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.
At some point we must come to the realization that the only answer that applies is, duh.
So it doesn't faze you one bit that the Obamacare high risk pool is running 2x the national average and that the CBO projections were off and that 9 states need more money and are refusing new patients ?
It's all about the politics isn't it ? It was Dem sponsored and you won. That's all you care about.
Go ahead..forget about those people who thought they could get insurance now but can't because there is no more money. Maybe they can get into the regular pool in 2014 if they don't die first.
So it doesn't faze you one bit that the Obamacare high risk pool is running 2x the national average and that the CBO projections were off and that 9 states need more money and are refusing new patients ?
It's all about the politics isn't it ? It was Dem sponsored and you won. That's all you care about.
Go ahead..forget about those people who thought they could get insurance now but can't because there is no more money. Maybe they can get into the regular pool in 2014 if they don't die first.
The areas around me--DC,VA,MD has the high risk pool that will merge in 2014. It aint cheap, it certainly isn't free. What Kat is trying to explain to you is for many who have not fallen into a crack and are sick as sick can be, still are covered in many instances for many people, primarily through group insurance (employer provided). Once you fall into the crack for many, they can no longer get coverage when a lapse occurs, this can happen for a variety of reasons to help weed those from the for-profit system. When that happens they either pay for this high risk plan, which did not exist before 2010, go bankrupt then medicaid, or are approved for SSDI and medicare. In 2014 that should change significantly.
^^This is funny coming from the side that is always talking about finite resources. This is actully why we need a single payer system.
I'm absolutely against single-payer. One hundred percent. I won't even listen to an argument in favor of it.
Here's the reason. I know my body better than my doctor, my insurance company, or the US government; so if I feel like something is wrong and I want to have it checked out AT MY OWN EXPENSE to give me some peace of mind, I should be able to do so.
If we go to a single-payer system, I won't be able to pay for anything out of pocket, and therefore won't be able to request diagnostic procedures unless they are ordered by a doctor. Doctors will be limited to what they can order based on established criteria. So if I feel like something is wrong, if the symptoms don't exist to allow the doctor to order a certain test I have no choice but to fret about it until the feeling either goes away or until symptoms develop that justify the test to the provider, by which time treatment options may be severely limited.
I'm absolutely against single-payer. One hundred percent. I won't even listen to an argument in favor of it.
Here's the reason. I know my body better than my doctor, my insurance company, or the US government; so if I feel like something is wrong and I want to have it checked out AT MY OWN EXPENSE to give me some peace of mind, I should be able to do so.
If we go to a single-payer system, I won't be able to pay for anything out of pocket, and therefore won't be able to request diagnostic procedures unless they are ordered by a doctor. Doctors will be limited to what they can order based on established criteria. So if I feel like something is wrong, if the symptoms don't exist to allow the doctor to order a certain test I have no choice but to fret about it until the feeling either goes away or until symptoms develop that justify the test to the provider, by which time treatment options may be severely limited.
I am a bit confused as to why you don't think you could go to a diag lab, request services, pay for them yourself, hire someone to interpret the results, pay for that yourself, ....etc... well, you get the picture. Now, if you request some radiology work or other things that may be harmful, the lab may want to check with your Dr for records and risk assessment. But hey, if you got the money, you got the way!
I'm absolutely against single-payer. One hundred percent. I won't even listen to an argument in favor of it.
Here's the reason. I know my body better than my doctor, my insurance company, or the US government; so if I feel like something is wrong and I want to have it checked out AT MY OWN EXPENSE to give me some peace of mind, I should be able to do so.
If we go to a single-payer system, I won't be able to pay for anything out of pocket, and therefore won't be able to request diagnostic procedures unless they are ordered by a doctor. Doctors will be limited to what they can order based on established criteria. So if I feel like something is wrong, if the symptoms don't exist to allow the doctor to order a certain test I have no choice but to fret about it until the feeling either goes away or until symptoms develop that justify the test to the provider, by which time treatment options may be severely limited.
I don't know why you think the bold would be true. As is now, the doctor has to have some diagnosis code on the lab requisition that corresponds at least a little bit to the test being ordered, for example, "stomach pain" if ordering a test for celiac disease. This is per the lab, not insurance. The doctor can usually come up with something if the patient wants the test. I don't know why it would be any different under single payer.
I'm absolutely against single-payer. One hundred percent. I won't even listen to an argument in favor of it.
Here's the reason. I know my body better than my doctor, my insurance company, or the US government; so if I feel like something is wrong and I want to have it checked out AT MY OWN EXPENSE to give me some peace of mind, I should be able to do so.
If we go to a single-payer system, I won't be able to pay for anything out of pocket, and therefore won't be able to request diagnostic procedures unless they are ordered by a doctor. Doctors will be limited to what they can order based on established criteria. So if I feel like something is wrong, if the symptoms don't exist to allow the doctor to order a certain test I have no choice but to fret about it until the feeling either goes away or until symptoms develop that justify the test to the provider, by which time treatment options may be severely limited.
That's not true. Most if not all modern one payer systems of the world have for-profit insurance also that compete with the single payer. Keeps everyone honest. Also, cash talks anywhere.
I am a bit confused as to why you don't think you could go to a diag lab, request services, pay for them yourself, hire someone to interpret the results, pay for that yourself, ....etc... well, you get the picture. Now, if you request some radiology work or other things that may be harmful, the lab may want to check with your Dr for records and risk assessment. But hey, if you got the money, you got the way!
If we're talking about blood work or urinalysis that would probably work. You don't generally find a lot of colonoscopy or CT scan equipment outside a hospital, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by katiana
I don't know why you think the bold would be true. As is now, the doctor has to have some diagnosis code on the lab requisition that corresponds at least a little bit to the test being ordered, for example, "stomach pain" if ordering a test for celiac disease. This is per the lab, not insurance. The doctor can usually come up with something if the patient wants the test. I don't know why it would be any different under single payer.
The difference is that if the doctor performs the test and the insurance company refuses to pay because the criteria for performing the test weren't met exactly, he can come back and collect from me. Under a single-payer system if he performs the test and the insurance company refuses to pay he's screwed; therefore he'll be less likely to order the test.
If we're talking about blood work or urinalysis that would probably work. You don't generally find a lot of colonoscopy or CT scan equipment outside a hospital, though.
The difference is that if the doctor performs the test and the insurance company refuses to pay because the criteria for performing the test weren't met exactly, he can come back and collect from me. Under a single-payer system if he performs the test and the insurance company refuses to pay he's screwed; therefore he'll be less likely to order the test.
The lab does not ask for anything other than a diagnosis code. They don't ask for justification. Diagnosis codes are simple, e.g. 'pharyngitis' (sore throat), 'abdominal pain, unspecified' (covers a multitude of symptoms); 'diarrhea' (ditto), etc. The doctor can write up the patient's request to conform with what the payor wants; that's what they do now. Most of the tests run at our office come back negative, e.g. normal.
What I would like to see is all of those dumbazzz governors that will refuse the federal funds fare when re-election time comes around. How can you deny people the means for proper medical care because of political affliation?
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.
