Republican bill stops funding to states issuing DL's to illegals

[Daryl Hunt]

I never said YOU went on ACA.
What I said is that ACA never caused anyone to lose their old doctor.
That was insurance companies, who deliberately made people lose their old doctor by trying to make more money from us.
ACA had nothing to do with it.

Did I? Link it! I never Said that you liar! Link it now. You fat idiot.

Look at what I wrote again.
No where do I say that you said anything at all.
A lot of people are critical of ACA because they lost their old doctors, and the main point I was making is that they are wrong to blame ACA.
ACA had nothing to do with it.
It was not ACA that prevented people from keeping their old doctors, it was their insurance companies deliberately trying to harm people in retaliation for ACA.

So why would insurance companies, who got in on this deal with Commie Care, want to sabotage their very own advantage?

I signed up for Commie Care when my employer (like so many others) dropped that benefit for their employees. My provider is the Cleveland Clinic. Commie Care only offered one company that would allow me to continue that care I've had for my entire life; one plan.

The deal was, they wanted slightly less than one third of my net pay. The plan had a 7K deductible, a 7K out of pocket, a $50.00 doctor copay, no dental and no prescription coverage. Basically yes, I could keep my doctor and facility, but I wouldn't have enough to live on when you include the cost of my medication they didn't cover.

So it's a lie that Commie Care was going to let you keep your doctors and facility at a reasonable cost. One third of net pay every month is not reasonable, especially when you have to get run over by a bus to use the damn policy.

The ACA was sabotaged from the very start. It never had a chance. Instead of all sides working to get it where it should be, both sides just wanted to fight while on side gutted it even before it was completely implemented. There were a lot of really worthless plans that ACA wouldn't cover. Yes, those plans were cheap. But the rule was, if you do get sick, just get sick a little and get well fast. This works for a 20 year old usually. That is, until it doesn't and there goes the house, the car, your credit rating, etc..

We both agree that we need something and rehashing the ACA is just another way of not doing anything.

Commie Care was not sabotaged by anybody. The commies had complete control over it. They put out this BS that it didn't work because of the Republicans because even they knew it was a complete failure. Every Republican voted against it, and it still passed. So how in the world can you say that Republicans sabotaged it when they couldn't even stop it?

If Commie Care was a great success, the Republicans would not even be mentioned whether they contributed to it or watered it down.

That's Hannity talking. Great sound bite but not true. Just remember, the original Obamacare was Romneycare and highly supported by Republicans. Obama didn't invent a damned thing. He copied a successful system just in a larger scale. Yes, it was flawed. But instead of working to correct it like many Republicans were capable of doing, they trashed it. And it's even more trashed today. It wasn't the ACA that had to fail, it was Obama that had to fail. The ACA just became the flagship for many Republicans. In reality, Republicans could have fixed it with the assistance of the Democrats. The real experts 12 years ago were the Republicans in public health care. Today, you can't even fill a thimble up with the Republican Public Health Care ability.

 

[Rigby5]

Wow, you buy into all the right wing lies.

First, malpractice is only a SMALL slice of medical costs. In fact, total costs of malpractice expenses, including both insurance and "preventive medicine" (I.E. taking the extra step so you don't cut off the wrong fucking leg) is all of 55 Billion a year out of a 3 Trillion Health Care industry, or about 2.4%. Taking away people's right to seek redress against medical incompetence (96,000 Americans a year die from medical mistakes, you think they are all faking it?)

Britian also has universal health care.. I'm sure you don't want to go there.

The True Cost Of Medical Malpractice - It May Surprise You

And in your article, they state it was written by people at Harvard, a very left wing institute who I'm sure is behind socialized medical care.

Defensive medicine is a very large contributor to the rise of healthcare costs in the United States. DefensiveMedicine.org cites surveys that estimate defensive medicine adds costs of up to $850 billion annually in the United States. It may contribute as much as 34% of the annual healthcare costs in the United States.

Defensive Medicine and How It Affects Healthcare Costs

• Medical malpractice insurance varies greatly based on location and specialty. Insurance premiums for obstetricians/gynecologists in New York were as high as $215,000 in 2017 while in California they were just under $50,000.
• Male physicians are also more likely to be sued than female doctors. About 40 percent of male doctors have been sued during their careers while almost 23 percent of female doctors have been sued. Just over 20 percent of male doctors had more than one suit filed against them while just under 10 percent of female doctors were sued more than once.

Coverage can also affect medical malpractice insurance premiums. Doctors who want more coverage for multiple practices will pay more, as will physicians who need coverage across state lines. The malpractice insurance cost by specialty will also vary. Some specialties, such as orthopedic surgeries, are considered higher risk for insurance carriers, and premiums will reflect this.

How Much Does Medical Malpractice Insurance Cost?

Again, quality for SOME people, not everyone, and that's the problem. I've got mine fuck you might work for your house or car, but it shouldn't work for our health care.

The only way to reduce the waste of medical malpractice costs, is to have more government oversight to prevent malpractice.
The cause of high medical malpractice insurance is a history of poor performance by doctors.
Obviously doctors in private practice will always be guilty of making mistakes.
However, if you have them working for agencies like the VA, that is greatly reduced because they work more in teams.

How would government prevent malpractice? Can you explain that to me?

If you were a carpenter, and worked on government homes making 15 bucks an hour while private companies paid their carpenters 25 bucks an hour, why would you stay unless nobody in the private market wanted to hire you? The only reason you'd stay is because you don't meet the standards of the private market. It's the same thing with medical care.

A good physician is not going to work for half of the money they could otherwise make working somewhere else. They are inferior to private healthcare facilities otherwise they would choose to work there. A team of bad doctors is no different than one bad doctor. The "team" at the VA that wanted to change my fathers prescriptions would have killed him. Thank God my father still had his senses to get a second opinion at the Clinic, otherwise he would not be here with us today.

That is easy.
When you have a profit motive, it is like having medical practitioners working on commission.
The more work they do and the faster they do it, the more they make.
That is bound to cause more accidents and mistakes.
Which a government health care program, there is no profit motive or incentive, so then doctors are not tempted by greed to take on too much or do it too quickly.
They are salaried instead, and therefore can work more safely and there is a larger staff to oversee their work, so that they do not make as many mistakes.
The government also then can self insure, so there are no payments to an insurance company that skims profits, from malpractice insurance.

Most medical practitioners do NOT like private for profit practice.
They are forced to meet quotas that reduce their quality of care.
The quality of private for profit practice is much lower than you claim, and the corporations that own the hospitals are extremely corrupt and greedy.

The only reason more do not go to the VA instead is that the VA just is not hiring.
They do not need more doctors.
Most doctors are NOT motivated by money.
They just have no choice because the big medical corporations now own all the hospitals and insurance companies. So there is no alternative. It is a monopoly.

As for your example with the VA, you have no proof of what the private practitioner claimed.
What the VA wanted to prescribe may have even been better.
You have no way of knowing.

But if there were private insurance companies, all health care providers would be getting paid about half as much, so then there would be no difference between all medical pay, including private vs VA.
So then the skill levels would be equal.

 

[Rigby5]

I never said YOU went on ACA.
What I said is that ACA never caused anyone to lose their old doctor.
That was insurance companies, who deliberately made people lose their old doctor by trying to make more money from us.
ACA had nothing to do with it.

Did I? Link it! I never Said that you liar! Link it now. You fat idiot.

Look at what I wrote again.
No where do I say that you said anything at all.
A lot of people are critical of ACA because they lost their old doctors, and the main point I was making is that they are wrong to blame ACA.
ACA had nothing to do with it.
It was not ACA that prevented people from keeping their old doctors, it was their insurance companies deliberately trying to harm people in retaliation for ACA.

So why would insurance companies, who got in on this deal with Commie Care, want to sabotage their very own advantage?

I signed up for Commie Care when my employer (like so many others) dropped that benefit for their employees. My provider is the Cleveland Clinic. Commie Care only offered one company that would allow me to continue that care I've had for my entire life; one plan.

The deal was, they wanted slightly less than one third of my net pay. The plan had a 7K deductible, a 7K out of pocket, a $50.00 doctor copay, no dental and no prescription coverage. Basically yes, I could keep my doctor and facility, but I wouldn't have enough to live on when you include the cost of my medication they didn't cover.

So it's a lie that Commie Care was going to let you keep your doctors and facility at a reasonable cost. One third of net pay every month is not reasonable, especially when you have to get run over by a bus to use the damn policy.

The ACA was sabotaged from the very start. It never had a chance. Instead of all sides working to get it where it should be, both sides just wanted to fight while on side gutted it even before it was completely implemented. There were a lot of really worthless plans that ACA wouldn't cover. Yes, those plans were cheap. But the rule was, if you do get sick, just get sick a little and get well fast. This works for a 20 year old usually. That is, until it doesn't and there goes the house, the car, your credit rating, etc..

We both agree that we need something and rehashing the ACA is just another way of not doing anything.

Commie Care was not sabotaged by anybody. The commies had complete control over it. They put out this BS that it didn't work because of the Republicans because even they knew it was a complete failure. Every Republican voted against it, and it still passed. So how in the world can you say that Republicans sabotaged it when they couldn't even stop it?

If Commie Care was a great success, the Republicans would not even be mentioned whether they contributed to it or watered it down.

No, ACA originally had a public option. So those with pre-existing conditions or other problems could choose to buy public insurance instead of higher priced private insurance. But it was republicans to sliced that out of the bill.

But I agree ACA is poor because it still is third party payer who does not care about quality or costs.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Medical savings accounts do not at all work.
That is because the amount you would have to save in order to be able to pay for any possible risk is far too large.
The only way to pay for health care is by pooling risk.
Everyone has to contribute, even though almost no one will ever need any significant pay out.
And the problem then is that whomever runs the pool has to make the payout, not you.
So then there is a problem controlling costs and quality of those medical providers billing the pool.

Private, for profit, insurance companies have proven to be horrible at this because they have no incentive to keep costs down or quality up.
And they do not allow you to control quality or costs either, because you alreadly prepaid.
Prepaying anything is always a horrific idea, and is always essentially a scam.

So the ONLY alternative that has ever worked is public health care.
That is because the large staff of a government run system can ensure both quality and costs.
And while the VA does not pay as much so has worse providers, they still are an example of a system that works.
The VA still does provide much better health care at much lower costs.
That is because you get seen by a number of doctors instead of just one, so any deficiencies in any one doctor can be taken care of by another.
It clearly works, and if everyone would have VA hospital access, clearly health care in the US would be much better and much less expensive.

Then I would assume you have very little experience with the VA. My father uses the VA for some things like prescriptions because it's much cheaper, but he goes to the Cleveland Clinic for anything serious. He never spent one day in a VA hospital even with as many medical problems as he's had. The VA was the primary customer for one of my employers. We lost them because the guy in charge of the VA was on the take--one of them the company I worked for. So I lost a job because of all the VA corruption.

If you work for a company where you gross 700.00 a week, that's seven dollars into your MSA every week. If you start off young, it's likely you won't touch that account for many years down the road. It would get some interest as that time went on as well. I'm not saying it would cover all of your medical needs. What I'm saying is that these providers and insurance companies lose money on all these nickel and dime transactions. It's better off paid directly to the provider to avoid all that paperwork. When insurance and providers save money, so does their client.

With government, you pay them money, and they keep it under a mattress until needed. Insurance companies invest the money you pay for your premium. The profits help offset some of the bills they have to pay. They also dedicate money towards locating fraud; something our government doesn't do. It's way more efficient than government.

When Commie Care was introduced, I was at the post office one day in a long line. The black lady in front of me said "This is ridiculous! We have all these people here, and only one postal worker behind the counter!!!" To that I said "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run our healthcare." Oh did she give me a dirty look.

The only reason the VA has inferior doctors is that insurance companies over pay deliberately.
If you allow a government medical service to compete with private health providers, their charges will have to cut on half, and then so will what they pay doctors. So then VA doctors will be better quality.

The VA is vastly better health care than a quarter of the population gets now, which is none at all.
The VA is not at all known for any corruption. It is nonprofit, so almost can't become corrupt.
There is nothing you can pad.

The rate you suggest of $7 a week into a medical savings account would be $350/year, or only $17,500 after 50 years. That is not enough for much of anything, if you actually need surgery. That is more like $100k for anything significant. And while many will not need anything, those that do will need almost 10 times that much. So clearly medical investment funds need to be pooled and shared.

And no, insurance companies and providers do not lose a dime on the small stuff because you are already paying them cash, as they are less than your deductible.

The idea government keeps money effectively under a mattress is totally wrong.
We have a $22 trillion national debt we finance at about 5% interest, so the excess surplus from any medical surplus would go to paying down the debt, just like the Social Security surplus does now. That saves all tax payers huge amounts of money. There is no better investment for taxes than T-Bills.

Insurance companies are the least possible investment.
By forcing you to prepay, they eliminate any possibility for negotiating quality or cost, they deliberately cause costs to be more than double, and they are the most corrupt in terms of trying to get out of paying anything if they can.
And they skim off about half of what people pay in, as the profits they charge for administration.
In contrast, it is well documented that government services, like Medicare have a far lower administrative overhead cost, which is less than 10%.

Your example of the post office having only 1 clerk proves you are wrong.
The reality is that I have never seen more than 1 clerk at FedEx or UPS either, and yet FedEx and UPS charge more than double what the US post office does for the same size package and delivery times.
Anyone criticizing a long wait in a post office does not at all get it.
Any rational person wants long lines, because that saves money and allows for lower charges.
Lower charges is all I care about.

I just made a return to Amazon. I walked into the UPS store with the item only. I was the only person there. They took the item, packaged it, and sent it back to Amazon no charge to me. I'm guessing you never went to a UPS store or FedEx, because I've never had an experience with them similar to the post office.

Government pays about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. To recoup those losses, facilities increase their prices for everybody. They are prohibited by law from charging different insurances with different prices. I worked in the field for ten years, so I know.

Without private healthcare insurance, doctors and facilities would have nowhere to recoup those losses. This is why when you see doctors and clinics close down, it's usually in lower income areas where most clients are government covered and little private insurance to recoup those government losses from. It's also why institutions are refusing to accept new government patients. They can no longer take the loss.

I'm also assuming you missed my post where I worked for a company that was paying off the VA administrator, and I lost my job when the media got word of it. It was my employers largest account. Corruption goes on at the VA all the time. You must have not been focused on the news during the DumBama administration.

You keep rehashing the ACA concept. As long as we keep that going, nothing gets done and it just gets worse. Deal in fixes not problems. We both agree the whole system (?) is broken both with the ACA and non ACA. And you are right, in the low income areas, the clinics get hurt and hurt bad due to lack of funding. The question should really be, how do we get them funded properly. We have a clinic here. It must be doing well because it's been around for years. It charges according to your annual income. And yes, it does get funding from the State and Federals as well. It's done so well, it expanded not too long ago to include a Dental Clinic. But I can't afford to go to their Dental Clinic because of my insurance, their bill would be 4 times what I get from an authorized Delta Dental office who doesn't care what my annual income is. Most of the people going there are on some form of Medicaid which I am not eligible. They bill the State.

I bring up the clinics because preventive medical is far cheaper than waiting until the condition gets life threatening and then going to an Emergency Room. And who pays for those people doing that? We do through the Hospitals increase in rates that we have to pay. And you can count you Insurance as your money so you are still paying for them to misuse the ER like that.

Why Obamacare didn’t lower visits to emergency rooms

One of the problems with Medicare and even Tricare is the lag in payments. It takes just too long and it ties up the Doctors resources up for far too long I have both and I am still highly limited to where I can use them. The sad part is, I am 100% covered so the 80% isn't the reason. Then add to the fact, we are 27 doctors short in this town of right around 120K including outlying towns and suburbs. The Doctors only accept X number of Medicare Patients before they cut it off. And then, the Doctor may not see that other 20% either. For many, Medicare is a mess. It's as messed up as the rest of the Medical Industry.

No matter what program we discuss, it's going to be a disaster. What we need to be discussing is the fixes. Are you aware that almost half of the people today are on Medicare or Medicaid? Fix those two first before you start trying to fix anything else.

 

[Rigby5]

Medical savings accounts do not at all work.
That is because the amount you would have to save in order to be able to pay for any possible risk is far too large.
The only way to pay for health care is by pooling risk.
Everyone has to contribute, even though almost no one will ever need any significant pay out.
And the problem then is that whomever runs the pool has to make the payout, not you.
So then there is a problem controlling costs and quality of those medical providers billing the pool.

Private, for profit, insurance companies have proven to be horrible at this because they have no incentive to keep costs down or quality up.
And they do not allow you to control quality or costs either, because you alreadly prepaid.
Prepaying anything is always a horrific idea, and is always essentially a scam.

So the ONLY alternative that has ever worked is public health care.
That is because the large staff of a government run system can ensure both quality and costs.
And while the VA does not pay as much so has worse providers, they still are an example of a system that works.
The VA still does provide much better health care at much lower costs.
That is because you get seen by a number of doctors instead of just one, so any deficiencies in any one doctor can be taken care of by another.
It clearly works, and if everyone would have VA hospital access, clearly health care in the US would be much better and much less expensive.

Then I would assume you have very little experience with the VA. My father uses the VA for some things like prescriptions because it's much cheaper, but he goes to the Cleveland Clinic for anything serious. He never spent one day in a VA hospital even with as many medical problems as he's had. The VA was the primary customer for one of my employers. We lost them because the guy in charge of the VA was on the take--one of them the company I worked for. So I lost a job because of all the VA corruption.

If you work for a company where you gross 700.00 a week, that's seven dollars into your MSA every week. If you start off young, it's likely you won't touch that account for many years down the road. It would get some interest as that time went on as well. I'm not saying it would cover all of your medical needs. What I'm saying is that these providers and insurance companies lose money on all these nickel and dime transactions. It's better off paid directly to the provider to avoid all that paperwork. When insurance and providers save money, so does their client.

With government, you pay them money, and they keep it under a mattress until needed. Insurance companies invest the money you pay for your premium. The profits help offset some of the bills they have to pay. They also dedicate money towards locating fraud; something our government doesn't do. It's way more efficient than government.

When Commie Care was introduced, I was at the post office one day in a long line. The black lady in front of me said "This is ridiculous! We have all these people here, and only one postal worker behind the counter!!!" To that I said "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run our healthcare." Oh did she give me a dirty look.

The only reason the VA has inferior doctors is that insurance companies over pay deliberately.
If you allow a government medical service to compete with private health providers, their charges will have to cut on half, and then so will what they pay doctors. So then VA doctors will be better quality.

The VA is vastly better health care than a quarter of the population gets now, which is none at all.
The VA is not at all known for any corruption. It is nonprofit, so almost can't become corrupt.
There is nothing you can pad.

The rate you suggest of $7 a week into a medical savings account would be $350/year, or only $17,500 after 50 years. That is not enough for much of anything, if you actually need surgery. That is more like $100k for anything significant. And while many will not need anything, those that do will need almost 10 times that much. So clearly medical investment funds need to be pooled and shared.

And no, insurance companies and providers do not lose a dime on the small stuff because you are already paying them cash, as they are less than your deductible.

The idea government keeps money effectively under a mattress is totally wrong.
We have a $22 trillion national debt we finance at about 5% interest, so the excess surplus from any medical surplus would go to paying down the debt, just like the Social Security surplus does now. That saves all tax payers huge amounts of money. There is no better investment for taxes than T-Bills.

Insurance companies are the least possible investment.
By forcing you to prepay, they eliminate any possibility for negotiating quality or cost, they deliberately cause costs to be more than double, and they are the most corrupt in terms of trying to get out of paying anything if they can.
And they skim off about half of what people pay in, as the profits they charge for administration.
In contrast, it is well documented that government services, like Medicare have a far lower administrative overhead cost, which is less than 10%.

Your example of the post office having only 1 clerk proves you are wrong.
The reality is that I have never seen more than 1 clerk at FedEx or UPS either, and yet FedEx and UPS charge more than double what the US post office does for the same size package and delivery times.
Anyone criticizing a long wait in a post office does not at all get it.
Any rational person wants long lines, because that saves money and allows for lower charges.
Lower charges is all I care about.

I just made a return to Amazon. I walked into the UPS store with the item only. I was the only person there. They took the item, packaged it, and sent it back to Amazon no charge to me. I'm guessing you never went to a UPS store or FedEx, because I've never had an experience with them similar to the post office.

Government pays about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. To recoup those losses, facilities increase their prices for everybody. They are prohibited by law from charging different insurances with different prices. I worked in the field for ten years, so I know.

Without private healthcare insurance, doctors and facilities would have nowhere to recoup those losses. This is why when you see doctors and clinics close down, it's usually in lower income areas where most clients are government covered and little private insurance to recoup those government losses from. It's also why institutions are refusing to accept new government patients. They can no longer take the loss.

I'm also assuming you missed my post where I worked for a company that was paying off the VA administrator, and I lost my job when the media got word of it. It was my employers largest account. Corruption goes on at the VA all the time. You must have not been focused on the news during the DumBama administration.

You keep rehashing the ACA concept. As long as we keep that going, nothing gets done and it just gets worse. Deal in fixes not problems. We both agree the whole system (?) is broken both with the ACA and non ACA. And you are right, in the low income areas, the clinics get hurt and hurt bad due to lack of funding. The question should really be, how do we get them funded properly. We have a clinic here. It must be doing well because it's been around for years. It charges according to your annual income. And yes, it does get funding from the State and Federals as well. It's done so well, it expanded not too long ago to include a Dental Clinic. But I can't afford to go to their Dental Clinic because of my insurance, their bill would be 4 times what I get from an authorized Delta Dental office who doesn't care what my annual income is. Most of the people going there are on some form of Medicaid which I am not eligible. They bill the State.

I bring up the clinics because preventive medical is far cheaper than waiting until the condition gets life threatening and then going to an Emergency Room. And who pays for those people doing that? We do through the Hospitals increase in rates that we have to pay. And you can count you Insurance as your money so you are still paying for them to misuse the ER like that.

Why Obamacare didn’t lower visits to emergency rooms

That is easy.
Because health care providers are still wanting to over charge, so are unwilling to take low paying new customers.
Insurance companies still maintain a monopoly by deliberately over paying.
So it is still hard to get access when providers lock out those who would pay less through ACA.

 

[Indeependent]

Wow, you buy into all the right wing lies.

First, malpractice is only a SMALL slice of medical costs. In fact, total costs of malpractice expenses, including both insurance and "preventive medicine" (I.E. taking the extra step so you don't cut off the wrong fucking leg) is all of 55 Billion a year out of a 3 Trillion Health Care industry, or about 2.4%. Taking away people's right to seek redress against medical incompetence (96,000 Americans a year die from medical mistakes, you think they are all faking it?)

Britian also has universal health care.. I'm sure you don't want to go there.

The True Cost Of Medical Malpractice - It May Surprise You

And in your article, they state it was written by people at Harvard, a very left wing institute who I'm sure is behind socialized medical care.

Defensive medicine is a very large contributor to the rise of healthcare costs in the United States. DefensiveMedicine.org cites surveys that estimate defensive medicine adds costs of up to $850 billion annually in the United States. It may contribute as much as 34% of the annual healthcare costs in the United States.

Defensive Medicine and How It Affects Healthcare Costs

• Medical malpractice insurance varies greatly based on location and specialty. Insurance premiums for obstetricians/gynecologists in New York were as high as $215,000 in 2017 while in California they were just under $50,000.
• Male physicians are also more likely to be sued than female doctors. About 40 percent of male doctors have been sued during their careers while almost 23 percent of female doctors have been sued. Just over 20 percent of male doctors had more than one suit filed against them while just under 10 percent of female doctors were sued more than once.

Coverage can also affect medical malpractice insurance premiums. Doctors who want more coverage for multiple practices will pay more, as will physicians who need coverage across state lines. The malpractice insurance cost by specialty will also vary. Some specialties, such as orthopedic surgeries, are considered higher risk for insurance carriers, and premiums will reflect this.

How Much Does Medical Malpractice Insurance Cost?

Again, quality for SOME people, not everyone, and that's the problem. I've got mine fuck you might work for your house or car, but it shouldn't work for our health care.

The only way to reduce the waste of medical malpractice costs, is to have more government oversight to prevent malpractice.
The cause of high medical malpractice insurance is a history of poor performance by doctors.
Obviously doctors in private practice will always be guilty of making mistakes.
However, if you have them working for agencies like the VA, that is greatly reduced because they work more in teams.

How would government prevent malpractice? Can you explain that to me?

If you were a carpenter, and worked on government homes making 15 bucks an hour while private companies paid their carpenters 25 bucks an hour, why would you stay unless nobody in the private market wanted to hire you? The only reason you'd stay is because you don't meet the standards of the private market. It's the same thing with medical care.

A good physician is not going to work for half of the money they could otherwise make working somewhere else. They are inferior to private healthcare facilities otherwise they would choose to work there. A team of bad doctors is no different than one bad doctor. The "team" at the VA that wanted to change my fathers prescriptions would have killed him. Thank God my father still had his senses to get a second opinion at the Clinic, otherwise he would not be here with us today.

That is easy.
When you have a profit motive, it is like having medical practitioners working on commission.
The more work they do and the faster they do it, the more they make.
That is bound to cause more accidents and mistakes.
Which a government health care program, there is no profit motive or incentive, so then doctors are not tempted by greed to take on too much or do it too quickly.
They are salaried instead, and therefore can work more safely and there is a larger staff to oversee their work, so that they do not make as many mistakes.
The government also then can self insure, so there are no payments to an insurance company that skims profits, from malpractice insurance.

Most medical practitioners do NOT like private for profit practice.
They are forced to meet quotas that reduce their quality of care.
The quality of private for profit practice is much lower than you claim, and the corporations that own the hospitals are extremely corrupt and greedy.

The only reason more do not go to the VA instead is that the VA just is not hiring.
They do not need more doctors.
Most doctors are NOT motivated by money.
They just have no choice because the big medical corporations now own all the hospitals and insurance companies. So there is no alternative. It is a monopoly.

As for your example with the VA, you have no proof of what the private practitioner claimed.
What the VA wanted to prescribe may have even been better.
You have no way of knowing.

But if there were private insurance companies, all health care providers would be getting paid about half as much, so then there would be no difference between all medical pay, including private vs VA.
So then the skill levels would be equal.

Funniest quote of the century...
“Most Doctors are not motivated by money.”

Who do you hang out with?

 

[Indeependent]

Then I would assume you have very little experience with the VA. My father uses the VA for some things like prescriptions because it's much cheaper, but he goes to the Cleveland Clinic for anything serious. He never spent one day in a VA hospital even with as many medical problems as he's had. The VA was the primary customer for one of my employers. We lost them because the guy in charge of the VA was on the take--one of them the company I worked for. So I lost a job because of all the VA corruption.

If you work for a company where you gross 700.00 a week, that's seven dollars into your MSA every week. If you start off young, it's likely you won't touch that account for many years down the road. It would get some interest as that time went on as well. I'm not saying it would cover all of your medical needs. What I'm saying is that these providers and insurance companies lose money on all these nickel and dime transactions. It's better off paid directly to the provider to avoid all that paperwork. When insurance and providers save money, so does their client.

With government, you pay them money, and they keep it under a mattress until needed. Insurance companies invest the money you pay for your premium. The profits help offset some of the bills they have to pay. They also dedicate money towards locating fraud; something our government doesn't do. It's way more efficient than government.

When Commie Care was introduced, I was at the post office one day in a long line. The black lady in front of me said "This is ridiculous! We have all these people here, and only one postal worker behind the counter!!!" To that I said "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run our healthcare." Oh did she give me a dirty look.

The only reason the VA has inferior doctors is that insurance companies over pay deliberately.
If you allow a government medical service to compete with private health providers, their charges will have to cut on half, and then so will what they pay doctors. So then VA doctors will be better quality.

The VA is vastly better health care than a quarter of the population gets now, which is none at all.
The VA is not at all known for any corruption. It is nonprofit, so almost can't become corrupt.
There is nothing you can pad.

The rate you suggest of $7 a week into a medical savings account would be $350/year, or only $17,500 after 50 years. That is not enough for much of anything, if you actually need surgery. That is more like $100k for anything significant. And while many will not need anything, those that do will need almost 10 times that much. So clearly medical investment funds need to be pooled and shared.

And no, insurance companies and providers do not lose a dime on the small stuff because you are already paying them cash, as they are less than your deductible.

The idea government keeps money effectively under a mattress is totally wrong.
We have a $22 trillion national debt we finance at about 5% interest, so the excess surplus from any medical surplus would go to paying down the debt, just like the Social Security surplus does now. That saves all tax payers huge amounts of money. There is no better investment for taxes than T-Bills.

Insurance companies are the least possible investment.
By forcing you to prepay, they eliminate any possibility for negotiating quality or cost, they deliberately cause costs to be more than double, and they are the most corrupt in terms of trying to get out of paying anything if they can.
And they skim off about half of what people pay in, as the profits they charge for administration.
In contrast, it is well documented that government services, like Medicare have a far lower administrative overhead cost, which is less than 10%.

Your example of the post office having only 1 clerk proves you are wrong.
The reality is that I have never seen more than 1 clerk at FedEx or UPS either, and yet FedEx and UPS charge more than double what the US post office does for the same size package and delivery times.
Anyone criticizing a long wait in a post office does not at all get it.
Any rational person wants long lines, because that saves money and allows for lower charges.
Lower charges is all I care about.

I just made a return to Amazon. I walked into the UPS store with the item only. I was the only person there. They took the item, packaged it, and sent it back to Amazon no charge to me. I'm guessing you never went to a UPS store or FedEx, because I've never had an experience with them similar to the post office.

Government pays about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. To recoup those losses, facilities increase their prices for everybody. They are prohibited by law from charging different insurances with different prices. I worked in the field for ten years, so I know.

Without private healthcare insurance, doctors and facilities would have nowhere to recoup those losses. This is why when you see doctors and clinics close down, it's usually in lower income areas where most clients are government covered and little private insurance to recoup those government losses from. It's also why institutions are refusing to accept new government patients. They can no longer take the loss.

I'm also assuming you missed my post where I worked for a company that was paying off the VA administrator, and I lost my job when the media got word of it. It was my employers largest account. Corruption goes on at the VA all the time. You must have not been focused on the news during the DumBama administration.

You keep rehashing the ACA concept. As long as we keep that going, nothing gets done and it just gets worse. Deal in fixes not problems. We both agree the whole system (?) is broken both with the ACA and non ACA. And you are right, in the low income areas, the clinics get hurt and hurt bad due to lack of funding. The question should really be, how do we get them funded properly. We have a clinic here. It must be doing well because it's been around for years. It charges according to your annual income. And yes, it does get funding from the State and Federals as well. It's done so well, it expanded not too long ago to include a Dental Clinic. But I can't afford to go to their Dental Clinic because of my insurance, their bill would be 4 times what I get from an authorized Delta Dental office who doesn't care what my annual income is. Most of the people going there are on some form of Medicaid which I am not eligible. They bill the State.

I bring up the clinics because preventive medical is far cheaper than waiting until the condition gets life threatening and then going to an Emergency Room. And who pays for those people doing that? We do through the Hospitals increase in rates that we have to pay. And you can count you Insurance as your money so you are still paying for them to misuse the ER like that.

Why Obamacare didn’t lower visits to emergency rooms

That is easy.
Because health care providers are still wanting to over charge, so are unwilling to take low paying new customers.
Insurance companies still maintain a monopoly by deliberately over paying.
So it is still hard to get access when providers lock out those who would pay less through ACA.

But you just posted that most provided are not motivated by money.

Did you have too much to drink tonight?

 

[Rigby5]

Medical savings accounts do not at all work.
That is because the amount you would have to save in order to be able to pay for any possible risk is far too large.
The only way to pay for health care is by pooling risk.
Everyone has to contribute, even though almost no one will ever need any significant pay out.
And the problem then is that whomever runs the pool has to make the payout, not you.
So then there is a problem controlling costs and quality of those medical providers billing the pool.

Private, for profit, insurance companies have proven to be horrible at this because they have no incentive to keep costs down or quality up.
And they do not allow you to control quality or costs either, because you alreadly prepaid.
Prepaying anything is always a horrific idea, and is always essentially a scam.

So the ONLY alternative that has ever worked is public health care.
That is because the large staff of a government run system can ensure both quality and costs.
And while the VA does not pay as much so has worse providers, they still are an example of a system that works.
The VA still does provide much better health care at much lower costs.
That is because you get seen by a number of doctors instead of just one, so any deficiencies in any one doctor can be taken care of by another.
It clearly works, and if everyone would have VA hospital access, clearly health care in the US would be much better and much less expensive.

Then I would assume you have very little experience with the VA. My father uses the VA for some things like prescriptions because it's much cheaper, but he goes to the Cleveland Clinic for anything serious. He never spent one day in a VA hospital even with as many medical problems as he's had. The VA was the primary customer for one of my employers. We lost them because the guy in charge of the VA was on the take--one of them the company I worked for. So I lost a job because of all the VA corruption.

If you work for a company where you gross 700.00 a week, that's seven dollars into your MSA every week. If you start off young, it's likely you won't touch that account for many years down the road. It would get some interest as that time went on as well. I'm not saying it would cover all of your medical needs. What I'm saying is that these providers and insurance companies lose money on all these nickel and dime transactions. It's better off paid directly to the provider to avoid all that paperwork. When insurance and providers save money, so does their client.

With government, you pay them money, and they keep it under a mattress until needed. Insurance companies invest the money you pay for your premium. The profits help offset some of the bills they have to pay. They also dedicate money towards locating fraud; something our government doesn't do. It's way more efficient than government.

When Commie Care was introduced, I was at the post office one day in a long line. The black lady in front of me said "This is ridiculous! We have all these people here, and only one postal worker behind the counter!!!" To that I said "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run our healthcare." Oh did she give me a dirty look.

The only reason the VA has inferior doctors is that insurance companies over pay deliberately.
If you allow a government medical service to compete with private health providers, their charges will have to cut on half, and then so will what they pay doctors. So then VA doctors will be better quality.

The VA is vastly better health care than a quarter of the population gets now, which is none at all.
The VA is not at all known for any corruption. It is nonprofit, so almost can't become corrupt.
There is nothing you can pad.

The rate you suggest of $7 a week into a medical savings account would be $350/year, or only $17,500 after 50 years. That is not enough for much of anything, if you actually need surgery. That is more like $100k for anything significant. And while many will not need anything, those that do will need almost 10 times that much. So clearly medical investment funds need to be pooled and shared.

And no, insurance companies and providers do not lose a dime on the small stuff because you are already paying them cash, as they are less than your deductible.

The idea government keeps money effectively under a mattress is totally wrong.
We have a $22 trillion national debt we finance at about 5% interest, so the excess surplus from any medical surplus would go to paying down the debt, just like the Social Security surplus does now. That saves all tax payers huge amounts of money. There is no better investment for taxes than T-Bills.

Insurance companies are the least possible investment.
By forcing you to prepay, they eliminate any possibility for negotiating quality or cost, they deliberately cause costs to be more than double, and they are the most corrupt in terms of trying to get out of paying anything if they can.
And they skim off about half of what people pay in, as the profits they charge for administration.
In contrast, it is well documented that government services, like Medicare have a far lower administrative overhead cost, which is less than 10%.

Your example of the post office having only 1 clerk proves you are wrong.
The reality is that I have never seen more than 1 clerk at FedEx or UPS either, and yet FedEx and UPS charge more than double what the US post office does for the same size package and delivery times.
Anyone criticizing a long wait in a post office does not at all get it.
Any rational person wants long lines, because that saves money and allows for lower charges.
Lower charges is all I care about.

I just made a return to Amazon. I walked into the UPS store with the item only. I was the only person there. They took the item, packaged it, and sent it back to Amazon no charge to me. I'm guessing you never went to a UPS store or FedEx, because I've never had an experience with them similar to the post office.

Government pays about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. To recoup those losses, facilities increase their prices for everybody. They are prohibited by law from charging different insurances with different prices. I worked in the field for ten years, so I know.

Without private healthcare insurance, doctors and facilities would have nowhere to recoup those losses. This is why when you see doctors and clinics close down, it's usually in lower income areas where most clients are government covered and little private insurance to recoup those government losses from. It's also why institutions are refusing to accept new government patients. They can no longer take the loss.

I'm also assuming you missed my post where I worked for a company that was paying off the VA administrator, and I lost my job when the media got word of it. It was my employers largest account. Corruption goes on at the VA all the time. You must have not been focused on the news during the DumBama administration.

Nonsense.
You are obviously not paying attention.
I never said the wait was not longer at the US post office.
I said I WANT the longer wait because the US post office then charges almost exactly half of what FedEx or UPS does.
I go to UPS and FedEx often, and they are vastly more expensive and slower then the US post office.
Waiting a few minutes is a very small price to pay for saving $20 per package.

So what if government pays only 2/3 of the bill?
Comparisons with other countries prove that provides are charging more than twice what they should, so the government is still paying more than they should.
The providers are still making huge profits from Medicare payments, they are not losing money on anything.

Your story about someone paying off a VA administrator made no sense, and showed no motive for anyone to do so.
You also were saying it was the company you worked for that was at fault, for offering some sort of bribe.
That in no way impunes the VA.
There is no incentive and little opportunity for corruption in the VA because they go through much better annual audits, and have no profit incentive. If they do less or more, they are paid the same regardless. There is no way they can pad because they are salaried instead of on commission.
It is private companies that have no one watching over them or auditing, not government.

My employer was paying the administrator cash for sending us his business. It was much more than our company, he was doing it with several.

Insurance companies pay more to cover the losses doctors and facilities have to take because of government. If government paid the full bill for their patients, our insurance rates would be much lower. It's not a big deal for a hundred dollar office visit, but when a hospital does a 500K surgery, and only gets paid 2/3 of that cost, somebody has to make up the difference, and that somebody is private insurance.

Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014 - Wikipedia

What you say makes no sense.
Obviously the VA did not want the local administrator to send business elsewhere or to get bribes for doing so.
So the VA is NOT the source of the problem.
The problem then was profit making companies, like the one you were working for, that was charging so much extra, that they were willing to split some of the profit as a bribe to the VA admin.
Clearly it is the private companies and their greed that were totally at fault.
If all health care was done by nonprofit government agencies, then there would have been no greed, corruption, or bribes.

And you still do not get the basics.
Comparing US health care charges with charges by providers in ALL other countries, the US providers are at least charging double.
That means if they charge $500K for a surgery, then it was only worth less than $250k and that is more what would have been charged in any other country. So we are NOT talking about providers taking a loss or other countries subsidizing. We are talking about that extra $250k being a total fraud.
It is NOT private insurance that is making up the difference.
Current VA and Medicare payments are likely still higher than they should be.
But what the private health insurance companies over pay clearly should be illegal.
They are trying to illegally lock up all the medical providers, to ensure no one gets access without their insurance.

 

[Rigby5]

Medical is like anything else. The better you are, the more wages you are worth. There are good doctors and not so good doctors. There are good hospitals and not so good hospitals. The best doctors make the best money like in any line of work. That's why the VA doesn't have very good physicians.

In your estimate what doctors make, you didn't consider their largest cost--malpractice insurance. Malpractice insurance can rage from 8K a year to over 200K a year, depending on what kind of medicine they practice and what areas they are practicing in. Malpractice is needed because we are a lawsuit happy country. The solution to that problem is what Britain does, and that is have a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose, you are liable for all the costs associated with the person or company you tried to sue. That would reduce phony lawsuits by the billions in this country, and certainly would help in the healthcare field.

Next is administration costs. If you read any articles from CEO"s of hospitals and insurance companies, you'd discover that administration fees are very costly. A person goes to the doctor for 80 or 100 bucks. That gets billed to your insurance, and they run back and forth with the provider to come to a settlement, and it costs them a small fortune which is paid for by the premiums we pay.

A mandatory medical savings account would reduce those costs for both provider and insurance company. A 1% deduction from your gross pay that goes into an MSA. When you see a doctor or visit an ER, you swipe your MSA card and the bill is paid.

There are just so many ways to reduce medial costs without sacrificing the great quality of medical care we currently have.

First one: The VA has just as good of Doctors. They stay not because they can't go to work for a civilian hospital, they primarily do it out of duty. Most are Vets themselves. The Cost isn't the factor they stay or their inability to find higher paying positions. Besides, a normal VA Doctor gets more time on the Golf Course so it ain't all bad.

The rest of what you are saying I agree with. Just be careful, you MSA has to be administered by someone whether it's a hospital or government. You certainly don't want a HMO or Insurance company administering it because that's what we have today. You MSA is the first step in getting RID of the HMO and the Insurance Company and they know it. There are going to invest billions to prevent that and they are going to win. They don't actually have to win. They just have to keep it the same mess it already is.

It would go to a private market, it's just that government would mandate it. Nobody has proposed MSA"s before, at least not seriously, so it won't be stopped by anybody if introduced.

Wrong.
MSAs have been around for over a century, and they have proven to not work well.
People can not save enough to pay for the extremes of a few, and the majority do not need them at all.
So clearly medical costs can only be dealt with by pooling resources between whole large groups of individuals.

But MSAs are terrible because if they are invested privately, they can and will sometimes disappear.
Stocks go under, companies go bankrupt, and that does not even count deliberate corruption.
And then there still is the problem of having a third party paying, so that then you still will have no control over costs or quality.
And you do NOT want a private company profiting from investing your MSA, because we as a country need that MSA money to help finance the national debt.
There is no better investment than the national debt, just like we do with the Social Security surplus.

Once again, MSA"s are not for all medical expenses. They would be used for nickel and dime expense such as office visits, lab tests, physical therapy, medical equipment and things like that. When those expenses exceed your MSA savings, only then would it go to the insurance companies. That would save a lot of administration costs.

MSA's were never a mandate. So you can't honestly say they couldn't work. As for investments, I've had an IRA for nearly 25 years. It easily survived the last recession. In fact, the company that handles our account stopped buying shares during the downfall. They sat on our contributions and waited until the market recovered. I was like buying three shares for the price of one. Now my IRA account is doing fantastically. This is what happens when you place your money with a reputable investment company. The government? Every program is headed for a brick wall.

Actually, the time to buy is when the market tanks. Your IRA increases at a much higher rate because of the new money you invest into your IRA during a Market Tank buys a lot more than when it's where it is today. You should have at least doubled up in your payments to your IRA during that time period. And the only reason it looks so good today is that the Market is inflated. Once it self adjusts, it'll go to where is should be. 1928 was like that and 1929 was one hell of an adjustment. The only difference between 2008/2009 and 1928/1929 is that certain protections have been put in place to prevent "Panic". And "Panic" is the only difference between a deep recession like 2009 as compared to a depression like 1929. If I were still in the Stock Market, I could easily make a return of 12 to 15% anually and that is without the inflation of the Stocks. In the old days, a good money manager could hit 25% on a good day. He was getting bloody rich on his 15% commission by doing the same thing for 10 or 20 other people, plus his transaction commission. IRA wasn't invented yet. Unfortunately, there were come hacks that still got their money and pissed away your principle.

Your MSA idea would be good if it covered the whole spectrum. Otherwise, we would be no better off than we are today. And what will you do when something comes up and your MSA is drained? It's insurance, plain and simple just by another name.

And yes, at one time I was Licensed. I am not and haven't been for a few decades. Thing really haven't changed that much outside of Every Agent is now a Broker instead of a Broker having Agents under them. So I can't charge you for the "Secrits" of how it's done. It would be illegal. Not by the Feds but I imagine if someone like me were to start tipping people off how to buy and sell stocks my life would become upside down fast. But I'll give you a hint. Divest in the Blue Chips. Play it safe. And when one stock under performs, the others will out perform. Next cycle, the under performer may be one of the out performers so don't panic. If the Blue Chip drops like a rock and they stay in business, BUY, BUY BUY. It's not rocket science.

I disagree that the stock market is ever a good investment.
Stocks own nothing in the company.
The company can be doing great and the stock can tank.
The money you make with selling a stock comes entirely from a new stock buyer, and has nothing at all to do with the company.
So it is a zero sum game.
For every winner there has to be an equal loser.
So then clearly the stock market is an entire fraud, and can not be used to finance anything on any scale.
Some can win, but an equal amount of loss has to also happen.

 

[Rigby5]

I'm all for making it cheaper to become a doctor. We should provide scholarships to promising medical students.

Only 11% of Britons have supplemental health insurance.

England : International Health Care System Profiles

British people are happier with their health care system than we are with ours.

They do? N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait

If we change the 14th Amendment, improve our immigration laws and deport the majority of the illegals here, give doctors a 10% tax rate for their first 30 years of practice I would support UH. Otherwise it would never work here due to costs and likely doctor shortages.

Immigrants have an almost negligable effect on our medical costs, and it is easy to have many more doctors if we just lower tuition costs.

You are correct; Legal immigrants are not a drain on our system.

Actually legal immigrants are eligible for welfare that includes medical expenses, but illegal immigrants are not.
The most they can get access to is the ER, which is only for emergencies.

You are a moron.
Thanks to Ronald Rayguns COBRA, no human being entering an Emergency Room can be denied medical care.
Do you ever get tired of posting an endless stream of lies?

Do you know how to read?
The fact that illegal immigrants can get access to the ER, but ONLY access to the ER and nothing else, is EXACTLY what I said.
And if you think you can get adequate medical access through only the ER, you would be the moron.
The ER will not do things like hip or knee replacement, a pacemaker, testing, preventive medicine, etc.
The ER is just for things like setting broken bones and stitching up cuts.

 

[Rigby5]

Then I would assume you have very little experience with the VA. My father uses the VA for some things like prescriptions because it's much cheaper, but he goes to the Cleveland Clinic for anything serious. He never spent one day in a VA hospital even with as many medical problems as he's had. The VA was the primary customer for one of my employers. We lost them because the guy in charge of the VA was on the take--one of them the company I worked for. So I lost a job because of all the VA corruption.

If you work for a company where you gross 700.00 a week, that's seven dollars into your MSA every week. If you start off young, it's likely you won't touch that account for many years down the road. It would get some interest as that time went on as well. I'm not saying it would cover all of your medical needs. What I'm saying is that these providers and insurance companies lose money on all these nickel and dime transactions. It's better off paid directly to the provider to avoid all that paperwork. When insurance and providers save money, so does their client.

With government, you pay them money, and they keep it under a mattress until needed. Insurance companies invest the money you pay for your premium. The profits help offset some of the bills they have to pay. They also dedicate money towards locating fraud; something our government doesn't do. It's way more efficient than government.

When Commie Care was introduced, I was at the post office one day in a long line. The black lady in front of me said "This is ridiculous! We have all these people here, and only one postal worker behind the counter!!!" To that I said "Don't look now, but these are the same people that want to run our healthcare." Oh did she give me a dirty look.

The only reason the VA has inferior doctors is that insurance companies over pay deliberately.
If you allow a government medical service to compete with private health providers, their charges will have to cut on half, and then so will what they pay doctors. So then VA doctors will be better quality.

The VA is vastly better health care than a quarter of the population gets now, which is none at all.
The VA is not at all known for any corruption. It is nonprofit, so almost can't become corrupt.
There is nothing you can pad.

The rate you suggest of $7 a week into a medical savings account would be $350/year, or only $17,500 after 50 years. That is not enough for much of anything, if you actually need surgery. That is more like $100k for anything significant. And while many will not need anything, those that do will need almost 10 times that much. So clearly medical investment funds need to be pooled and shared.

And no, insurance companies and providers do not lose a dime on the small stuff because you are already paying them cash, as they are less than your deductible.

The idea government keeps money effectively under a mattress is totally wrong.
We have a $22 trillion national debt we finance at about 5% interest, so the excess surplus from any medical surplus would go to paying down the debt, just like the Social Security surplus does now. That saves all tax payers huge amounts of money. There is no better investment for taxes than T-Bills.

Insurance companies are the least possible investment.
By forcing you to prepay, they eliminate any possibility for negotiating quality or cost, they deliberately cause costs to be more than double, and they are the most corrupt in terms of trying to get out of paying anything if they can.
And they skim off about half of what people pay in, as the profits they charge for administration.
In contrast, it is well documented that government services, like Medicare have a far lower administrative overhead cost, which is less than 10%.

Your example of the post office having only 1 clerk proves you are wrong.
The reality is that I have never seen more than 1 clerk at FedEx or UPS either, and yet FedEx and UPS charge more than double what the US post office does for the same size package and delivery times.
Anyone criticizing a long wait in a post office does not at all get it.
Any rational person wants long lines, because that saves money and allows for lower charges.
Lower charges is all I care about.

I just made a return to Amazon. I walked into the UPS store with the item only. I was the only person there. They took the item, packaged it, and sent it back to Amazon no charge to me. I'm guessing you never went to a UPS store or FedEx, because I've never had an experience with them similar to the post office.

Government pays about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. To recoup those losses, facilities increase their prices for everybody. They are prohibited by law from charging different insurances with different prices. I worked in the field for ten years, so I know.

Without private healthcare insurance, doctors and facilities would have nowhere to recoup those losses. This is why when you see doctors and clinics close down, it's usually in lower income areas where most clients are government covered and little private insurance to recoup those government losses from. It's also why institutions are refusing to accept new government patients. They can no longer take the loss.

I'm also assuming you missed my post where I worked for a company that was paying off the VA administrator, and I lost my job when the media got word of it. It was my employers largest account. Corruption goes on at the VA all the time. You must have not been focused on the news during the DumBama administration.

You keep rehashing the ACA concept. As long as we keep that going, nothing gets done and it just gets worse. Deal in fixes not problems. We both agree the whole system (?) is broken both with the ACA and non ACA. And you are right, in the low income areas, the clinics get hurt and hurt bad due to lack of funding. The question should really be, how do we get them funded properly. We have a clinic here. It must be doing well because it's been around for years. It charges according to your annual income. And yes, it does get funding from the State and Federals as well. It's done so well, it expanded not too long ago to include a Dental Clinic. But I can't afford to go to their Dental Clinic because of my insurance, their bill would be 4 times what I get from an authorized Delta Dental office who doesn't care what my annual income is. Most of the people going there are on some form of Medicaid which I am not eligible. They bill the State.

I bring up the clinics because preventive medical is far cheaper than waiting until the condition gets life threatening and then going to an Emergency Room. And who pays for those people doing that? We do through the Hospitals increase in rates that we have to pay. And you can count you Insurance as your money so you are still paying for them to misuse the ER like that.

Why Obamacare didn’t lower visits to emergency rooms

One of the problems with Medicare and even Tricare is the lag in payments. It takes just too long and it ties up the Doctors resources up for far too long I have both and I am still highly limited to where I can use them. The sad part is, I am 100% covered so the 80% isn't the reason. Then add to the fact, we are 27 doctors short in this town of right around 120K including outlying towns and suburbs. The Doctors only accept X number of Medicare Patients before they cut it off. And then, the Doctor may not see that other 20% either. For many, Medicare is a mess. It's as messed up as the rest of the Medical Industry.

No matter what program we discuss, it's going to be a disaster. What we need to be discussing is the fixes. Are you aware that almost half of the people today are on Medicare or Medicaid? Fix those two first before you start trying to fix anything else.

The Boomer bubble will fix itself by 2040 or so, and people like me will be dead.

 

[Indeependent]

They do? N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait

If we change the 14th Amendment, improve our immigration laws and deport the majority of the illegals here, give doctors a 10% tax rate for their first 30 years of practice I would support UH. Otherwise it would never work here due to costs and likely doctor shortages.

Immigrants have an almost negligable effect on our medical costs, and it is easy to have many more doctors if we just lower tuition costs.

You are correct; Legal immigrants are not a drain on our system.

Actually legal immigrants are eligible for welfare that includes medical expenses, but illegal immigrants are not.
The most they can get access to is the ER, which is only for emergencies.

You are a moron.
Thanks to Ronald Rayguns COBRA, no human being entering an Emergency Room can be denied medical care.
Do you ever get tired of posting an endless stream of lies?

Do you know how to read?
The fact that illegal immigrants can get access to the ER, but ONLY access to the ER and nothing else, is EXACTLY what I said.
And if you think you can get adequate medical access through only the ER, you would be the moron.
The ER will not do things like hip or knee replacement, a pacemaker, testing, preventive medicine, etc.
The ER is just for things like setting broken bones and stitching up cuts.

And that’s costing taxpayers a fortune.
I took my aging in-laws to many Nassau County hospitals and the ERs were packed with illegals.
I’m glad you think that setting broken bones is free.

 

[beagle9]

Republicans in the House and the Senate are introducing legislation that would block federal funds from states that allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses -- the latest move in an escalating fight over “sanctuary” laws.

The Stop Greenlighting Driver Licenses for Illegal Immigrants Act would block funds to sanctuary states -- which limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities -- and those that give licenses to illegal immigrants. Specifically, it would halt Justice Department (DOJ) grants, in particular those awarded under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, which is a top source of federal criminal justice funding for states.

The bicameral legislation comes amid a growing fight over sanctuary legislation. The Trump administration has been attempting to highlight attention to the dangers of the policy and has been shining light on cases whereby illegal immigrants have killed Americans.

“The United States of America should be a sanctuary for law-abiding Americans, not criminal aliens,” Trump said at his State of the Union address last week. Read more:

Republicans introduce bill to pull funds from states that give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

Of course this is common sense legislation, but as we all know, Democrats lack that gift. They would rather see American business people locked up behind bars because their claim is those employers attract illegals to our country, but making them comfortable by issuing drivers licenses so they can get drunk and kill Americans is not luring them in.

With the Democrat House, it stands no chance of passing. But if there is a turnover in leadership after next election, I do hope Republicans don't let this bill remain defeated as they did with Kate's Law never to bring it up again. We'll see.

Good deal, because how many times did Obama threaten to stop federal funds to states that didn't fall to him and his buddies bullcrap ????? It's about time the republican's grew a pair, and fired back.

 

[Rigby5]

What does a Drivers License have to do with immigration?

It just makes sure drivers have the proper skills and training?

A "Drivers License" has nothing to do with "immigration" per say; but it has a great deal to do with illegal immigration.

Allowing illegal aliens to legally obtain Drivers Licenses not only legitimizes their crime, it diminishes its seriousness; which results in further escalating the crime.

I heard an interesting quote not long ago;
"When a crime is ignored it becomes rampant"
"When a crime is rewarded it becomes epidemic"

I'm pretty sure the US has reached the epidemic stage.
So thank God for Donald Trump!

That makes no sense.
What a state accomplishes by issuing driver's licenses to illegals is to ensure they are safer on the roads.
Nothing else.
They are not supposed to be any more legitimized because a state issued driver's license is not supposed to be used as an ID by anyone.
Lots of people do not even have driver's licenses.

How does issuing a license to someone who hasn’t taken a driver’s course make them a better driver?

That is easy.
They are tested.
And to pass the test they have to read, study, and practice.
They also have to register an address so they can be contacted if suspected of something.

 

[Rigby5]

In Britain you have the option to buttress UH with a private plan and many there are very unhappy with the UH system. They are also much smaller than the US in terms of population and they don’t have the law that if you’re born there to illegals you automatically become a citizen. I am sure you don’t want to go there. And malpractice insurance is sky high and impacts many MDs. In Britain it costs a lot less to become a doctor as well. I am Sure you don’t want to discuss that either.

I'm all for making it cheaper to become a doctor. We should provide scholarships to promising medical students.

Only 11% of Britons have supplemental health insurance.

England : International Health Care System Profiles

British people are happier with their health care system than we are with ours.

They do? N.H.S. Overwhelmed in Britain, Leaving Patients to Wait

If we change the 14th Amendment, improve our immigration laws and deport the majority of the illegals here, give doctors a 10% tax rate for their first 30 years of practice I would support UH. Otherwise it would never work here due to costs and likely doctor shortages.

Immigrants have an almost negligable effect on our medical costs, and it is easy to have many more doctors if we just lower tuition costs.

I presume you have taken all the hard science courses require of a medical doctor.

Those questions are in the fields of sociology and economic, not medicine.
Immigrants pay into taxes and medical costs, while taking out less than citizens do.
Illegal immigrants simply do not and can not get any medical access except the ER, which they still have to pay for.
Clearly the main obstacle to more doctors is how much it costs to become a doctor.

 

[Rigby5]

What does a Drivers License have to do with immigration?

It just makes sure drivers have the proper skills and training?

A "Drivers License" has nothing to do with "immigration" per say; but it has a great deal to do with illegal immigration.

Allowing illegal aliens to legally obtain Drivers Licenses not only legitimizes their crime, it diminishes its seriousness; which results in further escalating the crime.

I heard an interesting quote not long ago;
"When a crime is ignored it becomes rampant"
"When a crime is rewarded it becomes epidemic"

I'm pretty sure the US has reached the epidemic stage.
So thank God for Donald Trump!

That makes no sense.
What a state accomplishes by issuing driver's licenses to illegals is to ensure they are safer on the roads.
Nothing else.
They are not supposed to be any more legitimized because a state issued driver's license is not supposed to be used as an ID by anyone.
Lots of people do not even have driver's licenses.

How does issuing a license to someone who hasn’t taken a driver’s course make them a better driver?

Exactly. As a professional driver myself, I had to deal with idiots who did have a valid drivers license. A drivers license does not guarantee you have the ability to drive, it only means you passed the test which are two different things.

But if you do not test and issue US driver's licenses to immigrants, illegal or not, then they will drive anyway, and will use foreign licenses or none at all. And they would be better drivers if they were tested and bothered studying and practicing. We also want an address on file so they can be contacted if something comes up.

 

[Rigby5]

I never said YOU went on ACA.
What I said is that ACA never caused anyone to lose their old doctor.
That was insurance companies, who deliberately made people lose their old doctor by trying to make more money from us.
ACA had nothing to do with it.

Did I? Link it! I never Said that you liar! Link it now. You fat idiot.

Look at what I wrote again.
No where do I say that you said anything at all.
A lot of people are critical of ACA because they lost their old doctors, and the main point I was making is that they are wrong to blame ACA.
ACA had nothing to do with it.
It was not ACA that prevented people from keeping their old doctors, it was their insurance companies deliberately trying to harm people in retaliation for ACA.

So why would insurance companies, who got in on this deal with Commie Care, want to sabotage their very own advantage?

I signed up for Commie Care when my employer (like so many others) dropped that benefit for their employees. My provider is the Cleveland Clinic. Commie Care only offered one company that would allow me to continue that care I've had for my entire life; one plan.

The deal was, they wanted slightly less than one third of my net pay. The plan had a 7K deductible, a 7K out of pocket, a $50.00 doctor copay, no dental and no prescription coverage. Basically yes, I could keep my doctor and facility, but I wouldn't have enough to live on when you include the cost of my medication they didn't cover.

So it's a lie that Commie Care was going to let you keep your doctors and facility at a reasonable cost. One third of net pay every month is not reasonable, especially when you have to get run over by a bus to use the damn policy.

That is silly.
Before ACA, the average cost of health care insurance was about $1200/month for a family, the deductible was $10k, $10k out of pocket, and $100 copay. Almost no insurance ever covered dental or prescriptions.
So clearly ACA cut costs almost in half.
Which is why insurance companies do not like ACA.
They also dislike that they have to take pre-existing conditions.

ACA had nothing at all to do with the changes private insurance companies decided on their own to impose.

Insurance never covered prescriptions?!
Are you high or just stupid?

That is right.
Before ACA prescriptions were not covered by insurance.
That is why so many went to Canada to get prescriptions.
You could get prescription insurance, but it was prohibitively expensive.
ACA changed that.

 

[Rigby5]

I never said YOU went on ACA.
What I said is that ACA never caused anyone to lose their old doctor.
That was insurance companies, who deliberately made people lose their old doctor by trying to make more money from us.
ACA had nothing to do with it.

Did I? Link it! I never Said that you liar! Link it now. You fat idiot.

Look at what I wrote again.
No where do I say that you said anything at all.
A lot of people are critical of ACA because they lost their old doctors, and the main point I was making is that they are wrong to blame ACA.
ACA had nothing to do with it.
It was not ACA that prevented people from keeping their old doctors, it was their insurance companies deliberately trying to harm people in retaliation for ACA.

So why would insurance companies, who got in on this deal with Commie Care, want to sabotage their very own advantage?

I signed up for Commie Care when my employer (like so many others) dropped that benefit for their employees. My provider is the Cleveland Clinic. Commie Care only offered one company that would allow me to continue that care I've had for my entire life; one plan.

The deal was, they wanted slightly less than one third of my net pay. The plan had a 7K deductible, a 7K out of pocket, a $50.00 doctor copay, no dental and no prescription coverage. Basically yes, I could keep my doctor and facility, but I wouldn't have enough to live on when you include the cost of my medication they didn't cover.

So it's a lie that Commie Care was going to let you keep your doctors and facility at a reasonable cost. One third of net pay every month is not reasonable, especially when you have to get run over by a bus to use the damn policy.

That is silly.
Before ACA, the average cost of health care insurance was about $1200/month for a family, the deductible was $10k, $10k out of pocket, and $100 copay. Almost no insurance ever covered dental or prescriptions.
So clearly ACA cut costs almost in half.
Which is why insurance companies do not like ACA.
They also dislike that they have to take pre-existing conditions.

ACA had nothing at all to do with the changes private insurance companies decided on their own to impose.

You are severely misinformed. The only insurance companies that have to deal with Commie Care or it's requirements are those that join the system. I have several preexisting conditions. No other company has to take me except those companies that signed onto Commie Care.

Commie Care did not reduce costs to anybody except those who get a taxpayer government subsidy. They increased dramatically.

That is not quite right.
Some grandfathered policies do not have to take pre-existing conditions, but almost all must under the 2014 law.
{...
Pre-Existing Conditions
Under current law, health insurance companies can’t refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a “pre-existing condition” — that is, a health problem you had before the date that new health coverage starts.

These rules went into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.

What This Means for You
Health insurers can no longer charge more or deny coverage to you or your child because of a pre-existing health condition like asthma, diabetes, or cancer. They cannot limit benefits for that condition either. Once you have insurance, they can't refuse to cover treatment for your pre-existing condition.

One Exception: Grandfathered Plans
The pre-existing coverage rule does not apply to “grandfathered” individual health insurance policies. A grandfathered individual health insurance policy is a policy that you bought for yourself or your family on or before March 23, 2010 that has not been changed in certain specific ways that reduce benefits or increase costs to consumers.

Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) Coverage
The Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) ended on April 30, 2014. The PCIP program provided health coverage options to individuals who were uninsured for at least six months, had a pre-existing condition, and had been denied coverage (or offered insurance without coverage of the pre-existing condition) by a private insurance company. Now, thanks to the Affordable Care Act, health insurance plans can no longer deny anyone coverage for their pre-existing condition, and so PCIP enrollees can transition to a new plan outside of the PCIP program. Learn more about your health insurance options at HealthCare.gov.
...}

Pre-Existing Conditions

 

[Rigby5]

Immigrants have an almost negligable effect on our medical costs, and it is easy to have many more doctors if we just lower tuition costs.

You are correct; Legal immigrants are not a drain on our system.

Actually legal immigrants are eligible for welfare that includes medical expenses, but illegal immigrants are not.
The most they can get access to is the ER, which is only for emergencies.

You are a moron.
Thanks to Ronald Rayguns COBRA, no human being entering an Emergency Room can be denied medical care.
Do you ever get tired of posting an endless stream of lies?

Do you know how to read?
The fact that illegal immigrants can get access to the ER, but ONLY access to the ER and nothing else, is EXACTLY what I said.
And if you think you can get adequate medical access through only the ER, you would be the moron.
The ER will not do things like hip or knee replacement, a pacemaker, testing, preventive medicine, etc.
The ER is just for things like setting broken bones and stitching up cuts.

And that’s costing taxpayers a fortune.
I took my aging in-laws to many Nassau County hospitals and the ERs were packed with illegals.
I’m glad you think that setting broken bones is free.

Emergencies like setting broken bones is very rare is not a significant cost.
The illegals are not coming here with broken bones or deliberately breaking bones in order to rack up big ER bills they do not intend to pay.

 

[Rigby5]

Wow, you buy into all the right wing lies.

First, malpractice is only a SMALL slice of medical costs. In fact, total costs of malpractice expenses, including both insurance and "preventive medicine" (I.E. taking the extra step so you don't cut off the wrong fucking leg) is all of 55 Billion a year out of a 3 Trillion Health Care industry, or about 2.4%. Taking away people's right to seek redress against medical incompetence (96,000 Americans a year die from medical mistakes, you think they are all faking it?)

Britian also has universal health care.. I'm sure you don't want to go there.

The True Cost Of Medical Malpractice - It May Surprise You

And in your article, they state it was written by people at Harvard, a very left wing institute who I'm sure is behind socialized medical care.

Defensive medicine is a very large contributor to the rise of healthcare costs in the United States. DefensiveMedicine.org cites surveys that estimate defensive medicine adds costs of up to $850 billion annually in the United States. It may contribute as much as 34% of the annual healthcare costs in the United States.

Defensive Medicine and How It Affects Healthcare Costs

• Medical malpractice insurance varies greatly based on location and specialty. Insurance premiums for obstetricians/gynecologists in New York were as high as $215,000 in 2017 while in California they were just under $50,000.
• Male physicians are also more likely to be sued than female doctors. About 40 percent of male doctors have been sued during their careers while almost 23 percent of female doctors have been sued. Just over 20 percent of male doctors had more than one suit filed against them while just under 10 percent of female doctors were sued more than once.

Coverage can also affect medical malpractice insurance premiums. Doctors who want more coverage for multiple practices will pay more, as will physicians who need coverage across state lines. The malpractice insurance cost by specialty will also vary. Some specialties, such as orthopedic surgeries, are considered higher risk for insurance carriers, and premiums will reflect this.

How Much Does Medical Malpractice Insurance Cost?

Again, quality for SOME people, not everyone, and that's the problem. I've got mine fuck you might work for your house or car, but it shouldn't work for our health care.

The only way to reduce the waste of medical malpractice costs, is to have more government oversight to prevent malpractice.
The cause of high medical malpractice insurance is a history of poor performance by doctors.
Obviously doctors in private practice will always be guilty of making mistakes.
However, if you have them working for agencies like the VA, that is greatly reduced because they work more in teams.

How would government prevent malpractice? Can you explain that to me?

If you were a carpenter, and worked on government homes making 15 bucks an hour while private companies paid their carpenters 25 bucks an hour, why would you stay unless nobody in the private market wanted to hire you? The only reason you'd stay is because you don't meet the standards of the private market. It's the same thing with medical care.

A good physician is not going to work for half of the money they could otherwise make working somewhere else. They are inferior to private healthcare facilities otherwise they would choose to work there. A team of bad doctors is no different than one bad doctor. The "team" at the VA that wanted to change my fathers prescriptions would have killed him. Thank God my father still had his senses to get a second opinion at the Clinic, otherwise he would not be here with us today.

That is easy.
When you have a profit motive, it is like having medical practitioners working on commission.
The more work they do and the faster they do it, the more they make.
That is bound to cause more accidents and mistakes.
Which a government health care program, there is no profit motive or incentive, so then doctors are not tempted by greed to take on too much or do it too quickly.
They are salaried instead, and therefore can work more safely and there is a larger staff to oversee their work, so that they do not make as many mistakes.
The government also then can self insure, so there are no payments to an insurance company that skims profits, from malpractice insurance.

Most medical practitioners do NOT like private for profit practice.
They are forced to meet quotas that reduce their quality of care.
The quality of private for profit practice is much lower than you claim, and the corporations that own the hospitals are extremely corrupt and greedy.

The only reason more do not go to the VA instead is that the VA just is not hiring.
They do not need more doctors.
Most doctors are NOT motivated by money.
They just have no choice because the big medical corporations now own all the hospitals and insurance companies. So there is no alternative. It is a monopoly.

As for your example with the VA, you have no proof of what the private practitioner claimed.
What the VA wanted to prescribe may have even been better.
You have no way of knowing.

But if there were private insurance companies, all health care providers would be getting paid about half as much, so then there would be no difference between all medical pay, including private vs VA.
So then the skill levels would be equal.

Funniest quote of the century...
“Most Doctors are not motivated by money.”

Who do you hang out with?

There are more important things than money.
Those who want money will go for the less practical, like cosmetic surgery.
A lot of doctors I know do volunteer work.