CDZ Maybe Those "Evil" Rich People Will Save Us?

[RodISHI]

I heard an option just the other day, which is to pretty much leave the ACA in place but remove the federal mandate and allow states to opt out of the ACA. They can create their own exchanges and plans, and use federal Medicare/Medicaid money blocked for that purpose. It then falls to the states to devise their own solutions to the HC problem, and maybe that's the way it should be.

Maybe a state could enact a 1% sales tax to fund payments for the uninsured, I dunno. Maybe a state could create a health care union like a credit union that you pay a monthly fee to belong to and covers a family's medical expenses above a certain amount. Maybe a state creates a Physicians Assistants program where citizens without private insurance go for treatment first and get referred to more qualified medical providers as needed. Maybe we allow states to join together to create a joint healthcare coop of some kind. Maybe there are other ideas to try, in an attempt not only to provide healthcare to more people but also actually cut the costs of healthcare, which unfortunately seems to have been lost in the fight over HCI.

The only problem is that the ACA was 12 million words with more regulations and rules being added weekly as of 2013. I don't know if anybody has the capability of tallying how many pages, words, rules, regs, and requirements are included in it now. It would take an enormous knowledgeable law firm reviewing it full time to know what rules or regulations overlap, contradict each other, or even know what they all are. And the cost both to the individual person and the tax payer is climbing steadily.

But more importantly, if the Republicans pass legislation leaving Obamacare intact but allowing states to opt out of ALL of its requirements, that just provides fuel for the Democrats to say that the only reason Obamacare collapsed is because the Republicans removed the mandates. It will be the GOP's fault for decades.

I just heard commentary today that the CBO scoring for Obamacare missed the mark on the low side by some 200 to 300% So why would we assume they would do better with another large scale government program?

The IRS alone is reported to have created eight new agencies to just deal with Obamacare. According to Reuters, tens of thousands of employees have been added to the federal payroll just to administer the program.

I am pretty darn sure we can do better.

Giant octopus: IRS has 8 offices to enforce Obamacare

Obamacare Rollout Requiring Tens Of Thousands Of Workers: Analysis | HuffPost

They need to be defunded along with all of the other agencies and programs that are doing totally unconstitutional crap. Medical care is a personal service. It is a personal choice as much as hiring a plumber because they do not know how to unplug their own toilet. Therefore they think someone else should be mandated to insure that the toilet gets unplugged. What caused the toilet to be plugged in the first place? Simple, hire a plumber to answer that question if they are not smart enough to figure it out for themselves but they have no right to bill someone else for their plumbing problems. If they can't afford a plumber then that is the time for them to start looking for someone in the building or the neighborhood to assist them.

I can't argue with your logic here though in truth a medical problem is far more likely to be a matter of life and death than a plumbing problem is likely to be. But then so is food, water, and shelter that the federal government doesn't presume to mandate for all.

I don't have a problem with the federal government putting together some kind of catastrophic medical coverage plan that would kick in once a low cost policy was capped, but people would need to buy into it just as they have to buy flood insurance and earthquake insurance when ordinary property policies don't carry those.

And for pre-existing conditions, states could set up assigned risk pools at a higher rate for hard-to-insure people. That way, those who take care of themselves and keep themselves healthy are not punished by those who don't or who through no fault of their own have an expensive medical condition.

Add competition so that the states cannot grant monopolies to a very few insurance companies and some reasonable tort reform plus medical savings accounts to cover the deductibles, and that really should get medical and insurance costs down to an affordable level.

I do not think congress has any right to interfere with a person's choices involving the personal services industry. Insurance is a personal service supposedly offered by professionals. I agree that there needs to be an avenue for catastrophic medical coverage in certain situations. However, there again, who decides who qualifies and who does not. Will it be a dog chasing its own tail or a cat? Perhaps it should be a horse instead of a cow, regardless someone will pay big money and favors to line their own pocketbooks to be the one who decides who qualifies. If we start by cleaning up agencies like FDA, Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and other agencies like this who are not only enabling but are aiding and abetting health problems for many that would be a good start.

Who qualifies for catastrophic medical insurance should be the same as those who qualify for catastrophic flood or earthquake insurance. If you want it you would have the option to buy it. I don't need either where I live but I could buy it if I wanted it just the same. Many/most mortgage companies require it before they will provide a loan to buy a house or other structures if you live in higher risk areas. It is purely voluntary, but it is available for those who need it.

And, because the standard homeowner's/business policy is not required to cover flood and earthquake damage, homeowner's/business insurance is affordable for everybody, both for those who live in high risk areas and those who do not.

That's how a government provided medical umbrella for catastrophic illness or accident should be.

You do have to buy flood and/or earthquake insurance before you know you will need it though. You can't wait until the damage has already occurred and then run out and buy a policy. That is the fallacy of requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions--the person can wait until he/she is already sick before buying health insurance. And because of that, the risk is not spread and that drives up insurance costs enormously.

Part of the cost being driven up is the fault of the medical community too. Bad doctors and so much of the crap being sold should be put away but many times they aren't. Common sense should rule peoples minds but then once you are sick or hurt to the point that you need to go to a doctor your mind isn't in tip top shape so you must depend on someone else for help. I have seen so many things at this point that are utterly disgusting in the insurance, legal and medical fields I don't put much stock in any of them. When I started looking at FDA, EPA, plus the other agencies back in 2007 and what they have let get into the system for the sake commerce that is affecting peoples lives/health it infuriated me. Now in the past two years I learn that I suffered through surgeries that could have been prevented I am even more aggravated at the whole medical community and their insurance companies. If Congress and judges are going to continue giving the chemical companies, big pharma and big agra a free pass the people as a whole do not have much of a chance at staying healthy. If Congress is not willing to put the brakes on and clean up the whole what good does any of it do for the people to have them there in offices in DC or anywhere else in government to represent them?

 

[Foxfyre]

The only problem is that the ACA was 12 million words with more regulations and rules being added weekly as of 2013. I don't know if anybody has the capability of tallying how many pages, words, rules, regs, and requirements are included in it now. It would take an enormous knowledgeable law firm reviewing it full time to know what rules or regulations overlap, contradict each other, or even know what they all are. And the cost both to the individual person and the tax payer is climbing steadily.

But more importantly, if the Republicans pass legislation leaving Obamacare intact but allowing states to opt out of ALL of its requirements, that just provides fuel for the Democrats to say that the only reason Obamacare collapsed is because the Republicans removed the mandates. It will be the GOP's fault for decades.

I just heard commentary today that the CBO scoring for Obamacare missed the mark on the low side by some 200 to 300% So why would we assume they would do better with another large scale government program?

The IRS alone is reported to have created eight new agencies to just deal with Obamacare. According to Reuters, tens of thousands of employees have been added to the federal payroll just to administer the program.

I am pretty darn sure we can do better.

Giant octopus: IRS has 8 offices to enforce Obamacare

Obamacare Rollout Requiring Tens Of Thousands Of Workers: Analysis | HuffPost

They need to be defunded along with all of the other agencies and programs that are doing totally unconstitutional crap. Medical care is a personal service. It is a personal choice as much as hiring a plumber because they do not know how to unplug their own toilet. Therefore they think someone else should be mandated to insure that the toilet gets unplugged. What caused the toilet to be plugged in the first place? Simple, hire a plumber to answer that question if they are not smart enough to figure it out for themselves but they have no right to bill someone else for their plumbing problems. If they can't afford a plumber then that is the time for them to start looking for someone in the building or the neighborhood to assist them.

I can't argue with your logic here though in truth a medical problem is far more likely to be a matter of life and death than a plumbing problem is likely to be. But then so is food, water, and shelter that the federal government doesn't presume to mandate for all.

I don't have a problem with the federal government putting together some kind of catastrophic medical coverage plan that would kick in once a low cost policy was capped, but people would need to buy into it just as they have to buy flood insurance and earthquake insurance when ordinary property policies don't carry those.

And for pre-existing conditions, states could set up assigned risk pools at a higher rate for hard-to-insure people. That way, those who take care of themselves and keep themselves healthy are not punished by those who don't or who through no fault of their own have an expensive medical condition.

Add competition so that the states cannot grant monopolies to a very few insurance companies and some reasonable tort reform plus medical savings accounts to cover the deductibles, and that really should get medical and insurance costs down to an affordable level.

I do not think congress has any right to interfere with a person's choices involving the personal services industry. Insurance is a personal service supposedly offered by professionals. I agree that there needs to be an avenue for catastrophic medical coverage in certain situations. However, there again, who decides who qualifies and who does not. Will it be a dog chasing its own tail or a cat? Perhaps it should be a horse instead of a cow, regardless someone will pay big money and favors to line their own pocketbooks to be the one who decides who qualifies. If we start by cleaning up agencies like FDA, Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and other agencies like this who are not only enabling but are aiding and abetting health problems for many that would be a good start.

Who qualifies for catastrophic medical insurance should be the same as those who qualify for catastrophic flood or earthquake insurance. If you want it you would have the option to buy it. I don't need either where I live but I could buy it if I wanted it just the same. Many/most mortgage companies require it before they will provide a loan to buy a house or other structures if you live in higher risk areas. It is purely voluntary, but it is available for those who need it.

And, because the standard homeowner's/business policy is not required to cover flood and earthquake damage, homeowner's/business insurance is affordable for everybody, both for those who live in high risk areas and those who do not.

That's how a government provided medical umbrella for catastrophic illness or accident should be.

You do have to buy flood and/or earthquake insurance before you know you will need it though. You can't wait until the damage has already occurred and then run out and buy a policy. That is the fallacy of requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions--the person can wait until he/she is already sick before buying health insurance. And because of that, the risk is not spread and that drives up insurance costs enormously.

Part of the cost being driven up is the fault of the medical community too. Bad doctors and so much of the crap being sold should be put away but many times they aren't. Common sense should rule peoples minds but then once you are sick or hurt to the point that you need to go to a doctor your mind isn't in tip top shape so you must depend on someone else for help. I have seen so many things at this point that are utterly disgusting in the insurance, legal and medical fields I don't put much stock in any of them. When I started looking at FDA, EPA, plus the other agencies back in 2007 and what they have let get into the system for the sake commerce that is affecting peoples lives/health it infuriated me. Now in the past two years I learn that I suffered through surgeries that could have been prevented I am even more aggravated at the whole medical community and their insurance companies. If Congress and judges are going to continue giving the chemical companies, big pharma and big agra a free pass the people as a whole do not have much of a chance at staying healthy. If Congress is not willing to put the brakes on and clean up the whole what good does any of it do for the people to have them there in offices in DC or anywhere else in government to represent them?

This is true and one of the reasons that tort reform also needs to be part of the process. A doctor should not be subject to lawsuit if he/she fails to order a test or procedure that is not medically indicated upon examination. And a 'take only as directed' order on the medicine bottle should be sufficient to protect the manufacturer or seller from lawsuit if the patient abuses that medication and suffers harm because of it.

And while the FDA needs to be diligent in banning or providing strong warnings re potentially dangerous products--and yes the government should enact regulations to punish those who engage in illegal/harmful acts--we also need to protect manufacturers from lawsuit should the product be misused or there was an undetectable side effect that surfaces. If they hide defects or perils they know exist, the book should be thrown at them. But if reasonable and honest testing did not produce knowledge of that peril, they should not be held liable.

That would greatly bring down the costs of doing business that would result in lower healthcare costs.

 

[RodISHI]

They need to be defunded along with all of the other agencies and programs that are doing totally unconstitutional crap. Medical care is a personal service. It is a personal choice as much as hiring a plumber because they do not know how to unplug their own toilet. Therefore they think someone else should be mandated to insure that the toilet gets unplugged. What caused the toilet to be plugged in the first place? Simple, hire a plumber to answer that question if they are not smart enough to figure it out for themselves but they have no right to bill someone else for their plumbing problems. If they can't afford a plumber then that is the time for them to start looking for someone in the building or the neighborhood to assist them.

I can't argue with your logic here though in truth a medical problem is far more likely to be a matter of life and death than a plumbing problem is likely to be. But then so is food, water, and shelter that the federal government doesn't presume to mandate for all.

I don't have a problem with the federal government putting together some kind of catastrophic medical coverage plan that would kick in once a low cost policy was capped, but people would need to buy into it just as they have to buy flood insurance and earthquake insurance when ordinary property policies don't carry those.

And for pre-existing conditions, states could set up assigned risk pools at a higher rate for hard-to-insure people. That way, those who take care of themselves and keep themselves healthy are not punished by those who don't or who through no fault of their own have an expensive medical condition.

Add competition so that the states cannot grant monopolies to a very few insurance companies and some reasonable tort reform plus medical savings accounts to cover the deductibles, and that really should get medical and insurance costs down to an affordable level.

I do not think congress has any right to interfere with a person's choices involving the personal services industry. Insurance is a personal service supposedly offered by professionals. I agree that there needs to be an avenue for catastrophic medical coverage in certain situations. However, there again, who decides who qualifies and who does not. Will it be a dog chasing its own tail or a cat? Perhaps it should be a horse instead of a cow, regardless someone will pay big money and favors to line their own pocketbooks to be the one who decides who qualifies. If we start by cleaning up agencies like FDA, Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and other agencies like this who are not only enabling but are aiding and abetting health problems for many that would be a good start.

Who qualifies for catastrophic medical insurance should be the same as those who qualify for catastrophic flood or earthquake insurance. If you want it you would have the option to buy it. I don't need either where I live but I could buy it if I wanted it just the same. Many/most mortgage companies require it before they will provide a loan to buy a house or other structures if you live in higher risk areas. It is purely voluntary, but it is available for those who need it.

And, because the standard homeowner's/business policy is not required to cover flood and earthquake damage, homeowner's/business insurance is affordable for everybody, both for those who live in high risk areas and those who do not.

That's how a government provided medical umbrella for catastrophic illness or accident should be.

You do have to buy flood and/or earthquake insurance before you know you will need it though. You can't wait until the damage has already occurred and then run out and buy a policy. That is the fallacy of requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions--the person can wait until he/she is already sick before buying health insurance. And because of that, the risk is not spread and that drives up insurance costs enormously.

Part of the cost being driven up is the fault of the medical community too. Bad doctors and so much of the crap being sold should be put away but many times they aren't. Common sense should rule peoples minds but then once you are sick or hurt to the point that you need to go to a doctor your mind isn't in tip top shape so you must depend on someone else for help. I have seen so many things at this point that are utterly disgusting in the insurance, legal and medical fields I don't put much stock in any of them. When I started looking at FDA, EPA, plus the other agencies back in 2007 and what they have let get into the system for the sake commerce that is affecting peoples lives/health it infuriated me. Now in the past two years I learn that I suffered through surgeries that could have been prevented I am even more aggravated at the whole medical community and their insurance companies. If Congress and judges are going to continue giving the chemical companies, big pharma and big agra a free pass the people as a whole do not have much of a chance at staying healthy. If Congress is not willing to put the brakes on and clean up the whole what good does any of it do for the people to have them there in offices in DC or anywhere else in government to represent them?

This is true and one of the reasons that tort reform also needs to be part of the process. A doctor should not be subject to lawsuit if he/she fails to order a test or procedure that is not medically indicated upon examination. And a 'take only as directed' order on the medicine bottle should be sufficient to protect the manufacturer or seller from lawsuit if the patient abuses that medication and suffers harm because of it.

And while the FDA needs to be diligent in banning or providing strong warnings re potentially dangerous products--and yes the government should enact regulations to punish those who engage in illegal/harmful acts--we also need to protect manufacturers from lawsuit should the product be misused or there was an undetectable side effect that surfaces. If they hide defects or perils they know exist, the book should be thrown at them. But if reasonable and honest testing did not produce knowledge of that peril, they should not be held liable.

That would greatly bring down the costs of doing business that would result in lower healthcare costs.

Reasonable and honest is the key. For doctors or any medical professional of any kind that intentionally lies to patients they should be totally banned from any medical practice of any kind forever and be held fully personally responsible, losing anything that they have gained financially with their deceptive practices.

I haven't gotten over the insurance company and their doctor attempting to poison me further with drugs after the chemical exposure. I doubt I will let that one go as they were both a menace to a lot of people that were hurt on the job that needed help. Forgiveness would be one thing if they had any regrets but the fact is they have enriched themselves over other people miseries and as far as I am concerned they should be financially stripped and the people who they damaged should be compensated.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I have to say something on this particular point:

With almost no objective publicity re what the Republicans are proposing, I am not surprised that so many Americans have no idea what they are proposing but believe the negative press.

Ahead of the ACA, Obama and others spent a considerable amount of time going around the country and explaining it to the people. Have the Republicans done the same?

This might be part of the problem with "objective publicity" - it's hard to be "objective" when it's all in secret - even from their own party members. ACA wasn't crammed in 4 short months, it was over a year in development.

Yeah...they were totally transparent.
Obamacare architect: We passed law due to ‘stupidity of the American voter’

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

And we got healthcare thats too expensive to use...whata deal!!

 

[task0778]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

And we got healthcare thats too expensive to use...whata deal!!

There are studies that suggest the health outcomes of those with Medicaid is little better if at all than the uninsured.

 

[RodISHI]

Foxfyre, have you ever fished in the ocean and caught a fish or seen a fish that has fishing lines around it? When we were down in the Everglades I saw several Porpoises and larger fish that had deep scars where fishing lines had been wrap on them for a good while. Their skin envelopes the fish lines and distorts area where the lines are. If you wrap up an area anywhere on a growing living being with any material eventually that material will either rot or the tissue will encompass the materials. Now picture in your mind a company selling mesh products to put inside of humans. One of my mom's friends was telling me about her mesh surgery prior to all the lawsuits starting for the damage this crap did to so many women who were foolish enough to believe the doctors that sold them that crap. The poor woman was absolutely miserable and she had bought the whole 'we're gonna make you better' scam. As I sat there listening to her story I could recall clearly those large Porpoises that looked so miserable with that fishing line wrapped around them.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

And we got healthcare thats too expensive to use...whata deal!!

There are studies that suggest the health outcomes of those with Medicaid is little better if at all than the uninsured.

And I'm supposed to care about their healthcare problems when I have my own due to their seeming inability to function in society?
This is a life and death thing,dont expect those of us who work and pay our own way to feel sorry for someone who doesn't.

 

[Foxfyre]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

And we got healthcare thats too expensive to use...whata deal!!

There are studies that suggest the health outcomes of those with Medicaid is little better if at all than the uninsured.

That is because people on Medicaid use the urgent care centers and emergency rooms at the same rate as the uninsured. Those with Medicaid MIGHT be a little better off because they MIGHT get periodic checkups which the uninsured usually don't.

These days, and Obamacare is partially responsible, most people HAVE to use the urgent care centers or E.R. because their doctor is unable or unwilling to work in sick or injured people among all the routine exams. And as yet, my regular doctor has not caught any medical issues that I eventually wound up in urgent care or E.R. to have treated.

 

[task0778]

Part of the problem with the ACA is the Republican majority has steadfastedly refused to consider any proposed legislation to fix it with the express desire that they want it to fail. Any piece of large comprehensive legislation requires tweaks and fixes as it moves along. ACA is no different in that regard.

What most people want is affordable health care. The new proposal is not going to provide it, and in fact will have the opposite effect. It's also disturbing to see subsidies and medicaire expansions traded in exchange for huge tax cuts for the wealthy.

You talk people referring to"evil" rich people...but it seems as if the other side is demonizing poor people.

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

And we got healthcare thats too expensive to use...whata deal!!

There are studies that suggest the health outcomes of those with Medicaid is little better if at all than the uninsured.

That is because people on Medicaid use the urgent care centers and emergency rooms at the same rate as the uninsured. Those with Medicaid MIGHT be a little better off because they MIGHT get periodic checkups which the uninsured usually don't.

These days, and Obamacare is partially responsible, most people HAVE to use the urgent care centers or E.R. because their doctor is unable or unwilling to work in sick or injured people among all the routine exams. And as yet, my regular doctor has not caught any medical issues that I eventually wound up in urgent care or E.R. to have treated.

I suspect there are an awful lot of people who don't want to see a doctor for periodic checkups whether they're insured or not. Some school districts require your kids to get some kind of checkup before the school year starts I think, but I'm guessing most people wait until they have a problem before they see a doctor. And a lot of them go the ER or an Urgent Care Facility. IOW, I think the benefits for HC prevention is overestimated.

 

[Foxfyre]

Actual poor people do not have any benefit whatsoever from ACA. I know as we have been on poverty row since the great bank stripping via the corrupt courts here.

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

And we got healthcare thats too expensive to use...whata deal!!

There are studies that suggest the health outcomes of those with Medicaid is little better if at all than the uninsured.

That is because people on Medicaid use the urgent care centers and emergency rooms at the same rate as the uninsured. Those with Medicaid MIGHT be a little better off because they MIGHT get periodic checkups which the uninsured usually don't.

These days, and Obamacare is partially responsible, most people HAVE to use the urgent care centers or E.R. because their doctor is unable or unwilling to work in sick or injured people among all the routine exams. And as yet, my regular doctor has not caught any medical issues that I eventually wound up in urgent care or E.R. to have treated.

I suspect there are an awful lot of people who don't want to see a doctor for periodic checkups whether they're insured or not. Some school districts require your kids to get some kind of checkup before the school year starts I think, but I'm guessing most people wait until they have a problem before they see a doctor. And a lot of them go the ER or an Urgent Care Facility. IOW, I think the benefits for HC prevention is overestimated.

Somewhat. For sure healthcare prevention results in a myriad of unnecessary and unwarranted tests and procedures to minimize as much as possible that the patient won't sue the doctor for missing something. And that greatly drives up costs for everybody.

 

[RodISHI]

I agree. They're already covered. But there is a substantial number of "working poor" who are screwed when it comes to health care costs. They benefited from subsidies and medicaid expansion.

And we got healthcare thats too expensive to use...whata deal!!

There are studies that suggest the health outcomes of those with Medicaid is little better if at all than the uninsured.

That is because people on Medicaid use the urgent care centers and emergency rooms at the same rate as the uninsured. Those with Medicaid MIGHT be a little better off because they MIGHT get periodic checkups which the uninsured usually don't.

These days, and Obamacare is partially responsible, most people HAVE to use the urgent care centers or E.R. because their doctor is unable or unwilling to work in sick or injured people among all the routine exams. And as yet, my regular doctor has not caught any medical issues that I eventually wound up in urgent care or E.R. to have treated.

I suspect there are an awful lot of people who don't want to see a doctor for periodic checkups whether they're insured or not. Some school districts require your kids to get some kind of checkup before the school year starts I think, but I'm guessing most people wait until they have a problem before they see a doctor. And a lot of them go the ER or an Urgent Care Facility. IOW, I think the benefits for HC prevention is overestimated.

Somewhat. For sure healthcare prevention results in a myriad of unnecessary and unwarranted tests and procedures to minimize as much as possible that the patient won't sue the doctor for missing something. And that greatly drives up costs for everybody.

There are some very ignorant doctors out there too. I had an ear infection. I knew the type and what it was caused from so I asked the doctor for a specific medication knowing that is what I needed. Without any test she said "Well try this and if that doesn't work come back". She wanted me to buy something that would have created a super infection and keep coming back to see her. That same set of clinics has a dentist office that operates on a similar basis. They remind me of some of the old mechanics shops that used to keep people coming in with their cars until the person was fed up and would just give up on the car but with humans they can keep their charades going on and on with treatment scams.

 

[Foxfyre]

And we got healthcare thats too expensive to use...whata deal!!

There are studies that suggest the health outcomes of those with Medicaid is little better if at all than the uninsured.

That is because people on Medicaid use the urgent care centers and emergency rooms at the same rate as the uninsured. Those with Medicaid MIGHT be a little better off because they MIGHT get periodic checkups which the uninsured usually don't.

These days, and Obamacare is partially responsible, most people HAVE to use the urgent care centers or E.R. because their doctor is unable or unwilling to work in sick or injured people among all the routine exams. And as yet, my regular doctor has not caught any medical issues that I eventually wound up in urgent care or E.R. to have treated.

I suspect there are an awful lot of people who don't want to see a doctor for periodic checkups whether they're insured or not. Some school districts require your kids to get some kind of checkup before the school year starts I think, but I'm guessing most people wait until they have a problem before they see a doctor. And a lot of them go the ER or an Urgent Care Facility. IOW, I think the benefits for HC prevention is overestimated.

Somewhat. For sure healthcare prevention results in a myriad of unnecessary and unwarranted tests and procedures to minimize as much as possible that the patient won't sue the doctor for missing something. And that greatly drives up costs for everybody.

There are some very ignorant doctors out there too. I had an ear infection. I knew the type and what it was caused from so I asked the doctor for a specific medication knowing that is what I needed. Without any test she said "Well try this and if that doesn't work come back". She wanted me to buy something that would have created a super infection and keep coming back to see her. That same set of clinics has a dentist office that operates on a similar basis. They remind me of some of the old mechanics shops that used to keep people coming in with their cars until the person was fed up and would just give up on the car but with humans they can keep their charades going on and on with treatment scams.

You're probably right. I worked in hospitals for a number of years and it was painfully apparent after awhile that somebody is at the bottom of every medical school graduating class.