|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 13 2015 14:10 Wegandi wrote:
This healthcare debate is silly. Healthcare was quite good and quite cheap at the turn of the century (read the NYT times editorial whining about the cheap rates doctors were getting paid in Mutual Aid societies and in general...), when there was little government interference. Was it perfect? No. Is anything perfect? No. So, please keep your nirvana fallacies far away. Is it eminently better than what we have now, and better than giving Government even more power via nationalization (let's call single payer for what it is...)...yes! First we got the ADA and licensing which did what they wanted - limited supply and drove up prices. Then we got the New Deal and all the medical interference that brought. Then we got Medicare, Medicaid, FDA, HMO's, SCHIP, and a million and one regulatory schemes that all served the purpose of continuously increasing costs and associated profits for Government cronies and the medical licensing/union duopoly.
The 'Republicans' that is, non-Establishmentarians, have a plan, but hey, HSA's, repealing licensure and the FDA, etc. is I suppose...not a plan. After-all, after all this government you're still bitching and whining about prices so your solution is even more Government in the form of nationalization. We all ready have enough problems with psuedo-nationalized home insurance in flood and hurricane prone areas (don't get me started as a Floridian...).
As for Hillary...wow, that couldn't have been a worse way to announce. Talk about lethargy. I hope the dems nominate anyone else than Clinton...Warren, Sanders, whoever. Aren't you guys sick of this pseudo-Monarchy we have with the Bush's and Clintons?
I disagree with a lot of what you say here but I emphatically agree with your last point. If anything, I'm hoping a Republican wins purely so that liberals wake up that executive overreach is a serious problem and the president making up the rules as he goes along while denying Congressional oversight and authorizations is not okay.
Sure, the GOP in Congress has to wear their share of the problem with wearing blinders to deny legislative progress, but the Democrats have been bizarrely passive about watching President Obama declare himself the will of the people and end-run around Congress or anyone who disagrees with his agenda, including Democrats. They'll grow a backbone if a Republican president tries to negotiate nuclear deals or monstrous trade deals while offering Congress the choice to vote for the deal unseen or let him declare he doesn't need Congressional approval at all. Which is especially scary when we already know this administration couldn't negotiate its way out of a wet paper bag.
|
On April 13 2015 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 13:07 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist. I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all. Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it? An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA? Same insurance he had before the ACA, as far as I know. The whole "bad plans still exist thing" isn't really disproven though. Gorsameth said bad plans don't exist anymore. He didn't make any qualifying statements like "bad plans don't exist unless they're grandfathered in." Anyways, I think we agree that the ACA is a shitty half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone, except maybe the insurance companies who now have millions of new customers. It probably has helped some people, but it's not the amazing success the White House press conferences would have you believe. Well obviously the ACA has 0 to do with your fathers case regardless. It doesn't really matter what you think Gor said as the point of "insurers still offer bad plans" would be opposed by no one. But he said "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation" Seems pretty clear he was saying there is no such thing as an "ACA plan" just insurance plans that meet standards or don't. Yeah the ACA isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Not to mention the people who have literally had their life saved as a result of legislation (those who Republicans would have/simply have in essence done nothing for) would probably agree with the White House assessment.
We know the ACA is worse than the Republican plans, there are just simply 6 or 7 of them, so its harder for people to attack "the one plan". The real scandal is that people pretend the ACA is some sort of reform of a free market, when its really just another layer of government regulation on one of the most highly regulated markets in the country.
I would just like to point out that this gameplan has happened many times, which is why its not stupid to call these plans "Obamacare for XXX". Just recently, the ACA, Dodd-Frank, Net Neutrality, ahave all been sold and implemented using the same game plan:
1. Point out that there is a problem in a heavily regulated government sector (Healthcare, Banking, and Telecoms are probably 3 of the top 10, throw in Energy, Education, and Transit).
2. Blame the private entities operating for things that they have been incentivized by the government to do (Pricing, Risky Loans, Monopolization).
3. Propose a solution that is a band-aid on top of that broken system, that increases government control.
|
Right, vast socialist conspiracy got it
|
On April 13 2015 15:05 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 13:07 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist. I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all. Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it? An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA? Same insurance he had before the ACA, as far as I know. The whole "bad plans still exist thing" isn't really disproven though. Gorsameth said bad plans don't exist anymore. He didn't make any qualifying statements like "bad plans don't exist unless they're grandfathered in." Anyways, I think we agree that the ACA is a shitty half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone, except maybe the insurance companies who now have millions of new customers. It probably has helped some people, but it's not the amazing success the White House press conferences would have you believe. Well obviously the ACA has 0 to do with your fathers case regardless. It doesn't really matter what you think Gor said as the point of "insurers still offer bad plans" would be opposed by no one. But he said "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation" Seems pretty clear he was saying there is no such thing as an "ACA plan" just insurance plans that meet standards or don't. Yeah the ACA isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Not to mention the people who have literally had their life saved as a result of legislation (those who Republicans would have/simply have in essence done nothing for) would probably agree with the White House assessment. We know the ACA is worse than the Republican plans, there are just simply 6 or 7 of them, so its harder for people to attack "the one plan". The real scandal is that people pretend the ACA is some sort of reform of a free market, when its really just another layer of government regulation on one of the most highly regulated markets in the country. I would just like to point out that this gameplan has happened many times, which is why its not stupid to call these plans "Obamacare for XXX". Just recently, the ACA, Dodd-Frank, Net Neutrality, ahave all been sold and implemented using the same game plan: 1. Point out that there is a problem in a heavily regulated government sector (Healthcare, Banking, and Telecoms are probably 3 of the top 10, throw in Energy, Education, and Transit). 2. Blame the private entities operating for things that they have been incentivized by the government to do (Pricing, Risky Loans, Monopolization). 3. Propose a solution that is a band-aid on top of that broken system, that increases government control.
The thing you do not seem to understand about Dodd/Frank is that while the markets are heavily regulated in some areas in many of the cases workarounds have already been found and thus new band aids to prevent the workarounds are needed.
If you want to know why regulation has to be so tedious and specific and annoying its for the simple reason that every time a new rule is passed one of the most standard policies is to try and figure out a way to avoid having to do most of the things in question and oftentimes they succeed despite the very long worded attempts to stop them because its easier to find a single crack in a fresh wall then it is to build it perfectly and once that crack is found you can delay fixes to that crack for years.
|
On April 13 2015 15:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Right, vast socialist conspiracy got it
No. Its the game plan of the Democratic party. Its not a conspiracy its just an effective propaganda technique that needs to be recognized if we are going to discuss policies implemented by that party.
On April 13 2015 16:36 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 15:05 cLutZ wrote:On April 13 2015 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 13:07 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay.
My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine.
So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay.
My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine.
So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist. I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all. Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it? An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA? Same insurance he had before the ACA, as far as I know. The whole "bad plans still exist thing" isn't really disproven though. Gorsameth said bad plans don't exist anymore. He didn't make any qualifying statements like "bad plans don't exist unless they're grandfathered in." Anyways, I think we agree that the ACA is a shitty half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone, except maybe the insurance companies who now have millions of new customers. It probably has helped some people, but it's not the amazing success the White House press conferences would have you believe. Well obviously the ACA has 0 to do with your fathers case regardless. It doesn't really matter what you think Gor said as the point of "insurers still offer bad plans" would be opposed by no one. But he said "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation" Seems pretty clear he was saying there is no such thing as an "ACA plan" just insurance plans that meet standards or don't. Yeah the ACA isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Not to mention the people who have literally had their life saved as a result of legislation (those who Republicans would have/simply have in essence done nothing for) would probably agree with the White House assessment. We know the ACA is worse than the Republican plans, there are just simply 6 or 7 of them, so its harder for people to attack "the one plan". The real scandal is that people pretend the ACA is some sort of reform of a free market, when its really just another layer of government regulation on one of the most highly regulated markets in the country. I would just like to point out that this gameplan has happened many times, which is why its not stupid to call these plans "Obamacare for XXX". Just recently, the ACA, Dodd-Frank, Net Neutrality, ahave all been sold and implemented using the same game plan: 1. Point out that there is a problem in a heavily regulated government sector (Healthcare, Banking, and Telecoms are probably 3 of the top 10, throw in Energy, Education, and Transit). 2. Blame the private entities operating for things that they have been incentivized by the government to do (Pricing, Risky Loans, Monopolization). 3. Propose a solution that is a band-aid on top of that broken system, that increases government control. The thing you do not seem to understand about Dodd/Frank is that while the markets are heavily regulated in some areas in many of the cases workarounds have already been found and thus new band aids to prevent the workarounds are needed. If you want to know why regulation has to be so tedious and specific and annoying its for the simple reason that every time a new rule is passed one of the most standard policies is to try and figure out a way to avoid having to do most of the things in question and oftentimes they succeed despite the very long worded attempts to stop them because its easier to find a single crack in a fresh wall then it is to build it perfectly and once that crack is found you can delay fixes to that crack for years.
1. That's an argument against regulation being effective in general.
2. It also doesn't rebut the idea that the things that they have, recently, railed against were incentivized by regulation. In a post WWII economy there is really no intellectually honest way to argue something is the "fault" of the free market.
|
On April 13 2015 17:52 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 15:23 ticklishmusic wrote:
Right, vast socialist conspiracy got it No. Its the game plan of the Democratic party. Its not a conspiracy its just an effective propaganda technique that needs to be recognized if we are going to discuss policies implemented by that party. Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 16:36 Adreme wrote:On April 13 2015 15:05 cLutZ wrote:On April 13 2015 13:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 13:07 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different.
One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case.
These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different.
One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case.
These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist. I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all. Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it? An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA? Same insurance he had before the ACA, as far as I know. The whole "bad plans still exist thing" isn't really disproven though. Gorsameth said bad plans don't exist anymore. He didn't make any qualifying statements like "bad plans don't exist unless they're grandfathered in." Anyways, I think we agree that the ACA is a shitty half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone, except maybe the insurance companies who now have millions of new customers. It probably has helped some people, but it's not the amazing success the White House press conferences would have you believe. Well obviously the ACA has 0 to do with your fathers case regardless. It doesn't really matter what you think Gor said as the point of "insurers still offer bad plans" would be opposed by no one. But he said "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation" Seems pretty clear he was saying there is no such thing as an "ACA plan" just insurance plans that meet standards or don't. Yeah the ACA isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Not to mention the people who have literally had their life saved as a result of legislation (those who Republicans would have/simply have in essence done nothing for) would probably agree with the White House assessment. We know the ACA is worse than the Republican plans, there are just simply 6 or 7 of them, so its harder for people to attack "the one plan". The real scandal is that people pretend the ACA is some sort of reform of a free market, when its really just another layer of government regulation on one of the most highly regulated markets in the country. I would just like to point out that this gameplan has happened many times, which is why its not stupid to call these plans "Obamacare for XXX". Just recently, the ACA, Dodd-Frank, Net Neutrality, ahave all been sold and implemented using the same game plan: 1. Point out that there is a problem in a heavily regulated government sector (Healthcare, Banking, and Telecoms are probably 3 of the top 10, throw in Energy, Education, and Transit). 2. Blame the private entities operating for things that they have been incentivized by the government to do (Pricing, Risky Loans, Monopolization). 3. Propose a solution that is a band-aid on top of that broken system, that increases government control. The thing you do not seem to understand about Dodd/Frank is that while the markets are heavily regulated in some areas in many of the cases workarounds have already been found and thus new band aids to prevent the workarounds are needed. If you want to know why regulation has to be so tedious and specific and annoying its for the simple reason that every time a new rule is passed one of the most standard policies is to try and figure out a way to avoid having to do most of the things in question and oftentimes they succeed despite the very long worded attempts to stop them because its easier to find a single crack in a fresh wall then it is to build it perfectly and once that crack is found you can delay fixes to that crack for years. 1. That's an argument against regulation being effective in general. 2. It also doesn't rebut the idea that the things that they have, recently, railed against were incentivized by regulation. In a post WWII economy there is really no intellectually honest way to argue something is the "fault" of the free market.
I suppose that depends on if you imagine 'the free market' (that actually exists) as the form or the shadow.
|
On April 13 2015 13:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist. I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all. Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it? An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA? Same insurance he had before the ACA, as far as I know. The whole "bad plans still exist thing" isn't really disproven though. Gorsameth said bad plans don't exist anymore. He didn't make any qualifying statements like "bad plans don't exist unless they're grandfathered in." Anyways, I think we agree that the ACA is a shitty half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone, except maybe the insurance companies who now have millions of new customers. It probably has helped some people, but it's not the amazing success the White House press conferences would have you believe.
Sadly I am European so I have to sleep at some point. ^^
Your taking my point a little to absolute. I guess I didn't word it carefully enough.
I believe you that there are still plenty of plans that are far from ideal and can very much be described as bad. The narrative of 'Everything is worse now' (not that your saying this) isn't true tho. In general the plans are better then they were before the ACA and trying to revoke it without a new plan in place will not result in a better situation for anyone. The stance of 'The ACA isnt good so lets get rid of it and go back to the old system' is a giant step backwards regardless of how good/bad you consider the ACA to be.
Your dad's situation is unfortunate and a symptom of the stupidity of American healthcare but not what I meant by refusing to pay. Observation wasn't covered and so wasn't provided, and yes that is bad and stupid, but prior to the ACA his insurance could have cancelled/limited his insurance entirely just because he got cancer.
ps.
I would argue that even with observation your dad would have ended up with a catheter and medication since that is just the treatment for his problem. Tho again that doesn't make the denial of observation acceptable.
|
There is not a Republican alternative to Obamacare, there is only reversal.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
republican alternative would be the dismantling of federal social programs.
|
On April 13 2015 20:12 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 13:07 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist. I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all. Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it? An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA? Same insurance he had before the ACA, as far as I know. The whole "bad plans still exist thing" isn't really disproven though. Gorsameth said bad plans don't exist anymore. He didn't make any qualifying statements like "bad plans don't exist unless they're grandfathered in." Anyways, I think we agree that the ACA is a shitty half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone, except maybe the insurance companies who now have millions of new customers. It probably has helped some people, but it's not the amazing success the White House press conferences would have you believe. Sadly I am European so I have to sleep at some point. ^^ Your taking my point a little to absolute. I guess I didn't word it carefully enough. I believe you that there are still plenty of plans that are far from ideal and can very much be described as bad. The narrative of 'Everything is worse now' (not that your saying this) isn't true tho. In general the plans are better then they were before the ACA and trying to revoke it without a new plan in place will not result in a better situation for anyone. The stance of 'The ACA isnt good so lets get rid of it and go back to the old system' is a giant step backwards regardless of how good/bad you consider the ACA to be. Your dad's situation is unfortunate and a symptom of the stupidity of American healthcare but not what I meant by refusing to pay. Observation wasn't covered and so wasn't provided, and yes that is bad and stupid, but prior to the ACA his insurance could have cancelled/limited his insurance entirely just because he got cancer. ps. I would argue that even with observation your dad would have ended up with a catheter and medication since that is just the treatment for his problem. Tho again that doesn't make the denial of observation acceptable.
He ended up with the catheter because he went so long without going. It stretched his bladder, which I guess means you have to get a catheter. Had he been observed for a night, they could've done things before it got really serious. He might've just needed the medicine. I mean obviously I'm not a doctor, so I'm not really an authority on this, but it seems like the sooner you catch a problem, the better.
I'm not convinced that the ACA is good just because it solves a few problems. Because it merely masks the underlying problems. The ACA makes the healthcare system not quite as bad, which reduces public pressure for finding a real solution. So you're stuck with a barely working system because there's no desire to find a truly good system.
|
Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck
My community's feelings toward the police keep getting worse since that guy got shot 8 times in the back. i wasn't aware that there were so many people in my city who were interested in that topic. I mean, we have a lot of black, hispanic and samoan people here, but still. it was kinda neat.
It's nice to be in the heart of the situation and stuff not just have opinions after seeing it far away (or on the internet)
|
On April 14 2015 00:19 always_winter wrote:
There is not a Republican alternative to Obamacare, there is only reversal.
Alternatives are hard and complex, but saying you are going to remove a thing that is unpopular is easy. You just say "free market" a whole lot and then act like it applies to the way healthcare works.
|
That is generally the case. Furthermore, rather often preventive treatments are both cheaper and more effective than those you apply after the problem has emerged.
For some reason that i do not fully understand, in the US the system appears to be designed in a way that does not utilize this fully.
At least here in Germany the health insurance system (That works very different from the US companies) tries to actively reward all sorts of preventive action, like regular checkups at the dentist, regular cancer checks, and of course things like staying in hospital for the necessary amount of monitoring after treatments. They do this because they know that this is cheaper for them than having to deal with the problems once they become obvious. As a side effect, it is also usually a lot better for the patients. As such, i can not exactly understand why it appears to be systematic common practice in the US to take all sorts of reckless risks by not covering practices that will reduce the amount of complications lateron.
|
Some of it is because the economic incentives of a pay for service system aren't ones that favor preventative measures.
There has been some pushback on that to try to realign the incentives, make sure that hospitals don't get paid for treating stuff they could've easily prevented happening in the first place.
|
Every dentist I've ever been to calls me twice a month to remind me to schedule my next check-up. My mother's side has a history of breast cancer, and during every regular appointment she is reminded by our family physician to schedule her next mammogram. I haven't read too far back, but I'm not sure how the idea emerged that preventative care is lackluster in the United States. Whether people choose to undergo preventive care is entirely up to them. As far as incentivizing, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with German healthcare, but unless your dentist is funded entirely by the state, then it's far less likely he's concerned about that cavity forming, and far more likely he's concerned with his own bottom line.
|
On April 14 2015 00:55 always_winter wrote:
Every dentist I've ever been to calls me twice a month to remind me to schedule my next check-up. My mother's side has a history of breast cancer, and during every regular appointment she is reminded by our family physician to schedule her next mammogram. I haven't read too far back, but I'm not sure how the idea emerged that preventative care is lackluster in the United States. Whether people choose to undergo preventive care is entirely up to them. As far as incentivizing, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with German healthcare, but unless your dentist is funded entirely by the state, then it's far less likely he's concerned about that cavity forming, and far more likely he's concerned with his own bottom line.
At least part of it is because well-visits are rarely covered. If you go to the doctor's for a routine check-up, and nothing is wrong, very few insurance plans will cover it, leaving you stuck with the whole bill. That bill is frequently hundreds of dollars, which is (rightfully) seen as ridiculous. I mean really, talking with your doctor for 5 minutes costs hundreds?
|
On April 14 2015 01:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 00:55 always_winter wrote:
Every dentist I've ever been to calls me twice a month to remind me to schedule my next check-up. My mother's side has a history of breast cancer, and during every regular appointment she is reminded by our family physician to schedule her next mammogram. I haven't read too far back, but I'm not sure how the idea emerged that preventative care is lackluster in the United States. Whether people choose to undergo preventive care is entirely up to them. As far as incentivizing, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with German healthcare, but unless your dentist is funded entirely by the state, then it's far less likely he's concerned about that cavity forming, and far more likely he's concerned with his own bottom line. At least part of it is because well-visits are rarely covered. If you go to the doctor's for a routine check-up, and nothing is wrong, very few insurance plans will cover it, leaving you stuck with the whole bill. That bill is frequently hundreds of dollars, which is (rightfully) seen as ridiculous. I mean really, talking with your doctor for 5 minutes costs hundreds?
All my regular check ups are covered by my very standard insurance. I just pay a co-pay. And the visit is normally a couple hundred, but its once-twice a year and takes about an hour. Its not really that much worse than an attorney+paralegal time for a full hour. Even a fully licensed plumber could cost you that much with both parts and labor.
|
On April 14 2015 01:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2015 01:06 Millitron wrote:On April 14 2015 00:55 always_winter wrote:
Every dentist I've ever been to calls me twice a month to remind me to schedule my next check-up. My mother's side has a history of breast cancer, and during every regular appointment she is reminded by our family physician to schedule her next mammogram. I haven't read too far back, but I'm not sure how the idea emerged that preventative care is lackluster in the United States. Whether people choose to undergo preventive care is entirely up to them. As far as incentivizing, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with German healthcare, but unless your dentist is funded entirely by the state, then it's far less likely he's concerned about that cavity forming, and far more likely he's concerned with his own bottom line. At least part of it is because well-visits are rarely covered. If you go to the doctor's for a routine check-up, and nothing is wrong, very few insurance plans will cover it, leaving you stuck with the whole bill. That bill is frequently hundreds of dollars, which is (rightfully) seen as ridiculous. I mean really, talking with your doctor for 5 minutes costs hundreds? All my regular check ups are covered by my very standard insurance. I just pay a co-pay. And the visit is normally a couple hundred, but its once-twice a year and takes about an hour. Its not really that much worse than an attorney+paralegal time for a full hour. Even a fully licensed plumber could cost you that much with both parts and labor.
Many of the people who need preventative care the most cannot afford $200 twice a year. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, a single $200 fee is devastating. The poor typically are the ones who get screwed by easily-prevented illnesses. They generally eat less healthy food, because somehow junk food is cheaper than healthy food. They also often work more demanding jobs that are more likely to cause health problems. Poor neighborhoods are also often more polluted than wealthier neighborhoods.
So basically, their lifestyle makes them more likely to suffer from easily prevented problems, and they do not have the money to prevent said problems.
|
On April 14 2015 00:55 always_winter wrote:
Every dentist I've ever been to calls me twice a month to remind me to schedule my next check-up. My mother's side has a history of breast cancer, and during every regular appointment she is reminded by our family physician to schedule her next mammogram. I haven't read too far back, but I'm not sure how the idea emerged that preventative care is lackluster in the United States. Whether people choose to undergo preventive care is entirely up to them. As far as incentivizing, I'm not particularly knowledgeable with German healthcare, but unless your dentist is funded entirely by the state, then it's far less likely he's concerned about that cavity forming, and far more likely he's concerned with his own bottom line.
Regarding the incentives in the German system, unlike normal medical procedures a lot of the dental stuff is not totally covered (at least partially because good dental health is mostly reliant on you just taking care of your teeth daily). However, if you have been to the dentist at least yearly for checkups for the last 5 or 10 years, you have to pay less for fixing your teeth if there is some problem. The basic checkup is completely covered by your insurance and thus doesn't cost you a penny directly.
And having to pay out of your own pocket for a preventive procedures (as some of the other US posters mentioned) is a pretty big disincentive to have these procedures done in my opinion. Same with having to pay for staying in a hospital for observation, and other things like that. I just find it weird that that is even a thing. Shouldn't your insurance company be happy if you that sort of thing, because it can prevent them from having to pay absurd bills if you actually do get cancer or whatever? In this case, in any reasonable system the well-being of the patient and the interests of the insurance company should coincide.
And still it is mentioned so often that checkups and similar things aren't covered by US insurance rather often. I find that to be weird, but i must honestly say i also simply can not imagine living with a system where healthcare is not generally completely covered by your insurance.
|
I think that the email scandal has legs and that's a problem. It's not one that has her doing something wrong perssay but it does raise an eyebrow at what might have been, something the Republicans will be happy to fill in and any democratic challenger (if there is one) to ask about.
Single payer worries me about how it'll affect the medical device and related medical science industry. Most of that is because I live in Minnesota and we've run that industry for a while. Between fairview southdale being the best heart hospital in the world the mayo clinic the choice checkup place for the world's rich and infamous (like the shah of iran) and a majority of our states first teams sponsored by medical device corps.
Basically Minnesota is better then your state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
