want themselves is most fair. Why should I go without when I am inv to pay just because some burr rat somewhere says someone else 'needs' it more?
'Some burr rat', nice to see your attitude to your fellow man.
Quote: AZDuffmanSocialism is a dirty word here because we know socialism destroys wealth and initiative while sapping freedom.
Sapping freedom? In the UK you can use the NHS or a private doctor/hospital. Seems to me we have more choice than you do there son.
Quote: EvenBobHow about this? 90% of the people in Scotland receive
more in benefits from the UK gov't than they pay in
taxes. How long do you think thats sustainable? How
long before you run out of other peoples money, as
Thatcher said. You talk about scared, thats pretty damn
scary.
That's not actually true but even it were what on earth has that got to do with national healthcare?
If you're willing to sign a waiver, then for like $39.95, some dude who sets up shop down at the local mall or 7-11 can do your surgery...or your dental work... Or your vasectomy.
The market is being constrained by trained professionals.
"Yes, all these kitchen knives have been washed. Put your balls on the bread board, thanx."
Quote: estebanreyThat's not actually true but even it were what on earth has that got to do with national healthcare?
Who do you think pays for the healtcare, peoples taxes
do. You can't give a huge number of people more in
benefits than you're getting in taxes from them, the
system will go broke.
This is what we're afraid of with Obamacare. My wife
got hurt on the job last year and went to the doctor
on Monday. She needed an MRI and got one on
Thursday. 3 day wait. In the UK, the average wait time
in 4-6 WEEKS for an MRI, and 3% of patients end up
waiting longer than the 18 weeks thats supposed to be
the maximum.
Why is god's name would we want this here? People in
the UK often die waiting for an MRI. But shit, its 'free'
so you can't really complain. What a crock.
Quote: estebanreyThat's not actually true but even it were what on earth has that got to do with national healthcare?
It only matters if the only source of taxation is income taxes. It isn't. The figure I saw quoted was 12%, and compared direct taxation to direct benefits.
Quote: EvenBobPeople in
the UK often die waiting for an MRI.
You know that an MRI isn't...ummm...medicine, right? It's a diagnostic tool...
Quote: DocI didn't know the percentages, but I think I understood the principles. If you are prevented from billing the difference, and if you consider the 14% or 30% too low for your services, you are still permitted to decline that small percentage and bill the patient directly, are you not? I have known a few physicians who have declined to participate in Medicare, and it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few do not accept Medicaid. Do you just accept the low percentages from patients that you expect would not pay (or not be able to pay) themselves? Under that policy, it seems as if you would be choosing to receive small payments vs. going unpaid vs. declining to provide service. Accepting the lower percentage seems like a charitable service which you can provide or not. Some lawyers do pro bono work, too.
I am not permitted to decline my services to those 'insured' patients. I can bill a totally uninsured patient my usual fee, but cannot bill a Medicaid patient anything. I do consider it as charity work, even though I am paid a small amount.
Quote: rdw4potusIt's a diagnostic tool...
Yesssssss, a vital tool that needs to be used
BEFORE the doctor can treat the patient. He
can just guess whats wrong, would that be
OK if you were the patient?
Quote: EvenBobYesssssss, a vital tool that needs to be used
BEFORE the doctor can treat the patient. He
can just guess whats wrong, would that be
OK if you were the patient?
It'd be OK with me during the period before the machine became available. Of course, I'd also like the Doc to use any of the myriad other diagnostic tools available to him during that time as well. And, finally, since machine availability is determined based on need and not on a first-come first-served basis, it seems unlikely that there are many fatalities as a result of the process.
Quote: rdw4potusIt'd be OK with me during the period before the machine became available..
OK then. He says you've got cancer and starts
chemo and in a month the MRI says you don't
have it. Sounds like responsible medicine to me.
You guys crack me up. Somebody else wants us
to lie on the gov't forms if we don't like the questions,
and you want doctors to start treatments without proper
diagnosis, all so you can get something you think
is 'free', and its not free at all. Amazing.
Quote: EvenBobOK then. He says you've got cancer and starts
chemo and in a month the MRI says you don't
have it. Sounds like responsible medicine to me.
The MRI isn't the only machine capable of making that determination. It's not even the best possible option, and it sure is expensive. But IF my doc thought I had cancer, the wait for the MRI wouldn't be a month. The cancer patients go to the front of the line, while your wife with her sore back gets to wait for a month. Triage is a real actual thing. And sometimes it isn't even based on ability to pay!
Quote: EvenBobWho do you think pays for the healtcare, peoples taxes
do. You can't give a huge number of people more in
benefits than you're getting in taxes from them, the
system will go broke.
Healthcare costs what it costs, it doesn't magically become more expensive if you collect the funds to pay for it through taxation rather than via personal insurance companies. If anything it becomes cheaper because you've cut out that middleman.
Do you think health insurance companies run at a loss? Of course not so whereas in your system you have to put enough money in to cover your healthcare AND to pay off the shareholders of your insurance company, we only have to pay what the health care costs are (via National insurance which is separate to income tax, something I feel you may be confused over).
As this chart shows, far more is spent in the US per patient and the medical records suggest you certainly aren't getting twice the results.....
http://blogs.ngm.com/.a/6a00e0098226918833012876a6070f970c-800wi
Your current system is already costing far more than it should and it suggests that the other countries are doing thing better no?
Quote: EvenBob
This is what we're afraid of with Obamacare. My wife
got hurt on the job last year and went to the doctor
on Monday. She needed an MRI and got one on
Thursday. 3 day wait. In the UK, the average wait time
in 4-6 WEEKS for an MRI, and 3% of patients end up
waiting longer than the 18 weeks thats supposed to be
the maximum.
Looking at waiting times in isolation is pointless until we know the urgency of the people having to wait 3-4 weeks. In a life or death situation you would get the MRI straight away, if it was a mere precaution then you wait (because god forbid people who have more urgent and worrying symptoms get checked out first).
But I'll say it again, if you want to pay for private healthcare and get the scan quicker you still can so I don't don't what you are 'scared' of. The existence of the NHS doesn't mean there is no private industry too.
Quote: EvenBob
Why is god's name would we want this here? People in
the UK often die waiting for an MRI. But shit, its 'free'
so you can't really complain. What a crock.
Now that's just scaremongering lies, let me guess they've come straight from a Tea Party convention. If anyone dies waiting for an MRI it would suggest whatever they had was going to kill them anyway, there's not a lot you can do with fatal brain injuries even once identified but the statement you've made is nothing more than propaganda.
You only have to look at survival rates of countries with natioanlised healthcare to see how well the perform and how silly this myth is of people dying left right and centre whilst waiting for operations.
And here's another table you should be interested in if fearing for your health is genuine.
Preventable Deaths for selected countries
http://www.allcountries.org/ranks/preventable_deaths_country_ranks_1997-1998_2002-2003_2008.html
And look, the US are bottom, France (universal healthcare) are top. Ergo, the US have a bad record for keeping people alive that should be.
But of course the well off to rich in the States know why these stats are like this, because they horde the best healthcare for themselves meaning it's the poorer people that are victims (and in turn drivers) of the statistics above. So they hide behind excuses like being scared of the 'cost' of universal health or fears of waiting times (forgetting that the short ones they cite only apply to the people that can afford it who are taking the place of poor people who can't even afford that scan even thought they need it).
Quote: rdw4potusThe MRI isn't the only machine capable of making that determination. It's not even the best possible option, and it sure is expensive. But IF my doc thought I had cancer, the wait for the MRI wouldn't be a month. The cancer patients go to the front of the line, while your wife with her sore back gets to wait for a month. Triage is a real actual thing. And sometimes it isn't even based on ability to pay!
So, once again the idea is "let someone choose who gets the care." News flash, under the current system in the USA it is even better, minimal if any MRI waits. But "equal access" types would rather we all wait a month than someone who can pay gets better service than someone who can't.
In other news The idea that Obamacare is not affecting employment "because it has not been fully implemented yet" took another blow today.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, once again the idea is "let someone choose who gets the care." News flash, under the current system in the USA it is even better, minimal if any MRI waits. But "equal access" types would rather we all wait a month than someone who can pay gets better service than someone who can't.
If no-one is waiting for MRIs at present, then it wouldn't matter what system is used to utilize the scarce resource, surely, as it obviously is not that scarce, and neither "payment" or "by need" or "physicians desire" matters. So no need for a link the Beatles.. that's not evidence ;)
The argument is better put that a pay-for system encourages the growth of MRI services into the healthcare space, which means costs decrease, and the number of providers increases, resulting in more provision of a formally scarce service/good.
Quote: AZDuffmanSo, once again the idea is "let someone choose who gets the care." News flash, under the current system in the USA it is even better, minimal if any MRI waits. But "equal access" types would rather we all wait a month than someone who can pay gets better service than someone who can't.
In other news The idea that Obamacare is not affecting employment "because it has not been fully implemented yet" took another blow today.
I wish people would stop making this silly argument.
The amount of people that need an MRI scan is not dependent on how it is paid for. Therefore simply having a "pay for" system can't make waiting times shorter by itself, the only factors that can make waiting times shorter are....
1) You buy more MRI machines
2) A number of people who need MRI's are taken out of the system and not given them
I suspect the US's waiting times are more do to with number 2 than number 1. If you have a large section of your society who are uninsured (or don't have the same level as cover as everyone else) then of course the rest get their scans quicker, but as the expense (and even lives) of the rest of your society.
And I'll say it again for the 1000th time, you can have universal healthcare alongside private healthcare. Instead of comparing the waiting times for an MRI scan in the US's private system with the NHS, why not compare it with the UK's private healthcare industry?
So if you can have universal health AND private healthcare it really means there is no argument against a drop in service and exposes opposition to it for what it really is. It's not about a fear of healthcare worsening (you only have to to look at global stats to show the US are hardly world leaders anyway) it's the greed and selfishness of not wanting to contribute to a system that benefits other people.
I find that very odd, the question "Why should I pay for someone else's healthcare" is very easy to answer and one that very few people would make in Europe.
Quote: thecesspitQuote: AZDuffmanSo, once again the idea is "let someone choose who gets the care." News flash, under the current system in the USA it is even better, minimal if any MRI waits. But "equal access" types would rather we all wait a month than someone who can pay gets better service than someone who can't.
If no-one is waiting for MRIs at present, then it wouldn't matter what system is used to utilize the scarce resource, surely, as it obviously is not that scarce, and neither "payment" or "by need" or "physicians desire" matters. So no need for a link the Beatles.. that's not evidence ;)
Not about "evidence" but a bit of satire as the supporters of Obamacare seem to prefer we all die of hunger than a few people can buy steak every night, some can buy steak a few nights but have hamburger on the others, and some can get hamburger every night but no steak. They are saying it right here. Like the "Seinfeld" episode where Elaine says, "it isn't fair restaurants serve who got there first, it should be who is hungriest!" they want to be able to decide who gets the care, where the money is spent.
"Sorry, guy with heart disease. You didn't eat what Michelle Obama said to eat, you do not get care. Come back if you catch a STD, we have care for that."
Quote: AZDuffman
"Sorry, guy with heart disease. You didn't eat what Michelle Obama said to eat, you do not get care.
You make a joke, but thats exactly whats going on.
Some fat black guy who smokes and gets sick goes
to the back of the line under Obamacare. He didn't
follow the health guidelines and can't expect the
gov't to pick up the tab because he's ill. Thats why
they want your race and weight and BP and age and
meds your on. They can't force a doctor to give them
that info, but they can threaten the doctor with non
payment if he doesn't get the info from the patient
voluntarily.
And the answer, according to people here is, not don't pass
these intrusive laws to begin with. No, their answer is
to lie on the forms you fill out, and if you have to wait
weeks or months till a diagnostic tool becomes available,
just have your doctor guess whats wrong and treat you
anyway. Attitudes like this would be laughable, if they
weren't so frightening.
Quote: thecesspitWell, seeing as you didn't flag that piece as "satire" but had "evidence" later, I thought I better make it clear you were trying to use 'satire' to make a point...
Fair enough. I am first to admit I have that dry sense of humor and some folks miss the point.
Quote: EvenBobYou make a joke, but thats exactly whats going on.
Some fat black guy who smokes and gets sick goes
to the back of the line under Obamacare. He didn't
follow the health guidelines and can't expect the
gov't to pick up the tab because he's ill. Thats why
they want your race and weight and BP and age and
meds your on. They can't force a doctor to give them
that info, but they can threaten the doctor with non
payment if he doesn't get the info from the patient
voluntarily.
And the answer, according to people here is, not don't pass
these intrusive laws to begin with. No, their answer is
to lie on the forms you fill out, and if you have to wait
weeks or months till a diagnostic tool becomes available,
just have your doctor guess whats wrong and treat you
anyway. Attitudes like this would be laughable, if they
weren't so frightening.
It already happens. Heart disease is at least part genetic and has a multitude of causes direct and indirect. It can be hard to avoid. AIDS is not at all genetic, has just three major points of transmission and is fairly easy to avoid. Which gets far more spending per capita on research for a cure?
Quote: AZDuffmanIt already happens. Heart disease is at least part genetic and has a multitude of causes direct and indirect. It can be hard to avoid. AIDS is not at all genetic, has just three major points of transmission and is fairly easy to avoid. Which gets far more spending per capita on research for a cure?
Because AIDS involves so many Gay people, its a very
politically correct disease. Heart disease is the opposite,
who cares about gramps, he shouldn't have eaten so
much bacon and smoked so many cig's in the 80's.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt already happens. Heart disease is at least part genetic and has a multitude of causes direct and indirect. It can be hard to avoid. AIDS is not at all genetic, has just three major points of transmission and is fairly easy to avoid. Which gets far more spending per capita on research for a cure?
The NHLBI (National Heart, Lung and Blood institute) for $ 3.1 Billion in funding last year, $1.8 Billion going to heart disease (and associated heart/pulomonary system issues), the rest is lung and blood. AIDS research got about the same amount ($3.1 Billion).
Number of new AIDS cases in the US in 2009 : 42,000 (about 33% are female)
Number of fatal cases of Coronary heart disease in 2006 : 182 per 100,000 -> 364,000 (assume 200 million adults in the US)
The good news about the last stat is it's seen a 25% decrease in the last 7 years.
I provide this just for your edification, as I was curious what the spending differential was.
You should look at the two budget appropriation documents for comparison, which may also suggest which one is getting the sexier communications done.
Per my divorce, I dropped from the ex's carrier in April. I went uninsured for a few months due to a paperwork SNAFU, but I got on my own plan around July. In September, I got a hellacious, I mean a real Christing bad, case of poison ivy. After 10 days of agony, and after it had spread everywhere except my head and feet, I went to the docs. No big deal.
About two weeks later I get a letter saying I owed a hundred and some odd dollars for "a preexisting condition", which wasn't covered. Excuse me?
After a bunch of calls, they said I need to send proof that I was previously covered under another insurance prior to the one I'm on (I already had to do this to get on it in the first place). So why do I need to do it again? What does it even matter? And since when in the name of all that's holy is poison freakin' ivy a "previously existing condition", one which I would had to have had in excess of 3 months to be "previously existing"?
Never had a med insurance issue in my life, this just stuck me as very, very queer (and insanely infuriating)
Obamacare doesn't fully kick in until 2014. I'm hoping to stay insured continuously until then because until then, insurance companies can still $*#& with you. I only wish there was a public option.Quote: FaceAnd since when in the name of all that's holy is poison freakin' ivy a "previously existing condition", one which I would had to have had in excess of 3 months to be "previously existing"?
Never had a med insurance issue in my life, this just stuck me as very, very queer (and insanely infuriating)
Quote: s2dbakerObamacare doesn't fully kick in until 2014. I'm hoping to stay insured continuously until then because until then, insurance companies can still $*#& with you. I only wish there was a public option.
So is that what this is, just Satan an insurance co. jerking me around?
Yes, Insurance companies have the right to deny you coverage in the first six months of the policy for any condition that is because of something other than getting hit by a bus. They will weasel out of paying for anything that isn't the most basic or routine ailment. After six months, you're good to go. When Obamacare fully kicks in, that six months of paying but not getting insurance thing goes away forever.Quote: FaceSo is that what this is, just Satan an insurance co. jerking me around?
Quote: s2dbakerYes, Insurance companies have the right to deny you coverage in the first six months of the policy for any condition that is because of something other than getting hit by a bus. They will weasel out of paying for anything that isn't the most basic or routine ailment. After six months, you're good to go. When Obamacare fully kicks in, that six months of paying but not getting insurance thing goes away forever.Quote: FaceSo is that what this is, just Satan an insurance co. jerking me around?
Correct, with the requisite increase in rates. You get what you pay for. I can't wait for the 'public option', and when people are surprised that doc's won't take it....
As I've stated before, if the 'public option' is anything like Medicaid or Medicare, the flood of docs to early retirement will strain an already strained system. Good luck trying to get an appointment with anything other than a 'clinic' with your 'public option' insurance.
..And if that happens, people will have the option to go back to private insurance. This is why it is called the public "option". I don't think that your prognostications are even close to reality.Quote: SOOPOOCorrect, with the requisite increase in rates. You get what you pay for. I can't wait for the 'public option', and when people are surprised that doc's won't take it....
With the public option, you get the option of not taking the public option, then you can go to see all of the retired doctors that you want.Quote: SOOPOOAs I've stated before, if the 'public option' is anything like Medicaid or Medicare, the flood of docs to early retirement will strain an already strained system. Good luck trying to get an appointment with anything other than a 'clinic' with your 'public option' insurance.
Quote: s2dbaker..And if that happens, people will have the option to go back to private insurance. This is why it is called the public "option". I don't think that your prognostications are even close to reality.With the public option, you get the option of not taking the public option, then you can go to see all of the retired doctors that you want.
Hopefully we never see the so called public option. Since when is the government supposed to be competing with private industry?
I wish these supporters of a public option would just pool their money and start a not for profit health coop. Or a mutual ownership where you get a refund of "dirty profits" at he end of the year. Leave my tax dollars out of it.
cost is now so high that it would be the biggest FUBAR
in recorded history.
Quote: s2dbaker..And if that happens, people will have the option to go back to private insurance. This is why it is called the public "option". I don't think that your prognostications are even close to reality.With the public option, you get the option of not taking the public option, then you can go to see all of the retired doctors that you want.
Private insurers will not be able to compete with the artificially price controlled public option. The goal, and, I believe if Obama is re-elected, the result will be the eventual dismantling of the private insurance system and a single payor system will take over, run by the feds. You can't hear 'the savings' that we will all experience when eventually the biggest public insurer, Medicare, is expanded to include all of us. It is the Democrat party way.... the government will do it for you.... For many who have little competance at managing their own lives the more the government controls is good... I am just not in that group....
Quote: EvenBobEven if Obamacare was ever implemented, the projected
cost is now so high that it would be the biggest FUBAR
in recorded history.
This will prove to be true..... Just the beginning part, a TINY part, of Obamacare, was the requirement that docs use Electronic Medical Records, to 'increase efficiency and thus cause the system savings'. Of course, the EMRs have allowed docs and hospitals to bill more efficiently, too, and thus now there is a greater cost to the feds who are sending threatening letters saying they are paying out much more so there must be increased fraud! I can't tell you how many extra boxes I have to check and initial to fulfill new federal 'SCIP" regulations, another minor part in the continuum that is Obamacare....
Quote: SOOPOOPrivate insurers will not be able to compete with the artificially price controlled public option..
Indeed, thats the goal. To so undercut the insurance
companies in price that they all eventually go under
and we're all stuck with crappy care.
