America
is the only first world nation that does not have a proper health care
system. Yet our politicians get the very best healthcare at the
taxpayers expense. So do our old people. So do our soldiers. When you get down to it,
quite a lot of people are already on government healthcare. Why not just put everyone on it?
Why
has the GOP voted 37 times to repeal a law they don't think will ever
get off the ground? Because, as this article says, they are afraid it
will work, but also because it helps them avoid doing any constructive
legislating that might actually help the country. They are afraid of
that as well because Obama would get the credit.
0
To remove first post, remove entire topic.
America
is the only first world nation that does not have a proper health care
system. Yet our politicians get the very best healthcare at the
taxpayers expense. So do our old people. So do our soldiers. When you get down to it,
quite a lot of people are already on government healthcare. Why not just put everyone on it?
Why
has the GOP voted 37 times to repeal a law they don't think will ever
get off the ground? Because, as this article says, they are afraid it
will work, but also because it helps them avoid doing any constructive
legislating that might actually help the country. They are afraid of
that as well because Obama would get the credit.
Well.... I believe the plan to be a noble idea- However, the implementation is thus far lacking- I can give you a couple of examples- One was discussed in a previous thread by 14daroad- On a more local and personal note- primary care providers were to receive a 20% increase in payment for outpatient services- effective January 1- for current Medicaid patients- It is now mid-July... No increase in payment has been instituted - (at least in Alabama)- but the regulatory requirements regarding electronic medical records are beginning to be enforced-the "meaningful use" program has thus far cost me over $50k with more expenses to come just to remain in compliance-
I fear that this is going to be an abject failure (however well-intentioned) and along the way destroy the system that was previously in place (as flawed as it was)-
Just one person's opinion- but what I just described is reality- not a talking point-
0
Well.... I believe the plan to be a noble idea- However, the implementation is thus far lacking- I can give you a couple of examples- One was discussed in a previous thread by 14daroad- On a more local and personal note- primary care providers were to receive a 20% increase in payment for outpatient services- effective January 1- for current Medicaid patients- It is now mid-July... No increase in payment has been instituted - (at least in Alabama)- but the regulatory requirements regarding electronic medical records are beginning to be enforced-the "meaningful use" program has thus far cost me over $50k with more expenses to come just to remain in compliance-
I fear that this is going to be an abject failure (however well-intentioned) and along the way destroy the system that was previously in place (as flawed as it was)-
Just one person's opinion- but what I just described is reality- not a talking point-
Currently there are plans to institute "RCO"s here- similar plans are being developed in Colorado and Oregon- as I understand it-
Final details haven't been published, but it certainly reads like capitation- which will in essence lead to rationing of care- These programs will only effect patients currently enrolled in our Medicaid program- However, most sweeping changes begin with government funded programs and become adopted by commercial insurers later-
So, if you read up on RCO or CCO- there's a good chance that this is how health care will be delivered in the future-
At least that is the concern that I have been hearing/reading locally-
0
Currently there are plans to institute "RCO"s here- similar plans are being developed in Colorado and Oregon- as I understand it-
Final details haven't been published, but it certainly reads like capitation- which will in essence lead to rationing of care- These programs will only effect patients currently enrolled in our Medicaid program- However, most sweeping changes begin with government funded programs and become adopted by commercial insurers later-
So, if you read up on RCO or CCO- there's a good chance that this is how health care will be delivered in the future-
At least that is the concern that I have been hearing/reading locally-
The EMR where I used to work as they were being instituted were extremely helpful in expediting the administrative aspect of medical offices which is an absolutely horrendous problem because you are delegating responsibilities.
As for costs, if everyone pays into a single payer system there will be reduced costs nationwide but of course the quality of care might be jeopardized in some areas of the country as opposed to others, but that goes without saying. (Death spiral)
I can't say that I would be happy with a private market answer. The
question isn't, after all, who provides the health care but who covers
it. I am fine with private markets in certain sectors. Private markets
drive innovation via competition. I'm not fooled for a moment to think
that a private market in health care cost coverage would drive down
prices, however. There is also no innovation to be had in such a system.
The innovation in healthcare is in treatment, not coverage.
In a fully private market we have a vast number of younger people who
simply opt out. They don't get insurance and gamble on nothing
happening. This raises the cost for everyone who does need the
insurance. But we all eventually need healthcare so when they do finally
get insurance and need stuff done they end up costing the system far
more than they put in. This is one of they key facets of the ACA -
forcing everyone into the system to keep costs down.
Again we're not talking about government doctors here. No one is really
trying to socialize the health care system. It's the health care cost
coverage system that we're talking about here. There is no reason anyone
should profit off it and there is nothing a for profit system can
possibly do in this instance to drive down costs.
0
The EMR where I used to work as they were being instituted were extremely helpful in expediting the administrative aspect of medical offices which is an absolutely horrendous problem because you are delegating responsibilities.
As for costs, if everyone pays into a single payer system there will be reduced costs nationwide but of course the quality of care might be jeopardized in some areas of the country as opposed to others, but that goes without saying. (Death spiral)
I can't say that I would be happy with a private market answer. The
question isn't, after all, who provides the health care but who covers
it. I am fine with private markets in certain sectors. Private markets
drive innovation via competition. I'm not fooled for a moment to think
that a private market in health care cost coverage would drive down
prices, however. There is also no innovation to be had in such a system.
The innovation in healthcare is in treatment, not coverage.
In a fully private market we have a vast number of younger people who
simply opt out. They don't get insurance and gamble on nothing
happening. This raises the cost for everyone who does need the
insurance. But we all eventually need healthcare so when they do finally
get insurance and need stuff done they end up costing the system far
more than they put in. This is one of they key facets of the ACA -
forcing everyone into the system to keep costs down.
Again we're not talking about government doctors here. No one is really
trying to socialize the health care system. It's the health care cost
coverage system that we're talking about here. There is no reason anyone
should profit off it and there is nothing a for profit system can
possibly do in this instance to drive down costs.
Stiln, I have to agree with you somewhat. We would have been much better off with a universal HC system or single payer system if you will. What they gave us though with the ACA was a horrendous bill that will not reduce or keep costs down and doesn't even cover more than 50% of the people that they claimed they were trying to help (those 11 or so million that were uninsured)
Not everyone is forced into the ACA system. Many young, healthy people with limited means will look at the insurance cost vs the penalty and opt for the penalty especially when they realize that the collection of it is unenforceable. The payment of the penalty cannot be taken from garnishing wages or even added to a tax burden when you file. It can only be taken from any tax refund an individual gets. That is easily solved by claiming the highest number of deductions allowed and making sure you owe a little rather than get a refund. That is smart to do anyway, let alone considering the ACA penalty.
The pushers of the ACA half arsed it to get something passed when they should have either left it alone or gone all out for a universal/single payer system. There are some good things in the ACA but those do not nearly make up for the collosal failure of this law. It's not workable, will never work as is and going to ruin a lot of people financially.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Stiln, I have to agree with you somewhat. We would have been much better off with a universal HC system or single payer system if you will. What they gave us though with the ACA was a horrendous bill that will not reduce or keep costs down and doesn't even cover more than 50% of the people that they claimed they were trying to help (those 11 or so million that were uninsured)
Not everyone is forced into the ACA system. Many young, healthy people with limited means will look at the insurance cost vs the penalty and opt for the penalty especially when they realize that the collection of it is unenforceable. The payment of the penalty cannot be taken from garnishing wages or even added to a tax burden when you file. It can only be taken from any tax refund an individual gets. That is easily solved by claiming the highest number of deductions allowed and making sure you owe a little rather than get a refund. That is smart to do anyway, let alone considering the ACA penalty.
The pushers of the ACA half arsed it to get something passed when they should have either left it alone or gone all out for a universal/single payer system. There are some good things in the ACA but those do not nearly make up for the collosal failure of this law. It's not workable, will never work as is and going to ruin a lot of people financially.
Insurance reform is about helping patients and not industries. Its success is in how much patients are helped. According to article, 54 million Americans now have free access to preventive services. 6 million seniors saved over six billion on prescriptions. 13 million consumers receive over one billion in rebates for overcharges by insurance companies. 3 million young adults can stay on parents insurance. There will be more benefits in the future.
0
Insurance reform is about helping patients and not industries. Its success is in how much patients are helped. According to article, 54 million Americans now have free access to preventive services. 6 million seniors saved over six billion on prescriptions. 13 million consumers receive over one billion in rebates for overcharges by insurance companies. 3 million young adults can stay on parents insurance. There will be more benefits in the future.
Obamacare isn't perfect but it is the closest compromise to universal healthcare insurance that can be achieved politically. Since U.S. private sector is so powerful, Obamacare is light in government intervention unlike other countries. Out of control costs are normal for the most unaffordable healthcare system in the world.
0
Obamacare isn't perfect but it is the closest compromise to universal healthcare insurance that can be achieved politically. Since U.S. private sector is so powerful, Obamacare is light in government intervention unlike other countries. Out of control costs are normal for the most unaffordable healthcare system in the world.
Insurance reform is about helping patients and not industries. Its success is in how much patients are helped. According to article, 54 million Americans now have free access to preventive services. 6 million seniors saved over six billion on prescriptions. 13 million consumers receive over one billion in rebates for overcharges by insurance companies. 3 million young adults can stay on parents insurance. There will be more benefits in the future.
While the above items are good things from the law it does not change the fact that premiums have risen and will continue to rise. While this was happening before the ACA, there was nothing in the law to stop this from happening no matter how hard they tried to sell it as such.
Have you seen some of the prices in the exchanges that have come out? A 25 yr old single person in Sacramento making $30k will have to pay $261-$374 ($332-$476 for a 40 yr old with same income) a month for the Silver plan which is close to the middle of the pack. Do you really expect a 25 year old making $30k to be able to afford that premium plus $45 for a primary care dr visit, $65 for specialty doc visit, $45 for lab test, $65 for X rays, $25 for generic drugs, $250 for a MRI and up to $6350 per year out of pocket?
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:
Insurance reform is about helping patients and not industries. Its success is in how much patients are helped. According to article, 54 million Americans now have free access to preventive services. 6 million seniors saved over six billion on prescriptions. 13 million consumers receive over one billion in rebates for overcharges by insurance companies. 3 million young adults can stay on parents insurance. There will be more benefits in the future.
While the above items are good things from the law it does not change the fact that premiums have risen and will continue to rise. While this was happening before the ACA, there was nothing in the law to stop this from happening no matter how hard they tried to sell it as such.
Have you seen some of the prices in the exchanges that have come out? A 25 yr old single person in Sacramento making $30k will have to pay $261-$374 ($332-$476 for a 40 yr old with same income) a month for the Silver plan which is close to the middle of the pack. Do you really expect a 25 year old making $30k to be able to afford that premium plus $45 for a primary care dr visit, $65 for specialty doc visit, $45 for lab test, $65 for X rays, $25 for generic drugs, $250 for a MRI and up to $6350 per year out of pocket?
I would agree, Stiln, that an EMR does improve efficiency on an administrative level- Unfortunately, it does the opposite on a clinical level- I have yet to meet a clinician who feels like it has improved his/her practice or delivery of care-
Again, great in theory but dismal in practice-
Patients with private insurance are likely to see soaring premiums- we already are- making it almost prohibitive for us to continue to provide insurance for our employees without contributions from them- your example of the 25 yr old making 30k a year was a good one-
One other point that has been ignored thus far is the mandated cut in Medicare payments to providers- this was hidden in the bill- when implemented all hell will break loose-
It is already part of most budgets, but congress has typically reversed or rescinded it-
In order for the new "plan" to be financially workable- this would be absolutely necessary-
And while the goal of universal care is to provide access- you still must have "providers"- there is where the battle lines will be drawn IMO-
0
I would agree, Stiln, that an EMR does improve efficiency on an administrative level- Unfortunately, it does the opposite on a clinical level- I have yet to meet a clinician who feels like it has improved his/her practice or delivery of care-
Again, great in theory but dismal in practice-
Patients with private insurance are likely to see soaring premiums- we already are- making it almost prohibitive for us to continue to provide insurance for our employees without contributions from them- your example of the 25 yr old making 30k a year was a good one-
One other point that has been ignored thus far is the mandated cut in Medicare payments to providers- this was hidden in the bill- when implemented all hell will break loose-
It is already part of most budgets, but congress has typically reversed or rescinded it-
In order for the new "plan" to be financially workable- this would be absolutely necessary-
And while the goal of universal care is to provide access- you still must have "providers"- there is where the battle lines will be drawn IMO-
my wife and i had our first kid two years ago. we are currently trying for our second. i'll give you a first hand account how our newest one (God willing- healthy and w/o complications like our first) will cost significantly more. but i'm sure, after i provide concrete figures, you'll refer me to some yale study telling me i'm wrong and i don't know what i'm talking about.
you can't possibly believe obamacare is a good thing. there's too much out there saying it's not going to work. i have to believe you just wanted to get the forum going with this thread.
0
my wife and i had our first kid two years ago. we are currently trying for our second. i'll give you a first hand account how our newest one (God willing- healthy and w/o complications like our first) will cost significantly more. but i'm sure, after i provide concrete figures, you'll refer me to some yale study telling me i'm wrong and i don't know what i'm talking about.
you can't possibly believe obamacare is a good thing. there's too much out there saying it's not going to work. i have to believe you just wanted to get the forum going with this thread.
my wife and i had our first kid two years ago. we are currently trying for our second. i'll give you a first hand account how our newest one (God willing- healthy and w/o complications like our first) will cost significantly more. but i'm sure, after i provide concrete figures, you'll refer me to some yale study telling me i'm wrong and i don't know what i'm talking about.
you can't possibly believe obamacare is a good thing. there's too much out there saying it's not going to work. i have to believe you just wanted to get the forum going with this thread.
with all due respect to you, your wife and your kid situation --- WTF are you talking about????
0
Quote Originally Posted by Peraski:
my wife and i had our first kid two years ago. we are currently trying for our second. i'll give you a first hand account how our newest one (God willing- healthy and w/o complications like our first) will cost significantly more. but i'm sure, after i provide concrete figures, you'll refer me to some yale study telling me i'm wrong and i don't know what i'm talking about.
you can't possibly believe obamacare is a good thing. there's too much out there saying it's not going to work. i have to believe you just wanted to get the forum going with this thread.
with all due respect to you, your wife and your kid situation --- WTF are you talking about????
While the above items are good things from the law it does not change the fact that premiums have risen and will continue to rise. While this was happening before the ACA, there was nothing in the law to stop this from happening no matter how hard they tried to sell it as such.
Have you seen some of the prices in the exchanges that have come out? A 25 yr old single person in Sacramento making $30k will have to pay $261-$374 ($332-$476 for a 40 yr old with same income) a month for the Silver plan which is close to the middle of the pack. Do you really expect a 25 year old making $30k to be able to afford that premium plus $45 for a primary care dr visit, $65 for specialty doc visit, $45 for lab test, $65 for X rays, $25 for generic drugs, $250 for a MRI and up to $6350 per year out of pocket?
I am skeptical about the law as well. Remember the tort reform the industry pushed so hard for? Well, I sure didn't see the benefits they promised.
A friend of mine is a recovering cancer patient and her premium went from around $230/month to about $800/month in about 5 years, so essentially, her insurance company is trying to push her out and there is just plain wrong.
I am all ears for any alternatives because the current system needs a major overhaul. We started the dicussion under Clinton's era and after these many years, NOTHING gets done.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Danrules24:
While the above items are good things from the law it does not change the fact that premiums have risen and will continue to rise. While this was happening before the ACA, there was nothing in the law to stop this from happening no matter how hard they tried to sell it as such.
Have you seen some of the prices in the exchanges that have come out? A 25 yr old single person in Sacramento making $30k will have to pay $261-$374 ($332-$476 for a 40 yr old with same income) a month for the Silver plan which is close to the middle of the pack. Do you really expect a 25 year old making $30k to be able to afford that premium plus $45 for a primary care dr visit, $65 for specialty doc visit, $45 for lab test, $65 for X rays, $25 for generic drugs, $250 for a MRI and up to $6350 per year out of pocket?
I am skeptical about the law as well. Remember the tort reform the industry pushed so hard for? Well, I sure didn't see the benefits they promised.
A friend of mine is a recovering cancer patient and her premium went from around $230/month to about $800/month in about 5 years, so essentially, her insurance company is trying to push her out and there is just plain wrong.
I am all ears for any alternatives because the current system needs a major overhaul. We started the dicussion under Clinton's era and after these many years, NOTHING gets done.
Another problem that you don't often here and most people don't understand is that labor in the US is commodifed and if you are unemployed or working for some agency that doesn't provide health care you're screwed..
We have to be able to provide health care for people who have atypical jobs or are unemployed..
But with the reliance on the market you have no choice but to find a job that provides substantial health care.
0
Another problem that you don't often here and most people don't understand is that labor in the US is commodifed and if you are unemployed or working for some agency that doesn't provide health care you're screwed..
We have to be able to provide health care for people who have atypical jobs or are unemployed..
But with the reliance on the market you have no choice but to find a job that provides substantial health care.
Another problem that you don't often here and most people don't understand is that labor in the US is commodifed and if you are unemployed or working for some agency that doesn't provide health care you're screwed..
We have to be able to provide health care for people who have atypical jobs or are unemployed..
But with the reliance on the market you have no choice but to find a job that provides substantial health care.
Totally agree. Health insurance should not be tied to a job, nor should employers be forced to offer it or face a fine. How is this the responsibility of any business to offer insurance? The whole concept is absurd.
Stay disciplined and manage your bankroll
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Another problem that you don't often here and most people don't understand is that labor in the US is commodifed and if you are unemployed or working for some agency that doesn't provide health care you're screwed..
We have to be able to provide health care for people who have atypical jobs or are unemployed..
But with the reliance on the market you have no choice but to find a job that provides substantial health care.
Totally agree. Health insurance should not be tied to a job, nor should employers be forced to offer it or face a fine. How is this the responsibility of any business to offer insurance? The whole concept is absurd.
Totally agree. Health insurance should not be tied to a job, nor should employers be forced to offer it or face a fine. How is this the responsibility of any business to offer insurance? The whole concept is absurd.
Yup
Here's some light reading..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decommodification
0
Quote Originally Posted by Danrules24:
Totally agree. Health insurance should not be tied to a job, nor should employers be forced to offer it or face a fine. How is this the responsibility of any business to offer insurance? The whole concept is absurd.
The EMR where I used to work as they were being instituted were extremely helpful in expediting the administrative aspect of medical offices which is an absolutely horrendous problem because you are delegating responsibilities.
As for costs, if everyone pays into a single payer system there will be reduced costs nationwide but of course the quality of care might be jeopardized in some areas of the country as opposed to others, but that goes without saying. (Death spiral)
I can't say that I would be happy with a private market answer. The
question isn't, after all, who provides the health care but who covers
it. I am fine with private markets in certain sectors. Private markets
drive innovation via competition. I'm not fooled for a moment to think
that a private market in health care cost coverage would drive down
prices, however. There is also no innovation to be had in such a system.
The innovation in healthcare is in treatment, not coverage.
In a fully private market we have a vast number of younger people who
simply opt out. They don't get insurance and gamble on nothing
happening. This raises the cost for everyone who does need the
insurance. But we all eventually need healthcare so when they do finally
get insurance and need stuff done they end up costing the system far
more than they put in. This is one of they key facets of the ACA -
forcing everyone into the system to keep costs down.
Again we're not talking about government doctors here. No one is really
trying to socialize the health care system. It's the health care cost
coverage system that we're talking about here. There is no reason anyone
should profit off it and there is nothing a for profit system can
possibly do in this instance to drive down costs.
Scrubbing toilets and mopping floors probably doesn't qualify as working in an ER.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
The EMR where I used to work as they were being instituted were extremely helpful in expediting the administrative aspect of medical offices which is an absolutely horrendous problem because you are delegating responsibilities.
As for costs, if everyone pays into a single payer system there will be reduced costs nationwide but of course the quality of care might be jeopardized in some areas of the country as opposed to others, but that goes without saying. (Death spiral)
I can't say that I would be happy with a private market answer. The
question isn't, after all, who provides the health care but who covers
it. I am fine with private markets in certain sectors. Private markets
drive innovation via competition. I'm not fooled for a moment to think
that a private market in health care cost coverage would drive down
prices, however. There is also no innovation to be had in such a system.
The innovation in healthcare is in treatment, not coverage.
In a fully private market we have a vast number of younger people who
simply opt out. They don't get insurance and gamble on nothing
happening. This raises the cost for everyone who does need the
insurance. But we all eventually need healthcare so when they do finally
get insurance and need stuff done they end up costing the system far
more than they put in. This is one of they key facets of the ACA -
forcing everyone into the system to keep costs down.
Again we're not talking about government doctors here. No one is really
trying to socialize the health care system. It's the health care cost
coverage system that we're talking about here. There is no reason anyone
should profit off it and there is nothing a for profit system can
possibly do in this instance to drive down costs.
Scrubbing toilets and mopping floors probably doesn't qualify as working in an ER.
No one against Obama Marxist-/Socialist (Progressive) agenda is afraid it will work. As Max Bacus, a democrat, recently said, "Obamacare is a train wreck".
Big-government administered nanny-state entitlements have always degraded the nation who employs them,. compared to small government capitalism.
We are today seeing the decline and fall of the USA. Our technological progress has forestalled this since FDR, but degrading forces are not able to keep up with positive forces.
0
No one against Obama Marxist-/Socialist (Progressive) agenda is afraid it will work. As Max Bacus, a democrat, recently said, "Obamacare is a train wreck".
Big-government administered nanny-state entitlements have always degraded the nation who employs them,. compared to small government capitalism.
We are today seeing the decline and fall of the USA. Our technological progress has forestalled this since FDR, but degrading forces are not able to keep up with positive forces.
( no jackass ( Obama ) was available ( he was golfing in Africa)
Hot Forum Topics
