Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most medicare recipients have private supplements as well. That does not mean they see concierge practices.
You just posted that the wealthy live different than "the rest of us".
Now you come back with this which backs up MY point that your opinion was wrong ?
And how does having additional private insurance have anything to do with concierge medicine which is a completely different topic ?
Here's what you posted:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
The wealthy will always live differently than the rest of us. Always have, always will. But, for the great unwashed, we will have to take what we can get.
I meant 8% from the employer. Maybe 8% from the worker too, although that is pretty regressive. Germany manages to do it, though, without destroying their economy. We might still need a VAT to make up the shortage and to be sure that nobody rides free. Face it, healthcare is 1/6 of GDP and it is going to take that kind of money to pay for it.
Oh yes, Vermont is also taking from the employer..that figure is estimated at 11%.
The 8% is on the employee side.
You just posted that the wealthy live different than "the rest of us".
Now you come back with this which backs up MY point that your opinion was wrong ?
And how does having additional private insurance have anything to do with concierge medicine which is a completely different topic ?
Here's what you posted:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa
The wealthy will always live differently than the rest of us. Always have, always will. But, for the great unwashed, we will have to take what we can get.
Your being argumentative and not making a lot of sense either. I will have to let you go down this road alone.
But a CNN analysis shows that in the largest city in nearly every state, many
low-income younger Americans won't get any subsidy at all. Administration
officials said the reason so many Americans won't receive a subsidy is that the
cost of insurance is lower than the government initially expected.
The government did not make it clear enough that the subsidies came only after you met the percentage of your salary they deemed should go to insurance.
That was always there but few mentioned it.
One had to READ about it and not rely on politicians speaking about it.
So I point out that you are all over the map with opinions and combining different topics and you tell me I'm not making sense ?
ROFL.
Stop bickering with me. My point is eminently clear, but I will restate it for you: The ACA and other factors are putting financial pressures on the health care system. Insurers will respond by dropping PPOs and cutting deals with smaller networks of providers. Providers will face cost pressures and will be forced to make changes in the way the provide services and/or accept lower income as a result. There will be no wholesale flight to concierge medicine by providers as that market is just too small for that. Private insurance (is there any other kind) allowing one to see whomever, whenever for whatever will be available but out of reach of most of us and will certainly not be something that employers offer to rank and file employees.
The future of medical care in the US under the ACA is going to look a lot like what it was when I was a private in the Army and I went on "sick call". You wait in a sparsely decorated room with 30 other people for about two hours to see a medic who knows less about medicine than you do. After a three minute visit you walk out with a prescription for Darvon and another for Thorazine and get sent back to your unit OK'd for duty.
Stop bickering with me. My point is eminently clear, but I will restate it for you: The ACA and other factors are putting financial pressures on the health care system. Insurers will respond by dropping PPOs and cutting deals with smaller networks of providers. Providers will face cost pressures and will be forced to make changes in the way the provide services and/or accept lower income as a result. There will be no wholesale flight to concierge medicine by providers as that market is just too small for that. Private insurance (is there any other kind) allowing one to see whomever, whenever for whatever will be available but out of reach of most of us and will certainly not be something that employers offer to rank and file employees.
The future of medical care in the US under the ACA is going to look a lot like what it was when I was a private in the Army and I went on "sick call". You wait in a sparsely decorated room with 30 other people for about two hours to see a medic who knows less about medicine than you do. After a three minute visit you walk out with a prescription for Darvon and another for Thorazine and get sent back to your unit.
It's your opinion. It's not fact.
It's not wrong but I'm of a different opinion.
I agree about what will happen in the future.
Take a visit to your county health clinic as that is what you have today.
Doctor only comes there 2-3 times a week..mostly staffed by nurses who do the majority of care.
And the waiting room is full of sick kids. The poor don't do preventative very well even when it's free.
Been there, done that. Had to get a TB skin test to sub at one school. Private doctor appt was 3 weeks out and cost was $150.
Couldn't wait the 3 weeks though else I'd miss subbing for the school year. Went to the county health clinic and paid $5 cash.
Walked through the door and thought I was in a third world country dealing with the Peace Corps.
***I'll start this with a disclaimer...I'm personally not a huge fan of the ACA***
But I did find this article fairly interesting. Krugman basically makes the contention that California is a massive state...which translates into it being a massive laboratory for the workablility of the ACA. According the the article enrollment is surging in California...more than 10k new applications are being completed daily and the pool of applicants is very diverse in terms of age...almost one quarter are between 18-34 which is creating a balanced risk pool.
So here is my question.....If a state that has a history of inept IT projects and rollouts of any kind can make this law work........can it be a workable option? Or are the rollout issues more systemic than Krugman would like to believe?
"After conceding the rollout of Obamacare to have been “an epic disaster,” Krugman insists that the question is not so much about whether Obamacare’s start has been auspicious, but whether the disastrous unveiling is indicative of structural problems with the law, or if they were merely the consequence of bad management. Looking to California, an extremely large state with a functional exchange market in which applications are surging, Krugman decides the answer is that bad management — not poor design — explains Obamacare’s early travails. “What we have in California, then, is a proof of concept,” Krugman writes. “Yes, Obamacare is workable — in fact, done right, it works just fine.” -Salon quoting Krugman from NYT Blog.
Not dinging you, but I love the play of words..."10,000 aplications" being completed daily....
That does not mean they have signed up for anything...
Also, notice how they gave no link to those numbers...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Does California prove Obamacare can work?
