thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 15:43:12 GMT -5
That's what I said. And who is paying for it now? The patient is not, but if you think it not being paid by us, it is. It's the same thing. However, if everyone was covered for routine and acute care - there may be a lot less ER visits in total. Which may save money. There is nothing about waiting 3-6 months for an MRI that makes it less expensive. If something needs treatment/surgery - waiting could cost more money in overall patient expenses, including time off work, STD, etc. If other countries have those waits - there is no reason to follow that example. It may be due to a shortage of qualified persons to do the test, or a shortage of equipment. And - fun fact! MRI invented in the USA by an Armenian American! I don't believe I said that the care is not being paid for and I understand quite well that it is us who DO foot the bill. Here's an example: Ms. A has a sore throat. Ms. A doesn't have the money for her co-pay with her doctor, so she doesn't go there. Ms. A doesn't have the money for her co-pay with Urgent Care, so she doesn't go there. Ms. A then goes to an ER because they will provide service without collecting her co-pay first. Do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? Or do we use the same sequence of events but Ms. A is not here legally and doesn't have insurance at all. Do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? Another wrinkle on Ms. A is that maybe she just doesn't believe medical insurance is worth it, so isn't paying for her coverage. Again, do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? I don't believe that we will ever see a scenario where all people have medical coverage. That is why I've said more than once that we need to FIRST determine what level of care our society is willing to consider acceptable. MRI: Well, you DO know that MRI machines are kind of expensive, right? And if we are going to a national/universal/whatever you want to call it type of care, then inherently we will see less willingness to invest in the purchase of expensive equipment as rapidly as we do now. If you only have 2 MRI machines available to a population of, say, 1,000,000 people, you won't be able to perform as many exams as you could with 5 MRI machines covering that same population. Again, when your pool of dollars is limited (and ours right now is NOT) then we all have to accept changes in care parameters. The first MRI patent in the U.S. was awarded to Damadian, but there are some people who would say that Lauterbur and Mansfield should receive credit for providing the research that made Damadian's patent a realistic imaging tool. Without Mansfield's echo-planar technique, imaging would take so long to be produced that much of our current methodology wouldn't exist. This is why I say we should have a medical system that is government run, with the doctors being employees. Ms. A can go in for whatever she wants, whenever she wants and doesn't have to pay for anything. If she wants better care, she can pay her co-pay and see a private doctor.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 15:48:53 GMT -5
I went to Walgreens and they said I had to pay out of pocket, and wait for a long time with a bunch of weirdos. I go to my dr now. I don't know what the insurance Co pays her, but it is included with my annual, so I don't get an extra co-pay. It is nicer, cleaner and more private. Funny! I go to Walgreens because I don't have to pay for it whereas if I went to my doctor, it's not covered by my insurance and it's $50. I'm thinking the guy doing the paperwork didn't know what he was doing. He had that deer-in-the-headlights look. This was when the clinics were fairly new.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 16:05:33 GMT -5
I don't believe I said that the care is not being paid for and I understand quite well that it is us who DO foot the bill. Here's an example: Ms. A has a sore throat. Ms. A doesn't have the money for her co-pay with her doctor, so she doesn't go there. Ms. A doesn't have the money for her co-pay with Urgent Care, so she doesn't go there. Ms. A then goes to an ER because they will provide service without collecting her co-pay first. Do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? Or do we use the same sequence of events but Ms. A is not here legally and doesn't have insurance at all. Do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? Another wrinkle on Ms. A is that maybe she just doesn't believe medical insurance is worth it, so isn't paying for her coverage. Again, do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? I don't believe that we will ever see a scenario where all people have medical coverage. That is why I've said more than once that we need to FIRST determine what level of care our society is willing to consider acceptable. MRI: Well, you DO know that MRI machines are kind of expensive, right? And if we are going to a national/universal/whatever you want to call it type of care, then inherently we will see less willingness to invest in the purchase of expensive equipment as rapidly as we do now. If you only have 2 MRI machines available to a population of, say, 1,000,000 people, you won't be able to perform as many exams as you could with 5 MRI machines covering that same population. Again, when your pool of dollars is limited (and ours right now is NOT) then we all have to accept changes in care parameters. The first MRI patent in the U.S. was awarded to Damadian, but there are some people who would say that Lauterbur and Mansfield should receive credit for providing the research that made Damadian's patent a realistic imaging tool. Without Mansfield's echo-planar technique, imaging would take so long to be produced that much of our current methodology wouldn't exist. This is why I say we should have a medical system that is government run, with the doctors being employees. Ms. A can go in for whatever she wants, whenever she wants and doesn't have to pay for anything. If she wants better care, she can pay her co-pay and see a private doctor. I could go for a system like that although I would prefer to see emergency services used for real emergencies rather than regular care. How do we provide service for those who aren't American citizens? Maybe someone is visiting from Germany and gets sick. How do we charge them? (I'm not saying it can't be done, just that there are details that would need filled in.) Would imaging centers and lab centers also fall into the government employee premise? Would we see a reduction in service locations? How do we cover malpractice suits? Does the government buy malpractice insurance for all the employees? Or do they become self-insured? As I stated earlier, there are TONS of solutions. It's almost impossible to pick the best ones, though, until we decide what level of care we all deem acceptable.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 16:17:46 GMT -5
I think the system should be a full system, with regular doctor visits available, etc. Maybe a walk in clinic would work best, but also Dr's where you can make an appointment and get an annual pap smear, and every thing. The government would own equipment and labs to do testing. Full health care, provided by medical personnel that are government employees. Very little paperwork, integrated medical records, etc. It won't be the best care, but everyone would be covered. Throw all people on medicaid and Medicare onto that system. Let the insurance companies turn people away for pre-existing and chronic conditions and they can use that system too. Take all the medicare and Medicaid dollars and any other spending we do to fund it. If we need to up the funding, bite the bullet and raise taxes just a little. Maybe we have co-pays on a sliding scale, as I hear that even a one dollar co-pay will keep some of the crazies from over using the system.
It will be two-tiered and rationed, but it will be comprehensive. As I said before, absolutely no one will be happy with the scenario so it is the only fair way. Piss everyone off, and we know we have done something right.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 16:37:29 GMT -5
That's what I said. And who is paying for it now? The patient is not, but if you think it not being paid by us, it is. It's the same thing. However, if everyone was covered for routine and acute care - there may be a lot less ER visits in total. Which may save money. There is nothing about waiting 3-6 months for an MRI that makes it less expensive. If something needs treatment/surgery - waiting could cost more money in overall patient expenses, including time off work, STD, etc. If other countries have those waits - there is no reason to follow that example. It may be due to a shortage of qualified persons to do the test, or a shortage of equipment. And - fun fact! MRI invented in the USA by an Armenian American! I don't believe I said that the care is not being paid for and I understand quite well that it is us who DO foot the bill. Here's an example: Ms. A has a sore throat. Ms. A doesn't have the money for her co-pay with her doctor, so she doesn't go there. Ms. A doesn't have the money for her co-pay with Urgent Care, so she doesn't go there. Ms. A then goes to an ER because they will provide service without collecting her co-pay first. Do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? Or do we use the same sequence of events but Ms. A is not here legally and doesn't have insurance at all. Do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? Another wrinkle on Ms. A is that maybe she just doesn't believe medical insurance is worth it, so isn't paying for her coverage. Again, do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? I don't believe that we will ever see a scenario where all people have medical coverage. That is why I've said more than once that we need to FIRST determine what level of care our society is willing to consider acceptable. MRI: Well, you DO know that MRI machines are kind of expensive, right? And if we are going to a national/universal/whatever you want to call it type of care, then inherently we will see less willingness to invest in the purchase of expensive equipment as rapidly as we do now. If you only have 2 MRI machines available to a population of, say, 1,000,000 people, you won't be able to perform as many exams as you could with 5 MRI machines covering that same population. Again, when your pool of dollars is limited (and ours right now is NOT) then we all have to accept changes in care parameters. The first MRI patent in the U.S. was awarded to Damadian, but there are some people who would say that Lauterbur and Mansfield should receive credit for providing the research that made Damadian's patent a realistic imaging tool. Without Mansfield's echo-planar technique, imaging would take so long to be produced that much of our current methodology wouldn't exist. Just curiouse...why so much time devoted to a MRI machine...I am a senior..had one MRI in my life I remember...possible two though not sure on the second...
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 16:41:49 GMT -5
I don't believe I said that the care is not being paid for and I understand quite well that it is us who DO foot the bill. Here's an example: Ms. A has a sore throat. Ms. A doesn't have the money for her co-pay with her doctor, so she doesn't go there. Ms. A doesn't have the money for her co-pay with Urgent Care, so she doesn't go there. Ms. A then goes to an ER because they will provide service without collecting her co-pay first. Do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? Or do we use the same sequence of events but Ms. A is not here legally and doesn't have insurance at all. Do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? Another wrinkle on Ms. A is that maybe she just doesn't believe medical insurance is worth it, so isn't paying for her coverage. Again, do we change the rules and say that emergency care isn't provided? I don't believe that we will ever see a scenario where all people have medical coverage. That is why I've said more than once that we need to FIRST determine what level of care our society is willing to consider acceptable. MRI: Well, you DO know that MRI machines are kind of expensive, right? And if we are going to a national/universal/whatever you want to call it type of care, then inherently we will see less willingness to invest in the purchase of expensive equipment as rapidly as we do now. If you only have 2 MRI machines available to a population of, say, 1,000,000 people, you won't be able to perform as many exams as you could with 5 MRI machines covering that same population. Again, when your pool of dollars is limited (and ours right now is NOT) then we all have to accept changes in care parameters. The first MRI patent in the U.S. was awarded to Damadian, but there are some people who would say that Lauterbur and Mansfield should receive credit for providing the research that made Damadian's patent a realistic imaging tool. Without Mansfield's echo-planar technique, imaging would take so long to be produced that much of our current methodology wouldn't exist. Just curiouse...why so much time devoted to a MRI machine...I am a senior..had one MRI in my life I remember...possible two though not sure on the second... Because other people continued to reference my initial use of it and I've been attempting to expand my responses to them? You probably need to ask the other poster(s) why they have referenced it so many times to obtain a good answer.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 16:48:33 GMT -5
Just curiouse...why so much time devoted to a MRI machine...I am a senior..had one MRI in my life I remember...possible two though not sure on the second... Because other people continued to reference my initial use of it and I've been attempting to expand my responses to them? You probably need to ask the other poster(s) why they have referenced it so many times to obtain a good answer. ok....
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 17:16:21 GMT -5
The MRI is a metaphor for all types of testing, imaging and further analysis.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,512
|
Post by billisonboard on Mar 2, 2017 17:22:28 GMT -5
The MRI is a metaphor for all types of testing, imaging and further analysis. Metaphors R Implied?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Mar 2, 2017 17:28:57 GMT -5
I forgot to put the winky face in my post.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,418
|
Post by NastyWoman on Mar 2, 2017 17:41:40 GMT -5
I still think standardizing plans across insurance companies would also help increase competition and decrease premiums. Right now, it's really not easy to find your exact plan and compare what you are paying with what it would cost at another company....but if the plans were numbers and you could easily compare that same number plan; it makes it extremely simple to figure out if you could get the same coverage for cheaper at another company. Making it that easy would also mean insurance companies would have to be more price conscious in the premiums they charge. It's like going into a grocery store and seeing I can buy the same thing from a competitor for cheaper. I thought provisions of mandatory coverage was one of the problems. 60 year old women paying for maternity coverage and what-not. I know people are clamoring for more flexibility on coverage. It makes comparing difficult, but stops you from having to pay for products you will never use. This 65 yo woman has as much trouble paying for maternity coverage as I have paying for coverage for prostate cancer → absolutley none. As the saying goes there is nothing certain in life except death and taxes (even if I will withhold my judgement on the latter until a certain person discloses his tax returns). We will all die from one of a multitude of different causes and we really need to stop worrying about where a specific dollar is spend. And we are capable of that → it is exactly what we do with our tax money. We send in what we owe to the general pot and its spending is out of our control. We need to get over ourselves and this obsessive need of cherry picking
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Mar 2, 2017 17:56:23 GMT -5
Just repeal. Don't replace. Remove regulations. Let the market figure it out.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Mar 2, 2017 18:03:13 GMT -5
What I want to see in coverage is free annual visits and free vaccines. And if me or my kid has a procedure done at the approved site, every person and process is in network. I get this with my employer provided plan and it should be standard.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 18:04:21 GMT -5
Just repeal. Don't replace. Remove regulations. Let the market figure it out. no thanks. the market is cruel, and health care is crucial. no going back.
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Mar 2, 2017 18:08:37 GMT -5
Govts are cruel as well.
|
|
Gardening Grandma
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:39:46 GMT -5
Posts: 17,962
|
Post by Gardening Grandma on Mar 2, 2017 18:14:50 GMT -5
I think the system should be a full system, with regular doctor visits available, etc. Maybe a walk in clinic would work best, but also Dr's where you can make an appointment and get an annual pap smear, and every thing. The government would own equipment and labs to do testing. Full health care, provided by medical personnel that are government employees. Very little paperwork, integrated medical records, etc. It won't be the best care, but everyone would be covered. Throw all people on medicaid and Medicare onto that system. Let the insurance companies turn people away for pre-existing and chronic conditions and they can use that system too. Take all the medicare and Medicaid dollars and any other spending we do to fund it. If we need to up the funding, bite the bullet and raise taxes just a little. Maybe we have co-pays on a sliding scale, as I hear that even a one dollar co-pay will keep some of the crazies from over using the system. It will be two-tiered and rationed, but it will be comprehensive. As I said before, absolutely no one will be happy with the scenario so it is the only fair way. Piss everyone off, and we know we have done something right. Reminds me of my mother's experience in Japan. Everyone was covered by the national healthcare system. Periodically a mobile clinic would come to town and it would be the day or two that all the women would go get their pap smears. On another day, a mobile clinic would come and give the kids their immunizations. All the preventative care was covered. The premium was per household (and the # of household members). I don't recall exactly what she paid, but it was somewhere around $50/mo for herself. When she started exhibiting symptoms of memory issues, we took her to a large university hospital. She saw a dr who ordered a bunch of tests; the tests were done the next day and we were told to come back in a week to discuss the results. The cost of all the tests was less than $5. (this is a very expensive country). The next week we went back, and the dr said he was pretty sure it was Alzheimer's. There are private doctors anyone can go to if they want; but no one dies because they cannot afford healthcare.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 18:15:46 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I believe we are well beyond any time where we could repeal and not replace. ACA seriously impacted the market in a very negative way for about 30% of those who have to use Healthcare.gov. It took away any competition in our areas. Since the government screwed it up, the government should make reasonable effort to fix it. Some days I wonder if not passing PPACA back in 2010 would have been the better deal.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 18:40:30 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I believe we are well beyond any time where we could repeal and not replace. ACA seriously impacted the market in a very negative way for about 30% of those who have to use Healthcare.gov. It took away any competition in our areas. Since the government screwed it up, the government should make reasonable effort to fix it. Some days I wonder if not passing PPACA back in 2010 would have been the better deal. the market was messed up before, imo. now that it is even MORE messed up (for some), maybe it will get better.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 18:52:10 GMT -5
i'll take my chances with governments over insurance companies, thanks.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 19:29:19 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I believe we are well beyond any time where we could repeal and not replace. ACA seriously impacted the market in a very negative way for about 30% of those who have to use Healthcare.gov. It took away any competition in our areas. Since the government screwed it up, the government should make reasonable effort to fix it. Some days I wonder if not passing PPACA back in 2010 would have been the better deal. the market was messed up before, imo. now that it is even MORE messed up (for some), maybe it will get better. Wouldn't disagree with you on that AT ALL!
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,086
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 2, 2017 19:36:12 GMT -5
When I had one, my doc gave a xeroxed list of MRI centers. So I picked the closest and made appt. seemed reasonable time wise. I could have called and gone elsewhere. So, no need to think everything would needs be a huge government tangle. And you are fortunate because you have options many others don't. I can't just pick an MRI center and go have a test. I have to have my doctor first get the test authorized then wait for my insurance company to call me and tell me it's authorized. The insurance company tells me where I can go for the exam. If it's in my town, that's great! If it's in the next town over, not so great but that's where I go! It could take three or four weeks to actually get the test performed with all the paperwork and calling involved. Serious question for you though, Rukh O'Rorke. Have you ever worked in the medical field or do you know people who do? Because I was a medical professional for almost 20 years. There's a lot more behind what happens than you're speaking of. I suspect you've had very good coverage with few limitations on your policy and maybe you're just not aware of how difficult it can be to navigate the current system. And even as smoothly as things seem to run when you're outside looking in, there are HUGE paperwork tangles for every single patient and every single exam even today. It looks a lot easier because of technology availability, but there are plenty of bumps that most people never see. I guess you missed my post about my son being uninsurable via private policy for no real reason? As a teen? I had no employer health insurance at the time. I happen to work with many health care providers in a consulting capacity, formerly, I worked in quite a few hospitals and physician practices and long ago did some medical billing. Hence my knowledge of pay structures and understanding that we are all paying for the uninsured. One way or another. I've had HMOs and they are iffy at best. At the time, I couldn't afford the PPO version. Frankly, if you have so few options I'm surprised you aren't interested in ways to get more options or better coverage. You seem much more focused on who shouldn't be covered. It's baffling to me. I'm sorry you can only get an hmo, but apparently you are in one of the states that fought implementation of the ACA tooth and nail per your current governor and previous. Understand it's gone much more smoothly elsewhere. There's an article in the Wall Street journal about the ACA Arizona "meltdown " I can't access but it might have some thing of interest for you.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Mar 2, 2017 19:43:56 GMT -5
I feel your pain, Rukh O'Rorke. I've actually hung onto a rejection letter we received for our own DS, as a reminder of days I thought were past. It's annoying to think we might have to fight over the same turf again, that anyone should be able to get insurance, at a reasonable price, without getting booted out for a preexisting condition. As I mentioned on another thread, we're blessed to be living in a state that embraced the ACA, and yes, our DS is currently covered under it. We're not sure what the future holds, and I've checked into the retail price of the prescriptions he's on right now, and lets just say we can't afford them if we need to pay cash in the future. So, "just repeal, don't replace" is NOT an option for us.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Mar 2, 2017 19:57:03 GMT -5
i'd be interested to see what has happened with medical bankruptcies in the last (6) years.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 2, 2017 20:13:43 GMT -5
And you are fortunate because you have options many others don't. I can't just pick an MRI center and go have a test. I have to have my doctor first get the test authorized then wait for my insurance company to call me and tell me it's authorized. The insurance company tells me where I can go for the exam. If it's in my town, that's great! If it's in the next town over, not so great but that's where I go! It could take three or four weeks to actually get the test performed with all the paperwork and calling involved. Serious question for you though, Rukh O'Rorke . Have you ever worked in the medical field or do you know people who do? Because I was a medical professional for almost 20 years. There's a lot more behind what happens than you're speaking of. I suspect you've had very good coverage with few limitations on your policy and maybe you're just not aware of how difficult it can be to navigate the current system. And even as smoothly as things seem to run when you're outside looking in, there are HUGE paperwork tangles for every single patient and every single exam even today. It looks a lot easier because of technology availability, but there are plenty of bumps that most people never see. I guess you missed my post about my son being uninsurable via private policy for no real reason? As a teen? I had no employer health insurance at the time. I happen to work with many health care providers in a consulting capacity, formerly, I worked in quite a few hospitals and physician practices and long ago did some medical billing. Hence my knowledge of pay structures and understanding that we are all paying for the uninsured. One way or another. I've had HMOs and they are iffy at best. At the time, I couldn't afford the PPO version. Frankly, if you have so few options I'm surprised you aren't interested in ways to get more options or better coverage. You seem much more focused on who shouldn't be covered. It's baffling to me. I'm sorry you can only get an hmo, but apparently you are in one of the states that fought implementation of the ACA tooth and nail per your current governor and previous. Understand it's gone much more smoothly elsewhere. There's an article in the Wall Street journal about the ACA Arizona "meltdown " I can't access but it might have some thing of interest for you. I would guess you maybe haven't understood my position if you think I'm more concerned about who shouldn't be covered. I'm concerned we don't go down another rabbit hole that leaves us in the same or worse shape than we are now. Too many questions were asked in 2010 that were never answered. Shouldn't we demand answers this time around? Shouldn't we address the KNOWN problems if we're going to "fix" the problem? Or should we just implement a different plan without people reading it and understanding the impact of their action? I am also in a state that has a large rural/semi-rural population. That has an impact on how many people can possibly participate in the county pools. I haven't read anything yet that has made a link between ACA lacks and Medicaid expansion. If you can provide a link, I'd be happy to read it. Iowa expanded Medicaid and has 13 counties that only have one provider, so I'm not certain a lack of expansion is the cause for a lack of insurers. The following links will let you see that Washington, Nevada, Illinois, and other states who expanded Medicaid also have counties that have only one provider. Insurance by countyMedicaid expansionAnd, yes, I did miss your post about your son. My apologies.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 20:35:25 GMT -5
I feel your pain, Rukh O'Rorke . I've actually hung onto a rejection letter we received for our own DS, as a reminder of days I thought were past. It's annoying to think we might have to fight over the same turf again, that anyone should be able to get insurance, at a reasonable price, without getting booted out for a preexisting condition. As I mentioned on another thread, we're blessed to be living in a state that embraced the ACA, and yes, our DS is currently covered under it. We're not sure what the future holds, and I've checked into the retail price of the prescriptions he's on right now, and lets just say we can't afford them if we need to pay cash in the future. So, "just repeal, don't replace" is NOT an option for us. Have to ask...and I know it wouldn't make a difference...but have to ask...which of the two did u vote for... Reason I ask...you had to know the Donald would fight to do away while Hillery would fight to keep Obama Care....tweet and fix but definitly keep...
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Mar 2, 2017 20:47:03 GMT -5
I feel your pain, Rukh O'Rorke . I've actually hung onto a rejection letter we received for our own DS, as a reminder of days I thought were past. It's annoying to think we might have to fight over the same turf again, that anyone should be able to get insurance, at a reasonable price, without getting booted out for a preexisting condition. As I mentioned on another thread, we're blessed to be living in a state that embraced the ACA, and yes, our DS is currently covered under it. We're not sure what the future holds, and I've checked into the retail price of the prescriptions he's on right now, and lets just say we can't afford them if we need to pay cash in the future. So, "just repeal, don't replace" is NOT an option for us. Have to ask...and I know it wouldn't make a difference...but have to ask...which of the two did u vote for... Reason I ask...you had to know the Donald would fight to do away while Hillery would fight to keep Obama Care....tweet and fix but definitly keep... Both DH & I voted for Hillary. One of the few elections where we were totally in agreement. We both tend to be rather independent, but the issues in this particular election made Hillary look like the best choice, as she wasn't going to change the ACA, alter Medicare or mess with Social Security.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Mar 2, 2017 21:14:08 GMT -5
Have to ask...and I know it wouldn't make a difference...but have to ask...which of the two did u vote for... Reason I ask...you had to know the Donald would fight to do away while Hillery would fight to keep Obama Care....tweet and fix but definitly keep... Both DH & I voted for Hillary. One of the few elections where we were totally in agreement. We both tend to be rather independent, but the issues in this particular election made Hillary look like the best choice, as she wasn't going to change the ACA, alter Medicare or mess with Social Security. Seems u made the right decision for your own best reason....afraid the Donald is going to make changes but I am hopeful, not because he is interested in offering the people the coverage but the pressure from his own supporters will make him and the GOP come up with a good plan ...we'll call it TRUMP CARE...name will change with the change of administrations...maybe even better costs too..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:55:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 22:35:34 GMT -5
Just repeal. Don't replace. Remove regulations. Let the market figure it out. 6 years ago, that would have worked. 4 years ago, that would have worked. 2 years ago, that MIGHT have worked (with some "withdrawal pain"). But now... it's too late for that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 1:55:00 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 3, 2017 0:47:44 GMT -5
I want to mention I don't blame the Republicans for NOT letting it be repealed, when it could have been. This mess is NOT their fault. They tried to do the right thing some 50-odd times, when it could have been done. Someone blocked them every time.
I leave it up to everyone to figure out who it was that screwed the American people... over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Mar 3, 2017 7:28:04 GMT -5
I don't clearly remember, didn't ACA get 20% just for being the middleman?
|
|