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.
Looks like the same 23% who disagree with everything. I really have no horse in this race. I have Socialized Medicine from the VA then Medicare and Tricare in the private zone. I can't call either one and get an appoinment until September. Twice this year I have had to go to the Emergency Ward because the Doctors were too busy. The system is broken.
From what I can tell the Senate is working towards the "non-profit co-op" route. I might would actually buy into that, surely if there's no profit then the rates would be much cheaper? I'd like to hear other's opinions on it, I seldom hear anyone here mention it.
From what I understand, it's a good idea, but there's very little information about it. The best explanation I heard is that it is similar to the Rural Electric Co-ops. Some people are opposed b/c it's not a "public" option.
OK, I read this article. It has a lot of misinformation and scare tactics in it. For example:
(Mods please note, I am paraphrasing except where I use quotation marks)
My responses are in blue:
It is supposed to be bad if you like Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials.
What these essentials are is not specified. You're supposed to be able to determine how much you will spend out of pocket in a given year, and put that in an HSA. Just how you're supposed to do that has never been discussed by the proponents. For example, do you know if you're going to have a heart attck, be diagnosed with cancer, whatever, in a given year?
"The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state." The federal government will determine what a qualified plan is.
You might be surprised to learn that every state does this now. In fact, sanrene, your state probably has more mandates than mine.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage.
Well, now, isn't that just awful?
"The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses."
This is a repeat of the above about HSA insurance. Stripped down plans sound good until you really need insurance. And, they are generally not that much cheaper, having priced some.
The article says you will be "assigned" a "Medical Home" and that the medical home will control your access to specialists.
Now, I haven't read through the whole bill, and it seems now like this is not going to be the final bill, anyway. It is the same thing as most ins. companies have now, that you have to designate a primary physician. It is the job of the primary to refer you to a specialist. Whether this person will be assigned or you will have a choice remains to be seen. I'd go with choice as the most likely, simply b/c it is the option most likely to appeal to the constituents (us).
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Do you have a link to an independent group analyzing that particular plan to determine its ability to accomplish the goal?
Interesting now that Congress is thinking of changing the surcharge to only incomes of 1 million and more rather than 350K. That means less revenue for the plan so higher public plan premiums and taxes for the middle class.
It's all in the first link that I provided. Obviously if they limit the surcharge to incomes exceeding $1 million, they will have to go with one or both of the other tax increase proposals as well if the reform is really going to cost $1.6 million. In my opinion it's still worth it because I think the rich are paying too little tax to begin with, I don't feel it's fair that workers have to pay Medicare taxes while investors don't have to pay them, and that rich people are able to deduct their charitable contributions at greater rates than the poor and middle class.
Making money off of SICK people ~ KILL them off if needed
Change,,,,, it's scary for the rightwing,,, fear change because......... they did nothing for decades to improve heathcare ~ everyone was making money as you got sick or died. The system works if you want to make money off of sick people and kill them.
If you listen to all of the rightwing propaganda the medical healthcare bill will KILL you. I truly believe if nothing is done, the insurance company will KILL you with failure to pay for your health care claims.
The system is broken and failed the country. The world health organization measured all of the nations with the “same” tools and found that the US is 37th in ranking. Our health care is not number 1 and it’s not even in the top 10. That’s criminal! Nothing has been done to improve the healthcare system in the country, and the only change that DID occur was when they changed it ~ changed the “healthcare for profit”. When they started making money off of sick people (above the cost of care) your health care went down. For profit hospitals, doctors, and medicine has caused the problem and destroyed the nations quality of care. They focus on the dollar not the treatment.
Google “how does the US rank in healthcare” look at all of the links and inform yourself. There is one link that “smartgirl” put out there saying that the WHO is incorrect. What she didn’t tell you is that WHO measured all of the countries with the same tools and tests. There is nothing unfair about their stats all countries are measured the same.
Now, I haven't read through the whole bill, and it seems now like this is not going to be the final bill, anyway. It is the same thing as most ins. companies have now, that you have to designate a primary physician. It is the job of the primary to refer you to a specialist. Whether this person will be assigned or you will have a choice remains to be seen. I'd go with choice as the most likely, simply b/c it is the option most likely to appeal to the constituents (us).
My insurance DOES NOT REQUIRE a PCP nor a PCP referral to a specialist. I can, if I choose, pick any specialist I want.
My insurance DOES NOT REQUIRE a PCP nor a PCP referral to a specialist. I can, if I choose, pick any specialist I want.
I prefer the freedom of this.
Don't you?
Yeah that's what I like about my PPO plan. Last year I went to a ENT doctor, I simply looked him up in the phonebook and made an appointment, no referral was needed.
My insurance DOES NOT REQUIRE a PCP nor a PCP referral to a specialist. I can, if I choose, pick any specialist I want.
I prefer the freedom of this.
Don't you?
My ins. doesn't require a referral, either. Neither does the insurance of a lot of the patients I work with. However, everyone still needs a "medical home". I know it's a hokey term, but everyone should have some sort of PCP to go to for routine things, to ask for recommendations for specialists, etc. I don't know how this bill will treat the specialist issue.
How soon we forget. For a long time US of A had one of the top health care systems. High quality affordable medical care and thousands of privare charities which provided health services for the poor.
You pay cash for routine doctor visits and insurance was for serious health problems. Today you go through HMOs, Medicaid, and Medicare. Incentives to cut costs is low.Doctors charge the maximum allowed by the HMOs. Competition is lost. HMOs are nothing more than corporate middlemen who drive up the costs and lower the quality. In other industries technology has almost always led to lower prices. The cost of health care has skyrocketed thanks to a managed health care system. Because of this high cost more Americans are traveling overseas to get high quality and inexpensive health care. People can travel to India and get a Western trained Doctor for 60 percent less than it would cost in America.
The system is screwed up by the politicians we elect. Health insurance is not taxed when employers purchase it but when an individual does it is not excluded from taxation.
Before our government got involved health care was more affordable and accessible. Some physicians operate outside the system. Operating without medicare, medicaid, or bureaucratic HMOs the doctors can decide appropiate treatment instead of being handcuffed.
If you want to look at health care schemes check out the quality, or lack of quality, in our Veterans Hospitals. Our most heroic and admirable citizens get this type of care and for some reason that is acceptable? McGovern had it right when he said "Government intervention into the economy cannot be assumed to be good and welcome and just". History has taught us this. Too bad so many forget.
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.
Making money off of SICK people ~ KILL them off if needed
