Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You left out the one that will actually happen -
As problems occur, make the necessary changes.
Or, we could just do what rw's are so good at - lie and refuse to learn about it.
OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
What would you want to be changed?
Repeal the ACA and implement a single payer system, expand Medicare for all Americans.
Jim,I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...
Somebody want to explain how that works?
After 25 years in the Business, I still have no idea how or why it would save anybody one cent.
Know why? Because it won't and it can't.
It's just more empty, bullshit, pie-in-the-sky ignorance from dimocraps
Not necessarily. Everything depends on how things get implemented, but the advantages of allowing insurance purchase across state lines are these, potentially:
1. It allows for states to compete with each other for more participation in their insurance pools, and this should improve efficiency and costs.
2. It gives control to a lower level of government that would be more responsive to the preferences of the local state population.
3. It allows for people to have more choice. We have the ability to choose across state lines for other services, why not health care insurance?
4. It creates an opportunity for state governments to experiment with variations that might add a surprisingly better way of doing things, the states being their own Guinea pigs, in effect.
OK, suppose a miracle happens and Obama, Senator Reid and Rep Boner all get together and decide to change the Obamacare law so that it works better for the general public.
What would you want to be changed?
There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
Do you know why that will never happen?
Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.
There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
Do you know why that will never happen?
Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.
There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.
Jim,I keep hearing people talk about 'across State Lines" and how that can save money...
Somebody want to explain how that works?
After 25 years in the Business, I still have no idea how or why it would save anybody one cent.
Know why? Because it won't and it can't.
It's just more empty, bullshit, pie-in-the-sky ignorance from dimocraps
Not necessarily. Everything depends on how things get implemented, but the advantages of allowing insurance purchase across state lines are these, potentially:
1. It allows for states to compete with each other for more participation in their insurance pools, and this should improve efficiency and costs.
2. It gives control to a lower level of government that would be more responsive to the preferences of the local state population.
3. It allows for people to have more choice. We have the ability to choose across state lines for other services, why not health care insurance?
4. It creates an opportunity for state governments to experiment with variations that might add a surprisingly better way of doing things, the states being their own Guinea pigs, in effect.
FYI- in the first quip....this is discussing employees that DO HAVE group insurance available from their employer but choose to forfeit going with their employer contributed plans offered off of the exchange, and decide to buy an independent insurance plan from the exchange....the gvt will not subsidize you, because your employer will subsidize you if you go with one of the Company plans offered.
Those people above and your 1st quote/image is not in any way related to the situation with the Congressional employees.
UNLIKE every other citizen in the USA, the congressional employees were being forced through Grassley's amendment to leave the multi choice healthcare plans that they had been able to choose from, and are being forced to choose from only the insurance companies and policies offered on the exchange....
NO WHERE in his amendment does it mention that they would take away the benefit and compensation package that they were promised upon hire...
...and yes, health care benefits such as the employer contribution is part of the employee's compensation, in both the private and public sectors....it wasn't even discussed in the senate when Grassley introduced the amendment....the point of issue was that grasley wanted Congress critters to have to have the same insurance policy choices as the people who choose to buy insurance through the exchange only, and not the gazillion billion premium choices they did have at their fingertips....it was NEVER about them losing their employee contribution benefit/compensation....never!
And I find it quite deceiving for you and many many others, to imply otherwise...so maybe you are just misinformed or are crying wolf again for no reason?
Setting that aside, congress critters are paid an awful lot of money, and I wouldn't shed a tear if they lost this benefit, or did the right thing and chose to give it up for themselves...they earn enough to buy their own healthcare...
BUT those that work for congress who don't make nearly what Congressmen and Senators make would be hurt tremendously, by this action...
There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
Do you know why that will never happen?
Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.
There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.
Moved to the proper forum. HEALTHCARE folks, HEALTHCARE.....
As you were...
There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.
There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.
Your opinion offers no evidence that supports your claims. A common problem with Republican politics. We get that Republicans don't like solutions that they (deservedly) get no credit for. Until they drop that tone and adopt one of evidence based improvements, they will continue to be considered irrelevant to health care.
There is no better health insurance in the country than Medicare. It covers over half of the medical costs in the country. An improvement to ACA would be to offer Medicare as an alternative in the exchanges.
Do you know why that will never happen?
Private insurance companies can't stand the competition.
There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.
Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.
There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.
Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.
They have to do this. If the doctor orders a mammogram because he found a lump, it costs $150.00 for the test, and he gets reimbursed at $45.00, of course he's going to find some other way to make up the difference. No one could continue to support a medical practice if it costs them more than twice what they actually get. The patient doesn't have it. They pad the bill. If we had honest reimbursement doctors wouldn't have to take this kind of reckless action.
While there are many reasons for high costs, there are a couple of major ones. Continual advances in very expensive equipment. The outrageously high cost of litigation. If the government really wanted to bring down the cost of healthcare, we would have tort reform and subsidized medical equipment. The government could buy thousands of MRI machines at a substantial discount and rent them to doctors. Instead, the idiots in the white house decided to tax medical devices.
It's not about providing good medical care. It's about providing substandard medical care to as many people as possible.
There were a couple things on there that I think would help overall, like insurance being able to be purchased across state lines, but overall the whole general idea is just plain bad. An insurance based solution that doesn't allow the concept of insurance to work the way insurance is supposed to work is doomed to make things worse not better. We're already seeing it. Everyone else; those that can afford it, those that already have coverage, hospitals, medical device manufacturer's, they all lose on Obamacare for the sake of insuring a few millions people. Don't get me wrong, getting those people medical care is a worthy goal, but Obamacare might the dumbest way of accomplshing that goal that could possibly have been dreamt up.
Your opinion offers no evidence that supports your claims. A common problem with Republican politics. We get that Republicans don't like solutions that they (deservedly) get no credit for. Until they drop that tone and adopt one of evidence based improvements, they will continue to be considered irrelevant to health care.
Take your own advice. Not agreeing with Obamacare does not make me a Republican. And yes there is plenty of evidence already that this isn't going to work. Obama flat out lied. He said if you like your policy you will get to keep it. That simply isn't the case.
There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.
Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.
They have to do this. If the doctor orders a mammogram because he found a lump, it costs $150.00 for the test, and he gets reimbursed at $45.00, of course he's going to find some other way to make up the difference. No one could continue to support a medical practice if it costs them more than twice what they actually get. The patient doesn't have it. They pad the bill. If we had honest reimbursement doctors wouldn't have to take this kind of reckless action.
While there are many reasons for high costs, there are a couple of major ones. Continual advances in very expensive equipment. The outrageously high cost of litigation. If the government really wanted to bring down the cost of healthcare, we would have tort reform and subsidized medical equipment. The government could buy thousands of MRI machines at a substantial discount and rent them to doctors. Instead, the idiots in the white house decided to tax medical devices.
It's not about providing good medical care. It's about providing substandard medical care to as many people as possible.
There is a problem with Medicare as the payments to doctors in many cases do not cover enough. If a doctor had to rely completely on payments from Medicare, many would go belly up. Before we can move to a one payer type system, we need to find ways to actually cut the costs of providers. To do that, we need to determine why the costs are so high to begin with.
Some doctors make up for the low compensation of Medicare by doing phony or unnecessary tests and treatments to rack up the bill with as few assets involved as possible. They are geared to exploit Medicare from the ground up, milking Uncle Sucker and US tax payers for every dime.
They have to do this. If the doctor orders a mammogram because he found a lump, it costs $150.00 for the test, and he gets reimbursed at $45.00, of course he's going to find some other way to make up the difference. No one could continue to support a medical practice if it costs them more than twice what they actually get. The patient doesn't have it. They pad the bill. If we had honest reimbursement doctors wouldn't have to take this kind of reckless action.
While there are many reasons for high costs, there are a couple of major ones. Continual advances in very expensive equipment. The outrageously high cost of litigation. If the government really wanted to bring down the cost of healthcare, we would have tort reform and subsidized medical equipment. The government could buy thousands of MRI machines at a substantial discount and rent them to doctors. Instead, the idiots in the white house decided to tax medical devices.
It's not about providing good medical care. It's about providing substandard medical care to as many people as possible.
