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.
It's pretty easy to tell if you have received treatment at both types of facilities, or I suppose you could look up the CMS reimbursement rates to make the comparisons you don't have to pay to access those
yep.. its right here.. thats the PAYMENT schedule.
Who thinks an exponentially increasing public assistance-dependent class is sustainable? What's the plan for paying to support the exponentially growing perpetually needy class? What happens when paying to support their ever-increasing numbers becomes so burdensome that it strains available resources? Hmmm...?
"For many routine services, insurers pay hospitals more than independent doctors. Under Medicare rules, hospitals are allowed to collect more than doctors – and that means the out-of-pocket share for Medicare patients also is larger....Hospitals get about 80 percent more Medicare revenue than independent doctors for many routine services, he said. But the additional expenses for a hospital don’t justify that kind of payment difference, he said."
Ok conservatives tell us how much your premiums were in 2013 and how much they are this year and how much you think they will be if the ACA is turned over. .
My very good policy with a $4000 deductible was about $375 a month when Obamacare went into affect.
There were immediate increases due to the new type of coverage I did not need or want.
Then there were fees and charges that went into affect the last 2 Jan 1's.
So my $375 policy now costs me $680 2.5 years later. That's right at a 80% price increase. Previously I would see a 3-8% year increase prior to Ocare.
Also my deductible has gone up to $5,000 just to hold it at this level.
My ex-wife who is a cancer survivor had a TX state pool policy through BCBS that ran about $650 a month.
With the ACA those state pools were disbanded and now she pays $850 with a much higher deductible.
At least in my world the ACA Tax has increased the cost of Insurance tremendously.
But I guess I'm one of the working fools that get's to pay for others subsidies.
The damage is done. I don't expect it to go back down but it's been such a bad Tax that I'm all for killing the monster.
My very good policy with a $4000 deductible was about $375 a month when Obamacare went into affect.
There were immediate increases due to the new type of coverage I did not need or want.
Then there were fees and charges that went into affect the last 2 Jan 1's.
So my $375 policy now costs me $680 2.5 years later. That's right at a 80% price increase. Previously I would see a 3-8% year increase prior to Ocare.
Also my deductible has gone up to $5,000 just to hold it at this level.
My ex-wife who is a cancer survivor had a TX state pool policy through BCBS that ran about $650 a month.
With the ACA those state pools were disbanded and now she pays $850 with a much higher deductible.
At least in my world the ACA Tax has increased the cost of Insurance tremendously.
But I guess I'm one of the working fools that get's to pay for others subsidies.
The damage is done. I don't expect it to go back down but it's been such a bad Tax that I'm all for killing the monster.
Please. a 3-8% increase before Obamacare? You're just pulling stuff out...and thats a great example of it.
Who thinks an exponentially increasing public assistance-dependent class is sustainable? What's the plan for paying to support the exponentially growing perpetually needy class? What happens when paying to support their ever-increasing numbers becomes so burdensome that it strains available resources? Hmmm...?
Part of that is socio-economically explained. Lower income people are me likely to get pregnant younger while higher income typically wait until they are in their career if they do they do decide have kids. Another thing is many on the right hate abortion which is an option fit lower income. They can't because of cuts to planned parenthood and other low cost abortion options as well as laws limiting abortions except for rape, invest, well being of the mother, etc. Note, even adoption would tax Medicaid too.
It's.gonna be lose/lose for the Republicans when this decision comes out.
If the SCOTUS rules against Obamacare, the backlash against Republicans is gonna be BRUTAL. I kinda hope the court rules that way just so I can watch the show.
If the SCOTUS rules in favor of Obamacare, then Repubs will have lost once again. Nothing succeeds like success, and Obamacare has a good record of that so far.
The WORST thing the court could do is make some kind of mixed ruling. Not an outright rejection... but just enough of an opening to allow further sabotage by the Republicans. Because if there's one thing Republicans can really get behind and get something done on... it's taking money away from ordinary people so that it can be redistributed to billionaires.
Part of that is socio-economically explained. Lower income people are me likely to get pregnant
They can't afford to support and raise a child, so why? They already get free (Medicaid) or low-cost (county health department or slding fee clinics) birth control.
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.
