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:
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
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
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.
"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.
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 21:10:43 -0400, " email@example.com"
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Of course, it always makes sense to develop a friendship with your
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.
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
I googled "Texas medical tort reform", and this came up, saying the
effect of this "reform" was nil.
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 ...
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.