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, because there are not enough doctors to care for EVERYONE, some people will just have to "deal" with not being able to afford a doctor's visit. Sounds like great logic. Those with insurance and/or appropriate funds get care, the rest get shafted.
Yeah that is what I said. NOT!!! I said that something needs to be done but a government plan is NOT the answer. Get the lawyers under control, force the private insurance to insure people no matter the condition, allow people to buy insurance across state lines, put caps on what can be charged for insurance. No where did I ever say do nothing!
Quote:
Personally, I'd rather have a wait time for my yearly appointment than for some woman out there not get herself swabbed and end up with cancer that could have been found earlier. Paying for that swab is a lot less costly than paying for cervical cancer.
Yeah you say that now, let you child have cancer and be told they have to wait for an appointment because the lady down the street wants her check up. That is crap and you know it.
The very clear advantage is that the government can run red ink indefinitely while private insurers go out of business.
Exactly. And Democrats who deny this will happen are simply not being honest.
'Competition' against a government subsidized entity is not competition at all.
The solution is getting government out of the marketplace, not further in.
The present health care crisis is caused by government interference to begin with.
Government buys nearly half the health care services in the US.
Medicare and Medicaid pay under market prices so health care providers are forced to raise prices on the rest of us to stay afloat. http://www.milliman.com/expertise/healthcare/publications/rr/pdfs/hospital-physician-cost-shift-RR12-01-08.pdf (broken link)
Technically it's an illegal practice but since government is the cause of the cost shift to begin with, Congress passes a special authorization each year allowing health care providers to shift the cost and make private insured individuals pay what Medicare and Medicaid won't.
Government caused the problem to begin with, and more government isnt the solution.
Establishing a government monopoly on health care will not save money or improve quality. (think Ma Bell on steroids)
This bears repeating: Obama is proposing a health care system with all the efficiency of the DMV and all the compassion of the IRS.
You are kidding right? This plan will add according to Obama gives MILLIONS of patients that do not have coverage, coverage. Do you really think doctors can handle that amount of patients? No there is nothing that forces them to see more patients but it will take a lot longer to get an appointment because instead of say 100 people making appointments 300 will be.
This doesn't sound quite right. Do you really believe that just because millions more will have coverage, then millions more will be making visits to the doctor? I don't think so. Of the people that don't have coverage today, a certain number go to the emergency room when they need to. A large number of them are uninsured because they are healthy and wish to take a chance on staying healthy and not needing a doctor. I don't think you'll see a flood of people trekking to doctors just because they now have coverage. There may be a slight increase (because some of those without coverage now don't run to the emergency room with every sniffle...they tend to wait it out and usually it goes away on its own), but I don't think it's going to be as bad as portrayed.
The wait times for appointments will probably be due to fewer doctors practicing, or more of them going into specialties instead of general practice. GP's are already on the decline. Or, more of them going into allied fields - teaching or research, etc. If they're not going to be able to make the kind of living they worked so hard for, why stick with it? We will see a decline in numbers of doctors, I'm certain of that.
You are kidding right? This plan will add according to Obama gives MILLIONS of patients that do not have coverage, coverage. Do you really think doctors can handle that amount of patients? No there is nothing that forces them to see more patients but it will take a lot longer to get an appointment because instead of say 100 people making appointments 300 will be.
In other words, you want millions to be without coverage. In fact, fewer the people with coverage, the better system it is!
And to think I actually bother to debate with you folks.
Why can't we just cover the folks who are currently without coverage? We'd be talking some 46 million or so - subtract those who can afford it but voluntarily decline, we'd be down quite a bit from that 46 million. We're paying for them now when they use the system. It would be a lot cheaper to pay for those who can't afford the coverage now (say, those at or just above poverty level), than to overhaul the entire system. Make some modifications to the laws - such as allowing people to buy insurance across state lines and a few other tweaks to save money - and we wouldn't be sinking so far into debt as is projected.
I do not know of any US insurance company that denies treatment or sends you to the back of the line because of how old you are.
Men don't live as long as women. Does that mean 70 year old Jane Doe might get treatment for a brain tumor and 70 year old John Doe might have to wait? If black men don't live as long as white men, will more black men have to wait or be denied treatment? If you have Down's syndrome (shorter life expectancy) and there's a shortage of flu vaccine, will some non-Down's syndrome kid get a vaccine before you will?
You do know, with the national healthcare database supposedly to be used so your doctors can transmit your medical records easier, the government wonks making treatment decisions will have access to your entire medical history. You can opt out if you want to but if you do, the doctor will pay a penalty. That's in the stimulus bill none of the DC idiots read in its entitety. With patients lining up for doctors, how long do you think it will take doctors to tell the opt-out patients, "Find another doctor!" - 2 minutes, maybe?
As I understand it, the pre-existing condition only applies to getting insurance. It doesn't apply to getting treatment.
not only that but private insurance has already agreed to drop the pre-existing condition clause.
So everyone that wants the gov't plan? Why should we spend 1.5 trillion on 20 million healthcare policies?
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.
