O/T: Amazing

Page 1 of 10  
Today's vote by the SCOTUS was amazing.
Now let the fun and games begin.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they can't afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate blood from a turnip.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Exactly, and an interview with an insurance CEO said that the middle aged would pay higher rates to cover the older people who can't afford the higher rates.
So double whammy.
We can't afford national healthcare and we can't afford Obama care. We need to get our house in order. The best way to do that is vote out the bastards.
On 6/29/2012 2:25 AM, Just Wondering wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 10:26:32 -0400, tiredofspam wrote:

Amazing is certainly the right heading. The politicians keep telling us we're the richest nation in the world and yet we're the only industrialized nation without some form of national health care.
I'm not thrilled with the Obama solution - I consder it a free gift to the insurance companies. But IMNSHO, it's better than the current (lack of a) plan.
And before you tell me all those "other" countries are in deep financial trouble because of their helth plans, check out Germany, Canada, and Japan.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
tiredofspam wrote:

There are 21 new taxes imbedded in the ACA. They range from 10% surcharge on tanning salon patrons to over $2000 per year for some families.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tanning is on a par with smoking. No feeling sorry for those who want a tan, and now need to pay a tax.
I don't know about families who would need to pay $2000 per year. Seems pretty cheap for insurance for a family.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Just Wondering" wrote in message
On 6/28/2012 9:23 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:

The reason many people don't already have insurance is that they can't afford it. Obamacare doesn't change that. You can't legislate blood from a turnip. ======================================================================It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the point in the first place and made it illegal to be poor. It should work at least as well as this clustrefuck we have now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right. Require that the homeless buy a house. Simple!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:10:43 -0400, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

What scares me is that it can happen.
Our healthcare system does need some work, but mandates from the government to buy insurance is probably not the answer. The next bailout for the auto industry may require us to buy a new car or truck from GM, Ford, or Chrysler or pay a tax. Oh wait, we will be paying taxes for that anyway.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/30/2012 7:10 PM, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

And impose a "homeless tax" on those who can't afford to buy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:46:55 -0600, Just Wondering wrote:

======================================================================>>> It would have been a lot easier if they had just got to the point in

Do you people even read up on a subject before you post or is the frothing at the mouth an instinctive reaction?
There are waivers and financial assistance provided in the law for those who can't afford the insurance. And if it stops them from using hospital emergency rooms as their family physicians we'll save more than the subsidies and waivers cost!
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012 11:10:28 -0600, Larry Blanchard wrote

I read somewhere (sorry, can't remember exactly where) that medicaid patients overwhelmingly use the ER as their primary doctor. Basically they can either wait a month to get an appointment or go to the ER and get seen the same day, all for the same few-dollar co-pay. The article mentioned that they are considering changing the program to limit non-emergency ER visits to 3 a year before they have to pay a larger co-pay.
If you had a medical issue and faced no extra financial burden between the choice of seeing a doctor now (ER) versus waiting a month what would you do? As for me, I have insurance and if I get a cold serious enough to warrent a doctor visit, I would have to wait several weeks to a month to see my primary or go to the ER and pay a $200 co-pay plus all the other costs.
A big advantage for medicaid over traditional insurance no?
-BR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is increasingly a problem for problems that appear minnor but can (sometimes) quickly becomereally serious. Relatives have solved this by going to walk-in doctors' offices. Look in the phonebook (or your favorite search engine) for "urgent care clinic". Obviously, you'll have more luck in urbanized environs.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Set the co-pay for the ER at some hundreds of dollars. If it's really an emergency, you'll pay it.

That's a problem. The charges for an ER visit should be orders of magnitude higher than a doctor's visit. Inbetween the two are the "Urgent Care" facilities, which have costs on the order of a doctor's office.

Advantage?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 09:17:23 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote

<snip>
Agreed! From what I understand of some medicaids however is that it would cap that co-pay.....

Advantage in the sense that if you are at the low end of the food chain (government subsidized), you get to play the system without fear of losing anything.
-BR
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bruce wrote:

You need a different primary care doctor!
I can get an appointment with my internist usually for the next day. If I just drop in to his office, he'll see me within the next two hours. Maybe briefly, but he'll see me.
Now I don't abuse the privilege and I take him and his office staff little gifts (a book for him, a HUGE box of chocolates for the staff on Valentine's day...).
My view is that I can pay a doctor for his professional services, but I can't pay him to actually, you know, CARE. The latter is accomplished (hopefully) by treating him as I would a friend.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course, it always makes sense to develop a friendship with your doctor.
I don't know what it's like down in the US, but up here in Canada, there are areas that are under served by doctors and some people have a great deal of trouble finding one that will take them on as regular clients. Guess that's part and parcel of living away from the cities.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave wrote:

You raise a good point.
In Texas, it is claimed that medical tort reform saved the state from a medical crisis. Before 2003, when the reforms were put in place, Texas ranked 49th out of 50 in physicians-to-population ratio.
"... in the decade from 2002 to 2012, the Texas population went from 21,779,893 to 26,403,743 - a 21% increase - and the number of Texas physicians rose by 15,611 - a 44% increase..."
At the micro level, ten counties in the state (out of 254) now have at least one obstetrician where before the reform regimen was instituted, they had none.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I googled "Texas medical tort reform", and this came up, saying the effect of this "reform" was nil. <http://www.thepoptort.com/2012/06/more-mythbusting-about-texas-medical - malpractice-tort-reform.html>
I had hoped to find some better result, because I think tort reform, combined with more punishment of offending doctors, hospitals etc, should help lowering costs ...
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/4/2012 7:43 AM, Han wrote:

Lawyers write the laws, lobbyist' tell them what to say, and politicians go to the bank.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.