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 do that the ACA will never be appealed. If a republican is elected president in the next election do you really think he would actually take healthcare away from those who didn't have any before the ACA. Bobby is a little late to the party with his ideas. He's only trying to get his name back in the news because he's thinking about the white house.
This. ^^ I find it funny that right wingers here think it's the Democrats who are going to be running away from the ACA in the next election, when in truth, it will be the GOP. There is no way they will take healthcare away from the millions of newly insured, and there is no way they will take Medicare away from their core constituency, not unless they are on a suicide mission. Ted Cruz knew this. That's why he was so desperate to stop the law before it took effect. He knew that once people got a taste of it it would be too late. He was right.
This is all just so much hot air by Piyush hoping to remain relevant.
Hospitals are required to stabilize anyone who presents in the ER with a true emergency and do so regardless of the patient's ability to pay. This does not mean the hospital will not bill the patient or turn the matter over to collections. If the patient is employed and/ or has assets, dependent on the size of the bill, they will seek a court order to garnish wages and/ or put a lien on property.
The government reimburses hospitals for a percentage of write offs of bad debt.
If, if, if. We are still talking about the same thing. The point is that hospitals and Dr's should be reimbursed for their expenses, but EMTALA doesn't contain a provision for that.
Your link said "per beneficiary". EVERYONE on Medicare is a beneficiary, whether they used their Medicare or not. The entire medicare population is the denominator.
That is correct. Same as my premiums were part of the denominator for my insurer's loss ratio last year despite the fact that I never went to the doctor. Not everyone with insurance uses it every year and that's built into the per capita cost, whether you're talking about commercial insurance or valuing a government benefit like Medicare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weichert
You do realize that idea would cost maybe 50% more than current Medicare. Don't you?
Yup. I'm ripping apart a bad argument made based on emotion and numbers I suspect to be made up; I don't support a policy of replacing current Medicare spending with a $15,000 voucher; that would be dumb. For precisely the reason you mention among others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
32% of seniors have heart conditions. A bypass runs $70,000-$100,000 depending on complexity. This does not include the cost of diagnostic tests, MD, surgeon fees and ongoing medications.
20 % of seniors receive a Cancer diagnosis. Of the 12 drugs used to treat cancer, 11 are priced above $100,000 for a year's treatment. This does not include diagnostic tests, MD, surgeon or hospital fees.
Look. I linked data. People are paid to put this stuff together and the results are conveniently posted on the internet for free sometimes. If you want to handwave by throwing out disconnected statistics when the bottom line costs are available as linked earlier, albeit slightly out of date (feel free to find and link something more recent if you want to dig it up, it will be slightly higher thanks to medical inflation), then you keep on doing what you are doing: there is no better way to argue against something than to argue for it incompetently.
The not for profit status does not mean a hospital cannot incur a profit. Many not for profit hospitals have $100,000's of millions in profit every year.. They simply cannot use those profits to pay a dividend to their shareholders.
Instead they use their profits to pay substantial compensation to non MD administrators to build the brand and either acquire or put the competition out of business. They woo wealthy donors to constantly expand and grow the brand.
I'm just curious why it has taken Republicans 30 years to come up with revisions to a healthcare system that has been an increasingly high cost nightmare starting in the 90s?
Oh that's right the idea of an individual mandate was proposed in 1989 by the conservative Heritage Foundation and published in a paper entitled “A National Health System for America.”
In the paper the Heritage Foundation’s director proposed that “every resident of the U.S. must by law be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.” The proposal was backed by a large number of Republicans, but of course once Obama proposed it, Republicans had to oppose it as is their partisan duty and sworn opposition oath. Hence, they must quickly come up with new "conservative plans" and that must be why it took them so long?
It will be quite entertaining as each GOP president wannabe presents their very own personal health care plan to be legislated after they totally repeal the ACA. This is going to be fun.
That is correct. Same as my premiums were part of the denominator for my insurer's loss ratio last year despite the fact that I never went to the doctor. Not everyone with insurance uses it every year and that's built into the per capita cost, whether you're talking about commercial insurance or valuing a government benefit like Medicare.
Yup. I'm ripping apart a bad argument made based on emotion and numbers I suspect to be made up; I don't support a policy of replacing current Medicare spending with a $15,000 voucher; that would be dumb. For precisely the reason you mention among others.
Look. I linked data. People are paid to put this stuff together and the results are conveniently posted on the internet for free sometimes. If you want to handwave by throwing out disconnected statistics when the bottom line costs are available as linked earlier, albeit slightly out of date (feel free to find and link something more recent if you want to dig it up, it will be slightly higher thanks to medical inflation), then you keep on doing what you are doing: there is no better way to argue against something than to argue for it incompetently.
I am not disputing the data of average cost per person. What makes no sense is to use the average to benchmark an annual voucher when half of the senior population have conditions that cost substantially more than average. Unless they can pay out of pocket, they would be SOL.
I'm just curious why it has taken Republicans 30 years to come up with revisions to a healthcare system that has been an increasingly high cost nightmare starting in the 90s?
Oh that's right the idea of an individual mandate was proposed in 1989 by the conservative Heritage Foundation and published in a paper entitled “A National Health System for America.”
In the paper the Heritage Foundation’s director proposed that “every resident of the U.S. must by law be enrolled in an adequate health care plan to cover major health care costs.” The proposal was backed by a large number of Republicans, but of course once Obama proposed it, Republicans had to oppose it as is their partisan duty and sworn opposition oath. Hence, they must quickly come up with new "conservative plans" and that must be why it took them so long?
It will be quite entertaining as each GOP president wannabe presents their very own personal health care plan to be legislated after they totally repeal the ACA. This is going to be fun.
This. Even earlier in fact. Our healthcare system showed many flaws as early as the 80s. That is why Reagan, the last sane Republican to have the presidency, signed into law that emergency rooms have to treat patients despite ability to pay. I wonder Republicans today, with their far right radical mindsets, would have done the same as he did.
This. Even earlier in fact. Our healthcare system showed many flaws as early as the 80s. That is why Reagan, the last sane Republican to have the presidency, signed into law that emergency rooms have to treat patients despite ability to pay. I wonder Republicans today, with their far right radical mindsets, would have done the same as he did.
I was 16 when this was passed.
Modern conservatives would probably filibuster it. The rhetoric would be that the costs would destroy us as a nation
I am not disputing the data of average cost per person. What makes no sense is to use the average to benchmark an annual voucher when half of the senior population have conditions that cost substantially more than average. Unless they can pay out of pocket, they would be SOL.
Well, there are two ways of looking at it.
The first is, some will incur higher costs than average in practice. This is irrelevant once people have paid their premium and entered the risk pool except insofar as cost-sharing (copays, coinsurance, deductibles, etc.) is concerned, and traditional medicare has really high cost-sharing already, since they are already paid up, in the risk pool, and will have their claims paid for.
The second actually has some validity to it, and that's that if you allowed unrestricted underwriting again like before the ACA for the commercial market then people with conditions that predict a higher likelihood of high costs in the upcoming year might face premiums above whatever level a voucher would be set at. Hence a voucher system would be a redistribution of resources from the young to the old unless you adjusted for age and from the likely-to-be-sick to the likely-to-be-healthy unless you restricted medical underwriting - and that is a legitimate reason to argue against certain designs of voucher programs, and for others.
I have to praise him for at least coming up with something. "Repeal Obamacare" is not a healthcare plan, and now that 7 million people have signed up for it it is probably not possible.
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.
Hence, they must quickly come up with new "conservative plans" and that must be why it took them so long?
