Ah, the patient-centered approach. It was late in coming but I have to applaud the GOP that eventually it did come…Now I’d like to understand how exactly that approach is going to make care affordable. But wait, isn’t care already supposed to be ‘patient-centered’? Am I missing something here?Brilliant point! The entire problem with Obamatax is that it’s like a 2700 page Don Quixote tilting at windmills instead of addressing the problems. What are the problems? High cost and lack of access. What does Obamatax do to address those problems?
Ration care
Force people to buy a product they may not want to buy
Incentivise companies to dump their employees onto a government exchange
Force states to take on more of the burden
Add taxes to the sale of medical devices, tanning parlors, investments
Destroys concepts like cafeteria plans and HSAs
Take away Medicare Advantage a plan that many low income seniors LOVE
Add restrictions on what health insurers can charge and add more burden in the form of forcing them to take high risk people at the same price as low risk
etc etc etc
Hmmm does that sound like this is going to provide more care at less cost?
How about asking DOCTORS and HOSPITALS what would work better? Why wasn’t the focus on patient care instead of regulations, administration and pandering to a number of special interest groups?
The issue was never about patient care. It was about government control.
Lisa
How does that address the care that is not delivered primarily by doctors in clinics? Medications, tests, procedures not suited to the clinic setting, hospitalization…? Often, those are cumulatively much more expensive than simply seeing a doctor.No, that’s just the point. Someone in a more well-off area can accept medicaid/medicare because he has a lot of insured patients to offset the low government reimbursement rate.
In an area with a high medicare/medicaid population, most of the patients are paying the government rate and the practice is unsustainable.
Self-centered? No. He just wants his practice to survive.
My suggestion? The Public Health Service pays off student loans for docs who dedicate 5 to ten years to service in clinics in underserved areas. Bring the care to where people need it. Giving people insurance is stupid. Giving them care is what we should be doing, if anything.
Republicans have proposed health care reform for a long time.Ah, the patient-centered approach. It was late in coming but I have to applaud the GOP that eventually it did come…Now I’d like to understand how exactly that approach is going to make care affordable. But wait, isn’t care already supposed to be ‘patient-centered’? Am I missing something here?
Part of the problem is that running a practice is expensive and unnecessarily complicated. Those facts make many jobs available in the health sector BUT those are also contributory factors to overhead costs and the prices charged for services.Mickey, it really depends on where they are, doesn’t it? The one doctor in an area with a high medicare/medicaid population not accepting it could have a devastating effect.
I like this article better:
reuters.com/article/2012/03/27/us-medicaid-idUSBRE82Q12V20120327
Health care isn’t JUST being treated in the ER. It is pap smears, physicals, stress tests, blood work, biopsies, etc.I know that! I was just responding to seekerz’s continued assertion that the poor are not getting medical treatment or care. Yes, they are. At our expense. Nothing will change with Obamacare.
Late as in Reagan, Bush I, Bush II late. Health care costs have been eating up an increasingly greater percentage of GDP for a while now.Republicans have proposed health care reform for a long time.
Empowering Patients First Act, Patients Choice Act, OPTION Act, Health Care Choice Act. Do the research, any of these bills would help to make health insurance more affordable
And under this health care law it includes forced payments for abortion,sterilization’s, and contraception. Just because one acknowledges the health care system needs improvement doesn’t mean we have to support this abomination. This law embarks on a policy of providing substandard care to everyone(but the very rich) in order to make sure the 15% who dont have coverage) get it.Health care isn’t JUST being treated in the ER. It is pap smears, physicals, stress tests, blood work, biopsies, etc.
You can get comprehensive health care, free or low cost depending on your income at more than 1250 community health centres with more than 8000 sitesHealth care isn’t JUST being treated in the ER. It is pap smears, physicals, stress tests, blood work, biopsies, etc.
I’m changing topics? I broke your post down paragraph by paragraph and addressed each of the points YOU made. What topic did I change?You seem to be frustrating a lot of people, not for your views but because you can’t stay on topic! :takeoff:
RomneyCare is a state plan, with Romney vetoing eight parts of it to with no avail because of the 80% Democrat legislature. The RomneyCare written into law, and the RomneyCare today is not the original ideaLate as in Reagan, Bush I, Bush II late. Health care costs have been eating up an increasingly greater percentage of GDP for a while now.
Now that Obama has selected one of the Right’s solutions for health care (Romenycare), it becomes a problem how exactly?
In my area, that amounts to about one per city.You can get comprehensive health care, free or low cost depending on your income at more than 1250 community health centres with more than 8000 sites
I do not where you get the idea from that RomneyCare is the right’s solution for health care, when few conservatives support it. The RomneyCare written into law, and the RomneyCare today is not the original idea that Romney hadLate as in Reagan, Bush I, Bush II late. Health care costs have been eating up an increasingly greater percentage of GDP for a while now.
Now that Obama has selected one of the Right’s solutions for health care (Romenycare), it becomes a problem how exactly?
I doubt unless you live in a small city there is oneIn my area, that amounts to about one per city.
The savings is in treating people in the right setting.How does that address the care that is not delivered primarily by doctors in clinics? Medications, tests, procedures not suited to the clinic setting, hospitalization…? Often, those are cumulatively much more expensive than simply seeing a doctor.
No, the market is not free when one of the payers is stingy in his payments and everyone follows his lead. Medicare sets rates that are absolutely ludicrous.I don’t get how this works. In a free market isn’t the physician’s income supposed to reflect the demand for his/her services? At least that’s what I’ve learned from my fellow posters. A fixed income range indicates to me that something about this equation you envisage is not ‘free’.
Why would someone spend years in training and end up with six-figure debt just to make $100K a year? That doesn’t make sense. People make six figures with bachelor degrees nowadays.You make it sound like they’re only in this for the money. So what if they can’t quite make $150-$200,000? Is that some kind of totally unacceptable humanitarian disaster?
Yes, it’s available from the insurance companies. Not from the government.
I believe that a pediatrician or internist should be able to run a practice, pay his staff, provide benefits, and make %$150K - $250K. You seem to be saying that is unattainable in your new utopia. If that’s the case, why would anyone want to become a physician?
Lots of doctors are already getting out, retiring, this has pushed them over the edge. What will fill the gap? Look for more PA’s and nursing assistants to treat you. Whoopee.Thats one of the major problems… there just won’t be as many doctors. Also the QUALITY of care will go down. If I was a doctor… i’d find another business to get into… quick.
All politicians compromise in order to get legislation passed, otherwise we get a bunch of people getting paid for doing nothing. The fact remains that Obama adopted a plan that was essentially Romney’s - how do you get more bipartisan than that?I do not where you get the idea from that RomneyCare is the right’s solution for health care, when few conservatives support it. The RomneyCare written into law, and the RomneyCare today is not the original idea that Romney had
RomneyCare Romney originally wanted had no forced individual mandate, but an opt out such as a bond so individuals could show they had enough money to pay health care bills. Democrat legislature rejected it
Romney opposed the employer mandate and vetoed it. Democrat legislature overrode
Romney vetoed medicaid expansion for children because of cost constraints, that was added by the Democrat legislature but was overridden
Romney vetoed cover for legal immigrants that were not poor called ‘special status aliens’ but was overridden
Romney opposed Minimum Coverage Options, instead wanting ‘higher deductible’ that would cover catastrophic ill health and hospitalisation. Rejected by the Democrat legislature. ‘We wanted no mandated benefits,’ said Romney said in an interview. Democrat legislate instead mandated ‘gold plated insurance plans’ ben fit rich insurance plans
Romney vetoed coverage of optical and dental care for Medicaid participants because of cost. Was overridden by the Democrat legislature
Romney wanted costs to be controlled so he wanted everyone to pay some part of their premium for health insurance. Law as it is now gives it free
Romney would of liked tax break for those who have health insurance rather than tax penalty for those without health insurance. Either would of provided incentive to become insured
Romney supported a plan to allow employees to use their employers funds to buy health insurance on the open market. An employee would not then be trapped with their employers health insurance plan.
Romney supported ways to encourage individuals to go to doctor first, like raising co payment charge on ER visits, before going to the emergency room which many go to with things can be simply treated, and ER costs more
Romney supported patients providing documents to insurance companies before being insured because there have been claims of people not signing up for coverage until tax was due or they were ill
Next governor after Romney, Governor Patrick, added a costly prescription drug benefit and set Massachusetts amount of premiums above what Romney thought was reasonable so now those who receive subsidies for health insurance rely on government to pay a larger amount of their premiums
Democrat legislature made RomneyCare bigger, less competitive, more government driven, more expensive. Not what Romney wanted
I agree that the ER is an expensive place to treat non-emergencies, but that was not my question. How would you cover care that cannot be given in a clinic? Surgeries, expensive medications for chronic conditions, (name removed by moderator)atient care…?The savings is in treating people in the right setting.
An office visit and prescription for an antibiotic is properly an office visit, not an ER visit. An office visit, nebulizer treatment and prescription for a maint drug inhaler and albuteral inhaler is the proper treatment for an asthma attack; it doesn’t have to be treated in the ER, and allows for low cost follow up care.
Treating people in the ER for clinic-type maladies is extremely expensive.