@Walter Hinteler,
Well for many of these people, the issue is they cannot get insurance from their place of business or if they can, the cost is so high they would not be able to pay for their other bills. Many places of employment cut down employee hours below the threshold so they do not have to provide insurance and/or the businesses are so small they are exempt from providing insurance. These same individuals, their pay is considered high enough that they cannot get "free"insurance through the state.
Basically it comes down to a choice of having food and shelter vs health insurance. I've seen many interviews on the news regarding this. If they get ill, they simply go to the emergency room rather than a doctor as the hospital will give them care in an emergency.
Probably why - when we were on vacation and my husband got very sick - our only option (unless we paid out of pocket) was to go to the emergency room - our insurance if you are out of state and need medical care only covers for hospital emergency rooms. Any way our co-pay at an emergency room is $100; the hospital offered us 20% off the co-pay if we paid then rather than receive a bill. Never knew hospital negoiated rates before.
@Walter Hinteler,
It doesn't work that way with my company's insurance. I can choose just coverage for me, or my husband and me, or the whole family. It costs me more (and the company) the more coverage I have.
So if I wanted to save money (and didn't care about my kids health) in theory I could just insure my husband and me and not pay a fine.
@Linkat,
The other thing is - with the clause that one cannot be refused health insurance even with a pre-existing condition, logically, unless you really want/need annual wellness and preventive care, it would be less expensive to pay the fine and not get insurance. If all of a sudden you needed care for something serious, go get it then. This same insurance can be used after the fact. So in other words you can get hurt where you need emergency care, get the care and then buy the insurance retroactive to cover the care.
This was explained to me by my HR department when I changed jobs - I was to have a couple of weeks where I would not be covered by either my previous company or my new company. They explained don't worry if something were to happen in those two weeks - you go buy the insurance (some sort of state insurance they need to offer you when you leave a job) and use it retroactively.
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote: Never knew hospital negoiated rates before.
every single day
many insurers use companies that negotiate for them -U.S. doctors and hospitals are still making money when they accept 10 or 20% of what they billed to start - that's when you realize how truly whack American medical costs are - it's a total scam
A good portion of people who are at poverty level will receive federal subsidies to help them afford it which works out to forty percent of Americans. Also, some of those will also be on the expanded Medicare program for states who cooperated.
links at this source
Also a lot of insurance really don't accept pre-existing conditions and if you get your insurance through your employer you can't really pick and choose which insurance you get. Beginning in 2014 if you get your insurance through your employer, the insurance company they use can't deny you coverage. If you buy your insurance yourself and have trouble getting coverage, you can join the marketplace plan to get coverage.
What if I have a pre-existing health condition?
@gungasnake,
No, that isn't what the poll says. But I guess we can't expect you to be honest about polls anymore than you are honest about anything else.
51% saying a shutdown is OK until they figure out what cuts to make is NOT the same thing as wanting to defund Obamcare.
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
A good portion of people who are at poverty level will receive federal subsidies to help them afford ...
The federal subsidies will be given as tax credits. So, to get the credit the individuals will have to file a tax form.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Linkat wrote:There are many in MA that currently do this - it is cheaper for them to pay the fine than to pay for the insurance.
When you pay the fine, you are insured by that?
No you're still uninsured.
@revelette,
revelette wrote:
republicans ...chose to put out a lot of myths about death panels ...
There are no myths. Health care is now rationed on a daily basis. A few years ago, the patient would be seen only by their private doctor. Today, the patient has vitals taken by the medical assisitant ( rarely checked by the MD ), Rxs are ordered via the phone ( or internet ) by a nurse ( usually with a 2 year degree ) and if you're really lucky, you'll see an MD or a medical student.
Also health care is rationed by drug policies.
The drugstore chain, Walgreen, is giving their employees money with which they can buy health insurance. If they need more money for their policy, they'll have to use their own source of resources.
@Miller,
I can't remember in my lifetime my blood pressure being checked by my doctor unless it was really high or something, much less my temp. Antibiotics and narcotics are not ordered by phone or the internet, at least not where I live. You have to make an appointment to see your doctor. It has always been that way and has not changed. You can get refills on blood pressure or cholesterol meds over the phone. I see my doctor every time I make an appointment, nothing has changed about that.
Quote:Claim: The government will be between you and your doctor.
FactCheck.org says: False.
These claims are variations on the fear that the government will be taking over health care — choosing your doctor, telling him or her what treatment to administer, etc. But the law doesn’t create a government-run system, as we’ve said many times. It actually greatly expands business for private insurance, by about 12 million new customers, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. And individuals will choose their own doctors, just as they do now.
These type of fear-mongering claims appear to have quieted a bit in 2013 — along with the more extreme death-panel-type hysteria — but they’re still percolating. A TV ad this summer from the conservative Americans for Prosperity featured a mom named Julie, gently asking, “If we can’t pick our own doctor, how do I know my family’s going to get the care they need?” And: “Can I really trust the folks in Washington with my family’s health care?”
docpatientIt turns out, Julie doesn’t really mean that she might not be able to select her doctor herself. Part of the group’s support for the claim is the small net decline, as estimated by the CBO, in those who get insurance through their employer, a drop of 7 million people by 2018. (A total of 158 million are expected to have employer-sponsored coverage that year.) The CBO has said that those losing coverage would mainly be low-wage workers who could get subsidies to buy insurance on the exchanges. And, certainly, there’s a chance the doctor a worker had been seeing won’t be in the network of providers on a new plan. Some exchange policies could keep prices low by limiting those networks. But no one will choose policyholders’ doctors for them. They simply won’t be guaranteed that a new plan would have the same network of doctors, just as there’s no guarantee of that now (more on this in a minute).
As for the government-coming-between-you-and-your-doctor claim, the law’s regulatory provisions are more like putting the government between you and your insurance company — and in a way that brings added benefits to consumers. The law says insurers can’t have caps on coverage, turn down customers based on preexisting conditions (or charge them more), and can’t spend more than 15 percent or 20 percent on non-medical-related costs (see Obama’s rebate claim above).
Republicans also have attacked the Independent Payment Advisory Board as some kind of rationing board. But the IPAB — which is made up of medical professionals, health care experts, economists and consumer representatives — is charged with slowing the rate of growth of Medicare spending, and limited in how it can go about doing that. The law says the board’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums … increase Medicare beneficiary cost sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co-payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria.”
source
@Miller,
Quote:
There are no myths. Health care is now rationed on a daily basis. A few years ago, the patient would be seen only by their private doctor. Where the hell was that? Today, the patient has vitals taken by the medical assisitant ( rarely checked by the MD ), Nurses have been taking my vitals for 30 years. Rxs are ordered via the phone ( or internet ) by a nurse ( usually with a 2 year degree ) and if you're really lucky, you'll see an MD or a medical student.
Also health care is rationed by drug policies.
The Affordable Care Act hasn't changed the way health care is administered. It also hasn't caused increases that weren't there before. That is nonsense espoused by idiots that don't know the first thing about health care. I challenge you to find anyone that paid the same for health care 20 years ago as they do today. Or you can compare 20 years ago to 10 years ago to exclude the ACA. You will find health care costs went up without the ACA. To blame the ACA is to show stupidity beyond belief.
@Miller,
Miller wrote:
There are no myths. Health care is now rationed on a daily basis. A few years ago, the patient would be seen only by their private doctor. Today, the patient has vitals taken by the medical assisitant ( rarely checked by the MD ), Rxs are ordered via the phone ( or internet ) by a nurse ( usually with a 2 year degree ) and if you're really lucky, you'll see an MD or a medical student.
Also health care is rationed by drug policies.
This is the
CORRECT quote from MILLER. Ignore the previous quote that contains the red ink and other misrepresentations posted above by parados.
This is why Obamacare is unconstitutional:
The individual mandate of Obamacare is not a tax for not having health insurance, but a tax on being property of the State, that has exemptions for having healthcare, healthcare that does not support the general welfare of the people. Health insurance does not guarantee healthy people and there are no facts to support that. But a tax on people without insurance damages the general welfare of the citizen by making them poorer and removes the rights of the citizen.
The Supreme Court has ruled the individual mandate to be a tax, whether or not it originated in the House or Senate is still in battle, but what about this aspect?
The court rules it cannot judge Congress on taxation, and ruled ACA a tax on 'inactivity', but I don't see it that way.
It is a tax on being a living, breathing citizen of the United States. Every single citizen of all ages is subject to this tax initially, but if proven that the individual is poor or has health insurance is exempted from this 'life tax'. I have not found any ruling pertaining to the fact that all current taxes are levied on properties, whether it be labor, land etc. But with this understanding, does that make each citizen property of the State at birth, therefore subject to this 'Life Tax'? If so, there are limitations in the Taxing and Spending Clause on purchasing Constitutional rights. And also a case to be made upon John Dickinson's writings on General Welfare clause.
In my view, this individual mandate enslaves us in a literal sense, to this country, taking away all our rights from the moment of birth.
@revelette,
revelette wrote:Also, some of those will also be on the expanded Medicare program for states who cooperated.
Wait 'til all the people on "Expanded Medicaid" find out about the part where the government gets to seize all your property after you die instead of letting it pass on to your descendants.
America's lower middle class is about to be annihilated, though they won't know it for a little while yet.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
America's lower middle class is about to be annihilated, though they won't know it for a little while yet.
Why would they ever wake up? They'll be dead as door nails and dumber.
[quoteHealth care professionals are increasingly given incentives to deliver high-value care by virtue of such payment-reform measures as pay-for-performance policies, bundled-payment strategies, global budgets, and financial risk sharing within accountable care organizations. ][/quote]
One of the most interesting changes to medical care concerns the use of pay-for-performance policies", one aspect of which is patient satisfaction concerning the care received. This change has already taken place in the Boston area.
After a visit with a physician, the patient is sent a multiple page form to fill out. The form is 4-5 pages long and after filled out( circles darkened) is sent to an company for evaluation.
Results are then sent back to the health care facility. Payment for services received is then based on the score given to the evaluation form.
Another major change to medical practice is the use of standard protocols for treatments of numerous diseases. These protocols have been estabilished by medical panels, previously established in Washington via Obamacare.
@Miller,
Miller wrote:Looks like old pardoes deleted his/her post.
I think that post is still there. I still see it at least.
I don't think the red text was intended to misrepresent your words. I think the red was his reply to you.
In other words, the red was his words, marked as red to distinguish them from your words.
Why some people mark their words in different colors and mix them in with what they are quoting, instead of separating the quotes into proper quote boxes, I'll never know. But sometimes posters do that.
