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.
Well that's a lousy decision for a conservative to have to make. You get stripped of your private insurance, your choice is to pay more taxes and buy that not-great policy at full price from the insurer, or become a part of the Obamacare hive so they can brag they have so many millions and *this* many republicans signing up because everyone loves it so much.
You aren't understanding what is going on. The insurance companies were not following regulations. But making their own rules to maximize profits for shareholders. This meant that if someone were to get a treatment for being deaf the insurance company would decide to not cover it if covering would cost them a percentage point on the stock exchange.
"A year-by-year analysis shows a significant increase in the number of coverage denials each year. The insurance companies denied coverage to 172,400 people in 2007 and 221,400 people in 2008. By 2009, the number of individuals denied coverage rose to 257,100.Between 2007 and 2009, the number of people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions increased 49%. During the same period, applications for insurance coverage at the four companies increased by only 16%.
Individuals were denied coverage based on “an extensive list of medical conditions,” the memo noted. One company had a list of more than 400 medical diagnoses used to decline coverage to those seeking it, and common conditions such as pregnancy, diabetes, and heart disease were included on the list."
Every insurance policy is a contract. People should read stuff before they sign on the line. If the insurer breaks that contract, the injured party has the option of taking them to court for breach of contract. So basically, you think we should fundamentally transform our health care industry because people don't both to read what they sign?
You aren't understanding what is going on. The insurance companies were not following regulations. But making their own rules to maximize profits for shareholders. This meant that if someone were to get a treatment for being deaf the insurance company would decide to not cover it if covering would cost them a percentage point on the stock exchange.
"A year-by-year analysis shows a significant increase in the number of coverage denials each year. The insurance companies denied coverage to 172,400 people in 2007 and 221,400 people in 2008. By 2009, the number of individuals denied coverage rose to 257,100.Between 2007 and 2009, the number of people denied coverage for pre-existing conditions increased 49%. During the same period, applications for insurance coverage at the four companies increased by only 16%.
Individuals were denied coverage based on “an extensive list of medical conditions,” the memo noted. One company had a list of more than 400 medical diagnoses used to decline coverage to those seeking it, and common conditions such as pregnancy, diabetes, and heart disease were included on the list."
But that is for your cost; it does not tell you what the doctor will be paid.
No, the doc has to have a fee schedule. Those fees are what a cash patient will pay. Every patient is billed the same fee for the same service. The insurance applies its discount, determines what part of the discounted price the patient owes, and then pays the balance. The doctor may discount the full price on a patient by patient basis, but if he does it for everyone, the discounted price becomes the new full price. That will lead to insurance companies recalculating what they will pay and a drop in reimbursement from the insurance company. For the same reason, doctors cannot waive the patient's share of the cost on a routine basis, including what the patient owes under Medicare.
Most docs collect copayments up front but do not collect deductibles. Since the patient may be seeing other doctors, it is hard for him to know what the remaining amount on the deductible is on any given day until he has actually paid it all. Most offices wait until the insurance pays and then bill for any amount that the insurance company applies to the deductible. Otherwise, if they have the patient pay more because the deductible has not been met, they may end up having to refund to the patient if another claim is processed first.
The unanswered question is whether patients with heavily subsidized plans are going to be able to afford their deductibles. If they do not pay them, the doc gets stiffed.
That may be a concern of the doc in the OP.
I didn't know that! Our office waives co-pays for "professional courtesy" patients and some other categories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Of course not.
But one needs to be wary of moral hazards.
It'd hard to compare car repair with human repair.
But if there profitable and non-profitable repairs, why would the dealer even take on the latter?
Yes, it is. This is why I have never "bought" these comparisons of health insurance and car insurance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALackOfCreativity
In the end the feds are tapping the same resource the states are; taxpayers. States have more power to tax than the feds do because they have access to sales, property, etc. - levers which the fed generally doesn't pull - in addition to income, payroll, etc. Further, many states have more favorable environment in terms of health needs, resource availability, and political will. A state like Vermont will have a much easier time - not harder - than the feds would.
As for "new money creation," well, the current vogue belief among some parts of the left that you can print money and that will expand real parts of the economy like some kind of magic is really dangerous. Sure, if you're in a Keynesian demand slump fiscal/monetary expansion can in the short-term be helpful, but it's not outside of that scenario and in the end you are providing people with healthcare -- doctor visits, hospital stays, medical equipment, drugs, physical therapy, nursing, etc. These are real things that require real people to do real work, and you can't magically wish more resources into existence by expanding the monetary base. You don't get infinite growth that way - you get modern-day Venezuela, or Zimbabwe of several years back.
The Colorado legislature cannot raise a nickel of money through taxes. All taxes have to be voted on by the people. All they can do to raise money is impose fees. Property taxes are local taxes, not state taxes.
It won't be that long before nearly all of us are replaced by robots and computers.
Sorry, I don't think so. I think the critical thinking skills that doctors must use will not be replaced by automation anytime soon. Your premise would only work if the human body reacted predictably each and every time when faced with a medical problem. It doesn't.
Here's what I don't understand about your argument against doctor owned hospitals? Why? I mean, they offer a service that costs more, the patient is willing to pay it, have high quality, and yet you think they should not exist? Why? I like this idea.
I'll concede the point that many of these doctor owned hospitals specialize. However, I don't understand why that is a bad thing. Why must we have all hospitals cater to the lowest common denominator? Reminds me of the left's stance on education - penalize the smartest kids so the slow kids can 'keep up'. Now you want to penalize those who can afford private care. Why not look at a way for the other hospitals increase quality of care instead of trying to penalize hospitals that are high quality already?
I really find the phrase "lowest common denominator" offensive when it comes to health care. What if you, or I, have a condition that does not lend itself to these lucrative practices, say, cancer or heart disease? IME, surgery centers are for eye surgery and orthopedics. Surgery in general lends itself more to these more high-end diagnoses. "The other hospitals" have to take the patients with the messy diagnoses, and run the ERs.
I really find the phrase "lowest common denominator" offensive when it comes to health care. What if you, or I, have a condition that does not lend itself to these lucrative practices, say, cancer or heart disease? IME, surgery centers are for eye surgery and orthopedics. Surgery in general lends itself more to these more high-end diagnoses. "The other hospitals" have to take the patients with the messy diagnoses, and run the ERs.
Honestly, there's top notch hospitals which cover almost all of these and it doesn't seem to make a difference if its doctor owned or not. So let me clarify my point. Why would the addition of doctor owned hospitals be a bad thing? They offer a service people want, people are willing to pay for it, and they have high quality. Not sure why that's a bad thing.
Here's what I don't understand about your argument against doctor owned hospitals? Why? I mean, they offer a service that costs more, the patient is willing to pay it, have high quality, and yet you think they should not exist? Why? I like this idea.
I'll concede the point that many of these doctor owned hospitals specialize. However, I don't understand why that is a bad thing. Why must we have all hospitals cater to the lowest common denominator? Reminds me of the left's stance on education - penalize the smartest kids so the slow kids can 'keep up'. Now you want to penalize those who can afford private care. Why not look at a way for the other hospitals increase quality of care instead of trying to penalize hospitals that are high quality already?
I think that these hospitals should continue on, simply with adjusted or added oversight. I think that any patient with the desire and means should have access to these sorts of facilities. And I don't think its a quality issue on either side. It's a payment and profit issue.
The problem has to do with cherry picking. And I don't have an answer for that, other than possibly some oversight or changes as might be reflected here:
I think that these hospitals should continue on, simply with adjusted or added oversight. I think that any patient with the desire and means should have access to these sorts of facilities. And I don't think its a quality issue on either side. It's a payment and profit issue.
The problem has to do with cherry picking. And I don't have an answer for that, other than possibly some oversight or changes as might be reflected here:
Oversight? Government oversight? Any hospital, even doctor owned ones, are already under an enormous amount of government oversight. I think it's an excellent free market option and should remain as one. I think limiting additional doctor owned hospitals has more to do with lobbyists trying to eliminate or curb the competition than with actual rationale.
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.
