Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ms maggie

McConnell facing the music on ACA..

222 posts in this topic

We haven't touched the waste in I take my son to Hopkins for his cardiology appt and I get 3 bills from two different sub contractors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

We haven't touched the waste in I take my son to Hopkins for his cardiology appt and I get 3 bills from two different sub contractors.

And that won't change under single payer.

Keep trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

26 minutes ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

And that won't change under single payer.

Keep trying.

You know, it's funny. It could happen. Indeed quite a few good things could happen through single payer. But the party in charge is opposed to it based on ideological principles, so they have an inherent motivation to concoct horror stories about it when they should be focused on helping American people get and keep affordable healthcare. Single payer can make that happen.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hst2 said:

You know, it's funny. It could happen. Indeed quite a few good things could happen through single payer.....

That says it all....if frogs could fly they wouldn't bump their arse when they leap.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.....:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, banner1124 said:

It's not that the government is directing them to spend their money a certain way, it's that the company offered a compensation package to their employees.  THey would already have those increased wages were it not being given to them in the form of health insurance.  For them to then be able to take a portion of that back and pocket it seems to me to be grounds to be sued and I really think they would lose.

Paycuts happen every day, contracts expire, benefits change.  Absent an active contract, little is actually guaranteed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

And that won't change under single payer.

Keep trying.

Yes it will because it won't be subcontracted out

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, MiddleOfTheRoad said:

Paycuts happen every day, contracts expire, benefits change.  Absent an active contract, little is actually guaranteed.

I agree there is nothing to force employers to do it legally but peer pressure will be a powerful motivator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

Yes it will because it won't be subcontracted out

No...no it won't.

The sub-contractors are the providers and they will all bill for their services....they may use a sub-contractor for billing, many providers do, but unless you're receiving 3 bills for the same service-not date of service-it's proper and won't change because of single payer.

You want single provider as well as single payer and there are a couple out there....patient first comes to mind....but most providers aren't structured that way nor can they afford to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

No...no it won't.

The sub-contractors are the providers and they will all bill for their services....they may use a sub-contractor for billing, many providers do, but unless you're receiving 3 bills for the same service-not date of service-it's proper and won't change because of single payer.

You want single provider as well as single payer and there are a couple out there....patient first comes to mind....but most providers aren't structured that way nor can they afford to be.

I imagine both physician bills would end up on the same paper and since coverage levels will be consistent across the board they might actually know how much I owe when I leave and I could pay it that day!

i want single payer not provider.

Edited by jtowne-swim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jtowne-swim said:

I imagine both physician bills would end up on the same paper and since coverage levels will be consistent across the board they might actually know how much I owe when I leave and I could pay it that day!

i want single payer not provider.

Imagine all you want-it doesn't work that way.

I've never walked out of a doctor's office without a pretty good idea of my cost....actually I usually pay it then and there and match things up when the eob is received.

Here's a good read:

"Why A Government-Run, Single-Payer Healthcare Approach Is Doomed To Fail"

"For more than half a century, advocates for a government-run, single-payer approach to healthcare coverage have touted its potential. With debate over the Affordable Care Act heating up by the day, progressives, both at the state and federal levels, are now pushing anew to move to some form of this system. Most recently, the California legislature introduced a bill to accomplish this, although without any details of how it would work.

On the surface, the arguments sound reasonable. Cut out the middleman—the insurance company—and use the savings to provide universal coverage at lower cost. Yet all attempts in the United States to implement this concept have failed. For example, Vermont made a serious run at a state-based, single-payer system—only to see it abandoned after only three years, due to major cost increases and the need to dramatically raise taxes to fund the expense.

In practice, a single-payer system would cost more than the most efficient and effective programs that exist today, all while compromising access and, over time, quality."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2017/03/16/why-a-government-run-single-payer-healthcare-approach-is-doomed-to-fail/#1bf31f3a2d81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, banner1124 said:

I don't believe that companies could legally get away with that.  Your health insurance benefits are presented to you as part of your overall compensation package when you get hired.  If they were to be relieved of that burden and then just pocket the money you can bet your arse they'd all get sued and I suspect they'd lose. 

I don't think that's true.  It's not like MLB where you have a guaranteed contract.  If you look at the legal print in your offer of employment, benefits are at the discretion of the company.  They can be changed, or eliminated at any time.  Even your position is not guaranteed.  Companies lay people off as a reduction in force all the time.  When I first started working for my company health care was provided at no cost to the employee.  Eventually that changed.  Now every employee pays a portion with the company picking up the rest.  That was never part of my agreement.  Usually if companies pull back one benefit, they compensate in other ways such as an increase in 401k matches, or in todays world paying more into an HSA.  Under the ACA, companies with more than 50 employees either have to offer health insurance or pay a penalty.  But even with that offer, they can make employees pay up to 9.5% or their salary towards health insurance.  You could try suing a major company, but good luck with that.  People have sued my company for what they believed was wrongful dismissal.  Some have gotten settlements, but in the end they never did anything but break even.  In order to be successful suing a major company with their corporate lawyers you will need a fairly decent lawyer yourself.  If the company decides to settle, the compensation will be fairly low with most of it going into the lawyers pocket.  It isn't worth the trouble.  

14 hours ago, jtowne-swim said:

Well some say I am supposed to believe when employers pay less taxes they hire more people and increase wages. Since healthcare is a benefit paid to get employees.

Less taxes may spur a company to hire more people, especially if the extra income is invested in expansion which would require more personnel.  If The government were to remove the burden of health care from employers, they may use the extra profits to invest in expansion, but you would have to consider that for the government to take over a single payer system, it will require more revenue to cover that.  Some of that revenue is likely to come in the form of additional corporate taxes designed to help pay for a single payer system now that companies no longer will be expected to shoulder some of that burden.  The money saved by not funding employee health care will end up going to the government so that they can fund everyone's health care.  The employee is not likely to see much if any increase from that supposed savings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dr Johnny Fever said:

Imagine all you want-it doesn't work that way.

I've never walked out of a doctor's office without a pretty good idea of my cost....actually I usually pay it then and there and match things up when the eob is received.

Here's a good read:

"Why A Government-Run, Single-Payer Healthcare Approach Is Doomed To Fail"

"For more than half a century, advocates for a government-run, single-payer approach to healthcare coverage have touted its potential. With debate over the Affordable Care Act heating up by the day, progressives, both at the state and federal levels, are now pushing anew to move to some form of this system. Most recently, the California legislature introduced a bill to accomplish this, although without any details of how it would work.

On the surface, the arguments sound reasonable. Cut out the middleman—the insurance company—and use the savings to provide universal coverage at lower cost. Yet all attempts in the United States to implement this concept have failed. For example, Vermont made a serious run at a state-based, single-payer system—only to see it abandoned after only three years, due to major cost increases and the need to dramatically raise taxes to fund the expense.

In practice, a single-payer system would cost more than the most efficient and effective programs that exist today, all while compromising access and, over time, quality."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertpearl/2017/03/16/why-a-government-run-single-payer-healthcare-approach-is-doomed-to-fail/#1bf31f3a2d81

Well there is the problem because they don't know how much the echo and ecg cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

At this point, only two Republican senators oppose the current form of the bill.

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What good is access to healthcare if you can't afford the premiums and/or the deductibles? Obama promised a massive cost savings. The opposite happened. I know some of you people want to have some achievements for history to judge him on. You have to remember though, media doesn't have the influence it had in generations past. Despite the biased and one-sided coverage, people recognize Obamacare as a sham and something that wasn't as advertised. History won't be kind in judging it. The media and academics will fawn over it, but the real world will remain disgusted by it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Manny said:

What good is access to healthcare if you can't afford the premiums and/or the deductibles?

Senate bill results in higher out-of-pocket costs for almost everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, michiganjoe said:

Senate bill results in higher out-of-pocket costs for almost everyone.

I don't favor GOP Bill whatsoever. Repeal Obamacare first. Then work with other side on a replacement. Once their hero's law is history, Democrats can stop focusing on saving his reputation and work on fixing this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2017 at 7:51 AM, JoyinMudville said:

The most amazing thing I have heard in this whole saga is McConnell saying that, if they can't get this turd sandwich passed, he might have to actually negotiate with the democrats to make improvements to the ACA. My god, what a concept. The two parties getting together to find common ground and improve an existing, but imperfect law.

Elections have consequences as Obama said and the unlikeable Democrats can't win elections.  America has spoken and they don't want the Democrats involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RileyMartin said:

Elections have consequences as Obama said and the unlikeable Democrats can't win elections.  America has spoken and they don't want the Democrats involved.

More Americans voted for Clinton. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, ncbirdfan said:

More Americans voted for Clinton. ;)

Democracy is for losers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Manny said:

I don't favor GOP Bill whatsoever. Repeal Obamacare first. Then work with other side on a replacement. Once their hero's law is history, Democrats can stop focusing on saving his reputation and work on fixing this issue.

The funny thing about this is that it's really the Democrat Congress's law. It was the Republicans who put Obama's name on it, with derision. Now it's like their albatross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Manny said:

I don't favor GOP Bill whatsoever. Repeal Obamacare first. Then work with other side on a replacement. Once their hero's law is history, Democrats can stop focusing on saving his reputation and work on fixing this issue.

So once Obamacare is repealed and there is no new law, the insurance companies can do as they please again.  I wonder how many people who got sick with such deceases as cancer during the past couple years and who now would have pre-existing conditions will like the fact that they can't get health insurance any more and will have to pay out-of-pockets for their treatments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Manny said:

What good is access to healthcare if you can't afford the premiums and/or the deductibles? Obama promised a massive cost savings. The opposite happened. I know some of you people want to have some achievements for history to judge him on. You have to remember though, media doesn't have the influence it had in generations past. Despite the biased and one-sided coverage, people recognize Obamacare as a sham and something that wasn't as advertised. History won't be kind in judging it. The media and academics will fawn over it, but the real world will remain disgusted by it.

 

 

 

ACA wasn't intended to succeed , which is why it was passed before it could be read. Most Dems prefer single payer. When ACA passed Barney Frank was challenged as to why he voted for ACA when he said he was for single payer. He said ACA was the best way to single payer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, mrsmlh said:

So once Obamacare is repealed and there is no new law, the insurance companies can do as they please again.  I wonder how many people who got sick with such deceases as cancer during the past couple years and who now would have pre-existing conditions will like the fact that they can't get health insurance any more and will have to pay out-of-pockets for their treatments.

And here's the thing. Say someone is currently on an ACA plan and gets sick. Then the plan or insurance company is dropped and the person who is sick no longer has that plan; and because of that person's preexisting condition he can no longer be covered in another plan. So I guess that person pays out of pocket (unlikely) or dies (being unable to get treatment). That's according to the Republican bill. Note: I have no links to it but I read the plan and that's what I got out of it. If someone has different information on it, please share it.

Edited by ncbirdfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0