mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 17, 2011 15:08:15 GMT -5
Should the time come (oh, please!) when we have a workable health care plan to serve all citizens, the ERs need to be freed of the obligation to treat all comers. Now, we cannot turn anyone away, regardless of their complaint. We can triage and treat the most endangered first, but the ingrown toenail is still waiting out there when we're through. The ingrown toenail and his/her equals who are currently clogging up the ERs need to be seen in urgent care clinics, or doctor's offices. If we can get rid of the onus presently squashing ERs we can give better treatment to real emergencies. Those who have been treated in ERs and stabilized, but have no insurance, need to be seen, as well. They can't just be sent off to hope they heal. That's barbaric!
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2011 15:11:58 GMT -5
I don't believe everyone will be paying in, but a heck of a lot more people will start paying in. You are ignoring the large group of people that doesn't currently have access to any employer health insurance & can't get private insurance. These people have income & would be paying into the system.
It takes care out of the ER for the uninsured for starters. It also means that doctors & hospital bills will no longer be inflated to cover the cost of people who never pay. Both of these will help to lower costs.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 12, 2024 17:06:01 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 17, 2011 15:11:59 GMT -5
If they cannot afford to pay for medical care and/or insurance now, what makes you think they will be able to afford to pay for it when the mandate kicks in?
The point is to equalize it. We signed up for Adult Care .... 5 years ago... there was a 3 1/2 year waiting list. You could buy in right away, for 700$ a couple. I couldn't do it... could have done 300... but they said, no problem, no pre-existing clause... buy it if you need it... 3 1/2 years later, we got on... (to buy in at that point was $1500 a couple... duh... only sick people were buying in) ... but they charged me something insane like 75$ a month for a couple... sigh... crazy... I still could have paid 3-400... anyway, that lasted 6 months before it was broke...
Anyway... better scenario... 5 years ago they start charging me 300$ a month, and collect THAT for 5 years.... a reasonable amount i could pay, consistently...
See how that would work?...
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:14:56 GMT -5
Since no one is actually suggesting that we start turning away people from the ER's, then doesn't it make more sense to get everyone paying into the system? C'mon Angel...do you honestly believe everyone will be paying in to the system? If they cannot afford to pay for medical care and/or insurance now, what makes you think they will be able to afford to pay for it when the mandate kicks in? Before RomneyCare was enacted, estimates of the number of uninsured in Massachusetts ranged from 372,000 to 618,000. Under the new program, about 219,000 previously uninsured residents have signed up for insurance. Of these, 133,000 are receiving subsidized coverage, proving once again that people are all too happy to accept something "for free," and let others pay the bill. That is in addition to 56,000 people who have been signed up for Medicaid. The bigger the subsidy, the faster people are signing up. Of the 133,000 people who have signed up for insurance since the plan was implemented, slightly more than half have received totally free coverage. Just because you're shifting the cost around doesn't mean the problem is fixed. It's a smoke and mirrors, slight of hand magic trick...it's a myth and just like romneycare, Obamacare does absolutely nothing to address the true problem of health care which is rapidly rising costs of medical care. You are right, the state will have to subsidize the medical insurance for people who can't afford it. Otherwise the state would have had to subsidize ER care. Guess which one is cheaper in the long run?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 17, 2011 15:16:59 GMT -5
Now, we cannot turn anyone away, regardless of their complaint. We can triage and treat the most endangered first, but the ingrown toenail is still waiting out there when we're through. The ingrown toenail and his/her equals who are currently clogging up the ERs need to be seen in urgent care clinics, or doctor's offices. If we can get rid of the onus presently squashing ERs we can give better treatment to real emergencies I agree, but it's not a slam dunk that obamacare will alleviate this problem either. It's only been a short time, relatively speaking, since romneycare went in to effect, so there is not a long time line of stata to completely identify a trend, but so far it's not looking like obamacare will significantly reduce ER visits either. Backers of a health care overhaul have long argued that covering the uninsured would save money by curbing emergency room visits. Yet Massachusetts' law — a model for ObamaCare — has had little impact on ER trips, research suggests.
"There was an expectation after people got insurance (that) all these low-severity visits would disappear from the emergency department, and that was clearly not what happened," said Dr. Peter Smulowitz, a physician at Boston's Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and lead author on a forthcoming article about ER visits in Massachusetts www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/573523/201105261838/RomneyCare-Is-No-ER-Panacea.aspx
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 17, 2011 15:22:00 GMT -5
There are no slam dunks in life, floridayankee. Few things come with an absolute guarantee. Lifting the onus on ERs to treat all who enter the doors is one of the things I'd want to see in any healthcare plan. Clinics need to be available in which those who have no insurance, but don't have actual emergencies can be seen. There are such clinics now. I volunteer in one; however, like others of our type we're constantly struggling for funding. I can assure you, I'm not getting rich from it and neither are any of the doctors and nurses who volunteer there. We're giving our time. Still, we must struggle to keep afloat.
Romneycare (as it is called) needed to address the problem facing ERs and it didn't. That's a mistake from which we can learn in building something that will work, is it not?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 17, 2011 15:23:19 GMT -5
Guess which one is cheaper in the long run? I'd say neither since people still use the ER and the real problem hasn't been addressed. Instead of bankrupting individuals, we'll be bankrupting states, and possibly the country. One of big benefits to Romneycare (Massachusetts government run healthcare) and Obamacare is that their supposed to cover everyone and do it at a significantly reduced cost all could afford. The government run healthcare of Massachusetts is not only a petri dish experiment showing this not to be the case, but that the exact opposite effect takes place.
The Massachusetts government designed the system to have the businesses carry the burden of costs for healthcare, but smaller businesses which make up the majority of employers simply can’t afford the costs of government run healthcare. As a result small businesses in Massachusetts are terminating their insurance plans for employees and instead depending on the state run healthcare system (Commonwealth Care) to take care of their employees.
For small businesses dropping employees from their heathcare roles has become a necessity due to high costs and an economy that is hitting their bottom lines hard. Sending employees to government run healthcare can mean the difference between closing their businesses or laying off employees just to stay afloat.
These businesses don’t get off Scott free though. The state government penalizes the business for doing this, but the cost in Massachusetts is only $295 annually per employee which is far less than if the companies continued to pay the insurance premiums. For example the Early Learning Child Care center in New Bedford is now paying fines of $1,500 quarterly to the state government instead of the $30,000 it had been paying out quarterly for just 13 employees’ healthcare costs. Those costs are now taken on by Massachusetts taxpayers. daytontribune.com/romneycare-is-bankrupting-massachusetts-%E2%80%93-obamacare-will-bankrupt-the-country/75912/
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 15:33:46 GMT -5
Guess which one is cheaper in the long run? I'd say neither since people still use the ER and the real problem hasn't been addressed. Instead of bankrupting individuals, we'll be bankrupting states, and possibly the country. One of big benefits to Romneycare (Massachusetts government run healthcare) and Obamacare is that their supposed to cover everyone and do it at a significantly reduced cost all could afford. The government run healthcare of Massachusetts is not only a petri dish experiment showing this not to be the case, but that the exact opposite effect takes place.
The Massachusetts government designed the system to have the businesses carry the burden of costs for healthcare, but smaller businesses which make up the majority of employers simply can’t afford the costs of government run healthcare. As a result small businesses in Massachusetts are terminating their insurance plans for employees and instead depending on the state run healthcare system (Commonwealth Care) to take care of their employees.
For small businesses dropping employees from their heathcare roles has become a necessity due to high costs and an economy that is hitting their bottom lines hard. Sending employees to government run healthcare can mean the difference between closing their businesses or laying off employees just to stay afloat.
These businesses don’t get off Scott free though. The state government penalizes the business for doing this, but the cost in Massachusetts is only $295 annually per employee which is far less than if the companies continued to pay the insurance premiums. For example the Early Learning Child Care center in New Bedford is now paying fines of $1,500 quarterly to the state government instead of the $30,000 it had been paying out quarterly for just 13 employees’ healthcare costs. Those costs are now taken on by Massachusetts taxpayers. daytontribune.com/romneycare-is-bankrupting-massachusetts-%E2%80%93-obamacare-will-bankrupt-the-country/75912/I agree that the penalties super low and need to go up.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2011 15:33:54 GMT -5
This article is a little misleading. Only people under 300% poverty even qualify for commonwealth care & only those under 100% poverty get free health care. These plans are still run by private insurance companies, the premiums are just covered for very low income families. How many people under 100% poverty do you think were previously covered by their employers insurance - I'm guessing not many.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 16:14:52 GMT -5
I'd say neither since people still use the ER and the real problem hasn't been addressed. Instead of bankrupting individuals, we'll be bankrupting states, and possibly the country. One of big benefits to Romneycare (Massachusetts government run healthcare) and Obamacare is that their supposed to cover everyone and do it at a significantly reduced cost all could afford. The government run healthcare of Massachusetts is not only a petri dish experiment showing this not to be the case, but that the exact opposite effect takes place.
The Massachusetts government designed the system to have the businesses carry the burden of costs for healthcare, but smaller businesses which make up the majority of employers simply can’t afford the costs of government run healthcare. As a result small businesses in Massachusetts are terminating their insurance plans for employees and instead depending on the state run healthcare system (Commonwealth Care) to take care of their employees.
For small businesses dropping employees from their heathcare roles has become a necessity due to high costs and an economy that is hitting their bottom lines hard. Sending employees to government run healthcare can mean the difference between closing their businesses or laying off employees just to stay afloat.
These businesses don’t get off Scott free though. The state government penalizes the business for doing this, but the cost in Massachusetts is only $295 annually per employee which is far less than if the companies continued to pay the insurance premiums. For example the Early Learning Child Care center in New Bedford is now paying fines of $1,500 quarterly to the state government instead of the $30,000 it had been paying out quarterly for just 13 employees’ healthcare costs. Those costs are now taken on by Massachusetts taxpayers. daytontribune.com/romneycare-is-bankrupting-massachusetts-%E2%80%93-obamacare-will-bankrupt-the-country/75912/I agree that the penalties super low and need to go up. ...why?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 16:15:51 GMT -5
This article is a little misleading. Only people under 300% poverty even qualify for commonwealth care & only those under 100% poverty get free health care. These plans are still run by private insurance companies, the premiums are just covered for very low income families. How many people under 100% poverty do you think were previously covered by their employers insurance - I'm guessing not many. ...and does the fact that the govt. can dictate what's the poverty line in any way bother you?
|
|
|
Post by bubblyandblue on Jun 17, 2011 16:18:36 GMT -5
I know not much but, can the state negotiate prices or not? Like when I make big purchases I can get a quantity discount.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2011 16:20:52 GMT -5
This article is a little misleading. Only people under 300% poverty even qualify for commonwealth care & only those under 100% poverty get free health care. These plans are still run by private insurance companies, the premiums are just covered for very low income families. How many people under 100% poverty do you think were previously covered by their employers insurance - I'm guessing not many. ...and does the fact that the govt. can dictate what's the poverty line in any way bother you? Not really. We need some sort of way to determine who is eligible for assistance, a measurement that is adjusted each year for changes in cost of living makes sense. You have a better way to do it?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 16:24:47 GMT -5
...and does the fact that the govt. can dictate what's the poverty line in any way bother you? Not really. We need some sort of way to determine who is eligible for assistance, a measurement that is adjusted each year for changes in cost of living makes sense. You have a better way to do it? How about tax cuts for the rich?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 16:25:49 GMT -5
I know not much but, can the state negotiate prices or not? Like when I make big purchases I can get a quantity discount. Medicare was explicitly prohibited by the Republican congress, Senate, and WH in the mid 2000s to negotiate prices with pharma companies. This was done to lower healthcare costs.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 16:26:11 GMT -5
I agree that the penalties super low and need to go up. ...why? Read the post.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 16:50:00 GMT -5
...and does the fact that the govt. can dictate what's the poverty line in any way bother you? Not really. We need some sort of way to determine who is eligible for assistance, a measurement that is adjusted each year for changes in cost of living makes sense. You have a better way to do it? ...how about we don't socialize costs of private healthcare?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 16:51:05 GMT -5
...why? Read the post. ...I did... and I asked you why you drew that conclusion in your post?
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2011 16:52:09 GMT -5
Not really. We need some sort of way to determine who is eligible for assistance, a measurement that is adjusted each year for changes in cost of living makes sense. You have a better way to do it? ...how about we don't socialize costs of private healthcare? Subsidize, not socialize. This isn't socialized medicine.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 16:53:36 GMT -5
...I did... and I asked you why you drew that conclusion in your post? Read it again, key words are $295 and $30,000.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 16:53:52 GMT -5
...how about we don't socialize costs of private healthcare? Subsidize, not socialize. This isn't socialized medicine. ...tomato, tomahto...
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 16:54:17 GMT -5
Not really. We need some sort of way to determine who is eligible for assistance, a measurement that is adjusted each year for changes in cost of living makes sense. You have a better way to do it? ...how about we don't socialize costs of private healthcare? The only way to do that is to tun some people away from ERs? You OK with that?
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 16:54:37 GMT -5
...I did... and I asked you why you drew that conclusion in your post? Read it again, key words are $295 and $30,000. ...that still doesn't explain your conclusion... oh well...
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2011 17:00:54 GMT -5
Subsidize, not socialize. This isn't socialized medicine. ...tomato, tomahto... What is your solution for healthcare for those that either can't afford insurance or can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Should we turn the away from the ERs so we don't have to pay their bills? Subsidizing premiums for the poor seems a much better solution to me. But, please provide your insights.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 17:04:05 GMT -5
I doubt he is going to answer that.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 17:07:23 GMT -5
...tomato, tomahto... What is your solution for healthcare for those that either can't afford insurance or can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Should we turn the away from the ERs so we don't have to pay their bills? Subsidizing premiums for the poor seems a much better solution to me. But, please provide your insights. ...subsidizing people's healthcare is one method of socializing costs of a service that provides private gain... my "insights" include the belief that this is not appropriate methodology... I'll grant you that there is some public benefit for the containment/control of infectious diseases, but for the most part, we've already done that... so that argument no longer holds the same sway it once did... imo...
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 17:08:31 GMT -5
I doubt he is going to answer that. ...well what do you know?
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 17, 2011 17:11:15 GMT -5
I know that you didn't give your solution, nor did you say if you are OK with turning people away from ERs. I also know that you will never give your solution, nor openly admit that you are OK wit turning people away from ERs.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 17, 2011 17:14:33 GMT -5
What is your solution for healthcare for those that either can't afford insurance or can't get insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Should we turn the away from the ERs so we don't have to pay their bills? Subsidizing premiums for the poor seems a much better solution to me. But, please provide your insights. ...subsidizing people's healthcare is one method of socializing costs of a service that provides private gain... my "insights" include the belief that this is not appropriate methodology... I'll grant you that there is some public benefit for the containment/control of infectious diseases, but for the most part, we've already done that... so that argument no longer holds the same sway it once did... imo... But how do you deal with people showing up at the ERs that have no health insurance? They are still getting subsidized, only it is more indirect & more costly.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jun 17, 2011 17:19:12 GMT -5
I know that you didn't give your solution, nor did you say if you are OK with turning people away from ERs. I also know that you will never give your solution, nor openly admit that you are OK wit turning people away from ERs. ...patience, dude... and my solution is to let private industry handle private services... and while I accept that some may not be able to buy every service on the menu, why should I use the phrase, "I'm okay with it," which implies satisfaction?
|
|