PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare Exemption for Lawmakers and Aides


Pony Boy
04-25-2013, 01:23 PM
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption

Congressional leaders in both parties are engaged in high-level, confidential talks about exempting lawmakers and Capitol Hill aides from the insurance exchanges they are mandated to join as part of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, sources in both parties said.

The talks — which involve Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Obama administration and other top lawmakers — are extraordinarily sensitive, with both sides acutely aware of the potential for political fallout from giving carve-outs from the hugely controversial law to 535 lawmakers and thousands of their aides. Discussions have stretched out for months, sources said.

Yet if Capitol Hill leaders move forward with the plan, they risk being dubbed hypocrites by their political rivals and the American public. By removing themselves from a key Obamacare component, lawmakers and aides would be held to a different standard than the people who put them in office.

There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/obamacare-exemption-lawmakers-aides-90610.html

Rohirrim
04-25-2013, 01:51 PM
Medicare for all. End this insanity.

BroncoBeavis
04-25-2013, 02:53 PM
Well they passed it. 3 years later they finally figured out what was in it.

cutthemdown
04-25-2013, 04:58 PM
What a complete joke. If its not good for then its not good for us. Obamacare is a trainwreck. The exchanges will be too big and too expensive. People will lose hours from 35 to things like 29 hours a week so employer doesn't have to pay healthcare. Its just going to be bad for so many people. Hw could dems support this trash and do this to the country?

The Lone Bolt
04-27-2013, 06:58 PM
What a complete joke. If its not good for then its not good for us. Obamacare is a trainwreck. The exchanges will be too big and too expensive. People will lose hours from 35 to things like 29 hours a week so employer doesn't have to pay healthcare. Its just going to be bad for so many people. Hw could dems support this trash and do this to the country?


If you turn out to be wrong about any of this will you step up and admit it?

I think you've been listening to too much right wing propaganda. Give the system a chance to work before declaring it a failure.

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 07:04 PM
If you turn out to be wrong about any of this will you step up and admit it?

I think you've been listening to too much right wing propaganda. Give the system a chance to work before declaring it a failure.

I don't have to wait. Any system that causes employees to have hours cut is not smart.

Pony Boy
04-27-2013, 07:47 PM
If you turn out to be wrong about any of this will you step up and admit it?

I think you've been listening to too much right wing propaganda. Give the system a chance to work before declaring it a failure.

Why don't you give this advice to the Congress and their staff members, why would they say it will cause a brain drain on capital hill if they are forced to join the exchanges?

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 09:17 PM
If you turn out to be wrong about any of this will you step up and admit it?

I think you've been listening to too much right wing propaganda. Give the system a chance to work before declaring it a failure.

You don't feel its a bad sign that when the persons who designed the law don't want them, their families, or the people who work for them to be on the plan? That is a huge huge red flag right there don't you think.

Also for the first time i heard a first hand account of Obamacare costing a friend hours. A person I know who is an xray tech was just told they are retiring one machine but not buying a new one. Why? Because they would have to pay 3% tax on it and they crunched the numbers. They will save more by cutting 2 xray techs to 20 hours a week and just scheduling less patients a day. Obamacare destroys productvity.

defenseman
04-27-2013, 09:31 PM
If you turn out to be wrong about any of this will you step up and admit it?

I think you've been listening to too much right wing propaganda. Give the system a chance to work before declaring it a failure.

It appears you need to belted with a baseball bat before you'll get a clue on obamacare. You have failed to read the writing on the wall. When politicians manage to scramble out the back door regarding a supposed "great" idea, you are indeed in trouble. You need to look forward to measuring how much your paycheck gets "gouged" starting next year through 2016. It would be absolutely hilarious to see the look on your face. I look forward to both the senate and congress throwing the towell in on the obamacare monstrosity when they are completely overrun by the american public with one phrase, "repeal it or get thrown out" .....this will happen.

cutthemdown
04-27-2013, 10:03 PM
There is a reason Obama designed it so he would almost be out the door before the provisions kick in. He knows it won't work now in its current form. His hope is for it to get so expensive, so many people in the exchanges, they morph it into single payer healthcare which is the liberals ultimate objective. Just like the real objective in gun control is a ban on all guns.

defenseman
04-27-2013, 10:07 PM
There is a reason Obama designed it so he would almost be out the door before the provisions kick in. He knows it won't work now in its current form. His hope is for it to get so expensive, so many people in the exchanges, they morph it into single payer healthcare which is the liberals ultimate objective. Just like the real objective in gun control is a ban on all guns.

Correct on both counts and no chance in hell either will happen......blood will flow in the streets if necessary to prevent. Serious as a heart attack....the 2nd amendment is what it is. No one screws with my weapons, period.

cutthemdown
04-28-2013, 12:28 AM
Correct on both counts and no chance in hell either will happen......blood will flow in the streets if necessary to prevent. Serious as a heart attack....the 2nd amendment is what it is. No one screws with my weapons, period.

I laugh when liberals pick apart the right to bear arms but don't mind expanding the liberty clause to make abortions legal. Thats right Supreme Court said it falls under the liberty clause. As in you can't have liberty without being able to kill your baby.

cutthemdown
04-28-2013, 12:28 AM
The govt will never try and collect guns, they may try to say you cant shoot them anywhere.

Pony Boy
04-30-2013, 07:18 AM
The govt will never try and collect guns, they may try to say you cant shoot them anywhere.

Or try to buy up all the ammunition

BroncoBeavis
04-30-2013, 07:25 AM
I laugh when liberals pick apart the right to bear arms but don't mind expanding the liberty clause to make abortions legal. Thats right Supreme Court said it falls under the liberty clause. As in you can't have liberty without being able to kill your baby.

The Constitution is what any 5 of their buddies say it is. And they call this 'progress' :)

Pony Boy
05-01-2013, 08:28 AM
Obamacare’ Poll Finds 42% of Americans Unaware It’s Law


A new poll finds that many Americans are confused about the health care overhaul legislation commonly called “Obamacare.”

The Kaiser Family Foundation released results of a non-partisan study today finding more than 40 percent did not even know the law was in place.

“Four in ten Americans (42%) are unaware that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is still the law of the land,” the report says, “including 12 percent who believe the law has been repealed by Congress, 7 percent who believe it has been overturned by the Supreme Court and 23 percent who say they don’t know enough to say what the status of the law is.”

The survey showed public opinion on Obamacare is at its second-lowest rating in the past two years.

Less than half – 40 35 percent – of adults viewed the ACA favorably, whereas 35 40 percent said they viewed it unfavorably. Another 24 percent said they did not know or refused to answer.

Democratic Sen. Max Baucus, one of the original crafters of the bill, earlier this month predicted a chaotic implementation process for the Affordable Care Act. “I just see a huge train wreck coming down,” Baucus, D-Mont., said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/04/obamacare-poll-finds-42-of-americans-unaware-its-law/

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 08:55 AM
Next time someone tries to pretend that an election is decided on policies and issues, remind yourself of surveys like this.

For a good chunk of the electorate, it's all about goosebumps and wetness being the essence of beauty. :)

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 08:59 AM
Single payer, universal health care is inevitable. This entire insurance controlled health care system is a monstrosity. It was a monstrosity when Kaiser launched it in the 70s and it's been an out of control travesty ever since. Obamacare was a well-intentioned, but futile attempt to put a patch on a catastrophe.

Do you really think companies were not already hiring, firing and laying off workers based on health care cost decisions? Really? It's ****ing epidemic. Health care has been going up double digits every year for years. It's the biggest outlay companies have. And a new report states that claims are going up this year 32%. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/26/study-health-overhaul-to-raise-claims-cost-32/2021963/

What do you think that will do to rates, Obamacare or not? In many cases, the health care system in this country dictates the labor policy of companies. That, my friends, is insane. The hospital where I work I see it first hand every day. The majority of the uninsured that come in are in the pre-retirement age bracket. They're getting laid off left and right. Why? Because it lowers premiums for the companies where they worked if nobody in that age bracket is an employee. It's an actuarial decision.

Employers have no business being involved in health care decisions of employees. Can you imagine what happens to the economy if suddenly no employer in America has to deal with health care costs? You're afraid of government involvement in health care, but perfectly fine with corporate involvement?

:loopy:

houghtam
05-01-2013, 09:10 AM
Single payer, universal health care is inevitable. This entire insurance controlled health care system is a monstrosity. It was a monstrosity when Kaiser launched it in the 70s and it's been an out of control travesty ever since. Obamacare was a well-intentioned, but futile attempt to put a patch on a catastrophe.

Do you really think companies were not already hiring, firing and laying off workers based on health care cost decisions? Really? It's ****ing epidemic. Health care has been going up double digits every year for years. It's the biggest outlay companies have. And a new report states that claims are going up this year 32%. http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/03/26/study-health-overhaul-to-raise-claims-cost-32/2021963/

What do you think that will do to rates, Obamacare or not? In many cases, the health care system in this country dictates the labor policy of companies. That, my friends, is insane. The hospital where I work I see it first hand every day. The majority of the uninsured that come in are in the pre-retirement age bracket. They're getting laid off left and right. Why? Because it lowers premiums for the companies where they worked if nobody in that age bracket is an employee. It's an actuarial decision.

Employers have no business being involved in health care decisions of employees. Can you imagine what happens to the economy if suddenly no employer in America has to deal with health care costs? You're afraid of government involvement in health care, but perfectly fine with corporate involvement?

:loopy:

But I don't want my taxes to go up to pay for immigrants to get health care, and I've always been told that the free market deciding how much to charge will cause companies to have to compete with each other and thus lower prices overall.

Plus, socialism.

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 09:20 AM
But I don't want my taxes to go up to pay for immigrants to get health care, and I've always been told that the free market deciding how much to charge will cause companies to have to compete with each other and thus lower prices overall.

Plus, socialism.

Yeah. I'm paying $10,000 per year to an insurance company. For that, I get a $400 deductible, only one 100% covered visit per year (physical), and copays for every visit (double for specialists). I don't know what the various caps mean on the catastrophic medical event coverage. They're so convoluted I'd have to hire a lawyer to find out what they say.

If I had to pay half of that to the government and get 100% coverage through Medicare, I don't know what I'd do. I can't wait for my rates, and my deductible, to go up again next year. :rofl:

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 09:23 AM
Give me socialism, or give me death! :charge:

Ha!

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 09:41 AM
Employers have no business being involved in health care decisions of employees. Can you imagine what happens to the economy if suddenly no employer in America has to deal with health care costs? You're afraid of government involvement in health care, but perfectly fine with corporate involvement?

:loopy:

The answer is neither of the above. It's amazing to me that the right-to-choosers can only envision a health care system where either your employer or your government makes your decisions for you.

What happened to keeping things between me and my doctor?

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 09:45 AM
Yeah. I'm paying $10,000 per year to an insurance company. For that, I get a $400 deductible, only one 100% covered visit per year (physical), and copays for every visit (double for specialists). I don't know what the various caps mean on the catastrophic medical event coverage. They're so convoluted I'd have to hire a lawyer to find out what they say.

If I had to pay half of that to the government and get 100% coverage through Medicare, I don't know what I'd do. I can't wait for my rates, and my deductible, to go up again next year. :rofl:

Pay for the routine visits yourself. They're usually pretty affordable. If anything really bad comes up, just rest easy knowing Obamacare follows the "Buy flood insurance once your house is underwater" model. The suckers who paid for policies up-front will eat your costs for you.

Pony Boy
05-01-2013, 09:48 AM
It’s a giant shiate sandwich that everyone is going to have to eat and learn to like, but not the lawmakers and their staff, they said I’m not going to take a bite of that thing.

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 09:55 AM
Pay for the routine visits yourself. They're usually pretty affordable. If anything really bad comes up, just rest easy knowing Obamacare follows the "Buy flood insurance once your house is underwater" model. The suckers who paid for policies up-front will eat your costs for you.

If I was single and had no children, I would.

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 10:03 AM
If I was single and had no children, I would.

That doesn't change all that much. Pocket the 10k a year. Before anything serious happens, you'll likely have enough to cover a more serious condition for awhile until the wonder of after-the-fact insurance (formerly known as financing) kicks in.

If nothing serious happens, you keep your money. Later on if there's some risk or complication on the horizon, you can always add coverage whenever you want, padded by the 10's of thousands you likely saved.

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 10:12 AM
It’s a giant shiate sandwich that everyone is going to have to eat and learn to like, but not the lawmakers and their staff, they said I’m not going to take a bite of that thing.

It's a giant shiate sammich that half the country doesn't even really know anything about yet. The idea that they're going to get a huge block of those people to happily hop through a bunch of complicated paperwork without serious upheaval in the next 6 months is hilarious. Almost as hilarious as thinking the Federal Leviathan is going to be ready to do something with all that paperwork.

In reality a ginormous chunk of people will just do nothing. And won't ever worry about any of it until they need a hospital, at which point they'll buy "insurance." When this happens en masse, that's when things get really really fugly.

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 10:40 AM
That doesn't change all that much. Pocket the 10k a year. Before anything serious happens, you'll likely have enough to cover a more serious condition for awhile until the wonder of after-the-fact insurance (formerly known as financing) kicks in.

If nothing serious happens, you keep your money. Later on if there's some risk or complication on the horizon, you can always add coverage whenever you want, padded by the 10's of thousands you likely saved.

Ha! I had one son go to the ER last year. It was all of two hours. There goes the ten grand. I work at a hospital. One good heart attack is worth about a quarter million. Save that up. :rofl:

Pony Boy
05-01-2013, 11:45 AM
Ha! I had one son go to the ER last year. It was all of two hours. There goes the ten grand. I work at a hospital. One good heart attack is worth about a quarter million. Save that up. :rofl:

Very true but try telling young healthy people that they will be required by law to purchase a healthcare plan and tell them they might need give up their iPhone to help cover the expense......... which one do you think they will choose, healthcare or iPhone?

Rohirrim
05-01-2013, 12:04 PM
Very true but try telling young healthy people that they will be required by law to purchase a healthcare plan and tell them they might need give up their iPhone to help cover the expense......... which one do you think they will choose, healthcare or iPhone?

That's one reason I prefer the idea of Medicare for everybody. Everybody chips in, and everybody is covered.

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 12:54 PM
Ha! I had one son go to the ER last year. It was all of two hours. There goes the ten grand. I work at a hospital. One good heart attack is worth about a quarter million. Save that up. :rofl:

Wow. I've been to the ER with kids/family probably 5 or 6 times over the last decade. I doubt it all-together totaled $10,000. I'm not sure how you could possibly spend that in 2 hours, unless you popped in for some emergency chemo or something.

Oh, and on the heart attack...

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/07/26/GR2009072600010.gif

Not saying there couldn't be some longer term costs as well. But that's where your preexisting condition get-out-of-jail-free card comes in to play.

Pony Boy
05-01-2013, 01:52 PM
Oh, and on the heart attack...

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/07/26/GR2009072600010.gif

Not saying there couldn't be some longer term costs as well. But that's where your preexisting condition get-out-of-jail-free card comes in to play.

Trust me on this one because I've been there seen it and done it ............

According to an article from the National Business Group on Health, the average total cost of a severe heart attack--including direct and indirect costs--is about $1 million. Direct costs include charges for hospitals, doctors and prescription drugs, while the indirect costs include lost productivity and time away from work. The average cost of a less severe heart attack is about $760,000. Amortized over 20 years, that's $50,000 per year for a severe heart attack and $38,000 per year for a less severe heart attack.

Under Obama care if you are diagnose with cancer or some other long term illness you will be able to go out and buy coverage but if you have a heart attack you can't buy retroactive healthcare coverage......... It will be a total cluster f......

BroncoBeavis
05-01-2013, 02:33 PM
Trust me on this one because I've been there seen it and done it ............

According to an article from the National Business Group on Health, the average total cost of a severe heart attack--including direct and indirect costs--is about $1 million. Direct costs include charges for hospitals, doctors and prescription drugs, while the indirect costs include lost productivity and time away from work. The average cost of a less severe heart attack is about $760,000. Amortized over 20 years, that's $50,000 per year for a severe heart attack and $38,000 per year for a less severe heart attack.

Under Obama care if you are diagnose with cancer or some other long term illness you will be able to go out and buy coverage but if you have a heart attack you can't buy retroactive healthcare coverage......... It will be a total cluster f......

You can't count indirect costs at all though. No health coverage is ever going to help you with lost wages or productivity.

errand
05-01-2013, 03:53 PM
That's one reason I prefer the idea of Medicare for everybody. Everybody chips in, and everybody is covered.

...and everybody will be miserable.

This is all you need to know about Obamacare -

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Esb_1OEp4-Q?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

errand
05-01-2013, 04:14 PM
That's one reason I prefer the idea of Medicare for everybody. Everybody chips in, and everybody is covered.


so when the government is in complete control of your health insurance, what are you going to do when they have to make cuts to balance the budget?

When you make something part of the government budget it not only has the potential to cause out of control spending, it can also be cut to reduce spending because sooner or later you run out of other people's money.

errand
05-01-2013, 04:53 PM
You're afraid of government involvement in health care, but perfectly fine with corporate involvement?

:loopy:


what's :loopy: is this -

If corporations or insurance companies are in charge of our healthcare, we have choices to go elsewhere or not buy it at all.......but when the government is in charge of it, you'll have nowhere else to go for it.....remember, they fine you if you're not on it, and basically make you get on it....or else.


But don't take my word for it....like Nancy Pelosi said "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it..."

misturanderson
05-01-2013, 05:34 PM
what's :loopy: is this -

If corporations or insurance companies are in charge of our healthcare, we have choices to go elsewhere or not buy it at all.......but when the government is in charge of it, you'll have nowhere else to go for it.....remember, they fine you if you're not on it, and basically make you get on it....or else.


But don't take my word for it....like Nancy Pelosi said "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it..."

And when someone chooses not to buy health insurance then gets sick, they get treatment and can't pay for it. Who pays for that treatment? It sure as **** isn't the person who decided not to buy insurance.

How is that a good system?

errand
05-01-2013, 06:13 PM
And when someone chooses not to buy health insurance then gets sick, they get treatment and can't pay for it. Who pays for that treatment? It sure as **** isn't the person who decided not to buy insurance.

How is that a good system?


Typical liberal thinking...."too many people can't afford health insurance....so to solve it, we'll make everyone buy health insurance"


Feel free to sign up for it clown.....thanks to your government you now don't have a choice of whether or not you buy it.....buy it or get fined for not buying it.

this is the condensed version....LOL

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf

Now tell me how lower income people are going to be able to afford the accountant to fill this bull**** out?

Arkie
05-01-2013, 07:08 PM
There is concern in some quarters that the provision requiring lawmakers and staffers to join the exchanges, if it isn’t revised, could lead to a “brain drain” on Capitol Hill, as several sources close to the talks put it.

promise?? :pray:

errand
05-01-2013, 07:18 PM
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/p480x480/389030_10151427848887971_1854930362_n.jpg

cutthemdown
05-01-2013, 07:49 PM
Getting exemptions from Obamacare will be the new backroom deal in DC now!

The Lone Bolt
05-02-2013, 12:19 AM
You don't feel its a bad sign that when the persons who designed the law don't want them, their families, or the people who work for them to be on the plan? That is a huge huge red flag right there don't you think.

Also for the first time i heard a first hand account of Obamacare costing a friend hours. A person I know who is an xray tech was just told they are retiring one machine but not buying a new one. Why? Because they would have to pay 3% tax on it and they crunched the numbers. They will save more by cutting 2 xray techs to 20 hours a week and just scheduling less patients a day. Obamacare destroys productvity.

That 3% tax is a direct result of the ACA? It didn't exist before the ACA was passed?

The Lone Bolt
05-02-2013, 12:25 AM
Under Obama care if you are diagnose with cancer or some other long term illness you will be able to go out and buy coverage but if you have a heart attack you can't buy retroactive healthcare coverage......... It will be a total cluster f......

Can you buy retroactive coverage now? Do the republicans have a plan that allows you to buy retroactive coverage?

What a ridiculous argument.

The Lone Bolt
05-02-2013, 12:30 AM
Feel free to sign up for it clown.....thanks to your government you now don't have a choice of whether or not you buy it.....buy it or get fined for not buying it.

Good. You need to wake up and smell the coffee. We already have universal health care. Everybody uses the hospital whether they have insurance or not.

The way to prevent the rest of us for paying for the treatment of the uninsured is to mandate everybody to have insurance.

Fedaykin
05-02-2013, 11:30 AM
I've said it before, and will again: Treating health care as an "insurable" thing is the root of the crazy of the system.

B-Large
05-02-2013, 11:42 AM
My more Conservative friends and collegues are already blaming the Afforable Care Act for problems that exist before it is implemented.

Waiting for a Specilist? I ask them if the ACA that created that problem.... they always say hell yes, that is what socialist medicine is all about!!!

LOL... I am up for a debate about the ACA as much as anybody, but this just makes them look bad....

B-Large
05-02-2013, 11:46 AM
I've said it before, and will again: Treating health care as an "insurable" thing is the root of the crazy of the system.

Its interesting, we like to make the parrallel comparison to Auto Insurance.... but when was the last time AllState paid for your tires, breaks, oil changes, timing belt, heck even transmission... right, ther never have.

Take the Insurer OUT of the system until people hit big time health issues and injuries.

Some people will pay for an annual exam, some won't. Just like some people will change the oil every 5K, other haven't since they bought the car 36 months ago... lets leave it up to the individual how much they want and how important it is to them...

B-Large
05-02-2013, 11:51 AM
Typical liberal thinking...."too many people can't afford health insurance....so to solve it, we'll make everyone buy health insurance"


Feel free to sign up for it clown.....thanks to your government you now don't have a choice of whether or not you buy it.....buy it or get fined for not buying it.

this is the condensed version....LOL

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf

Now tell me how lower income people are going to be able to afford the accountant to fill this bull**** out?

Your premise is incorrent. Most people can't qualify for health insurance no matter what they pay, the ACA creates provision to get those peple insured.

And you know darn well those who pound they're chest about not buying/ needing insurance are the first signing up for free care when cancer is eating their pancreas.... the notion that people would skip health insurance and decide to die if they got sick is a sliver's sliver of Americans... most just don't want to pay for anything but then feel entitled to it when they get sick.

B-Large
05-02-2013, 11:56 AM
That's one reason I prefer the idea of Medicare for everybody. Everybody chips in, and everybody is covered.

Medicare as a National Risk Pool, Deductibles for everybody, and HSA for everyone. Take the extra 16% saving of Medicare over Private Carriers and bank it in the risk pool of credit it back to people's HSA's that are in need. Let hospital's finally devise a pricing schedule that is in line with actual cost, and require that they publish the cost of any test on their website.

houghtam
05-02-2013, 11:57 AM
Its interesting, we like to make the parrallel comparison to Auto Insurance.... but when was the last time AllState paid for your tires, breaks, oil changes, timing belt, heck even transmission... right, ther never have.

Take the Insurer OUT of the system until people hit big time health issues and injuries.

Some people will pay for an annual exam, some won't. Just like some people will change the oil every 5K, other haven't since they bought the car 36 months ago... lets leave it up to the individual how much they want and how important it is to them...

You don't think annual exams help prevent big time health issues?

Why not just get rid of all PC physicians and send everyone to the ER then?

B-Large
05-02-2013, 12:04 PM
You don't think annual exams help prevent big time health issues?

Why not just get rid of all PC physicians and send everyone to the ER then?

There is mixed evidence that screenings such as Mammograms are good practice (Irradiating 1000 women in the US to detect 1 case of BC- I guess if you are the 1 case of Cx, then you would say yes, worht it!- but does that justify increasing 999 women's risk of cancer now??)... there is mixed evidence that PSA's on men are good practice... So the case is still to be determined whether annual exams really prevent enough disease to justify the cost. I get an annual exam every year, I pay for it, rarely does it tell me anything we don't already know. Providers are compiling more and more data that will determine what testing is valuable, and what testing is wasteful.

In the end, does a $200 exam and bloodwork makes sense? Probabaly. But I think people should have to pay for it out of their pocket, it gets the invested in their health and give them perpective on cost.

TonyR
05-02-2013, 12:30 PM
It isn’t that conservative ideas about health policy don’t exist, and it isn’t that they won’t work. It’s that right now the feasibility question is purely academic, because even after five years of debating these issues, and despite Eric Cantor’s best efforts, there still aren’t enough Republican lawmakers willing to take even the smallest of steps toward putting those ideas to the test. This means that no matter how much of a “bureaucratic nightmare” the implementation of the current health care law turns out to be, liberals at least have this ace in the hole: When it comes to health care reform, there is still no politically realistic alternative to their approach. http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/the-republican-health-policy-trainwreck/

Pony Boy
05-02-2013, 12:42 PM
Can you buy retroactive coverage now? Do the republicans have a plan that allows you to buy retroactive coverage?

What a ridiculous argument.

You didn't read the post I was referring to that suggested a person could wait until he was sick with a serious problem under Obama care. I was making the point that yes that would work but not in the case of a heart attack because you can't get retroactive coverage.

So I will use a line from your next post "wake up and smell the coffee before you pop off” ..............

BroncoBeavis
05-02-2013, 01:01 PM
There is mixed evidence that screenings such as Mammograms are good practice (Irradiating 1000 women in the US to detect 1 case of BC- I guess if you are the 1 case of Cx, then you would say yes, worht it!- but does that justify increasing 999 women's risk of cancer now??)... there is mixed evidence that PSA's on men are good practice... So the case is still to be determined whether annual exams really prevent enough disease to justify the cost. I get an annual exam every year, I pay for it, rarely does it tell me anything we don't already know. Providers are compiling more and more data that will determine what testing is valuable, and what testing is wasteful.

In the end, does a $200 exam and bloodwork makes sense? Probabaly. But I think people should have to pay for it out of their pocket, it gets the invested in their health and give them perpective on cost.

CBO has basically flat out said that preventative medicine overall costs more money, it doesn't save money.

That's not to say the health and peace-of-mind benefits aren't worth anything. But once the 'it saves us all money' argument is off the table, there's no reason that Joe should be forced to pay for Jim's annual physical just because Jim feels better about his health afterwards.

Insurance is meant for dealing with the unpredictable. Not for the routine. If it's used for routine stuff, the only purpose it serves is hiding true costs from consumers, which is never a good thing.