Originally Posted By Donny Jessica Sanford, the Washington State woman cited by President Barack Obama as an Obamacare success story, received more bad news Tuesday. Officials with the state's health exchange checked on her case and said she will not qualify for assistance in buying insurance. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/11/19/bad-news-for-woman-cited-as-obamacare-success-story/?hpt=hp_t2">http://politicalticker.blogs.c...pt=hp_t2</a>
Originally Posted By ecdc Hallelujah! Another conservative deeply worried about uninsured Americans and healthcare costs. So Donny, does this mean you support the ACA or are you someone who thinks we need to scrap the entire insurance middle man and go to single payer?
Originally Posted By Donny Obamas original idea of single payer was a better idea,I would also like to see people be able to buy insurance across state lines,Insurance companies should have to cut a check to the customer and the customer would have a better idea of what they paid for.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I would also like to see people be able to buy insurance across state lines,Insurance companies should have to cut a check to the customer<< Uh, donny, the ACA does both those things. No disagreement on single payer. It would be much, much better. Shame that it had no chance of passing thanks to the Republican party.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Insurance companies should have to cut a check to the customer<< I think you've miss the point of what he was saying, and I think it's an interesting idea. The insurance company should pay the patient, not the provider, so the patient is seeing what benefit he's actually getting from the insurance company. Part of the problem with the insurance concept is that the consumer of the product never knows what is actually being paid for the product. That's one big reason (certainly not the only one) the free market just doesn't, and can't, function when it comes to health care. I have an interesting query for the panel. Is there ANYONE on this board, left or right, who thinks single payer ISN'T a better solution?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>That's one big reason (certainly not the only one) the free market just doesn't, and can't, function when it comes to health care.<< Health *insurance*, not health care. I'm sleep-deprived today and should probably just pipe down ...
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think you've miss the point of what he was saying, and I think it's an interesting idea.<< I think you're right, on both counts.
Originally Posted By Donny "Shame that it had no chance of passing thanks to the Republican party." Democrats,Unions and several others also did not want Single Payer
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt The Feds could learn a lot from California's health care exchange: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.propublica.org/article/qa-how-californias-insurance-enrollments-beat-healthcare.gov">http://www.propublica.org/arti...care.gov</a>
Originally Posted By plpeters70 << Part of the problem with the insurance concept is that the consumer of the product never knows what is actually being paid for the product.>> Not that I'm disagreeing with your overall point, but what good would it really do in the long run if patients were told all the costs associated with their healthcare? Let's say they were shown an itemized list of all the costs associated with treating a condition they have. Would they really have enough information to make any sort of informed decision about the type of treatment they should be paying for? Would you offer them several choices of tests, or medications, or whatever and then have them decide based on costs? Somehow I just can't see that working out so well - especially considering the intelligence level of most people in this country.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Let's say they were shown an itemized list of all the costs associated with treating a condition they have. Would they really have enough information to make any sort of informed decision about the type of treatment they should be paying for? Would you offer them several choices of tests, or medications, or whatever and then have them decide based on costs? Somehow I just can't see that working out so well - especially considering the intelligence level of most people in this country.>> Yes, I think it would. When I found out how much CT's cost I asked by docs to cut way back on them. I'd been having so many I'm surprised I didn't glow in the dark. After two years of CT's every few months showing no change, I said I only wanted one once a year. Costs DO make me a difference because I know that long term they will be reflected in what I have to pay for insurance. I also review the REAL cost of all my medications (not just the co-pays) and search for cheaper alternatives. I recently switched (with approval from my nephrologist) from a prescription that cost over $400 a month to one that cost $70 a month. Knowing the real cost CAN make a difference.
Originally Posted By plpeters70 <<When I found out how much CT's cost I asked by docs to cut way back on them.>> And what if your doctor had said that he really thinks you need all those CT's, and that you shouldn't cut back - they could save your life? Would you have been educated enough about the procedure to go against your doctor's orders? And even if you were, would most people? Same goes for your second example - what if your nephrologist had not approved? What then? I suppose it would help people be more aware of what all this is costing everyone, and in the long run that may be a good thing. But on an individual decision making basis, I just don't see it making to much of a difference. Most folks will just trust their doctors anyway.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Run for local election and lose." I'm sure you'll be pleased to know I've been spending a good portion of my time lately organizing an attorneys' union.
