Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='dmaul1114']It's a tough issue for me on some levels.

But really, in the end it comes down to the fact that health insurance shouldn't be a big profit industry. It should be essentially a non-profit giving people medical care that every human being should have access to. And premiums should be at the point to just cover expenses and save up some money to have a nest egg for rainy days and unexpected increases in costs etc.

And the bigger part is cutting down health care, which has also become all about money and getting rich vs. doing the job to help people, and thus you have a lot of unecessary surgerys and other procedures done just to put more insurance money in the doctors pocket, vs. saving expensive procedures for last resorts when all other cheaper options have been exhausted.

So honestly, I don't have much problem with a public option that drives costs down. Insurance shouldn't be about multi million or billion dollar profits making the executives super rich. It should be about running a system that gives every working person affordable access to health care with premiums set at a level to operate at a small profit.

Though I do understand the skepticism people have about the ability of the government to do that.

My only concern is to do it right and get a system that works like Frances, and not get a system that is bogged down like Canada's and some other countries. Though honestly, I'm willing to put up with longer waits on non-emergency care if it means more people have access to health care.[/QUOTE]

So do you believe that once people in the medical industry are not making nearly as much as they are (which would have to happen if what you said came to pass), we'd still have enough people wanting to go to 12 years of school to be in that field to provide good care?

It's a serious question. I honestly don't know the answer.

It's a careful juggle; of course there are always going to be people that are truly altruistic, will sacrifice, and want to help people for whatever pay. But how many people will leave or not enter the medical fields once it's really not nearly as lucrative?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So do you believe that once people in the medical industry are not making nearly as much as they are (which would have to happen if what you said came to pass), we'd still have enough people wanting to go to 12 years of school to be in that field to provide good care?

It's a serious question. I honestly don't know the answer.

It's a careful juggle; of course there are always going to be people that are truly altruistic, will sacrifice, and want to help people for whatever pay. But how many people will leave or not enter the medical fields once it's really not nearly as lucrative?[/QUOTE]

I think they should be paid well enough to make it worth their while so we get talented people doing it. But still, the best doctors are the ones who do it for reasons other than money. But I still think you'd get good people doing it. Look at a Academia--tons of talented people getting paid less (and often working more hours) than they could get in the private sector. As long as the pay is pretty good, you're still going to get talented folks. Not everyone is some sheer capitalist out to minimize work and maximize income. But everyone wants to make a comfortable living.

But the main issue is just not jumping right into expensive treatments just because they want to make money, or to make money for their surgeon friend etc., more so than how much a procedure costs. Though things need to be done to standardize costs of procedures--it's ridiculous how insurance in one state will get billed several times the cost of the same procedure in another state etc.

So my point is more we need to stop jumping right to say a shoulder surgery without first trying massage and physical therapy etc. Expensive procedures should rarely be the first option unless it's and emergency that can definitely not be treated effectively another way.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']That was a horrible analogy for Obama to make. The Post Office loses billions per quarter and plans to lose 7 billion in the next year, all trying to just compete with FedEx and UPS. That should speak volumes for how efficient government runs anything.[/QUOTE]

Police and fire departments are constantly losing money. Neither is a financially profitable service. Should we hand them over to the private sector?
 
[quote name='HowStern']Police and fire departments are constantly losing money. Neither is a financially profitable service. Should we hand them over to the private sector?[/QUOTE]

Exactly. A lot of public services aren't going to be profitable. They're just basic services that most think a government should provide to their citizens.

I think Health Care should fall under that type of service, but other's don't and I'm not too interested in debating the issue as it's just one of those pointless internet debates about as much fun as banging my head on a brick wall.
 
[quote name='HowStern']Police and fire departments are constantly losing money. Neither is a financially profitable service. Should we hand them over to the private sector?[/QUOTE]

Then tell the people how much it is actually going to cost. Don't lie to us with these unrealistic, lowball estimates that even your own Congressional Budget Office says are bullcrap.

Be truthful to us and let us decide. Let us ask questions and give us answers - not yell at us like a raving mad-man. And actually let people ask real questions - don't bus 11 year old daughters of major campaign contributors to ask about the "mean signs".
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Then tell the people how much it is actually going to cost. Don't lie to us with these unrealistic, lowball estimates that even your own Congressional Budget Office says are bullcrap.

Be truthful to us and let us decide. Let us ask questions and give us answers - not yell at us like a raving mad-man. And actually let people ask real questions - don't bus 11 year old daughters of major campaign contributors to ask about the "mean signs".[/QUOTE]

This is what kills me. American citizens priorities are fucked.

It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent. It's tax money well spent. Where as we throw more money down the drain supporting Israel - we are currently giving them $7m a day and growing - and no one says boo, no one asks how much it's costing us, no one holds a protest, not even a crappy sharpie+cardboard sign.

No one has a clue what kind of ridiculous shit we spend our money on and all the sudden something comes along that will actually benefit a huge chunk of the population and everyone is clinging to their wallets.
 
[quote name='HowStern']
It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent..[/QUOTE]
:hot:
:roll:
Well if anyone had any question as to why there is debate about this, that about sums it up.
/thread
 
[quote name='HowStern']This is what kills me. American citizens priorities are fucked.

It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent. It's tax money well spent. Where as we throw more money down the drain supporting Israel - we are currently giving them $7m a day and growing - and no one says boo, no one asks how much it's costing us, no one holds a protest, not even a crappy sharpie+cardboard sign.

No one has a clue what kind of ridiculous shit we spend our money on and all the sudden something comes along that will actually benefit a huge chunk of the population and everyone is clinging to their wallets.[/QUOTE]

If you want to start a campaign to stop sending "$7m/day" to Israel and, instead, use that money on a public heath care system, I wouldn't complain (too much).

But that's not what's being done. We're just stacking more and more spending with little to no cuts. At some point, we're going to have to pay all of this back or the Federal Government is going to fail. When that happens, health insurance will be the least of your worries.

And - if it "doesn't matter" how much it's going to cost... then tell us.
 
[quote name='HowStern']This is what kills me. American citizens priorities are fucked.[/quote]

Some of them, that and the fact people like Bob don't have any "real" questions but are are just JAQing off.

It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent. It's tax money well spent.
Click to expand...

If we spend say an extra percentage point of GDP than we do now but cover everyone it can rightly be considered a success.

It has been pointed that we spend much, much more on healthcare than countries that cover everyone (one of the reasons why we spend so much is TO DENY PEOPLE CARE) and when costs come into question those doing the questioning either ignore that fact altogether or focus exclusively on how much it would cost the government throwing any real definition of cost out the window.

No one has a clue what kind of ridiculous shit we spend our money on and all the sudden something comes along that will actually benefit a huge chunk of the population and everyone is clinging to their wallets.
Click to expand...

Not everyone, just a relatively small amount of those who are on an ideological jihad.
 
I guess if you consider "relatively small" the majority according to Rasmussen polling data. If Obamacare was voted on today in a national poll it would lose pretty badly according to the sampled data available.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

As of today,
53% oppose Obamacare
42% favor Obamacare

So the minority is currently those who think it is a good idea.


No one said the population is in favor of spending money on other ridiculous shit. But in most of those cases the money spent will have little impact on our day to day lives. Obamacare has the potential to have massive negative impact on our day to day lives for various reasons mentioned over and over. For those of us satisfied with our healthcare (again, the majority), why should we not taking a stand against it?

I plan to take a similar stand against Cap and Trade if that ever gets going in the senate for similar reasons.
 
That's a ridiculous poll as 85% probably don't even know what "Obama Care" is . (FYI- it's a right wing talking point). It shows lack of support for THIS plan, not health care reform in general.

Anyone who has spent a few years in the real world knows that people who are satisfied with their current plan are living in a dream world. The current model means that plans change yearly. Hell I've liked my plan at times and it has always changed because of cost into something crappier. Making a stand based on how your life is now, with no thought to the future is dumb, plain and simple.

Sitting and doing nothing also the potential to have massive negative impact.
 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
---
Now let me tell a little story.

A woman I work with has been really stressed lately and I didn't know why.

She finally opened up to me the other day and told me the cause was her sons recent major surgery.

The insurance company pre-approved everything and they went through with it, he is doing fine now.

A month or so after the surgery however she started getting bills, they paid the surgeon but apparently expected him to the perform the operation in the waiting room as they didn't cover the anesthesia or the cost of the operating theater. They also started to try and claim it was elective even though more than one doctor stated it was absolutely necessary.

She said she might have to go bankrupt if things don't get reversed.
---

There are people in this thread arguing that we cannot do what basically every other wealthy industrialized country does.

Now it certainly is true that America has its share of abjectly stupid people (just look at certain posters in this thread) just as it is true that other systems aren't perfect but other systems do not pay anywhere as much as we do for the privilege of denying care even to those who have in all fairness paid for it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If you want to start a campaign to stop sending "$7m/day" to Israel and, instead, use that money on a public heath care system, I wouldn't complain (too much).

But that's not what's being done. [/QUOTE]

Exactly my point. Ok say you are a 15 year old kid. Your mom is the government. Your neighbor is Israel. A new car is health insurance.

Your mom keeps taking your money and giving it to your neighbor. She then offers you a new car but says it will cost more money. Instead of demanding she stop supporting the neighbor with your money you instead start making signs saying "No new car! Your car makes me sick! I don't want Omamacar"

Sounds stupid right?

People are protesting the wrong things. There's no prioritization.
 
Kind of a passing observer right now, but...[quote name='Ruined']For those of us satisfied with our healthcare (again, the majority)....[/QUOTE]
Wait, what the fuck?

I mean, that may be true, but that don't really follow from what you just said...
 
[quote name='HowStern']Exactly my point. Ok say you are a 15 year old kid. Your mom is the government. Your neighbor is Israel. A new car is health insurance.

Your mom keeps taking your money and giving it to your neighbor. She then offers you a new car but says it will cost more money. Instead of demanding she stop supporting the neighbor with your money you instead start making signs saying "No new car! Your car makes me sick! I don't want Omamacar"

Sounds stupid right?

People are protesting the wrong things. There's no prioritization.[/QUOTE]

Actually, if it meant the new car was going to make my mother go bankrupt and have to sell me and the rest of her children off to the Chinese as slave labor to pay her bills, I'd rather not have the new car. :p

Again, find me a Democratic (or Republican or whatever) proposal that comes forward with a public option for health care that isn't paid for by raising taxes - instead is paid for by cutting spending elsewhere - then we can discuss that.
 
[quote name='Ruined']I guess if you consider "relatively small" the majority according to Rasmussen polling data. If Obamacare was voted on today in a national poll it would lose pretty badly according to the sampled data available.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

As of today,
53% oppose Obamacare
42% favor Obamacare

So the minority is currently those who think it is a good idea.


No one said the population is in favor of spending money on other ridiculous shit. But in most of those cases the money spent will have little impact on our day to day lives. Obamacare has the potential to have massive negative impact on our day to day lives for various reasons mentioned over and over. For those of us satisfied with our healthcare (again, the majority), why should we not taking a stand against it?

I plan to take a similar stand against Cap and Trade if that ever gets going in the senate for similar reasons.[/QUOTE]

You only conjur up data when it's public opinion polls, but as has been demonstrated, the public are morons who believe Jesus is real; 17% believe that their weight is not a problem in a country where 2 out of every 3 are overweight; and a very small margin can name our current secretary of state (let alone other positions).

While the fearmongering, "death panels," "rationing," "cost," and other purely speculative arguments have motivated the whackjob base of people against Health Care Reform ("Obamacare?" Really? Talk like a fucking grown up if you want respect, ok?), it's rather quite simple: those people who you and your ilk have pushed to be against health care reform have been lied to and led under false pretenses to come to the same conclusion as you.

So you're "the majority," but shame on you (and you know you deserve it) because you and yours are incapable of having a single reasonable debate on why the health care system should be left in private hands.

Your deception has gained support. Additionally, taking "53% oppose health care reform" to mean "53% are fine with their health care policy as is" shows the degree of statistical illiteracy you have such that you shouldn't be allowed to debate at all. Go back to dragging a comb through "blogs" and "op-eds" for evidence, since you clearly can't handle statistics.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So do you believe that once people in the medical industry are not making nearly as much as they are (which would have to happen if what you said came to pass), we'd still have enough people wanting to go to 12 years of school to be in that field to provide good care?

It's a serious question. I honestly don't know the answer.

It's a careful juggle; of course there are always going to be people that are truly altruistic, will sacrifice, and want to help people for whatever pay. But how many people will leave or not enter the medical fields once it's really not nearly as lucrative?[/QUOTE]

One of the biggest barriers to medicine is the education cost. A doctor runs up $250K of debt just to work 120 hours a week for two years.

If government is controlling medicine, they can make medical education free for a commitment to practice medicine for X number of years. They already do this to push doctors into disadvantaged areas. The number of doctors will increase while the quality of doctors might increase. Price is a function of supply and demand. An increase of supply with no increase in demand drops price.

The other big barrier to medicine is malpractice insurance. MotherofCaitlyn's OBGYN retreated to Indiana due to high malpractice premiums in Kentucky. In a government controlled environment, people are suing the government only if the government allows it. Realistically, a person crippled by a doctor's mistake would simply be moved to government disability instead of lengthy, costly contingency trials.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Kind of a passing observer right now, but...
Wait, what the fuck?

I mean, that may be true, but that don't really follow from what you just said...[/QUOTE]

My co-worker was satisfied with her healthcare until she was on her way to joining the sixty some odd percent of those who go bankrupt due to medical bills (nearly 80% of whom had insurance).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You only conjur up data when it's public opinion polls, but as has been demonstrated, the public are morons who believe Jesus is real;[/QUOTE]

Guess that explains why Obama was voted in to begin with. And Bush. Twice.

...we're really screwed, aren't we?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']In a government controlled environment, people are suing the government only if the government allows it. [/QUOTE]

While I'm all for Tort Reform, this right here is a scary thought.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']they can make medical education free for a commitment to practice medicine for X number of years. [/QUOTE]

19_tvland_quirky_turkey_northern_exposure.jpg


youve sold me, obamacare will work, joel hasnt let me down yet.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']One of the biggest barriers to medicine is the education cost. A doctor runs up $250K of debt just to work 120 hours a week for two years.
[/QUOTE]

A partial solution to that would be federal loans for med school that are forgiven if the person works X number of years in a hospital etc. (vs. private practice) and so on.
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']
If government is controlling medicine, they can make medical education free for a commitment to practice medicine for X number of years. They already do this to push doctors into disadvantaged areas. The number of doctors will increase while the quality of doctors might increase. Price is a function of supply and demand. An increase of supply with no increase in demand drops price.
[/QUOTE]

Yep. And they do similar things with excusing student loans of people who become teachers in some areas.

Just say they have to practice for X number of years in hospitals and other high need areas before going into private practice and the loans can be forgiven and pay could be a bit lower.

But again the real issue is getting the costs of procedures, lab work etc. down and cutting out wasteful use of expensive procedures more so than it's a salary issue IMO.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']What kind of reform could be done without a public option?[/QUOTE]
Allow people to buy much cheaper insurance that only covers emergencies?
[quote name='HowStern']This is what kills me. American citizens priorities are fucked.[/QUOTE]
They really are.
It shouldn't matter what health care costs to an extent.
Click to expand...
Oh boy.
It's tax money well spent. Where as we throw more money down the drain supporting Israel - we are currently giving them $7m a day and growing - and no one says boo, no one asks how much it's costing us, no one holds a protest, not even a crappy sharpie+cardboard sign.
Click to expand...
Maybe the Democrats should have thought about health care reform before they threw trillions at the financial industry. What did that get us? A higher unemployment rate than they said we would have if we did nothing. Did it solve the fundamental problems of the economy? No. It gave trillions to bankers as a thank you gift for helping the politicians get elected. The same thing is happening with this health care bill. There won't be any real help for the poor or middle class. No, the government will just take at least 11% of their income, and give them a crappy health care system, while giving billions to their friends in the medical industry.
No one has a clue what kind of ridiculous shit we spend our money on and all the sudden something comes along that will actually benefit a huge chunk of the population and everyone is clinging to their wallets.
Click to expand...
Benefit a large amount of the population my ass. Subsidies won't kick in until you spend 11% or so of your income on health care. That's a benefit alright.
[quote name='mykevermin']You only conjur up data when it's public opinion polls, but as has been demonstrated, the public are morons who believe Jesus is real; [/QUOTE]
Come on now, let's not bring religion into this.
17% believe that their weight is not a problem in a country where 2 out of every 3 are overweight; and a very small margin can name our current secretary of state (let alone other positions).
Click to expand...
This is the effect of this bullshit madison avenue culture that worships celebrities, and "acting tough." Everyone lives in a fantasy world dominated by their mesmerizing teevee. Just look at that Micheal Jackson bullshit.
While the fearmongering, "death panels," "rationing," "cost," and other purely speculative arguments have motivated the whackjob base of people against Health Care Reform ("Obamacare?" Really? Talk like a fucking grown up if you want respect, ok?), it's rather quite simple: those people who you and your ilk have pushed to be against health care reform have been lied to and led under false pretenses to come to the same conclusion as you.
Click to expand...
You are the one who has been lied to. You are told by all the loving liberal figures that this bill will be magical and solve all the problems and make health care affordable for everyone. It won't. It won't be affordable for the poor and the lower middle class. I don't see how it will really be cheaper than private health care if there isn't cost cutting techniques such as rationing. You can't just give the government control of something and expect it to magically solve all your problems.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You only conjur up data when it's public opinion polls, but as has been demonstrated, the public are morons who believe Jesus is real; 17% believe that their weight is not a problem in a country where 2 out of every 3 are overweight; and a very small margin can name our current secretary of state (let alone other positions).

While the fearmongering, "death panels," "rationing," "cost," and other purely speculative arguments have motivated the whackjob base of people against Health Care Reform ("Obamacare?" Really? Talk like a fucking grown up if you want respect, ok?), it's rather quite simple: those people who you and your ilk have pushed to be against health care reform have been lied to and led under false pretenses to come to the same conclusion as you.

So you're "the majority," but shame on you (and you know you deserve it) because you and yours are incapable of having a single reasonable debate on why the health care system should be left in private hands.

Your deception has gained support. Additionally, taking "53% oppose health care reform" to mean "53% are fine with their health care policy as is" shows the degree of statistical illiteracy you have such that you shouldn't be allowed to debate at all. Go back to dragging a comb through "blogs" and "op-eds" for evidence, since you clearly can't handle statistics.[/QUOTE]


:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:

Well said, sir!
I wish we could turn the temp down on this country and the general discourse, but I'm not sure how that happens...
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Allow people to buy much cheaper insurance that only covers emergencies?[/quote]

You are a glutton for punishment.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You are a glutton for punishment.[/QUOTE]
Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to do this? Give me one valid reason why people shouldn't have the option to buy cheap health care that only covers emergencies.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to do this? Give me one valid reason why people shouldn't have the option to buy cheap health care that only covers emergencies.[/QUOTE]

We have that already. Its called Catastrophic coverage. It's not cheap either.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Why in the hell shouldn't people be able to do this? Give me one valid reason why people shouldn't have the option to buy cheap health care that only covers emergencies.[/QUOTE]

I see no reason to answer your Bobesque questions, at least until you answer an honest one of mine.

Did you ever wonder why the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is such a famous saying?
 
[quote name='Msut77']I see no reason to answer your Bobesque questions, at least until you answer an honest one of mine.

Did you ever wonder why the saying "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is such a famous saying?[/QUOTE]
If you are talking about preventative care, it costs a lot but doesn't help much.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32275652/ns/health-health_care/
The value of a widespread prostate cancer screening was questioned Friday by the top medical officer for the American Cancer Society. "Screening does not clearly save lives and many men who get aggressive treatment clearly do not need aggressive treatment," Dr. Otis W. Brawley said in response to the announcement that Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., has prostate cancer. He stressed that men should know the risks and benefits of screening for the disease.
Click to expand...
Now can you please stop avoiding the fact that this bill doesn't actually help the poor or middle class afford care when they can't afford it now?
[quote name='ninju D']We have that already. Its called Catastrophic coverage. It's not cheap either.[/QUOTE]
We don't have the form that I would like to see.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']
Now can you please stop avoiding the fact that this bill doesn't actually help the poor or middle class afford care when they can't afford it now?[/QUOTE]
You're right. I'd love to see it do more for those people. Problem is, its just not realistic. Too many people are losing their damn minds already just because we want to give people a choice.
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']If you are talking about preventative care, it costs a lot but doesn't help much.[/quote]

First off that isn't really what the article says.

And no I am not just talking about prevention as just what is in that article.

We don't have the form that I would like to see.
Click to expand...

No, surprise here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay, I'm not talking about townhalls or such here. I'm going to go a different direction.

Who believes in our right to freely associate with individuals of our own choosing?

It's a good idea.

Who thinks the government should be able to completely spin this around and force individuals to associate with other individuals not of their own choosing?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Okay, I'm not talking about townhalls or such here. I'm going to go a different direction.

Who believes in our right to freely associate with individuals of our own choosing?

It's a good idea.

Who thinks the government should be able to completely spin this around and force individuals to associate with other individuals not of their own choosing?[/QUOTE]

Who thinks you're once again talking out of your bunghole with made up scenarios not in the least bit based on facts?

:wave:
 
[quote name='Msut77']http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
---
Now let me tell a little story.

A woman I work with has been really stressed lately and I didn't know why.

She finally opened up to me the other day and told me the cause was her sons recent major surgery.

The insurance company pre-approved everything and they went through with it, he is doing fine now.

A month or so after the surgery however she started getting bills, they paid the surgeon but apparently expected him to the perform the operation in the waiting room as they didn't cover the anesthesia or the cost of the operating theater. They also started to try and claim it was elective even though more than one doctor stated it was absolutely necessary.

She said she might have to go bankrupt if things don't get reversed.
---

There are people in this thread arguing that we cannot do what basically every other wealthy industrialized country does.

Now it certainly is true that America has its share of abjectly stupid people (just look at certain posters in this thread) just as it is true that other systems aren't perfect but other systems do not pay anywhere as much as we do for the privilege of denying care even to those who have in all fairness paid for it.[/QUOTE]

Another issue of unclear or untrained people.. its called the RAP or PAR.

Anesthesiologist pathologists, and radiologists, typically do not join any network and therefore they can bill what they want. They do this simply because they can. You don't typically get to decide who reads reports, who puts you under, etc. So they are not forced to join network. Insurance companies treat them as out of network and cover less of their charges. Simple as that.


Typically doctors agree to join a network to fill their seats, however those three professions need to do no such thing. Why agree to network payments (in netowrk discounts or doctors "write offs") if you do not have to?

Some carriers American Community, Starmark, will pay these charges at in network if the provider (facility and doctor) were in network.
 
[quote name='lawdood']Who thinks you're once again talking out of your bunghole with made up scenarios not in the least bit based on facts?

:wave:[/QUOTE]


Agreed. You can oversimplify anything down to a point where it no longer means anything and then you can make all the analogies you want to. But you still don't get it. Privatized insurance does not work for many people and they have to right to be healthy and see doctors and not get ass raped over the bill.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Another issue of unclear or untrained people.. its called the RAP or PAR.

Anesthesiologist pathologists, and radiologists, typically do not join any network and therefore they can bill what they want. They do this simply because they can. You don't typically get to decide who reads reports, who puts you under, etc. So they are not forced to join network. Insurance companies treat them as out of network and cover less of their charges. Simple as that.


Typically doctors agree to join a network to fill their seats, however those three professions need to do no such thing. Why agree to network payments (in netowrk discounts or doctors "write offs") if you do not have to?

Some carriers American Community, Starmark, will pay these charges at in network if the provider (facility and doctor) were in network.[/QUOTE]

They will pay at in network, but they are not required to write off the remainder of the charges. That's a flaw (one of the many) in the system. And a major reason those providers don't join networks. They don't have to and they make more money when they don't join.
 
[quote name='ninju D']They will pay at in network, but they are not required to write off the remainder of the charges. That's a flaw (one of the many) in the system. And a major reason those providers don't join networks. They don't have to and they make more money when they don't join.[/QUOTE]

Thats what I said, unless I am misreading you.

The carriers pay these types of charges as in network if your carrier is one that does that. Most carriers say if the provider (anesthesiologist for example) was out of network then you get 60% coverage instead of the 80% we offer for in network providers.

Its very common and often overlooked or not understood by people who have insurance.

Now if you are talking reasonable and customary or balance billing thats a completely different topic.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Thats what I said, unless I am misreading you.

The carriers pay these types of charges as in network if your carrier is one that does that. Most carriers say if the provider (anesthesiologist for example) was out of network then you get 60% coverage instead of the 80% we offer for in network providers.

Its very common and often overlooked or not understood by people who have insurance.

Now if you are talking reasonable and customary or balance billing thats a completely different topic.[/QUOTE]

You can't talk about the issue without talking about R&C and balance billing. If the insurance cos are paying at 80% on a anesthesiologist, who pays the other 20%? You do. Cause they don't belong to the network. That's why we need reform.

I'm not even going to get into the fact that hospitals and medical providers are allowed to charge any amount they see fit for their servers...
(I used to work at a major health insurer and I've seen it all. I could go on for days about how effed the current system is. And the docs are as much at fault as the insurance cos.)
 
[quote name='fullmetalfan720']Allow people to buy much cheaper insurance that only covers emergencies?[/QUOTE]

How in the world does that work logically?

"I want insurance, but I only want it to cover the crazy shit that y'all don't profit off of like major surgery and treatment. So let's take away office visits and things like that - it should be cheaper."

If you undercut profit from insurance companies, they'll find another way to soak it out of you. That's the beauty of the free market.

Think of how banks reacted to the increase in bankruptcies and defaults on credit - for Chase users, virtually everyone experienced a damn-near catastrophic increase in their APR rates. Even if you paid on time every time. Because other people fucked it up for you.

Likewise, you would be the ones fucking up insurance companies by undercutting their profits.

It's absurd. You want the market to bend to your whim, failing to realize that you would break the market.

I want a $50 Rolls Royce, in other words, is not a sensible solution to the woes of the auto industry.
 
[quote name='ninju D']Agreed. You can oversimplify anything down to a point where it no longer means anything and then you can make all the analogies you want to. But you still don't get it. Privatized insurance does not work for many people and they have to right to be healthy and see doctors and not get ass raped over the bill.[/QUOTE]

Not at all. What some people want is for the government to force private businesses to take up clients that the private businesses do not want to associate with.

Do we really want a government that forces association?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Do we really want a government that forces association?[/QUOTE]

Bob I know it is quite a challenge to ask you not to be you but could you forgo the silly questions and just come out and say that you think it is perfectly acceptable to deny care to those who are sick and/or poor?
 
I think it is perfectly acceptable to deny services to individuals who cannot afford them.

You may call me a monster, but when was the last time you gave away your property/time to take care of those less fortunate than you? And here, you expect others to do it non-stop.

And my question is valid - do you want a government that forces association?
 
Everyone should have a free house, because it's not fair to those who don't have a house that I do. I think we should all get our taxes raised and give free houses to people who don't have them because it's their right as an American.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Everyone should have a free house, because it's not fair to those who don't have a house that I do. I think we should all get our taxes raised and give free houses to people who don't have them because it's their right as an American.[/QUOTE]

Those who have houses should be forced to work one day a week building houses for those who don't. To fund these houses, those who have houses should have to pay an extra 10% of their income in taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top