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.
Problem is states regulate insurers, not federal government.
For an insurer say in New Jersey to offer plans in New York it would have to meet that state's laws and mandates. New York has a pretty extensive "must include" list including everything from IVF to transgender. So if you are an insurer in New Jersey just what would you do differently to have lower costs than native plans already in existence?
So much for competition across state lines driving down healthcare costs.
Outrage over $400 million tax break for insurance executives under GOP Obamacare replacement plan
Democrats on Wednesday broadly blasted a proposed Obamacare replacement bill after learning the federal government would lose about $400 million in lost tax revenue over the next decade due to a sweet break for health insurers.
Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said that the tax break related to executive pay underscores the fact that the Republican replacement bill is "the beginning of a huge giveaway to the very, very wealthy," and the end of insurance coverage to millions of lower-income people.
and the GOP is not even united behind this POS plan!
I always said the republican party is the party of "No Plan", all they ever do is gripe and vilify, but have 'NEVER' had a good plan to counter whatever they are griping against! They have had 7 years to develop a better replacement for Obamacare and still haven't!
Does this bill even have the big Republican ideas of competing across state lines and decreasing lawsuits?
As Bugsy posted, it is more on states to change that. However I didn't hear anything of these in the proposals put forth whether the AHCA or the Paul plan.
Problem is states regulate insurers, not federal government.
For an insurer say in New Jersey to offer plans in New York it would have to meet that state's laws and mandates. New York has a pretty extensive "must include" list including everything from IVF to transgender. So if you are an insurer in New Jersey just what would you do differently to have lower costs than native plans already in existence?
On the flip side if you aren't going to offer anything better or different why would people bother signing up?
Many insurers do sell across statelines, they just have to incorporate that state and abide by that specific state's laws. Unless these protections were outlawed, then we wont see that issue disappear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn
So much for competition across state lines driving down healthcare costs.
I really don't see this impact being at all measurable. There is still a ton of work to be done that isn't just magically going away.
Last trip to Italy, we ended up having a kid rushed to a hospital by ambulance. The hospital seemed to have no billing department. There was an entry station where personnel verified and recorded identity but with no concern or questions about future payment. When we were ready to leave, it took a while for a doctor to flag down an English-speaking assistant who quoted us an embarrassingly small fee and helped us feed euros into some sort of automated system. I handed him the payment verification and out the door we went. Not sure if that payment procedure applied to Italian citizens or was only for those outside the system.
It is called reading between the lines. I've seen similar tones from other posts of your's too... Also others can corroborate said tone. That said, if that wasn't what you said, what exactly do you mean? I'll be fair and let you redeem yourself in figuring out a response to the lack of people being able to truly speak up in regards to medicine and medical practices.
Lets make one thing perfectly clear, I do not in any way, shape, or form need to "redeem" myself. My comment that you are taking issue with is completely above board, looks at the issue with a fair, ethical, and honest approach, and doesn't belittle or diminish the needs of anyone. I find people that justify "reading between the lines" are usually looking for something that isn't there, so congrats on proving my theory correct. As for my tone...too bad, I won't apologize because I don't attack anyone personally and I speak my mind, sometimes people don't like that and if you don't like it and it bothers you that much, I suggest you don't enter debates on such sensitive and volatile topics where people might just disagree with your views.
Now to my original point. I said the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t206
Well its like any other thing, over time and experience you get more educated. Unfortunately you don't have that luxury with emergencies, but there is no magic bullet to solve all the problems. Maybe independent consultants become required at hospitals to play the role of an arbiter or patient advocate who is knowledgeable of such things.
Which resulted in some irrelevant back and forth, but your final your snarky and non-value add response of:
Quote:
Originally Posted by mkpunk
So basically sitdown, shut up, take it, and then pay it. Got it.
You basically disagree with me politically so you chose to put words in my mouth and completely misrepresent what I said.
Now I didn't go into much detail in my original response, but I stand firm that the type of transparency that could come from an arbiter or advocate will be a huge step in the right direction and that will help lower costs and lead towards a reduction of people being over charged.
How do you accomplish this? I said I don't have that answer, however there are plenty of ideas that one could brainstorm. Maybe develop a system similar to that of public defenders in the judicial system that are provided to each hospital to work as a type of case worker to advocate / fight for patients? Maybe develop a system where nursing and med school students can volunteer x# of hours during or after their education to do this advocate work?
If you look at the model, lack of transparency in pricing is a huge issue. Look at how buying a new car worked 10-20 years ago. Zero transparency at all, you and I could buy the same car from the same dealer on the same day with the same credit score and pay $1,000s more/less than one another. Fast forward to today and because of pricing transparency its not all that hard to shop around for a good price that you know is at best a few $100 different than someone else may have paid. We got there because of information sharing among consumers as well as advances in technology and data sharing leveraged through the internet. This took time, and it takes some effort on the part of the consumer. Is it ideal in an emergency situation where your car breaks down and you have to replace it that day, or when you have a heart attack and need immediate attention, no, but to my point, no system is perfect and there needs to be some runway laid down before you can get any kind of traction.
Go ahead and pick and read between the lines, I know that somehow I come off as a horrible human who wants to tell people to "shut up and take it" as you claim, but thats the furthest thing from the truth. At the end of the day I want every person to have available to them all of the information possible to make informed decisions, that is how a good economy works. Free flowing information, educated decisions, and some amount of consumer protection and regulation.
I had a mammogram today. I went up to the reception desk, showed my health card, had my mammogram and left. The office staff would presumably electronically bill the government for the visit at a scheduled fee. No other paperwork.
In the past I've been given requisitions for x-rays. I just go to the reception desk, show my health card, have the x-ray and leave. The office staff would presumably electronically bill the government for the visit at a scheduled fee. No other paperwork.
When I see my GP or a medical specialist to who I have been referred to by the GP, again I simply show my health card and they bill the government.
When I was in hospital a couple of years ago, I paid for nothing and no one at the hospital kept track of how much my stay cost. My discharge papers covered the medical side only e.g. which drugs I was being prescribed.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are "billing issues to deal with, underwriting to figure out premiums, claims people to deal with paying people." That's simply not true.
Doctors know what they can and cannot bill. For example, if the results of expensive test will not change treatment, then the cost probably will not be covered, and the doctor will not order the test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryLady
Last trip to Italy, we ended up having a kid rushed to a hospital by ambulance. The hospital seemed to have no billing department. There was an entry station where personnel verified and recorded identity but with no concern or questions about future payment. When we were ready to leave, it took a while for a doctor to flag down an English-speaking assistant who quoted us an embarrassingly small fee and helped us feed euros into some sort of automated system. I handed him the payment verification and out the door we went. Not sure if that payment procedure applied to Italian citizens or was only for those outside the system.
These are nice anecdotes, but Italy and Canada don't have nearly the stress on their medical systems that we do here considering their populations are both significantly smaller than our own, and likely healthier than our own. One or two stories does not make for a viable replacement scenario. If that Italian doctor did something wrong would you have the same legal recourse to recover any damages? Not that I think we need to sue everyone, of course, but its just one example of differences that could be leading one system to seem so much better on the surface.
Democrats on Wednesday broadly blasted a proposed Obamacare replacement bill after learning the federal government would lose about $400 million in lost tax revenue over the next decade due to a sweet break for health insurers.
Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., said that the tax break related to executive pay underscores the fact that the Republican replacement bill is "the beginning of a huge giveaway to the very, very wealthy," and the end of insurance coverage to millions of lower-income people.
and the GOP is not even united behind this POS plan!
I always said the republican party is the party of "No Plan", all they ever do is gripe and vilify, but have 'NEVER' had a good plan to counter whatever they are griping against! They have had 7 years to develop a better replacement for Obamacare and still haven't!
Have you read the entire American Health Care Act Plan?
Well its like any other thing, over time and experience you get more educated. Unfortunately you don't have that luxury with emergencies, but there is no magic bullet to solve all the problems. Maybe independent consultants become required at hospitals to play the role of an arbiter or patient advocate who is knowledgeable of such things.
Very interesting and astute that you bring up the patient advocate. IMO a very important person that belongs in every hospital. A go between the patient and the system. We/they/patients all have questions and concerns not necessarily answered so easily or quickly.
We docs were going to create a new local community hospital about 10-15 years ago and that was one role to be filled that our current hospital lacked.
Problem is states regulate insurers, not federal government.
For an insurer say in New Jersey to offer plans in New York it would have to meet that state's laws and mandates. New York has a pretty extensive "must include" list including everything from IVF to transgender. So if you are an insurer in New Jersey just what would you do differently to have lower costs than native plans already in existence?
On the flip side if you aren't going to offer anything better or different why would people bother signing up?
This isn't easy for conservatives, since it requires the transfer of power from the states to the Federal gov't. It could be the right or better idea but for cognitive dissonance kicking in...
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.
Outrage over $400 million tax break for insurance executives under GOP Obamacare replacement plan
That said, if that wasn't what you said, what exactly do you mean? I'll be fair and let you redeem yourself in figuring out a response to the lack of people being able to truly speak up in regards to medicine and medical practices.
