Another doctor refuses to accept insurance

[psulions2007]

Originally Posted by summers73

My point exactly. Insurance is best suited for catastrophic cases while regular checkups and simple routine stuff in cash or barter only.

...and UHC would reduce the cost of those catastrophic incidents.

Originally Posted by Backspace

The assumed cost savings caused by those removed levels can never make up for the cost increase of covering twice as many people with no increase in revenue. Single payer means federal tax payer and half of the people in this country pay no federal income tax whatsoever so it's not truly single payer, it's single tax payer. It's a pie in the sky idea about health insurance that never works.

1. You can increase revenue. If you chronically underfund a program though, of course it won't work as well.

2. I don't support SPUHC on a federal scale. I support the states implementing it.

3. Canada seems to be doing just fine with it. They have a higher standard of living, higher average life spans, and there aren't masses of dying Canadians because of SPUHC. The funny part is when any of these SP systems talk of privatizing any part of it, the party in support of SP (and the majority of the populace) starts fearing the American system. I wonder why?

[beachmel]

Wonderful story...a doctor who's in practice because she truly cares about people! What she said about layers and layers of administration....oh so true. When working with long-term care, it was phenomenal...truly. The layers of administration were the ones who received the bonuses and paychecks. Approximately 90 patients, paying anywhere from 7k-10k per mo...=$630k-$900k per mo., Nursing wages approx $30-$40k/mo--Aide's wages/mo=abt $36k---add PUD, janitorial, kitchen & food, maintainence, laundry, PT, OT, supplies, the rest of the staff are "management/billing"...then you have the higher ups. The biggest paychecks ALWAYS go to the higher ups who are doing the least work and making the decisions for everyone else. Sick