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.
One of my doctors said he would support a public option if the government would make him an employee and pay all of his overhead costs. The way it stands now the government expects the doctors to continue to be able to provide services, pay overhead, and still make a profit for less reimbursment. What a farce!
Why would 45% of doctor's give up their livelihood? It is not a government takeover. It is a change to the health insurance industry that would add a public insurance option.
Simple. Doctors did not go to medical school to have a government panel tell them how to cost effectively treat their patients. They went to medical school to help patients.
Right now they have the insurance companies doing that. I spent about an hour today on a stupid "prior auth" for a drug the dr. prescribed that the ins. company did not want to pay for.
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-16-2009 at 09:41 PM..
Reason: Fix quotes
Simple. Doctors did not go to medical school to have a government panel tell them how to cost effectively treat their patients. They went to medical school to help patients.
Right now they have the insurance companies doing that. I spent about an hour today on a stupid "prior auth" for a drug the dr. prescribed that the ins. company did not want to pay for.[/quote]
You are comparing apples to oranges with that analogy. A government health board will set strict parameters as to what will or will not be covered based on a patient's age and comorbidities. Private insurance companies have guidelines but it is possible to get an exception from the insurance company medical director with appropriate documentation. The government plan, in order to be cost effective, will have to adhere to the guidelines as they do in other socialized medicine countries.
I'm an Independent, and so's the wife. Neither of us are for Obamacare. My wife is a Dentist with her own practice. What I'd like to see would be more along the lines of this:
Remove the income requirements for Medicare, and make that the Universal Health Care plan. In other words, expand medicare to be *open* to everyone. If people want private insurance, they can still have it. Give medicare a new name to reflect the new program. It should be called US Health Care.
My wife already donates free dental care to those that can't afford it. If a kid comes from a poor family and needs work done that isn't covered by state insurance, my wife does it anyway and just eats the cost. She feels that taking care of her patients means more than money. I agree with her.
You are comparing apples to oranges with that analogy. A government health board will set strict parameters as to what will or will not be covered based on a patient's age and comorbidities. Private insurance companies have guidelines but it is possible to get an exception from the insurance company medical director with appropriate documentation. The government plan, in order to be cost effective, will have to adhere to the guidelines as they do in other socialized medicine countries.
You know this how? Please provide some links that are not opinon pieces.
You know this how? Please provide some links that are not opinon pieces.
I know this because I know how to do math and I have common sense. Obama promises that a public option will save money. The only way to save money is to deny care. Refute that.
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.