ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[john9blue]

This seems to indicate you don't really care about life expectancy at all - one system just feels better to you and so you're working backwards to find datapoints that reinforce that gut feeling.

say it ain't so, uncle saxi!

[jj3044]

California has become the first state to announce how much it will cost an individual who wants to be covered by Obamacare.

All the people who didn't buy health insurance because they couldn't afford it now get a stripped-down, bruises & scratches-only, first-aid plan for free just $5,842 per year!


http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/13/news/ec ... &hpt=hp_t3

IOW, a person making $50,000/year will pay more than 10-percent of their annual income to a corporation that donated to the Obama re-election campaign, like UnitedHealth or Aetna, for aspirin and bandaids (unless they actually get sick, then it's more) ... or they can choose to pay a $95 fine and just continue going without health insurance.

Healthcare crisis? Yeah, I solved that.

If they HAVE to end up paying $5842 in a year, they will be damned happy that they DO have insurance, because their actual expenses would likely have been MUCH higher than that. Additionally, YOU should be happy that they have insurance, so that they aren't going to the hospital getting free care that your taxes end up paying for anyway because they can't afford to pay it. Oh, also, they would have to declare bankruptcy.

Which is better?

...if they are healthy, they will pay far less than $5842.

[ooge]

U.K. life expectancy 80,U.S. life expectancy 79.

An 8-month difference in life expectancy in two nations with vastly different demographics is not really a basis for rational public policy formulation.

If it was, the U.S.' new corporate welfare Obamacare system of $5K band aid and aspirin policies would be even better still since it's identical to the Swiss system of private health insurance with purchase mandate. Swiss life expectancy - using an Obamacare model - is two years more than the UK, and yet you've stated you prefer the UK Factory Hospital model. This seems to indicate you don't really care about life expectancy at all - one system just feels better to you and so you're working backwards to find datapoints that reinforce that gut feeling.

So you really think I am basing everything on that one year difference with U.K. and U.S. that is funny. I posted that only as a response to someone elses post that had a story critical of the U.K. system. and people really need to start reading the post instead of commenting on what is not written in the post. And I have no interest in posting reams of Data,you either understand this or you do not. but here is one more article on costs in the U.K. vs. costs U.S. http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/08/14 ... are-facts/ I have not and am still not saying The U.K. system is the best.

[saxitoxin]

U.K. life expectancy 80,U.S. life expectancy 79.

An 8-month difference in life expectancy in two nations with vastly different demographics is not really a basis for rational public policy formulation.

If it was, the U.S.' new corporate welfare Obamacare system of $5K band aid and aspirin policies would be even better still since it's identical to the Swiss system of private health insurance with purchase mandate. Swiss life expectancy - using an Obamacare model - is two years more than the UK, and yet you've stated you prefer the UK Factory Hospital model. This seems to indicate you don't really care about life expectancy at all - one system just feels better to you and so you're working backwards to find datapoints that reinforce that gut feeling.

So you really think I am basing everything on that one year difference with U.K. and U.S.

-->

U.K. life expectancy 80,U.S. life expectancy 79.

yes

[saxitoxin]

California has become the first state to announce how much it will cost an individual who wants to be covered by Obamacare.

All the people who didn't buy health insurance because they couldn't afford it now get a stripped-down, bruises & scratches-only, first-aid plan for free just $5,842 per year!


http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/13/news/ec ... &hpt=hp_t3

IOW, a person making $50,000/year will pay more than 10-percent of their annual income to a corporation that donated to the Obama re-election campaign, like UnitedHealth or Aetna, for aspirin and bandaids (unless they actually get sick, then it's more) ... or they can choose to pay a $95 fine and just continue going without health insurance.

Healthcare crisis? Yeah, I solved that.

If they HAVE to end up paying $5842 in a year, they will be damned happy that they DO have insurance, because their actual expenses would likely have been MUCH higher than that. Additionally, YOU should be happy that they have insurance, so that they aren't going to the hospital getting free care that your taxes end up paying for anyway because they can't afford to pay it. Oh, also, they would have to declare bankruptcy.

Which is better?

If they weren't willing to buy insurance before, why do you think they would be willing to pay $6,000 to buy it now? Because of the threat of a $95 fine?

If you don't have the money to pay for health insurance, simply having a cop yell "BUY IT OR I'LL FINE YOU $95!" doesn't make the $6,000 in premiums and deductibles magically appear in your bank account.

...if they are healthy, they will pay far less than $5842.

nope

What you see is what the working poor will be paying - $321/month + $2,000 deductible for a bare-bones, aspirin-and-bandaid insurance policy (alternatively, Obama will let the uninsured continue to be uninsured and die painful, agonizing deaths in the street if they pay $95) ... that's why unions in Washington state are begging not to have their workers thrown onto the sludge-pile of the bare-bones pauper's policies designed - not to keep people happy and healthy - but to squeeze a year or two extra productivity out of the worker-drones ... AKA "Obamacare."

Why do you hate union workers? They built America.

[jj3044]

California has become the first state to announce how much it will cost an individual who wants to be covered by Obamacare.

All the people who didn't buy health insurance because they couldn't afford it now get a stripped-down, bruises & scratches-only, first-aid plan for free just $5,842 per year!


http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/13/news/ec ... &hpt=hp_t3

IOW, a person making $50,000/year will pay more than 10-percent of their annual income to a corporation that donated to the Obama re-election campaign, like UnitedHealth or Aetna, for aspirin and bandaids (unless they actually get sick, then it's more) ... or they can choose to pay a $95 fine and just continue going without health insurance.

Healthcare crisis? Yeah, I solved that.

If they HAVE to end up paying $5842 in a year, they will be damned happy that they DO have insurance, because their actual expenses would likely have been MUCH higher than that. Additionally, YOU should be happy that they have insurance, so that they aren't going to the hospital getting free care that your taxes end up paying for anyway because they can't afford to pay it. Oh, also, they would have to declare bankruptcy.

Which is better?

If they weren't willing to buy insurance before, why do you think they would be willing to pay $6,000 to buy it now? Because of the threat of a $95 fine?

If you don't have the money to pay for health insurance, simply having a cop yell "BUY IT!" doesn't make the money magically appear in your bank account.

Well, of course we won't know until January how many people actually buy the policies. But we CAN look to Massachusetts, for whom the ACA is modeled after. They have had significant success in their individual mandate, despite it being more expensive for someone to actually purchase insurance than the alternative.

...if they are healthy, they will pay far less than $5842.

nope

What you see is what the working poor will be paying - $321/month + $2,000 deductible for a bare-bones, aspirin-and-bandaid policy (alternatively, Obama will let them be uninsured and die painful, agonizing deaths in the street without health care in exchange for $95) ... that's why unions in Washington state are begging not to have their workers thrown onto the sludge-pile of Obamacare.

Why do you hate union workers? They built America.

The healthy will pay less than $5842. If you are healthy, you will not incur the deductible, so you will only pay the monthly premium. Also, there is an even less expensive plan that a healthy person could choose. This example is the silver plan, there is a bronze plan as well.

And I'm not sure where my position here has anything at all to do with unions. I'm not for them, nor against them. I'm for people being mandated to pay insurance for something that every American DOES use at some point in their life. Do you know how many people get free care every year and how much of the taxpayers money is used for this purpose? Do you know how many people have to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills?

[saxitoxin]

The healthy will pay less than $5842. If you are healthy, you will not incur the deductible, so you will only pay the monthly premium.

Got it. So, under Obamacare, no one gets an annual, preventative physical until you're too cripplingly sick to slave away in the call center at Obama's mega-corporation donor AT&T anymore.

Also, there is an even less expensive plan that a healthy person could choose. This example is the silver plan, there is a bronze plan as well.

Absolutely, they can get the bronze plan which only pays 60% of their medical costs. So a healthy, 26 year old who suddenly gets pancreatic cancer will only have to pay $10,000 [OOP + Premiums] if he wants to try to avoid suffering a horrific death being eaten from the inside out.

Obama - a Leader who loves his people (as long as they don't get cancer).

Do you know how many people have to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills?

People who choose to pay a $95 fine instead of $3,600 in premiums (with no annual physical or any right to a doctor's visit) to forego insurance will be just as bankrupt when they get a brain tumor and have no health insurance after Obamacare as they were pre-Obamacare.

[jj3044]

The healthy will pay less than $5842. If you are healthy, you will not incur the deductible, so you will only pay the monthly premium.

Got it. So, under Obamacare, no one gets an annual, preventative physical until you're too cripplingly sick to slave away in the call center at Obama's mega-corporation donor AT&T anymore.

lol... you obviously haven't been paying attention to the main provisions of the ACA. Preventive services are covered at 100% for every plan. Meaning, you can get your annual physical, cholesterol test, etc at zero additional cost. no co-payment, no fee applied to the deductible.

Also, there is an even less expensive plan that a healthy person could choose. This example is the silver plan, there is a bronze plan as well.

Absolutely, they can get the bronze plan which only pays 60% of their medical costs. So a healthy, 26 year old who suddenly gets pancreatic cancer will only have to pay $10,000 [OOP + Premiums] if he wants to try to avoid suffering a horrific death being eaten from the inside out.

Obama - a Leader who loves his people (as long as they don't get cancer).

This is no different then the current, catastrophic coverage plans that are available today. Also, they will not pay 10k. Right in the example you provided, it clearly states that the out of pocket maximum that you could pay is $6400 (or, which isn't stated, 9.5% of your income, whichever is less).

Do you know how many people have to declare bankruptcy due to medical bills?

People who choose to pay a $95 fine instead of $3,600 in premiums (with no annual physical or any right to a doctor's visit) to forego insurance will be just as bankrupt when they get a brain tumor and have no health insurance after Obamacare as they were pre-Obamacare.

Again, if they get cancer, they will be damned happy that they even have catastrophic coverage, as they WON'T have to declare bankruptcy. Even if they have the worst (bronze) plan, they will pay up to $6400 because they have coverage, instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Please research your facts before making statements like this. It is these kinds of wild misconceptions that are hurting the chances of this thing working, not the actual provisions of the bill that you are complaining about.



*As a note, I have said a few times in this thread that I do not think the law is perfect. In fact, I think there still needs significant work to be done to truly make it very successful. But, I see this as a step in the right direction, and it bothers me that people make incorrect statements like the above post riling people up for no reason at all.

[saxitoxin]

The healthy will pay less than $5842. If you are healthy, you will not incur the deductible, so you will only pay the monthly premium.

Got it. So, under Obamacare, no one gets an annual, preventative physical until you're too cripplingly sick to slave away in the call center at Obama's mega-corporation donor AT&T anymore.

lol... you obviously haven't been paying attention to the main provisions of the ACA. Preventive services are covered at 100% for every plan. Meaning, you can get your annual physical, cholesterol test, etc at zero additional cost. no co-payment, no fee applied to the deductible.

Yep, Obamacare covers one complimentary annual physical exam. If you attempt to discuss anything with your physician that is not itemized in the statute, the physician has to code it differently - and you pay.

Typically, in physical exams in the U.S., the physician asks "any ailments or issues you've been experiencing?" If you're unfortunate enough to be on one of the Obamacare bandaid/aspirin pauper's plans those questions are gone. The physician performs a specific set of assessments authorized by statute and then you're done. Every human is an identical bio-automaton who needs a specific series of adjustments once annually to squeeze an extra year or two of productivity for one of Obama's mega-corporation donors like AT&T and Chevron. Did you walk into poison ivy? Do you have a rash on your testicles? Experiencing flu like symptoms? Get our your wallet - that's not covered in the "one free annual physical." Gone is compassionate medicine - welcome to medicine by actuarial table.

This is why worker's union in the State of Washington are desperately pleading not to be thrown onto the sledge pile of the Obamacare pauper's plans. Why do you think union workers are miserable malcontents who need to suck it up, stop complaining and get what's offered?

Also, there is an even less expensive plan that a healthy person could choose. This example is the silver plan, there is a bronze plan as well.

Absolutely, they can get the bronze plan which only pays 60% of their medical costs. So a healthy, 26 year old who suddenly gets pancreatic cancer will only have to pay $10,000 [OOP + Premiums] if he wants to try to avoid suffering a horrific death being eaten from the inside out.

Obama - a Leader who loves his people (as long as they don't get cancer).

This is no different then the current, catastrophic coverage plans that are available today. Also, they will not pay 10k. Right in the example you provided, it clearly states that the out of pocket maximum that you could pay is $6400 (or, which isn't stated, 9.5% of your income, whichever is less).

Right in the statement you responded to it said "$10,000 [OOP + Premiums]." And that is correct. They are required to pay $10,000 in OOP expenses and premiums before Obama will save them from a horrific death being eaten from the inside out. Healthcare for all! (provided you have at least $10,000 you don't need for food or shelter)

In places with workable medical systems, like the Netherlands, people aren't required to fork over $10,000 before anyone will lift a finger to save them from horrific, excrutiating agony. Obamacare is almost as bad as the Factory Hospital System of the UK and Canada. (almost)

Again, if they get cancer, they will be damned happy that they even have catastrophic coverage, as they WON'T have to declare bankruptcy. Even if they have the worst (bronze) plan, they will pay up to $6400 because they have coverage, instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If they pay the $95 fine they won't have the bronze plan ... they won't even have the aluminum plan. They will have no plan.

People can pay $95 to be exempted from the mandatory purchase requirement. People who aren't already purchasing health insurance are of a mindset that $95 pay-out looks a lot better than $3500 in annual premiums. And then, when they get MS and are crippled by debilitating muscle spasms they have no coverage and declare bankruptcy. Just like before Obama,Inc.-Care.

[saxitoxin]

after the success of ObamaCare, Obama is introducing ObamaEd - your child can attend ...

GOLD SCHOOL - reserved for social class score of 70+; arts, literature, science, math instruction

SILVER SCHOOL - reserved for social class scores of 30-70 - how to grill GMO-processed hamburgers in an industrial human feeding operation like McDonald's, change the oil in the BMWs of the ruling class, etc.

BRONZE SCHOOL - reserved social class scores below 30; no instruction, just a daycare so parents don't miss any work in the oil drilling operations of Obama's donor, Chevron

Check Your Social Class Score to Find Out Which ObamaEd School Your Children Can Attend

[Phatscotty]

Not exactly. Competition works best in a free market.

"Not exactly" meaning "yes, it increased competition in this instance, I just don't want to admit it."?

A good example is a post I made a few pages back about doctors and providers who are starting to post their prices online. Of course you have to opt out completely from Obamacare or taking any medicare patients to do that, which reinforces my point.

I am in complete agreement with full price transparency, but you are incorrect in stating that these few examples you are citing are the ONLY instances of price transparency.

it's not only about price transparency. It's about dumping insurance all together. Then, they can do things like price transparency.

WICHITA, Kan., June 14 (UPI) --
A Kansas physician says he makes the same income and offers better quality care to his patients after he dumped all health insurance companies.

Thirty-two-year old family physician Doug Nunamaker of Wichita, Kan., said after five years of dealing with the red tape of health insurance companies and the high overhead for the staff he hired just to deal with paperwork, he switched to a system of charging his patients a monthly fee plus the price of an office visit or test, CNN/Money reported.

For example, under Nunamaker's membership plan -- also known as "concierge" medicine or "direct primary care" practices -- each patient pays a flat monthly fee to have unlimited access to the doctors and any medical service they can provide in the practice, such as stitches or an EKG.

For adults up to age 44, Nunamaker charges $50 a month, pediatric services are $10 a month, and for adults age 44 and older it costs $100 a month. Although Nunamaker calls the practice "cash-only," he accepts credit and debit cards for the fees and services.

Nunamaker and his partner negotiated deals for services outside the office. A cholesterol test costs the patient for $3, versus the $90 or more billed to insurance companies; an MRI can cost $400, compared with $2,000 or more billed to insurance companies.

The practice encourages patients and families to also carry some type of high-deductible health insurance plan in case of an emergency or serious illness requiring hospitalization, Nunamaker said.

Nunamaker said his annual salary is around $200,000, and he gets to spend more time with patients providing better care because he is not watching the clock and he gets to spend more time with this family.

Most of Nunamaker's clients are self-employed, small business owners, or small companies that found the monthly fee and the cost of the high-deductible plan was a cheaper option, CNN/Money reported.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 32724-6523

[jj3044]

The healthy will pay less than $5842. If you are healthy, you will not incur the deductible, so you will only pay the monthly premium.

Got it. So, under Obamacare, no one gets an annual, preventative physical until you're too cripplingly sick to slave away in the call center at Obama's mega-corporation donor AT&T anymore.

lol... you obviously haven't been paying attention to the main provisions of the ACA. Preventive services are covered at 100% for every plan. Meaning, you can get your annual physical, cholesterol test, etc at zero additional cost. no co-payment, no fee applied to the deductible.

Yep, Obamacare covers one complimentary annual physical exam. If you attempt to discuss anything with your physician that is not itemized in the statute, the physician has to code it differently - and you pay.

Typically, in physical exams in the U.S., the physician asks "any ailments or issues you've been experiencing?" If you're unfortunate enough to be on one of the Obamacare bandaid/aspirin pauper's plans those questions are gone. The physician performs a specific set of assessments authorized by statute and then you're done. Every human is an identical bio-automaton who needs a specific series of adjustments once annually to squeeze an extra year or two of productivity for one of Obama's mega-corporation donors like AT&T and Chevron. Did you walk into poison ivy? Do you have a rash on your testicles? Experiencing flu like symptoms? Get our your wallet - that's not covered in the "one free annual physical." Gone is compassionate medicine - welcome to medicine by actuarial table.

This is why worker's union in the State of Washington are desperately pleading not to be thrown onto the sledge pile of the Obamacare pauper's plans. Why do you think union workers are miserable malcontents who need to suck it up, stop complaining and get what's offered?

Isn't the point of an annual physical to catch any diseases in early stages where they are easily treatable and cheaper TO treat? If you go in for a physical thinking you are fine and they discover you have stage 1 cancer, wouldn't you be happy that you found out then, where you could treat it for a reaction of the cost and maintain a high quality of life? Or, instead would you prefer to go another 5 years until you weren't feeling good, go to the doctor, realizing that you now had stage 5 terminal cancer (which we would still try to treat), costing you (and the system) tons more in treatment and a lower quality of life? How are you making it sound like an annual exam is a bad thing is beyond me.

Again, why are you bringing union members into this? They have as much to do with this as every other tax paying American. I see no difference between a union member and a non union member.

Also, there is an even less expensive plan that a healthy person could choose. This example is the silver plan, there is a bronze plan as well.

Absolutely, they can get the bronze plan which only pays 60% of their medical costs. So a healthy, 26 year old who suddenly gets pancreatic cancer will only have to pay $10,000 [OOP + Premiums] if he wants to try to avoid suffering a horrific death being eaten from the inside out.

Obama - a Leader who loves his people (as long as they don't get cancer).

This is no different then the current, catastrophic coverage plans that are available today. Also, they will not pay 10k. Right in the example you provided, it clearly states that the out of pocket maximum that you could pay is $6400 (or, which isn't stated, 9.5% of your income, whichever is less).

Right in the statement you responded to it said "$10,000 [OOP + Premiums]." And that is correct. They are required to pay $10,000 in OOP expenses and premiums before Obama will save them from a horrific death being eaten from the inside out. Healthcare for all! (provided you have at least $10,000 you don't need for food or shelter)

In places with workable medical systems, like the Netherlands, people aren't required to fork over $10,000 before anyone will lift a finger to save them from horrific, excrutiating agony. Obamacare is almost as bad as the Factory Hospital System of the UK and Canada. (almost)

Ah, I can admit a mistake when I see one, you are right, I missed the [OOP + premium] reference. That said, it still doesn't invalidate my point, that it is much better for someone to have to pay 10k for services than 100's of thousands. If someone is paying 10k then they a) have one of the lowest plans available (and could have chosen a higher plan which would have cost them less in the long haul), b) have a major disease or condition that they will still be glad that they HAVE insurance), and c) stand a much better chance of NOT going into bankruptcy than if they didn't have insurance, and had to pay the full freight of the services they got.

Again, if they get cancer, they will be damned happy that they even have catastrophic coverage, as they WON'T have to declare bankruptcy. Even if they have the worst (bronze) plan, they will pay up to $6400 because they have coverage, instead of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If they pay the $95 fine they won't have the bronze plan ... they won't even have the aluminum plan. They will have no plan.

People can pay $95 to be exempted from the mandatory purchase requirement. People who aren't already purchasing health insurance are of a mindset that $95 pay-out looks a lot better than $3500 in annual premiums. And then, when they get MS and are crippled by debilitating muscle spasms they have no coverage and declare bankruptcy. Just like before Obama,Inc.-Care.

Yes, they can. the penalty increases far beyond $95 in subsequent years. That said, this is one of the many changes that I think are needed to make this plan truly successful... the penalty would need to be higher.

[jj3044]

Not exactly. Competition works best in a free market.

"Not exactly" meaning "yes, it increased competition in this instance, I just don't want to admit it."?

A good example is a post I made a few pages back about doctors and providers who are starting to post their prices online. Of course you have to opt out completely from Obamacare or taking any medicare patients to do that, which reinforces my point.

I am in complete agreement with full price transparency, but you are incorrect in stating that these few examples you are citing are the ONLY instances of price transparency.

it's not only about price transparency. It's about dumping insurance all together. Then, they can do things like price transparency.

WICHITA, Kan., June 14 (UPI) --
A Kansas physician says he makes the same income and offers better quality care to his patients after he dumped all health insurance companies.

Thirty-two-year old family physician Doug Nunamaker of Wichita, Kan., said after five years of dealing with the red tape of health insurance companies and the high overhead for the staff he hired just to deal with paperwork, he switched to a system of charging his patients a monthly fee plus the price of an office visit or test, CNN/Money reported.

For example, under Nunamaker's membership plan -- also known as "concierge" medicine or "direct primary care" practices -- each patient pays a flat monthly fee to have unlimited access to the doctors and any medical service they can provide in the practice, such as stitches or an EKG.

For adults up to age 44, Nunamaker charges $50 a month, pediatric services are $10 a month, and for adults age 44 and older it costs $100 a month. Although Nunamaker calls the practice "cash-only," he accepts credit and debit cards for the fees and services.

Nunamaker and his partner negotiated deals for services outside the office. A cholesterol test costs the patient for $3, versus the $90 or more billed to insurance companies; an MRI can cost $400, compared with $2,000 or more billed to insurance companies.

The practice encourages patients and families to also carry some type of high-deductible health insurance plan in case of an emergency or serious illness requiring hospitalization, Nunamaker said.

Nunamaker said his annual salary is around $200,000, and he gets to spend more time with patients providing better care because he is not watching the clock and he gets to spend more time with this family.

Most of Nunamaker's clients are self-employed, small business owners, or small companies that found the monthly fee and the cost of the high-deductible plan was a cheaper option, CNN/Money reported.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 32724-6523

See now, you are advocating doing away with insurance and making it a completely fee-for-service model, which is preposterous for a couple of reasons:
a) No one would ever go to get a preventive exam, meaning that we would have a LOT more sicker people than we would have today.
b) once all of these sick people went to go get care, NONE of them would be able to afford it, unless they were rich.
c) it would further the culture of a reactive healthcare system, only servicing people after damage has been done.

The true necessary path is ensuring every American has coverage, and getting as many of them to their preventive exams as absolutely possible. Only then will we really see our healthcare costs start to reduce.

[ooge]

Not exactly. Competition works best in a free market.

"Not exactly" meaning "yes, it increased competition in this instance, I just don't want to admit it."?

A good example is a post I made a few pages back about doctors and providers who are starting to post their prices online. Of course you have to opt out completely from Obamacare or taking any medicare patients to do that, which reinforces my point.

I am in complete agreement with full price transparency, but you are incorrect in stating that these few examples you are citing are the ONLY instances of price transparency.

it's not only about price transparency. It's about dumping insurance all together. Then, they can do things like price transparency.

WICHITA, Kan., June 14 (UPI) --
A Kansas physician says he makes the same income and offers better quality care to his patients after he dumped all health insurance companies.

Thirty-two-year old family physician Doug Nunamaker of Wichita, Kan., said after five years of dealing with the red tape of health insurance companies and the high overhead for the staff he hired just to deal with paperwork, he switched to a system of charging his patients a monthly fee plus the price of an office visit or test, CNN/Money reported.

For example, under Nunamaker's membership plan -- also known as "concierge" medicine or "direct primary care" practices -- each patient pays a flat monthly fee to have unlimited access to the doctors and any medical service they can provide in the practice, such as stitches or an EKG.

For adults up to age 44, Nunamaker charges $50 a month, pediatric services are $10 a month, and for adults age 44 and older it costs $100 a month. Although Nunamaker calls the practice "cash-only," he accepts credit and debit cards for the fees and services.

Nunamaker and his partner negotiated deals for services outside the office. A cholesterol test costs the patient for $3, versus the $90 or more billed to insurance companies; an MRI can cost $400, compared with $2,000 or more billed to insurance companies.

The practice encourages patients and families to also carry some type of high-deductible health insurance plan in case of an emergency or serious illness requiring hospitalization, Nunamaker said.

Nunamaker said his annual salary is around $200,000, and he gets to spend more time with patients providing better care because he is not watching the clock and he gets to spend more time with this family.

Most of Nunamaker's clients are self-employed, small business owners, or small companies that found the monthly fee and the cost of the high-deductible plan was a cheaper option, CNN/Money reported.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 32724-6523

you are highlighting the way that government reform of heath care should have been discussed.American taxpayers being ripped off for years to support a system that does not provide coverage for everyone.you interesting in reading a not very old story about how a republican president and congress passed a law to stop a free market solution to lower drug costs?

[Phatscotty]

why would I read the story? You just told me what happened. In fact, you didn't need to say anything and I would have gotten the message "Republicans bad"

What system have taxpayers been supporting for years?

[Phatscotty]

Not exactly. Competition works best in a free market.

"Not exactly" meaning "yes, it increased competition in this instance, I just don't want to admit it."?

A good example is a post I made a few pages back about doctors and providers who are starting to post their prices online. Of course you have to opt out completely from Obamacare or taking any medicare patients to do that, which reinforces my point.

I am in complete agreement with full price transparency, but you are incorrect in stating that these few examples you are citing are the ONLY instances of price transparency.

it's not only about price transparency. It's about dumping insurance all together. Then, they can do things like price transparency.

WICHITA, Kan., June 14 (UPI) --
A Kansas physician says he makes the same income and offers better quality care to his patients after he dumped all health insurance companies.

Thirty-two-year old family physician Doug Nunamaker of Wichita, Kan., said after five years of dealing with the red tape of health insurance companies and the high overhead for the staff he hired just to deal with paperwork, he switched to a system of charging his patients a monthly fee plus the price of an office visit or test, CNN/Money reported.

For example, under Nunamaker's membership plan -- also known as "concierge" medicine or "direct primary care" practices -- each patient pays a flat monthly fee to have unlimited access to the doctors and any medical service they can provide in the practice, such as stitches or an EKG.

For adults up to age 44, Nunamaker charges $50 a month, pediatric services are $10 a month, and for adults age 44 and older it costs $100 a month. Although Nunamaker calls the practice "cash-only," he accepts credit and debit cards for the fees and services.

Nunamaker and his partner negotiated deals for services outside the office. A cholesterol test costs the patient for $3, versus the $90 or more billed to insurance companies; an MRI can cost $400, compared with $2,000 or more billed to insurance companies.

The practice encourages patients and families to also carry some type of high-deductible health insurance plan in case of an emergency or serious illness requiring hospitalization, Nunamaker said.

Nunamaker said his annual salary is around $200,000, and he gets to spend more time with patients providing better care because he is not watching the clock and he gets to spend more time with this family.

Most of Nunamaker's clients are self-employed, small business owners, or small companies that found the monthly fee and the cost of the high-deductible plan was a cheaper option, CNN/Money reported.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 32724-6523

See now, you are advocating doing away with insurance and making it a completely fee-for-service model, which is preposterous for a couple of reasons:

Gimme a break. I'm not advocating anything, I'm sharing another example since you said my last examples were few and far between. and it's another example of how it's the insurance that drives up health care costs, and another example of how doctors are opting out of the system and turning to the free market. result, slashed prices/more accessibility.

a) No one would ever go to get a preventive exam, meaning that we would have a LOT more sicker people than we would have today.
b) once all of these sick people went to go get care, NONE of them would be able to afford it, unless they were rich.
c) it would further the culture of a reactive healthcare system, only servicing people after damage has been done.

The true necessary path is ensuring every American has coverage, and getting as many of them to their preventive exams as absolutely possible. Only then will we really see our healthcare costs start to reduce.

Why would nobody ever get a preventative exam?
Why would no sick people be able to get care? Are people going to be dying in the streets outside the hospitals again?
I'm not following you at all.

But I do know that your idea of going to the doctor when you aren't sick is going to cost a fortune. With every American having coverage and filling the doctors office for preventative care, we are going to need thousands more doctors. Except we now have a doctor shortage, which means that wait times will be longer and prices will be higher....all because of people who are not even sick? I think you are dreaming here. preventative health care can potentially save money in the long run, it's by no means guaranteed.

http://www.livescience.com/37468-doctor-shortage.html
Doctor Shortage Looms in Health Care Reform

the influx of nearly 32 million newly insured people into the U.S. health care system by 2016 — a direct result of the Affordable Care Act — will lead to an unavoidable consequence: a shortage of primary-care physicians, the doctors we see when we have the flu or need to monitor chronic illnesses such as diabetes.

[jj3044]

What system have taxpayers been supporting for years?

I'll answer... billions in hospital aid that the government pays for for uncompensated care. Another words, your tax dollars going to pay for the care of someone else.

As much as I hate citing Wikipedia, I'm in a time crunch and this is the quickest reference to find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_care

One estimate put the cost of uncompensated care for 2004 at $41 billion, of which $34.6 billion was funded through a patchwork of government programs.

If the 2004 estimate was 41 billion, it is probably more than double that figure today in 2012 (as healthcare expenditures have been on pace to double every 7 years).

The ACA actually reduces the amount of money available for uncompensated care, because in theory, many of these people who were receiving this care before should now carry insurance.

[Phatscotty]

What system have taxpayers been supporting for years?

I'll answer... billions in hospital aid that the government pays for for uncompensated care. Another words, your tax dollars going to pay for the care of someone else.

That is also the reason why prices double every 7 years. Everything the government touches explodes in price. I can't wait until Obamacare kicks in, and the government can touch it even more!

[Phatscotty]

the rest of that link i posted earlier is a pretty good read as well

this is why preventative healthcare is a pipedream. It's not even possible for us to do it, and it's gonna crash the system and make it worse for people who actually are sick, as well as everybody else.

These are our nuts-and-bolts physicians who perform an important and valuable role, and there simply won't be enough of them to go around. This looming shortage will inevitably challenge an already-taxed health care system and alter the way physicians and patients interact by raising the doctor-to-patient ratio and straining patient outcomes.

Primary physicians who practice in groups are typically expected to see four patients per hour — one every 15 minutes — and this number will likely increase due to cost and productivity pressures to wring even more work from fewer doctors. Unfortunately, this trend will be accompanied by continued downward pressure on their incomes. Few physicians are earning as much today as they did even five years ago, and primary-care physicians have been affected more than specialists in this regard. Additionally, the shift from a fee-for-service to a bundled fee-for-performance reimbursement system — while still in transition — will lead primary-care doctors who practice solo or in small groups into larger group practices.

The nation's physicians have deciphered the handwriting on the wall and are, unsurprisingly, alarmed. In 2012, The Doctors Company, the nation's largest physician-owned medical malpractice insurer, released results from a survey in which more than 5,000 physicians across the nation commented on the future of health care reform. Sixty percent of respondents indicated that the pressures to increase patient volume will negatively impact the level of care they can provide. Fifty-one percent felt their ability to grow and maintain patient relationships will be adversely affected. And nine out of 10 physicians are so disillusioned by those concerns that they actively discourage friends and family members from pursuing careers in medicine.

This is shocking confirmation of what we already knew, and I believe those statistics would perhaps be even higher if the same survey questions were asked today. While many of the newly insured patients entering the health care system will obtain their insurance coverage through state-run exchanges, some will be unable to afford even a discounted policy and will, out of necessity, receive their coverage through Medicaid. For years, Medicaid has been reducing payments to primary-care physicians to well below customary charges, and we can only expect these rates to fall further.

Why, then, would young doctors who have just finished medical school with an average debt of $175,000 find the idea of becoming a primary-care physician attractive? Why would they sign on to earn — in all likelihood — less than $150,000 per year? The reality is that many won't. It's far more enticing to become a better-paid specialist, and this simple fact adds to all the other aforementioned reasons we won't have enough of these important doctors.

Who will fill in the gap? Inevitably, nurse-practitioners and physician assistants, who are qualified to provide many preventive-care services and can play a significant role in chronic-disease management, by taking blood pressure readings or ordering and interpreting blood-sugar levels. When physicians have only 10 or 15 minutes to see a patient, they'll have no choice but to delegate responsibilities to those professionals, who are able, in most states, to practice under the supervision of a physician.

Already, however, legislation in several states seeks to extend these professionals' autonomy by allowing them to practice independently of physicians, but under certain protocols. Obviously, this legislation will be controversial, but my personal suspicion is that in order to increase the productivity of primary-care physicians, nurse-practitioners and physician assistants will ultimately be given more responsibility.

Unquestionably, the doctor-patient relationship will change. The days of 45-minute doctor appointments are gone, along with the rapport that can be established in such relationships. But does that mean the quality of medical care will plummet?

[jj3044]

Not exactly. Competition works best in a free market.

"Not exactly" meaning "yes, it increased competition in this instance, I just don't want to admit it."?

A good example is a post I made a few pages back about doctors and providers who are starting to post their prices online. Of course you have to opt out completely from Obamacare or taking any medicare patients to do that, which reinforces my point.

I am in complete agreement with full price transparency, but you are incorrect in stating that these few examples you are citing are the ONLY instances of price transparency.

it's not only about price transparency. It's about dumping insurance all together. Then, they can do things like price transparency.

WICHITA, Kan., June 14 (UPI) --
A Kansas physician says he makes the same income and offers better quality care to his patients after he dumped all health insurance companies.

Thirty-two-year old family physician Doug Nunamaker of Wichita, Kan., said after five years of dealing with the red tape of health insurance companies and the high overhead for the staff he hired just to deal with paperwork, he switched to a system of charging his patients a monthly fee plus the price of an office visit or test, CNN/Money reported.

For example, under Nunamaker's membership plan -- also known as "concierge" medicine or "direct primary care" practices -- each patient pays a flat monthly fee to have unlimited access to the doctors and any medical service they can provide in the practice, such as stitches or an EKG.

For adults up to age 44, Nunamaker charges $50 a month, pediatric services are $10 a month, and for adults age 44 and older it costs $100 a month. Although Nunamaker calls the practice "cash-only," he accepts credit and debit cards for the fees and services.

Nunamaker and his partner negotiated deals for services outside the office. A cholesterol test costs the patient for $3, versus the $90 or more billed to insurance companies; an MRI can cost $400, compared with $2,000 or more billed to insurance companies.

The practice encourages patients and families to also carry some type of high-deductible health insurance plan in case of an emergency or serious illness requiring hospitalization, Nunamaker said.

Nunamaker said his annual salary is around $200,000, and he gets to spend more time with patients providing better care because he is not watching the clock and he gets to spend more time with this family.

Most of Nunamaker's clients are self-employed, small business owners, or small companies that found the monthly fee and the cost of the high-deductible plan was a cheaper option, CNN/Money reported.

http://www.breitbart.com/system/wire/up ... 32724-6523

See now, you are advocating doing away with insurance and making it a completely fee-for-service model, which is preposterous for a couple of reasons:

Gimme a break. I'm not advocating anything, I'm sharing another example since you said my last examples were few and far between. and it's another example of how it's the insurance that drives up health care costs, and another example of how doctors are opting out of the system and turning to the free market. result, slashed prices/more accessibility.

huh? You were the one saying that there isn't much transparency in the system and there needs to be more. I agreed with your second point, but clearly stated that there are many more attempts at price transparency out there than the handful of doctors that are moving to cash only models (see my previous comment on Castlight for example). How did you turn that comment around into the opposite?

a) No one would ever go to get a preventive exam, meaning that we would have a LOT more sicker people than we would have today.
b) once all of these sick people went to go get care, NONE of them would be able to afford it, unless they were rich.
c) it would further the culture of a reactive healthcare system, only servicing people after damage has been done.

The true necessary path is ensuring every American has coverage, and getting as many of them to their preventive exams as absolutely possible. Only then will we really see our healthcare costs start to reduce.

Why would nobody ever get a preventative exam?
Why would no sick people be able to get care? Are people going to be dying in the streets outside the hospitals again?
I'm not following you at all.

But I do know that your idea of going to the doctor when you aren't sick is going to cost a fortune. With every American having coverage and filling the doctors office for preventative care, we are going to need thousands more doctors. Except we now have a doctor shortage, which means that wait times will be longer and prices will be higher....all because of people who are not even sick? I think you are dreaming here. preventative health care can potentially save money in the long run, it's by no means guaranteed.

http://www.livescience.com/37468-doctor-shortage.html
Doctor Shortage Looms in Health Care Reform

the influx of nearly 32 million newly insured people into the U.S. health care system by 2016 — a direct result of the Affordable Care Act — will lead to an unavoidable consequence: a shortage of primary-care physicians, the doctors we see when we have the flu or need to monitor chronic illnesses such as diabetes.

Now I feel like I am repeating myself. I'm pretty sure I stated this a few pages ago:
Many sick people wouldn't be able to afford care, because, care is expensive. If you don't have insurance, you would be forced to pay $300/mo for your medicine, instead of a $30 monthly co-pay for example. People would stop taking their medicine, get more sick, end up in the hospital more frequently (which costs a LOT more)... and when they got out they would have a bill for 10's of thousands of dollars, worsening their financial position FAR more than if they had insurance to pay a bulk of these costs. The kicker here is that a pure fee-for-service, non-insurance based or government sponsored model discriminates against the poor. See, the rich would be able to afford the luxury of a preventive exam and their blood pressure medicine. Someone in poverty will not.

I agree with your point about the doctor shortage. There are a lot of programs popping up (there are several in my state) that encourage doctors coming out of school to choose internal medicine by paying their student loans, for example. Hopefully these programs will help encourage more primary care physicians.

As for cost, a recent study that my company performed showed that employees who had an annual well-visit cost, on average, 30% less than those that didn't have a well visit, and that takes into account the cost of the exam! We are going to duplicate this study with some other employer groups we work with, because the results were almost too good to be true!

[Phatscotty]

huh? You were the one saying that there isn't much transparency in the system and there needs to be more. I agreed with your second point, but clearly stated that there are many more attempts at price transparency out there than the handful of doctors that are moving to cash only models (see my previous comment on Castlight for example). How did you turn that comment around into the opposite?

Oh, I must have missed that bit. These posts are all over the place

[BigBallinStalin]

a) No one would ever go to get a preventive exam, meaning that we would have a LOT more sicker people than we would have today.
b) once all of these sick people went to go get care, NONE of them would be able to afford it, unless they were rich.
c) it would further the culture of a reactive healthcare system, only servicing people after damage has been done.

The true necessary path is ensuring every American has coverage, and getting as many of them to their preventive exams as absolutely possible. Only then will we really see our healthcare costs start to reduce.

Why would nobody ever get a preventative exam?
Why would no sick people be able to get care? Are people going to be dying in the streets outside the hospitals again?
I'm not following you at all.

But I do know that your idea of going to the doctor when you aren't sick is going to cost a fortune. With every American having coverage and filling the doctors office for preventative care, we are going to need thousands more doctors. Except we now have a doctor shortage, which means that wait times will be longer and prices will be higher....all because of people who are not even sick? I think you are dreaming here. preventative health care can potentially save money in the long run, it's by no means guaranteed.

http://www.livescience.com/37468-doctor-shortage.html
Doctor Shortage Looms in Health Care Reform

the influx of nearly 32 million newly insured people into the U.S. health care system by 2016 — a direct result of the Affordable Care Act — will lead to an unavoidable consequence: a shortage of primary-care physicians, the doctors we see when we have the flu or need to monitor chronic illnesses such as diabetes.

Great questions, PS. I'm thinking JJ makes those assumptions (i.e. people are stupid) in order to lead himself to his desired conclusion (i.e. somehow the smarter government knows what's best for everyone and is actually capable of attaining that goal).

He's in for a bad wake up call as he gets older.

[jj3044]

a) No one would ever go to get a preventive exam, meaning that we would have a LOT more sicker people than we would have today.
b) once all of these sick people went to go get care, NONE of them would be able to afford it, unless they were rich.
c) it would further the culture of a reactive healthcare system, only servicing people after damage has been done.

The true necessary path is ensuring every American has coverage, and getting as many of them to their preventive exams as absolutely possible. Only then will we really see our healthcare costs start to reduce.

Why would nobody ever get a preventative exam?
Why would no sick people be able to get care? Are people going to be dying in the streets outside the hospitals again?
I'm not following you at all.

But I do know that your idea of going to the doctor when you aren't sick is going to cost a fortune. With every American having coverage and filling the doctors office for preventative care, we are going to need thousands more doctors. Except we now have a doctor shortage, which means that wait times will be longer and prices will be higher....all because of people who are not even sick? I think you are dreaming here. preventative health care can potentially save money in the long run, it's by no means guaranteed.

http://www.livescience.com/37468-doctor-shortage.html
Doctor Shortage Looms in Health Care Reform

the influx of nearly 32 million newly insured people into the U.S. health care system by 2016 — a direct result of the Affordable Care Act — will lead to an unavoidable consequence: a shortage of primary-care physicians, the doctors we see when we have the flu or need to monitor chronic illnesses such as diabetes.

Great questions, PS. I'm thinking JJ makes those assumptions (i.e. people are stupid) in order to lead himself to his desired conclusion (i.e. somehow the smarter government knows what's best for everyone and is actually capable of attaining that goal).

He's in for a bad wake up call as he gets older.

Wow bbs, not at all. Statistics. Only 49% of the book of business of the major insurer in my state get an annual well exam. Over the past 5 years or so, I have seen (and there are a ton of studies showing) that many employers and insurers are embracing value-based benefit designs and wellness incentive plans specifically targeting, among other things, an annual preventive exam to try to increase those figures.

If less than half of our insured population (where this service is free-no additional cost) have a well exam now, what do you think would happen if everyone all of a sudden had to pay for the well exam? Of course it would plummet, primarily in the low-to-middle income brackets. This will make the health disparity even worse than it already is today between the low and high earners.

[BigBallinStalin]

And somehow the ACA accomplishes this feat? From what I've been skimming through, you seem to be holding these unreal expectations of the ACA.

[jj3044]

And somehow the ACA accomplishes this feat? From what I've been skimming through, you seem to be holding these unreal expectations of the ACA.

Not completely, no, which is why I don't think the law gets the job done in some areas and still needs a lot of work. It does, however, encourage the use of incentives to drive value based benefits and wellness incentive programs. Before the ACA, you could only use incentives worth up to 20% of the plan cost. Now, you can use incentives up to 30% of the plan cost, and up to 50% if you have a smoking incentive.

I wasn't "touting" the ACA as much as refuting incorrect information that has proliferated in this thread.