How much would you pay per week to keep your family healthy and able to get treatment for whatever comes their way?
It can all be paid off in one year. There are 300 million people in America. That works out to be $32 per week per person to keep you family and you friends, and everybody you care about healthy. No stress about not getting treatment, no stress about not getting denied.
Do you have an issue with $32 per week? Whos health is not worth $32 a week?
For you chicken-hawks out there, that is about 2/rds of the cost of the Iraq war you all cheered so hard for
0
500 billion is fine.
How much would you pay per week to keep your family healthy and able to get treatment for whatever comes their way?
It can all be paid off in one year. There are 300 million people in America. That works out to be $32 per week per person to keep you family and you friends, and everybody you care about healthy. No stress about not getting treatment, no stress about not getting denied.
Do you have an issue with $32 per week? Whos health is not worth $32 a week?
For you chicken-hawks out there, that is about 2/rds of the cost of the Iraq war you all cheered so hard for
Why not incrementally shift the currently uninsured into the existing Medicaid program? Granted, there is shared responsibility between federal and state govt for Medicaid, but I don't see that as a fatal flaw.
Private insurance companies ( BC/BS ) take their lead from the federal govt ( Medicare ) as far as reimbursement guidelines and coding regulations, etc. go- so they are not as far apart as you would be led to believe.
Medicaid is actually a reasonably efficient program- while the reimbursement is a bit less than private insurers- the headaches are exponentially less.
Private insurers will deny claims for little or no reason, and put up almost insurmountable roadblocks to get some procedures / tests covered- I've never encountered this problem with Medicaid.
I'm not saying it would be easy- nor would it necessarily be popular, but in the absence of a viable option that can and will be instituted- I think gradually increasing the rolls of Medicaid is the most "doable" option available. Change the name if you don't like the stigma associated with Medicaid, but it is a reasonably well-run program that is generally dismissed because few people understand it's intent (because unless you are pregnant, under the age of 19, or have a chronic or disabling condition, you are not likely to have occasion to deal with them ).
0
Why not incrementally shift the currently uninsured into the existing Medicaid program? Granted, there is shared responsibility between federal and state govt for Medicaid, but I don't see that as a fatal flaw.
Private insurance companies ( BC/BS ) take their lead from the federal govt ( Medicare ) as far as reimbursement guidelines and coding regulations, etc. go- so they are not as far apart as you would be led to believe.
Medicaid is actually a reasonably efficient program- while the reimbursement is a bit less than private insurers- the headaches are exponentially less.
Private insurers will deny claims for little or no reason, and put up almost insurmountable roadblocks to get some procedures / tests covered- I've never encountered this problem with Medicaid.
I'm not saying it would be easy- nor would it necessarily be popular, but in the absence of a viable option that can and will be instituted- I think gradually increasing the rolls of Medicaid is the most "doable" option available. Change the name if you don't like the stigma associated with Medicaid, but it is a reasonably well-run program that is generally dismissed because few people understand it's intent (because unless you are pregnant, under the age of 19, or have a chronic or disabling condition, you are not likely to have occasion to deal with them ).
In addition- one the primary goals of the current Medicaid system is preventive care ( immunizations, prenatal care, screenings, etc. ). Many private insurers won't even pay for a routine physical exam.
The savings from early detection and treatment of potentially costly diseases alone would make a huge dent in the overall cost of the program.
0
In addition- one the primary goals of the current Medicaid system is preventive care ( immunizations, prenatal care, screenings, etc. ). Many private insurers won't even pay for a routine physical exam.
The savings from early detection and treatment of potentially costly diseases alone would make a huge dent in the overall cost of the program.
In addition- one the primary goals of the current Medicaid system is preventive care ( immunizations, prenatal care, screenings, etc. ). Many private insurers won't even pay for a routine physical exam.
The savings from early detection and treatment of potentially costly diseases alone would make a huge dent in the overall cost of the program.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
In addition- one the primary goals of the current Medicaid system is preventive care ( immunizations, prenatal care, screenings, etc. ). Many private insurers won't even pay for a routine physical exam.
The savings from early detection and treatment of potentially costly diseases alone would make a huge dent in the overall cost of the program.
People in KOAJ's family don't like dealing with the gov't?
Colour me shocked
seriously...you again answer nothing and deflect. these two people are doctors with an ass load of student loans and want to be able to make as much money as they can. when government lowers payments for medicare people, they lower the salary for doctors
what about this dont you get?
dsn/second - all due respect, nothing the government does helps to lower the cost of anything. regardless of the intentions of this program, government isnt the answer to bringing costs down in anything
0
Quote Originally Posted by DiscoD69:
People in KOAJ's family don't like dealing with the gov't?
Colour me shocked
seriously...you again answer nothing and deflect. these two people are doctors with an ass load of student loans and want to be able to make as much money as they can. when government lowers payments for medicare people, they lower the salary for doctors
what about this dont you get?
dsn/second - all due respect, nothing the government does helps to lower the cost of anything. regardless of the intentions of this program, government isnt the answer to bringing costs down in anything
seriously...you again answer nothing and deflect. these two people are doctors with an ass load of student loans and want to be able to make as much money as they can. when government lowers payments for medicare people, they lower the salary for doctors
what about this dont you get?
dsn/second - all due respect, nothing the government does helps to lower the cost of anything. regardless of the intentions of this program, government isnt the answer to bringing costs down in anything
They just dont understand that, because basically they are both the type of guys who need to rely on the govt for everything in life. They need their hands held every step of the way.
0
Quote Originally Posted by KOAJ:
seriously...you again answer nothing and deflect. these two people are doctors with an ass load of student loans and want to be able to make as much money as they can. when government lowers payments for medicare people, they lower the salary for doctors
what about this dont you get?
dsn/second - all due respect, nothing the government does helps to lower the cost of anything. regardless of the intentions of this program, government isnt the answer to bringing costs down in anything
They just dont understand that, because basically they are both the type of guys who need to rely on the govt for everything in life. They need their hands held every step of the way.
you're a clown. You have zero idea about my situation in life. You know so much about me, then feel free to list every govt program I have stuck my hand out for.
I'll go out on a limb and say that although I am a simple proprietor of a sole trader enterprise, and was raised in a lower middle class rural town I have been the beneficiary of less govt programs then yourself.
0
you're a clown. You have zero idea about my situation in life. You know so much about me, then feel free to list every govt program I have stuck my hand out for.
I'll go out on a limb and say that although I am a simple proprietor of a sole trader enterprise, and was raised in a lower middle class rural town I have been the beneficiary of less govt programs then yourself.
In addition- one the primary goals of the current Medicaid system is preventive care ( immunizations, prenatal care, screenings, etc. ). Many private insurers won't even pay for a routine physical exam.
The savings from early detection and treatment of potentially costly diseases alone would make a huge dent in the overall cost of the program.
your wrong about the preventive care. The cbo already came out and said preventive care would add to the cost of healthcare, not reduce it.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
In addition- one the primary goals of the current Medicaid system is preventive care ( immunizations, prenatal care, screenings, etc. ). Many private insurers won't even pay for a routine physical exam.
The savings from early detection and treatment of potentially costly diseases alone would make a huge dent in the overall cost of the program.
your wrong about the preventive care. The cbo already came out and said preventive care would add to the cost of healthcare, not reduce it.
your wrong about the preventive care. The cbo already came out and said preventive care would add to the cost of healthcare, not reduce it.
True and false. It is true that the cost of preventative care would immediately lead to increased expenses in the program, the long term benefits would effentially flatten overall care because of the reduction of medical emergencies of the uninsured that have led to our increased costs.
I equate it to the oil/gas situation. We can do something now that will save us in the future, or end up worse as every year goes by.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
your wrong about the preventive care. The cbo already came out and said preventive care would add to the cost of healthcare, not reduce it.
True and false. It is true that the cost of preventative care would immediately lead to increased expenses in the program, the long term benefits would effentially flatten overall care because of the reduction of medical emergencies of the uninsured that have led to our increased costs.
I equate it to the oil/gas situation. We can do something now that will save us in the future, or end up worse as every year goes by.
They just dont understand that, because basically they are both the type of guys who need to rely on the govt for everything in life. They need their hands held every step of the way.
You could not be more wrong-
My hands have never been held- any step of the way-
I don't rely on the government for anything that I have control over-
Stick to things you might know a little about- that list appears to be dwindling-
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
They just dont understand that, because basically they are both the type of guys who need to rely on the govt for everything in life. They need their hands held every step of the way.
You could not be more wrong-
My hands have never been held- any step of the way-
I don't rely on the government for anything that I have control over-
Stick to things you might know a little about- that list appears to be dwindling-
It is true that the cost of preventative care would immediately lead to increased expenses in the program, the long term benefits would effentially flatten overall care because of the reduction of medical emergencies of the uninsured that have led to our increased costs.
Any program that has a rapid influx of new participants will have higher upfront costs- but I don't see how one can argue that preventive care is not a long term moneysaver- not to mention improving health and quality of life,
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
It is true that the cost of preventative care would immediately lead to increased expenses in the program, the long term benefits would effentially flatten overall care because of the reduction of medical emergencies of the uninsured that have led to our increased costs.
Any program that has a rapid influx of new participants will have higher upfront costs- but I don't see how one can argue that preventive care is not a long term moneysaver- not to mention improving health and quality of life,
True and false. It is true that the cost of preventative care would immediately lead to increased expenses in the program, the long term benefits would effentially flatten overall care because of the reduction of medical emergencies of the uninsured that have led to our increased costs.
I equate it to the oil/gas situation. We can do something now that will save us in the future, or end up worse as every year goes by.
I agree the system needs to be fixed and there is lots of ways to do it without govt taking over the whole system. The govt needs to write some new tough laws for insurance companies to follow and enforce. They need to let people buy insurance accross state lines and do something about the lawsuits {which we know the democrats wont do because they are bought and paid for by the lawyer}
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
True and false. It is true that the cost of preventative care would immediately lead to increased expenses in the program, the long term benefits would effentially flatten overall care because of the reduction of medical emergencies of the uninsured that have led to our increased costs.
I equate it to the oil/gas situation. We can do something now that will save us in the future, or end up worse as every year goes by.
I agree the system needs to be fixed and there is lots of ways to do it without govt taking over the whole system. The govt needs to write some new tough laws for insurance companies to follow and enforce. They need to let people buy insurance accross state lines and do something about the lawsuits {which we know the democrats wont do because they are bought and paid for by the lawyer}
Any program that has a rapid influx of new participants will have higher upfront costs- but I don't see how one can argue that preventive care is not a long term moneysaver- not to mention improving health and quality of life,
well ask the cbo that question because if you have been following this healthcare stuff you would know they came out with the figures.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Dsn150:
Any program that has a rapid influx of new participants will have higher upfront costs- but I don't see how one can argue that preventive care is not a long term moneysaver- not to mention improving health and quality of life,
well ask the cbo that question because if you have been following this healthcare stuff you would know they came out with the figures.
They just dont understand that, because basically they are both the type of guys who need to rely on the govt for everything in life. They need their hands held every step of the way.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
They just dont understand that, because basically they are both the type of guys who need to rely on the govt for everything in life. They need their hands held every step of the way.
Have you noticed almost everyone in this thread who wants the public option lives outside the US?
Well, as someone else who lives in Canada, I can tell you that I think the public run health care sucks. They will run out of money like all other government run programs. Then they will have to cut costs.
Over hear, doctors are only allowed to see xxx amount of patients per quarter. The number varies by specialty. Once they hit their quota, they get paid at 70% of their already low fees. Therefore, it's not worth it to open. Which is why doctors work limited hours (very few work 5 full days) as opposed to the US where many doctors work 6 days a week.
Because doctors and nurses are paid less here (government can't afford higher fees) many of them leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere. That's one of the reasons the US has the best facilities in the world. They can afford to attract the best doctors because they pay the best.
Over here, we have doctor shortages. It's next to impossible to get a GP if you don't already have one. And once you find one you are stuck because you can't find others. I'm very lucky that we have a pediatrician for our children as many of our friends haven't been able to find one. There's not enough around.
The waiting time for surgeries is ridiculous. I've known people to wait 2 years for shoulder surgery, 4 months for bypasses, 18 months for a colonoscopy, and someone who had to bribe a doctor in order to get an aneurysm operated on after waiting 2 months.
And one more question...if the public healthcare is so good why is Canada moving to allow more and more private clinics? There are private clinics opening up. More and more people are using them.
0
Have you noticed almost everyone in this thread who wants the public option lives outside the US?
Well, as someone else who lives in Canada, I can tell you that I think the public run health care sucks. They will run out of money like all other government run programs. Then they will have to cut costs.
Over hear, doctors are only allowed to see xxx amount of patients per quarter. The number varies by specialty. Once they hit their quota, they get paid at 70% of their already low fees. Therefore, it's not worth it to open. Which is why doctors work limited hours (very few work 5 full days) as opposed to the US where many doctors work 6 days a week.
Because doctors and nurses are paid less here (government can't afford higher fees) many of them leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere. That's one of the reasons the US has the best facilities in the world. They can afford to attract the best doctors because they pay the best.
Over here, we have doctor shortages. It's next to impossible to get a GP if you don't already have one. And once you find one you are stuck because you can't find others. I'm very lucky that we have a pediatrician for our children as many of our friends haven't been able to find one. There's not enough around.
The waiting time for surgeries is ridiculous. I've known people to wait 2 years for shoulder surgery, 4 months for bypasses, 18 months for a colonoscopy, and someone who had to bribe a doctor in order to get an aneurysm operated on after waiting 2 months.
And one more question...if the public healthcare is so good why is Canada moving to allow more and more private clinics? There are private clinics opening up. More and more people are using them.
Have you noticed almost everyone in this thread who wants the public option lives outside the US?
Well, as someone else who lives in Canada, I can tell you that I think the public run health care sucks. They will run out of money like all other government run programs. Then they will have to cut costs.
Over hear, doctors are only allowed to see xxx amount of patients per quarter. The number varies by specialty. Once they hit their quota, they get paid at 70% of their already low fees. Therefore, it's not worth it to open. Which is why doctors work limited hours (very few work 5 full days) as opposed to the US where many doctors work 6 days a week.
Because doctors and nurses are paid less here (government can't afford higher fees) many of them leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere. That's one of the reasons the US has the best facilities in the world. They can afford to attract the best doctors because they pay the best.
Over here, we have doctor shortages. It's next to impossible to get a GP if you don't already have one. And once you find one you are stuck because you can't find others. I'm very lucky that we have a pediatrician for our children as many of our friends haven't been able to find one. There's not enough around.
The waiting time for surgeries is ridiculous. I've known people to wait 2 years for shoulder surgery, 4 months for bypasses, 18 months for a colonoscopy, and someone who had to bribe a doctor in order to get an aneurysm operated on after waiting 2 months.
And one more question...if the public healthcare is so good why is Canada moving to allow more and more private clinics? There are private clinics opening up. More and more people are using them.
0
Have you noticed almost everyone in this thread who wants the public option lives outside the US?
Well, as someone else who lives in Canada, I can tell you that I think the public run health care sucks. They will run out of money like all other government run programs. Then they will have to cut costs.
Over hear, doctors are only allowed to see xxx amount of patients per quarter. The number varies by specialty. Once they hit their quota, they get paid at 70% of their already low fees. Therefore, it's not worth it to open. Which is why doctors work limited hours (very few work 5 full days) as opposed to the US where many doctors work 6 days a week.
Because doctors and nurses are paid less here (government can't afford higher fees) many of them leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere. That's one of the reasons the US has the best facilities in the world. They can afford to attract the best doctors because they pay the best.
Over here, we have doctor shortages. It's next to impossible to get a GP if you don't already have one. And once you find one you are stuck because you can't find others. I'm very lucky that we have a pediatrician for our children as many of our friends haven't been able to find one. There's not enough around.
The waiting time for surgeries is ridiculous. I've known people to wait 2 years for shoulder surgery, 4 months for bypasses, 18 months for a colonoscopy, and someone who had to bribe a doctor in order to get an aneurysm operated on after waiting 2 months.
And one more question...if the public healthcare is so good why is Canada moving to allow more and more private clinics? There are private clinics opening up. More and more people are using them.
Have you noticed almost everyone in this thread who wants the public option lives outside the US?
Well, as someone else who lives in Canada, I can tell you that I think the public run health care sucks. They will run out of money like all other government run programs. Then they will have to cut costs.
Over hear, doctors are only allowed to see xxx amount of patients per quarter. The number varies by specialty. Once they hit their quota, they get paid at 70% of their already low fees. Therefore, it's not worth it to open. Which is why doctors work limited hours (very few work 5 full days) as opposed to the US where many doctors work 6 days a week.
Because doctors and nurses are paid less here (government can't afford higher fees) many of them leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere. That's one of the reasons the US has the best facilities in the world. They can afford to attract the best doctors because they pay the best.
Over here, we have doctor shortages. It's next to impossible to get a GP if you don't already have one. And once you find one you are stuck because you can't find others. I'm very lucky that we have a pediatrician for our children as many of our friends haven't been able to find one. There's not enough around.
The waiting time for surgeries is ridiculous. I've known people to wait 2 years for shoulder surgery, 4 months for bypasses, 18 months for a colonoscopy, and someone who had to bribe a doctor in order to get an aneurysm operated on after waiting 2 months.
And one more question...if the public healthcare is so good why is Canada moving to allow more and more private clinics? There are private clinics opening up. More and more people are using them.
Canada is not the only country with "public healthcare", and in fact, may not be the model on which to base a new system / program.
0
Quote Originally Posted by JG33:
Have you noticed almost everyone in this thread who wants the public option lives outside the US?
Well, as someone else who lives in Canada, I can tell you that I think the public run health care sucks. They will run out of money like all other government run programs. Then they will have to cut costs.
Over hear, doctors are only allowed to see xxx amount of patients per quarter. The number varies by specialty. Once they hit their quota, they get paid at 70% of their already low fees. Therefore, it's not worth it to open. Which is why doctors work limited hours (very few work 5 full days) as opposed to the US where many doctors work 6 days a week.
Because doctors and nurses are paid less here (government can't afford higher fees) many of them leave for higher paying jobs elsewhere. That's one of the reasons the US has the best facilities in the world. They can afford to attract the best doctors because they pay the best.
Over here, we have doctor shortages. It's next to impossible to get a GP if you don't already have one. And once you find one you are stuck because you can't find others. I'm very lucky that we have a pediatrician for our children as many of our friends haven't been able to find one. There's not enough around.
The waiting time for surgeries is ridiculous. I've known people to wait 2 years for shoulder surgery, 4 months for bypasses, 18 months for a colonoscopy, and someone who had to bribe a doctor in order to get an aneurysm operated on after waiting 2 months.
And one more question...if the public healthcare is so good why is Canada moving to allow more and more private clinics? There are private clinics opening up. More and more people are using them.
Canada is not the only country with "public healthcare", and in fact, may not be the model on which to base a new system / program.
If you are such an expert on the Canadian health system you will surely acknowledge that each Province runs their own healthcare, and even if those claims were true, in no way does that mean that your claims apply from one province to another.
And if you are from Canada not an alias, you will undoubtably know that any privatization of healthcare has NOTHING to do with most Canadians not liking their healthcare, and everything to do with the fundamental conservatism of the Harper government.
0
What Province are your from jg33?
If you are such an expert on the Canadian health system you will surely acknowledge that each Province runs their own healthcare, and even if those claims were true, in no way does that mean that your claims apply from one province to another.
And if you are from Canada not an alias, you will undoubtably know that any privatization of healthcare has NOTHING to do with most Canadians not liking their healthcare, and everything to do with the fundamental conservatism of the Harper government.
Regardless of the possible pitfalls & imperfections, a public, more affordable option is still needed badly. Even if only on a trial basis & extended only to individuals. There's far too many folks uninsured & dying monthly and it's insane that everyone is at the mercy of anything private ins companies (where increasing profit is the bottom line) want & decide to do - whether it's dropping people for whatever reason, not paying on claims, raising premiums/deductibles, etc.
Buying across state lines & tort reform is not going reduce costs substantially at all & therefore not help the problem much & the Repubs know it. That's more of a political ploy to try to show that they recognize the system is in total crisis & really want reform, when in fact most could care less & would be happy for things to remain the same leading to more uninsured folks & greater debt down the road as insurance costs continue to escalate in a bad economy. Who else but the govt (with some help from our tax $$) can provide a more affordable option? And if the govt is not capable of doing anything worth a damn anymore, why not just scrap it all along with politics & we all just get along the best we can without any govt or military whatsoever?
The dems need to step up, stand together & ram this thing thru while they can if only because it's the right thing to do but were too personally/angrily divided & fucked up as a country as well as our cowardly politicians to get anything majorly good done for the people as a whole.
0
Regardless of the possible pitfalls & imperfections, a public, more affordable option is still needed badly. Even if only on a trial basis & extended only to individuals. There's far too many folks uninsured & dying monthly and it's insane that everyone is at the mercy of anything private ins companies (where increasing profit is the bottom line) want & decide to do - whether it's dropping people for whatever reason, not paying on claims, raising premiums/deductibles, etc.
Buying across state lines & tort reform is not going reduce costs substantially at all & therefore not help the problem much & the Repubs know it. That's more of a political ploy to try to show that they recognize the system is in total crisis & really want reform, when in fact most could care less & would be happy for things to remain the same leading to more uninsured folks & greater debt down the road as insurance costs continue to escalate in a bad economy. Who else but the govt (with some help from our tax $$) can provide a more affordable option? And if the govt is not capable of doing anything worth a damn anymore, why not just scrap it all along with politics & we all just get along the best we can without any govt or military whatsoever?
The dems need to step up, stand together & ram this thing thru while they can if only because it's the right thing to do but were too personally/angrily divided & fucked up as a country as well as our cowardly politicians to get anything majorly good done for the people as a whole.
Sorry Cashin, but our country was founded on the basis of providing free healthcare to everybody. I really dont know where you guys come up with these ideas.
0
Sorry Cashin, but our country was founded on the basis of providing free healthcare to everybody. I really dont know where you guys come up with these ideas.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
