It must be great, that's why your forced to buy it.
It must be great, that's why your forced to buy it.
Yep, we can always just keep adding to the debt. What could go wrong. Just keep putting things off till after the next election.Originally Posted by iris lilies
Its not going to affect me anymore, I already quit working years ago. I was one of those evil 1% who got tired of putting in all those hours to pay more in taxes than I was spending. I need to look into what other freebies I am entitled to. I am unemployed after all.
Or it just keeps getting worse and worse.
I teach nursing students in SC, many of whom work at doctor's offices already. One of them said today that their obgyn office is turning away any new patient with "Medicare or Obamacare plans" (her words) because they cannot make any money on them. They are told sorry, go find another doctor.
So how good are these plans, if you can't get treatment?
It has always been an issue with Medicare and doctors have always been selective in insurance plans they accept. Nothing really new here when it is a one off comment. The issue of Medicare is critical in some states, like Alaska, with few doctors to begin with. Obgyn's are said to be in short supply all over due in part to malpractice insurance issues. Add other issues on top and some will cherry pick if they can.
The problem, though, isn't with the idea that people should have affordable access to healthcare regardless of their financial means. I haven't seen anyone stand up and say, "Poor people should die of cancer at a higher rate than rich people, on the basis of the relative lack of affordable access to treatment and other financial barriers to preventive and remedial care." Until people can stand up and state that that is their intention, without equivocating, then the efforts to apply perspectives that would tend to promulgate that very result are reasonably disparaged and repudiated, and the issue that remains is what can we do right now to work against that kind of end-result.
So, would it be safe to say that governmental intrusion into markets results in less choice, and in many instances lower availability of services?
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
Before we could say that we would need to assess whether those with Obamacare had previously had other insurance that made higher payments for doctor's services.
Is "higher payment" the only measure? I would guess that bae would be willing to make a higher payment than the plan Alan is funding if he could continue to see the physician of his choosing.
For Pete's sake--bae can see any physician he likes. Within reason, so can I--if I pay for the privilege.
The idea is to make affordable health care available to people who would otherwise be shut out of our third-world two-tier system, not to prohibit people of means paying for concierge service.
Sure, anyone can pay for treatment, they've always been able to. The point made up-thread was that many people are having a hard time receiving services due to the way Medicare reimburses, as well as the ridiculous malpractice insurance required of any practitioner (how long has it been since any meaningful discussion of tort reform?). I think we forget that the ACA's promise of "affordable health care" is mis-leading. What they're actually promising is "affordable health insurance" and neglecting the barriers it places in front of actual health care.
It appears to me that the government's forced intrusion into the medical marketplace has dis-incentivized practitioner's willingness to practice. Especially when it results in a break-even or loss to the service provider. Concierge service may become the new norm as a result.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote