20
   

Major Problems with ObamaCare!

 
 
Miller
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 08:58 pm
@oralloy,
I don't see it. So, I assume it is gone.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 09:01 pm
@oralloy,
ok I found it.
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 Sep, 2013 09:03 pm
@Miller,
Investigations into primary care provided at numerous VA facilities has indicated that the majority of primary care is provided by nurses, not physicians.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 07:13 am
@Miller,
the red ink was my comment about your misrepresentation of the system. Drs haven't been taking vitals for decades.
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 08:49 am
@parados,

Quote:
Drs haven't been taking vitals for decades.

Perhaps in 3rd world countries, that's the case, but in many Health Care facilities in Boston, Ma, Doctors do take blood pressure and other vital measurements. The class of patients being treated in these institutions dictates excellence in health care and nothing but the very best that medicine has to offer will be tolerated.

But then, Boston is probably the best City in the USA for high quality medical care. Perhaps in other parts of the USA, sub-standard medical care is appreciated.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 11:13 am
@willbo23,
People aren't property. Haven't been since the Constitution made it illegal for them to be property. Taxes on persons is not tax on property.

Quote:
I have not found any ruling pertaining to the fact that all current taxes are levied on properties, whether it be labor, land etc.
All current taxes are NOT on property. You should be able to find several rulings that state as much. Taxes on labor wages are NOT on property. The court did rule that taxes on incomes from property (ie rent) would be a tax on property. That is why the 16th amendment was passed to allow income taxes on income from rents on property.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 11:15 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

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.

Really? YOu really want to tell us this? Care to give us one specific example and tell us what the panel was that created that standard protocol?

Insurance companies have long designated what treatments they will allow for certain diseases. Medicare has also long designated treatments they will pay for. None of that has anything to do with Obama or the ACA.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 11:17 am
@Miller,
Quote:

Perhaps in 3rd world countries, that's the case, but in many Health Care facilities in Boston, Ma, Doctors do take blood pressure and other vital measurements.

I call Bullshit. No doctor would waste their time doing that in this day and age. They haven't for decades.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 11:25 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:

Another major change to medical practice is the use of standard protocols for treatments of numerous diseases.


this is not a change. Standard protocols have been in place for treatment of many diseases for decades (updated occasionally, but still standard protocols).
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 01:22 pm
@Linkat,
Retroactively to cover the event? Really? I'd be shocked if you could purchase insurance retroactively.
Miller
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 10:23 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps in 3rd world countries, that's the case, but in many Health Care facilities in Boston, Ma, Doctors do take blood pressure and other vital measurements.

I call Bullshit. No doctor would waste their time doing that in this day and age. They haven't for decades.


As a health care professional, I can say very easily, that you don't know what you're talking about and are too bull-headed to admit it.

Why not run over to Walgreen and have a clerk take you BP. Or while you're riding the subway, you can have one of the homeless men exam your rectum for any abnormal growths and Rx an ointment for whatever the results of your anal indicate.
Miller
 
  0  
Reply Sun 22 Sep, 2013 10:25 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

Miller wrote:

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.

Really? YOu really want to tell us this? Care to give us one specific example and tell us what the panel was that created that standard protocol?

Insurance companies have long designated what treatments they will allow for certain diseases. Medicare has also long designated treatments they will pay for. None of that has anything to do with Obama or the ACA.


Read the literature , assuming you can read English.
Linkat
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 08:37 am
@JPB,
Yes it is true. It was explained to me precisely like that from our HR department. They suggested going without the insurance for the week or two (as it is very expensive without being employer supplied) as I could always get it retroactively if in the slight chance someone needed medical care in an emergency. My husband, who at one time as part of his job, sold insurance including health and dental - he confirmed.

It is due to the standards in MA. MA, unlike some one else that stated above also requires you to be able to get any health insurance no matter what your pre-existing health conditions are. Your state could be different, but this is what MA has in place.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 08:43 am
@Miller,
I wouldn't consider a clerk the same as an RN but clearly you think they are. That would be your issue, not mine.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 08:44 am
@Miller,
Miller wrote:


Read the literature , assuming you can read English.

Which literature? Since you can't provide it, I wonder if it exists.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 12:05 pm
@Linkat,
Oh, I don't question that! It's the retroactive part that I question. So if I'm uninsured and rack up $1,000,000 in medical bills that I decide I can't pay fully, I can purchase insurance that covers bills incurred retroactively back to the date of the diagnosis? That's the part I find shocking.

I know you have 60 days to enroll in COBRA from your old job, which is another reason why 2 weeks between coverages is no big deal and that IS retroactive because you have to pay the premium back to your termination date.

Why would anyone in MA buy insurance if they can just buy it after racking up a ton of bills?
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 12:46 pm
@JPB,
Is it at all possible that HR is trying to avoid the inconvenience of processin COBRA? I can't imagine picking up insurance to pay $1,000,000 in past bills either, unless the premium comes to something like $1,000,000 +.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 12:50 pm
@roger,
Well, it was HR at the new company that told her this. Either they were telling her not to sweat the two weeks because she could always invoke COBRA coverage from her old job for the gap or MA has some pretty strange laws on preexisting conditions.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 01:38 pm
@JPB,
I misread, then. I was desparately seeking an explanation.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Sep, 2013 02:55 pm
@JPB,
Yeah it was that HR said not to worry about it - that I could sign up for Cobra retro-actively. They are required to tell you what coverage you have and the fact that you can get cobra to cover you. You get all sorts of crap explaining this stuff for legal reasons.

So basically two separate things - I was covered by cobra whether I signed up for it day 1 about I left my job or say on day 7 I had to go to the hospital then on day 8 I could sign up for cobra which would cover me from the time I left my previous job to until my new insurance kicked in at my new job.

Second item - I honestly don't know all the details behind the rules and such, just what I've heard on news reports from people being interviewed and trying to avoid paying the required high insurance rates. How they explained it was cost effective for them to not pay for insurance, as they were young and healthy (and just pay the fine because it was less); and if something happened in the mean time, they could then buy insurance and be covered for the medical bills. It could be that they are incorrect but it seems there were many people claiming they did this.

The pre-existing condition though is one thing that doesn't matter. If you have been diagnosed with cancer and you have no insurance - you can then go out and get health insurance - you cannot be denied and not covered for a pre-existing condition. However, I am not 100% clear on whether they would be covered for the appt prior (retro-actively) for the cancer diagnosis - people interviewed claimed this, but I am not 100% sure if that part is true or not. Yes - MA has strange rules so I wouldn't doubt it.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2020 at 07:47:58