Posted by bronxcheer on 3/19/2014 5:24:00 PM (view original):

Would this fit the definition of a Retard-slap-fight in the making?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 5:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:55:00 PM (view original):
Depends on what you consider serious. 

I guess we'd agree cancer is serious(just starting at the top).  I'm diagnosed with nut cancer at 40.  Routine check-up I wouldn't have had if I had no insurance.  My nut is removed.   But the tricky thing with cancer is it could re-materialize somewhere else at a later date.   So, every 6 months or so, I'm off the cancer treatment center to be examined.   Maybe it never comes back but, nonetheless, I'm making two trips to the doc every year until I'm 90.   Without that check-up, I'm diagnosed with cancer all over my body at 46 because I had to go to the doc and I'm dead within a year.   What was more expensive?

Those two trips to the Dr. every year probably cost $75 each. Twice a year for 50 years, you're looking at $7500. Small potatoes. Round up to $100 each and you're still only at $10,000.

Cancer treatment, hospital stays, pain meds, and hospice care for a terminally ill patient will, just a guess, run more than $10,000.

Probably cost a little more.   Cancer and all.  You know, you don't get a big red C on your face when you have cancer.

Taking my dog to the vet costs more than $75.

Dying because they say "There's nothing we can do" is really inexpensive.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that a guy who is being subsized $200 month on his $500 a month insurance payment isn't getting a raise because premiums go up.   And premiums will go up because insurance companies now have more sick people in their system.  They aren't going to cut profits.    Doctors aren't going to lower fees for services rendered because insurance companies will only pay x-amount of the fee.   So they'll reject that insurance company and refuse to see said patient. 

So, Joe Subsized will either get more subsidy money or fewer options for medical services.     Or maybe the government caps subsidy amounts.   But then it's not AFFORDABLE health care.    

The money to run this program has to come from somewhere.    The other option is to regulate profits for insurance/healthcare providers.  

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 5:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:55:00 PM (view original):
Depends on what you consider serious. 

I guess we'd agree cancer is serious(just starting at the top).  I'm diagnosed with nut cancer at 40.  Routine check-up I wouldn't have had if I had no insurance.  My nut is removed.   But the tricky thing with cancer is it could re-materialize somewhere else at a later date.   So, every 6 months or so, I'm off the cancer treatment center to be examined.   Maybe it never comes back but, nonetheless, I'm making two trips to the doc every year until I'm 90.   Without that check-up, I'm diagnosed with cancer all over my body at 46 because I had to go to the doc and I'm dead within a year.   What was more expensive?

Those two trips to the Dr. every year probably cost $75 each. Twice a year for 50 years, you're looking at $7500. Small potatoes. Round up to $100 each and you're still only at $10,000.

Cancer treatment, hospital stays, pain meds, and hospice care for a terminally ill patient will, just a guess, run more than $10,000.

Probably cost a little more.   Cancer and all.  You know, you don't get a big red C on your face when you have cancer.

Taking my dog to the vet costs more than $75.

Dying because they say "There's nothing we can do" is really inexpensive.

No, even terminally ill patients undergo a lot of care. They also get a lot of pain meds.

And anyway, that seems like a dumb argument against the ACA--people will get basic care and lead longer, healthier lives--considering the fact that that is a goal of the ACA.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Also, why do you think medical care provided to non-retirees is "funded by the government?"

For ****'s sake, you're like a child begging for someone to pay attention to them.    Will the ACA be subsidized by the government?

Health insurance premiums are subsidized for low income people by the government. The actual medical care is still paid for by private insurance companies.

And, when their costs go up because a lot more people are going to the doctor and discovering they have medical issues, what do you think insurance companies do?

A)  Say "Damn.  Our days of making money are over!!"
B)  Increase premiums
C)  Restrict payment amounts for services rendered
D)  B and C

Now assuming they do B, where does that money for the higher premiums come from?  
Now assuming they do C, what do health care facilities do?  
A) Say "Damn.  Our days of making money are over!!!"
B) Refuse that form of insurance.

IMO, it's silly to believe insurance companies and medical facilities are going to take a huge cut from their bottom line for the "well-being of the people".    Do you disagree?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 5:40:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 5:20:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:55:00 PM (view original):
Depends on what you consider serious. 

I guess we'd agree cancer is serious(just starting at the top).  I'm diagnosed with nut cancer at 40.  Routine check-up I wouldn't have had if I had no insurance.  My nut is removed.   But the tricky thing with cancer is it could re-materialize somewhere else at a later date.   So, every 6 months or so, I'm off the cancer treatment center to be examined.   Maybe it never comes back but, nonetheless, I'm making two trips to the doc every year until I'm 90.   Without that check-up, I'm diagnosed with cancer all over my body at 46 because I had to go to the doc and I'm dead within a year.   What was more expensive?

Those two trips to the Dr. every year probably cost $75 each. Twice a year for 50 years, you're looking at $7500. Small potatoes. Round up to $100 each and you're still only at $10,000.

Cancer treatment, hospital stays, pain meds, and hospice care for a terminally ill patient will, just a guess, run more than $10,000.

Probably cost a little more.   Cancer and all.  You know, you don't get a big red C on your face when you have cancer.

Taking my dog to the vet costs more than $75.

Dying because they say "There's nothing we can do" is really inexpensive.

No, even terminally ill patients undergo a lot of care. They also get a lot of pain meds.

And anyway, that seems like a dumb argument against the ACA--people will get basic care and lead longer, healthier lives--considering the fact that that is a goal of the ACA.

Not if they die quickly. 

Posted by examinerebb on 3/19/2014 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Not the worst ever, but it's disheartening that we've had 14 straight years of garbage in the west wing.  It's bad enough that they were elected (and I voted for GWB the first time), but to have them both re-elected leaves me little hope for the quality of the people in government.  As well as for the intelligence of the people who elect them.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Also, why do you think medical care provided to non-retirees is "funded by the government?"

For ****'s sake, you're like a child begging for someone to pay attention to them.    Will the ACA be subsidized by the government?

Health insurance premiums are subsidized for low income people by the government. The actual medical care is still paid for by private insurance companies.

And, when their costs go up because a lot more people are going to the doctor and discovering they have medical issues, what do you think insurance companies do?

A)  Say "Damn.  Our days of making money are over!!"
B)  Increase premiums
C)  Restrict payment amounts for services rendered
D)  B and C

Now assuming they do B, where does that money for the higher premiums come from?  
Now assuming they do C, what do health care facilities do?  
A) Say "Damn.  Our days of making money are over!!!"
B) Refuse that form of insurance.

IMO, it's silly to believe insurance companies and medical facilities are going to take a huge cut from their bottom line for the "well-being of the people".    Do you disagree?

Posted by raucous on 3/19/2014 6:04:00 PM (view original):
$16 for Advil (I'm lazy) means 75 cents for your Advil and $15.25 for all the other Advil they have to give out for free.

Health Insurance companies are not limited to how much they can increase premiums, unless 40% is what they are limited to.

Now the rest of the country can enjoy what us Mass residents have endured since Romneycare. We have the highest premiums in the country.  Now everyone else can join us.

...and with Medicare being eviscerated for Medicaid, the payments to hospitals shrink even further.  Which causes hospitals to lay off or go out of business (see Georgia)...not to mention that young doctors won't be able to afford to accept Medicare patients.

The good news is that with all of our grannies dying prematurely, there may still be a couple of bucks left in Social Security for me when I get there.

Posted by dahsdebater on 3/19/2014 6:25:00 PM (view original):
The Advil they give to the broke uninsured people they have to provide ER care for?  The Advil that both Federal and private insurance reimburse at 50%?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 5:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Also, why do you think medical care provided to non-retirees is "funded by the government?"

For ****'s sake, you're like a child begging for someone to pay attention to them.    Will the ACA be subsidized by the government?

Health insurance premiums are subsidized for low income people by the government. The actual medical care is still paid for by private insurance companies.

And, when their costs go up because a lot more people are going to the doctor and discovering they have medical issues, what do you think insurance companies do?

A)  Say "Damn.  Our days of making money are over!!"
B)  Increase premiums
C)  Restrict payment amounts for services rendered
D)  B and C

Now assuming they do B, where does that money for the higher premiums come from?  
Now assuming they do C, what do health care facilities do?  
A) Say "Damn.  Our days of making money are over!!!"
B) Refuse that form of insurance.

IMO, it's silly to believe insurance companies and medical facilities are going to take a huge cut from their bottom line for the "well-being of the people".    Do you disagree?

I think everyone has agreed previously that the biggest problem with health care in America is the out of control costs. Hospitals charging $16 for ibuprofen , for example.

Hospitals aren't going to voluntarily destroy their inflated profit margins. And individual consumers certainly don't have the leverage to push prices down. That leaves two options: the government or health insurance companies.

I don't think anyone wants the government jumping in and setting prices. Unless you do?

So that leaves health insurance companies. The ACA bands them together. They are limited in how much they can increase premiums. The only option they have is to apply pressure to providers to lower costs.

Sure, some specialists may stop taking all health insurance, but that isn't an option for the vast majority of hospitals and doctors. So they will have to control their costs.