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.
So their plan is a bailout of the insurance companies. Hopefully there are enough actual conservatives in the Senate to filibuster such a "fix" until reinforcements arrive in 2018.
All 49 GOP Senators who kept their word and voted to repeal ACA should be just as bipartisan as the Democrats were when passing it and over the 7 years since. I.e. Do not compromise on ANYTHING.
Shrug.
The bipartisan bill won't go forward unless enough Rs and Ds sign on to it.
Is it what either side really wants? Of course not. But with Congress as evenly divided as it is, the basic idea is to shore up the ACA in order to prevent a crash in the insurance markets until the mid-term elections. Each party is hoping that their position will improve while the other party's position declines. Alexander thinks that if the insurance markets crash, the Rs will pay at the ballot box. The Ds think so too.
I know that isn't what you want to hear, but I think that Alexander knows just a teensy bit more than you do about how congress - and congressional elections - work.
And it may not. Those that are chomping at the bit for socialized care may just be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
As retirees get older one issue with "medicare for all" is the need for cost containment because free care for all is expensive as hell, and that usually falls onto the backs of older people and younger people deemed to "not be worth the cost" of a procedure or life saving treatment. It will certainly shoot taxes way up.
Can you imagine how many doctors,nurses and facilities that will be needed when ANYONE can go to a doctor FOR FREE at any time for any little thing? No copay,no charges just whatever,whenever for whomever.
Y'all think those using the E.R. as a doctors office for free care is clogging things up, you just wait...
As a person whose only insurance is medicare, I can tell you for a fact that medicare subscribers DO pay. We pay a monthly premium - comes right out of our SS check - and we pay copays. And many of us also pay for supplemental insurance, since medicare does not, in fact, pay for everything. It doesn't pay for long-term nursing home care, for instance. This is after paying into it all our working lives.
You are right about the cost containment issue though. It's one of the biggest holes in the ACA, and certainly something that most Ds would like to see addressed.
Stop all the silliness. There are numerous ways to throttle services beside money. But I would think a middle tier of providers and automation could have big impact. Get rid of the insurance companies and the legions which support them in Doctor's offices and you cut the cost of health care by a third or so.
Get your mind around it. We are the worst provider of health care in the developed countries. Everyone does it better than we do. And there are these dozens of existence proofs. My niece is an English MD though she works now in Copenhagen (Big Dane is involved we suspect) She makes a nice living, often pops back to England for a long weekend because she can pull in a couple of thousand dollars in three days as a fill in Physician. But she is not making $300,000 a year.
She is not making 200K a year. She is making more than 100K.
You were saying?
I was saying US doctors do not all make 200K+ per year. The ones you see the most, pediatricians, family practitioners, generalists, don't. Some of the specialists do.
Here's a breakdown of internal medicine docs by location: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/u...IN1_KO3,27.htm Most do not make 200K. You have an unrealistic idea of how much doctors make. Internal med is another name for "general practice, adult".
What's your point?
I was saying US doctors do not all make 200K+ per year. The ones you see the most, pediatricians, family practitioners, generalists, don't. Some of the specialists do.
Here's a breakdown of internal medicine docs by location: https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/u...IN1_KO3,27.htm Most do not make 200K. You have an unrealistic idea of how much doctors make. Internal med is another name for "general practice, adult".
What's your point?
ah stop...the bottom of the US MDs do about 200K. The top specialists go 400K.
And we need another layer below the Physicians to get the whole thing on an even keel. And then we need automation to get the record keeping under control.
Yup, the liberals think the ACA is perfect. Unfortunately for the Democrats, millions of Americans know otherwise because they are paying exorbitant premiums for policies that have gigantic deductibles. Basically, ACA forces people to buy unusable health insurance so the government can subsidize uninsured people. In exchange for this wealth transfer, the people on the receiving end of course vote Democrat and populate message boards to vociferously defend this debacle.
No they don't, do you not listen to what they say about it. But instead of trying to repeal and replace, as republicans have been trying to do, why not just fix what is wrong with it. Everyone has to have health insurance to bring the costs down for all of us. We pay for the uninsured already. You can be young and healthy and get hit by a car and be in the hospital for months. Who do you thinks pays for that if they don't have insurance. So what do consider unusable health insurance. It's not like they charge you for a particle issue.
And we need another layer below the Physicians to get the whole thing on an even keel. And then we need automation to get the record keeping under control.
Stop? Why? Because my figures don't match your assumptions? From Medscape: "This year [2017], specialists reported earnings 46% higher than their primary care physician (PCP) peers ($316,000 vs $217,000 respectively). So this year for the first time PCP docs are making just over $200K. http://www.medscape.com/slideshow/co...view-6008547#2
The whole Medscape article is 43 pages, which I will peruse.
You do know that physicians in the US have a lot of debt to pay off, something your niece does not, right?
We already have this layer you're advocating for, PAs and NPs. Nothing will get the record keeping under control. In the almost 50 years I've been involved with health care, record keeping has been an ongoing problem. New methods are constantly being implemented, and subsequently dropped. This whole EHR stuff was way oversold by the Obama administration, though its time had probably come. But it doesn't save time, or money. One of the biggest complaints w/EHR from patients is that the doctor spends too much time on the computer, and doesn't make eye contact with the patient much. The solution? A scribe to come into the room with the physician and enter data. Add another staff person! There's a real money saver, not.
I hear McCain could not even give a "thumbs down."
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.
