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.
You earned your benefit dollars, you get to choose how to use them.
If people think it is immoral, don't do it. Just like if a Christian Scientist employer can't have their insurance deny using medications, or blood transfusions, or sugery. Also a Scientologist employer can't force people to go to their mandated therapy instead of getting medications.
It's already stated companies pay you, and don't have the control to dictate how that money is spent. If it's for strip clubs, booze, and bacon...it is the employees choice.
Stop trying to legislate morality and places one persons faith on another.
So this complexity of figuring out who qualifies for what, which by the way also creates a high marginal cost to improving oneself, is actually an argument in favor of flat-out universal basic care for everyone, period. Stop spending money figuring out who qualifies for what, or building impediments to making more money--just give everyone the benefits and save the money we're pissing away now on admin.
This also would accomplish one of the big goals that Obamacare fails miserably: actually getting care to the currently uninsured. 1. Obamacare will only cover half the currently uninsured over time, and 2. some of the insured will not actually be able to afford any real care due to high deductibles and high coinsurance. Obamacare is a double fail on this count.
Plenty of people supported Obamacare not on its own merits, but as a necessary 1st step toward single-payer universal health care.
As a supporter of UHC myself, I think those people made a terrible strategic miscalculation. This convoluted mess will have politicians and multi-millions of voters remembering pre-Ocare as 'the good old days.'
Plenty of people supported Obamacare not on its own merits, but as a necessary 1st step...
As a supporter of UHC myself, I think those people made a terrible strategic miscalculation. '
I always thought anyone who supported Obamacare thinking it would be a faster step towards single
payer were naive. If anything, it puts single payer back at least a decade or two...
I was also surprised that they would even support something that did not include a public option.
If I was a DEM, I never would have settled for Obamacare.
Just got the news of the medicare reimbursements for 2014. Across many specialties, there are up to 50% cuts in procedures and surgeries (not office visits). These cuts will affect, of course, specialists rather than internists or primary care docs.
With such cuts, practices accepting medicare would lose money on every patient. Further, many insurance contracts are pegged to percentages of medicare.
Gee.............. I wonder what will happen to medicare patient access over 2014? When looting $750 billion from medicare to fund Obamacare, did anyone really think that there would not be a decline in quality and access for medicare patients?
I thought you guys wanted to get welfare across the board to balance the budget? Why are you suddenly against cutting one of the biggest entitlement programs in the country? Oh, I know why
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.
Are you sure you are posting in the right thread
Drastic medicare cuts
