Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Mickey_Finn]

Bolonga again & I’ll raise you a slice ** I am without insurance and **have no problems seeing a doc if I should need to. (and no I’m not a billionaire) I’ve paid out of pocket for my medical care for the last 10 years or so. I’ve also met a lot of people while I was waiting to see the doc who also didn’t have insurance. Never once were any of us turned away.

Your number is off a bit. The bkys are not CAUSED by high medical bills. It is the number of bankruptcies where medical issues contributed to the bankruptcy, whether that was getting fired because someone missed one too many days because of illness, someone who can no longer work and in a few cases because of major medical bills (many of which were from deductibles & uncovered costs) FactCheck.org breaks down the specifics.

I suspect your Doctor has a crush on you.:yup:

Otherwise, for the numbers. I thought thats what I said. 62.1% sited high healthcare costs, as a cause. (my numbers came from fact check.)

ATB

 

[Dawnia]

I think you need to decide on a stance: are chronically ill people largely to blame for their illnesses OR is this millenium’s basic medical care to be measured by sub-third world standards?

According to the government and every medical association, much of the chronic illnesses are self inflicted. Meaning that much of it could have been prevented to begin with. When does a person’s health care start becoming their responsibility instead of our problem to fix?

How about measuring it using common sense. Like going to the doctor for an annual physical and then only when there is actually something a doctor can treat. As opposed to going to the doctor for every sniffle, papercut & headache.

If someone wants to offer care above bare bones care, then they are certainly free to do so. Heck, I would even chip in a buck or two to help out. But if that care is being paid for by forcebly taking money from others to pay for it, then no it shouldn’t be above bare bones basic care.

 

[Dawnia]

**I suspect your Doctor has a crush on you.:yup: **

Otherwise, for the numbers. I thought thats what I said. 62.1% sited high healthcare costs, as a cause. (my numbers came from fact check.)

ATB

I really hope not…she’s a female doc.

You have the right number, you’re just attibuting it to the wrong cause. The cost of healthcare isn’t causing all of those bankruptcies. Only about 27% of bankruptcies were caused primarily by medical bills. The rest of the 62.1% were due to illness related issues, such as job loss, but not due to high medical bills.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yet that frugality could not begin to allow me to help a dear one pay the $200,000+ bill that her uninsured care incurred - not without bankrupting me.

Quit changing the argument in mid-stream, seekerz – the arguments which you start, not others. Your contention, to which I responded in the post you quoted, is that emergency care would be insufficient, and because they won’t provide for their own follow-up and preventative care, the government, through its US citizens, needs to be the adults of such irresponsible people. Hence I made two analogies and an additional point: (1) incentives (rather, monetary rewards) for responsible self-care can be built into the system, but that isn’t being done; rather, the government keeps rewarding people for irresponsibility; (2) you, and many others, do not give other people – including both lazy people and poor people – enough credit for behaving like adults when push comes to shove, for preventative and follow-up care; it’s not up the government to subsitute for individual respnsibility, which is what you continue to argue, post after post; (3) many adults have never practiced real frugality,even short-term, because our society so often assumes that other people are always responsible for the irresponsibility of others; (4) motivation is a powerful thing.

I was not talking, nor am I talking, about a hospital bill. Whenever anyone does talk about hospital insurance and hospital policies, you change the subject, dismiss it, and claim that it’s all about non-hospital care. When we address the non-hospital care which you yourself initiate, you conveniently return to hospital care. Are you playing a game here, are you seriously interested in discussing problems and solutions?

I don’t understand what you’re getting at - are you discussing the insured who fail to get regular care? I suppose so, because only they have premiums…

:banghead:

You seem to be frustrating a lot of people, not for your views but because you can’t stay on topic! :takeoff:

 

[Jeffrey]

Hopefully other states do as AZ:

azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/initiative-would-let-voters-overrule-federal-law/article_50d0e77c-d27c-5828-a3b6-d818c0042700.html

 

[RobbyS]

Only two did. Ryan’s bishop didn’t condemn it and said that Ryan was a responsible lay Catholic. I also don’t think it is a good idea to say that the Church has a “crabbed” notion of limited government; the Church is the bride of Jesus Christ who is God over all. Not to mention that it has condemned communism, socialism, and the welfare state (also unregulated capitalism).

Let’s say that too many in the Vatican are Italians, who seem always to look at the US in the light of European politics of the 19th Century. So I am not talking about the Bride of Christ but her ushers. Not so sure that the Church has condemned the “welfare state,” but gave it limited approval–as a happy medium between radical liberalism (19th Century style, meaning secular capitalism, social Darwinism) and socialism. It of course condemned the rabid materialism and nationalism of the time. The socialists opposed nationalism, too. But they were an even greater threat because of their economic reductionism, which was the flip side of economic liberalism. Hard for them to see how the US was never caught up in this stuff to the same degree, that was a different kind of place. So they tended to read developments in the US in the same light as developments in Europe.

 

[RobbyS]

Ok it took the Baptist

Submitted by Baptist Press on Jan 20, 2012

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration has rejected appeals to overturn guidelines requiring health insurance plans to cover contraceptives that can cause abortions**.As Catholics are we now ok with this?**

1.New taxes, penalties, and fees will discourage businesses from growing, lowering economic growth by $706 billion and costing 800,000 jobs.
2.The Federal government will force 18 million of the uninsured to go on Medicaid. Despite this, millions will still remain uninsured.
3.Each year, $125 million will go towards subsidizing school-based health centers and programs to reduce teen pregnancy, with no requirement to reduce abortions. Parents won’t know what services their children will receive.
4.Half of those on Medicare Advantage will lose this coverage thanks to rate increases.
5.Health care costs will rise thanks to $47 billion in new taxes on drug companies and medical device makers.
6.Nearly two-thirds of doctors are considering abandoning any kind of government-sponsored health care insurance, stating that regulations are too high and reimbursement too low.
7.By forcing States to accept federally-mandated health insurance, the Act violates States’ rights.
8.Small businesses, the drivers of new job growth, will be especially penalized by $52 billion in new taxes and new IRS reporting requirements.
9.Despite $500 billion in new taxes, Obamacare will increase the deficit by $500 billion over the next 10 years. (Source: Heritage Foundation, Impact of Obamacare)

We still owe China 2 1/2 trillion dollars…Who is going to pay that?

Add to this the tons of money that HHS is sending to Planned Parenthood in states like Tennessee, which have cut off funding to the nation’s leading abortion provider. The President is a true believer in their mission.

 

[LisaA]

Now what are you talking about?

Medical care for most, does not exist with out healthcare insurance.

ATB

Baloney. Here is the reality. Most people HAVE some form of medical insurance, either through their employer or via one of the government programs (Medicare, Medicaid). Most people are happy with their insurance btw and thus there was really no compelling reason to produce the monstrosity known as Obamatax.

Yes there are people with no insurance but you have provided zero evidence that they are being denied necessary healthcare as a matter of course. Several of the posters have repeatedly listed resources for those without insurance; emergency rooms, low cost or free clinics, medical schools, charity hospitals, even for profit hospitals will not or cannot by law “dump” a patient. Oh and there are actually people who CHOOSE not to have insurance but rather pay their own way. Despite the Dem’s claims this does not mean you are freeloader.

I think you just like to make outrageous claims to poke a cyber-stick in the eye of those of us who actually live in the real world.

Lisa

 

[AthenaC]

an uninsured person is required to pay more than your average insurance company does - for the same service. The numbers are so outrageous it’s like asking people to skip out on their bill.

That’s an information problem, so I try to get the word out whenever I can - the insurance companies aren’t paying 100%, so neither should you. Negotiate your bill down 50-60% if you can. If necessary, gently remind the provider that whatever you can afford is still more than nothing, which is what they will end up with if they insist on more than 40-50% of the total charges.

 

[_Abyssinia]

With key CEO gone, Obamacare may be easier to redo

galen.org/topics/with-key-ceo-support-gone-obamacare-may-be-easier-to-redo

 

[PaulinVA]

A very small minority of Doctors balk at accepting new medicare patients. Something like 14%. factcheck.org/2011/05/sen-barrassos-medicare-mistake/

If you look at the peculiar anti government ranters we see today. It’s probably in line with 14%.

The thing is. They are an extreme, and vocal minority. But, their numbers are small, and they are of little consequence. Worrying about them, is like worrying about billionaires.

ATB

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

 

[PaulinVA]

That’s an information problem, so I try to get the word out whenever I can - the insurance companies aren’t paying 100%, so neither should you. Negotiate your bill down 50-60% if you can. If necessary, gently remind the provider that whatever you can afford is still more than nothing, which is what they will end up with if they insist on more than 40-50% of the total charges.

Yes, this is extremely unfair. The people least able pay the most for health care. It’s absolutely stupid. But, hospitals don’t charge what the service is actually “worth”, either, since they have to add indigent care and nonpayment accounts to the cost of services.

The problem with your scenario, Athena, is that reducing the bill by 40% still doesn’t make it payable for a lot of people anyway.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

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

The Reuters article is not news. Though I like that you sight Reuters.

Medicaid patients have traditionally “gone to the ED” This is a problem that the Healthcare industry should have owned and seen resolved. Much like mental health. They didn’t, so we have ACA. As we all know, there is going to be trouble no matter how this all works out.

If we have to close our Catholic hospitals… I’m on “OUR” side. But, as a human being, I hope we are able to sell the facilities, and they continue to run. Their loss would devastate my area.

Now, a doctor in an area with high Medicaid participation would be extremely self centered to refuse to except medicaid patients. Perhaps he would fit in better on Wall street.

ATB

 

[Mickey_Finn]

That’s an information problem, so I try to get the word out whenever I can - the insurance companies aren’t paying 100%, so neither should you. Negotiate your bill down 50-60% if you can. If necessary, gently remind the provider that whatever you can afford is still more than nothing, which is what they will end up with if they insist on more than 40-50% of the total charges.

AthenaC, Your one of the good guys.

 

[PaulinVA]

Now, a doctor in an area with high Medicaid participation would be extremely self centered to refuse to except medicaid patients. Perhaps he would fit in better on Wall street.

ATB

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.

 

[LisaA]

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.

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

 

[Mickey_Finn]

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.

Again, what the individual physician desires for a fee. May not be available. The point is… The healthcare industry brought this upon themselves. Other nations have survived the transition. We will to.

ATB

 

[PaulinVA]

Again, what the individual physician desires for a fee. May not be available. The point is… The healthcare industry brought this upon themselves. Other nations have survived the transition. We will to.

ATB

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?

 

[seekerz]

That’s an information problem, so I try to get the word out whenever I can - the insurance companies aren’t paying 100%, so neither should you. Negotiate your bill down 50-60% if you can. If necessary, gently remind the provider that whatever you can afford is still more than nothing, which is what they will end up with if they insist on more than 40-50% of the total charges.

The only thing most small providers I know negotiate is a payment plan. Larger ones (like hospitals) may offer discounts of the sort you refer to BUT I have never seen one offered with a payment plan - to qualify, you have to pay the whole amount at once, which, for a person of limited means can still be out of reach.

 

[seekerz]

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?

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’.

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?