ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[BigBallinStalin]

That's a great example of interest groups and the role they play in the market of political favors (rent-seeking).

It would have been better had the following graph indicated which doctors pay fees to the above groups and which option they chose:







Why do these groups support the public provision of healthcare insurance?


From the npr link:

Keyhani says. "And what we can see is that physicians support Medicare. So I think physicians have sort of signaled that a public option that's similar in design to Medicare would be a good way of ensuring patients get the care that they need."

Medicare also pays a large portion of the bills for these doctors. If the public option were to further subsidize the doctors, would that have any influence on their decision???

[Night Strike]

And far from what the Republicans are trying to claim, most doctors and hospitals are very happy about the healthcare reform act.

Provide proof of this statement within 48 hours or I'm calling this a bald-faced lie. Acceptable proof does not include the group of guys in lab coats with President Obama in the oval office when he signed the bill.

Player and I listen to NPR.
Like a couple of Bosses.

Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option



http://cmhmd.blogspot.com/2010/02/organ ... again.html
Below are the largest physicians organization, in order, with estimated membership numbers based on their own websites (or other sources when the Web Site didn't have them). Previously we had the AOA, American Osteopathic Association, as number 5 because their web site had previously said they "represent" 67,000 Osteopaths. Alice sent me actual numbers indicating they have about 40,000 members, still keeping them in the top ten, just not as high up.

All are YES on reform with Public Option and supporting the House Bill, with some points of contention, but generally have endorsed it.
1. AMA 240,000
2. ACP 126,ooo (Internists and many medical subspecialists)
3. AAFP 94,000 (Family Practice)
4. ACS 76,000 (surgeons)
5. AAP 60,000 (pediatricians)
6. ACOG 52,000 (ob-gyn)
7. ASA 43,000 (Anesthesiology!)
8. AOA 40,000 (osteopaths)
9. APA 38,000 (psychiatry)
10. ACC 37,000 (cardiology)

So because the leadership of those groups say they support it, it also means that every single member supports it too?

[Juan_Bottom]

Yeah Nightstrike. You're the guy who says that if you don't like your employers health insurance policy you should just go work somewhere else.

These Doctors can quit in protest just like you said.

And/or you can go listen to NPR for a while.

[PLAYER57832]

Not when the attorneys have an extreme vested interest in seeing that malpractice suits and the like continue....

But you don't want tort reform....

Wrong.

I don't necessarily agree that what you label "tort reform" really is reform, but that is another issue entirely. I also don't see it as "the fix" to medical care cost problems. Its more of a symptom, not a cause. If we had universal healthcare, then the need for people to sue to just get the care they need would go down.

[thegreekdog]

That's a great example of interest groups and the role they play in the market of political favors (rent-seeking).

It would have been better had the following graph indicated which doctors pay fees to the above groups and which option they chose:







Why do these groups support the public provision of healthcare insurance?


From the npr link:

Keyhani says. "And what we can see is that physicians support Medicare. So I think physicians have sort of signaled that a public option that's similar in design to Medicare would be a good way of ensuring patients get the care that they need."

Medicare also pays a large portion of the bills for these doctors. If the public option were to further subsidize the doctors, would that have any influence on their decision???

Questions BBS!

(1) What was our system before the Affordable Care Act? Was it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(2) What is our system after the Affordable Care Act? Was it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(3) What system does Player and JuanBottom want? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(4) What system does Phatscotty and NightStrike think we have post-Affordable Care Act? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(5) What percentage of doctors want (3) and (4)?

Answers below:










(1) Public and private option
(2) Public and private option
(3) Public option only
(4) Public option only
(5) 10%

[Night Strike]

(4) What system does Phatscotty and NightStrike think we have post-Affordable Care Act? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(4) Public option only

False. It will most definitely lead to only having a public option and it is way more governmental intervention in a system that needs less instead of more, but it itself is not a public option.

[thegreekdog]

(4) What system does Phatscotty and NightStrike think we have post-Affordable Care Act? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(4) Public option only

False. It will most definitely lead to only having a public option and it is way more governmental intervention in a system that needs less instead of more, but it itself is not a public option.

Right. You and Phatscotty (and lots of other Republicans) think it will lead to public option only. I'm telling you that 10% of doctors want a public option only. Therefore, by your reckoning, doctors do not support the public option only and do not support the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, Player thinks that we should have public option only, and therefore she would also be forced to agree that doctors do not agree with her (10% agree I should say).

Also, a little secret - I try to know about available information before I start shooting my mouth off. For example, I knew about the NPR poll before I posted this. I used to not try to find information before I made arguments and it bit me in the ass.

[BigBallinStalin]

(4) What system does Phatscotty and NightStrike think we have post-Affordable Care Act? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(4) Public option only

False. It will most definitely lead to only having a public option and it is way more governmental intervention in a system that needs less instead of more, but it itself is not a public option.

Right. You and Phatscotty (and lots of other Republicans) think it will lead to public option only. I'm telling you that 10% of doctors want a public option only. Therefore, by your reckoning, doctors do not support the public option only and do not support the Affordable Care Act. Similarly, Player thinks that we should have public option only, and therefore she would also be forced to agree that doctors do not agree with her (10% agree I should say).

Also, a little secret - I try to know about available information before I start shooting my mouth off. For example, I knew about the NPR poll before I posted this. I used to not try to find information before I made arguments and it bit me in the ass.

The NS-PS crowd may have a valid concern, but the institution of crony capitalism would provide the means necessary for interest groups to maintain a favorable balance between the public option and private, so their concerns to me seem relatively groundless.

For reasons that have yet to explained, if it became more profitable for insurance companies and doctors to support a 100% public option, then the NS-PS crowd may have a case, but I fail to see how this would be possible AND profitable for the politicians and interest groups/rent-seekers.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's a great example of interest groups and the role they play in the market of political favors (rent-seeking).

It would have been better had the following graph indicated which doctors pay fees to the above groups and which option they chose:


Why do these groups support the public provision of healthcare insurance?


From the npr link:

Keyhani says. "And what we can see is that physicians support Medicare. So I think physicians have sort of signaled that a public option that's similar in design to Medicare would be a good way of ensuring patients get the care that they need."

Medicare also pays a large portion of the bills for these doctors. If the public option were to further subsidize the doctors, would that have any influence on their decision???

Questions BBS!

(1) What was our system before the Affordable Care Act? Was it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(2) What is our system after the Affordable Care Act? Was it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(3) What system does Player and JuanBottom want? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(4) What system does Phatscotty and NightStrike think we have post-Affordable Care Act? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(5) What percentage of doctors want (3) and (4)?

Answers below:

(1) Public and private option
(2) Public and private option
(3) Public option only
(4) Public option only
(5) 10%

Is there a difference between #1 and #2 regarding changes in income to various groups (insurance companies and the medical profession)?

[thegreekdog]

That's a great example of interest groups and the role they play in the market of political favors (rent-seeking).

It would have been better had the following graph indicated which doctors pay fees to the above groups and which option they chose:


Why do these groups support the public provision of healthcare insurance?


From the npr link:

Keyhani says. "And what we can see is that physicians support Medicare. So I think physicians have sort of signaled that a public option that's similar in design to Medicare would be a good way of ensuring patients get the care that they need."

Medicare also pays a large portion of the bills for these doctors. If the public option were to further subsidize the doctors, would that have any influence on their decision???

Questions BBS!

(1) What was our system before the Affordable Care Act? Was it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(2) What is our system after the Affordable Care Act? Was it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(3) What system does Player and JuanBottom want? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(4) What system does Phatscotty and NightStrike think we have post-Affordable Care Act? Is it (a) public option only, (b) private option only, or (c) public and private option?

(5) What percentage of doctors want (3) and (4)?

Answers below:

(1) Public and private option
(2) Public and private option
(3) Public option only
(4) Public option only
(5) 10%

Is there a difference between #1 and #2 regarding changes in income to various groups (insurance companies and the medical profession)?

Are there insurance cost caps in the Affordable Care Act? I don't believe there are. So the answer is that insurance companies will make more money. I'm not sure about doctors. Doctors do not make significant money from individual insurance payments. For example, a doctor will charge $1,000 for a procedure; an individual without insurance would pay $1,000; an insurance company would pay $200. I've been told doctors do this because in order to get paid by people with insurance, they must submit to this drubbing. When I was in college I worked for a doctor in the billing department and saw this firsthand. When I questioned the doctor as to why he was getting a fraction from the insurance company, he indicated that he would have virtually no patients if he denied patients with insurance. Ironic.

If tl;dr with respect to above: insurance companies will make more money.

[BigBallinStalin]

Regarding your first question:
From what I've heard from a friend who seems more knowledgeable than me on this matter, there are relative caps for insurance premiums. To use an inaccurate example, the rate for a healthy young person must be no less than 3x the price of insurance for a more risky/elderly person. So the price of insurance for the young is pegged to prices for the more risky/elderly.

Regarding the rest: Yeah, regardless of the above, it seems that insurance companies will be earning more revenue from the Affordable Care Act because people Must pay for the insurance--no matter the price (or yeah, they'll be levied a loltax or lolpenalty), but in the end it's state coercion that is the cause of increased revenues for insurance companies.


Why do people like PLAYER and JB make such well-intended appeals to the government to "help" others or "fix" problems?

[Symmetry]

Regarding your first question:
From what I've heard from a friend who seems more knowledgeable than me on this matter, there are relative caps for insurance premiums. To use an inaccurate example, the rate for a healthy young person must be no less than 3x the price of insurance for a more risky/elderly person. So the price of insurance for the young is pegged to prices for the more risky/elderly.

Regarding the rest: Yeah, regardless of the above, it seems that insurance companies will be earning more revenue from the Affordable Care Act because people Must pay for the insurance--no matter the price (or yeah, they'll be levied a loltax or lolpenalty), but in the end it's state coercion that is the cause of increased revenues for insurance companies.


Why do people like PLAYER and JB make such well-intended appeals to the government to "help" others or "fix" problems?

Perhaps they've looked at countries that have governments who fix the problems. Israel, for example makes it's citizens purchase insurance, and they pay less and receive better care. And, of course, universally.

[thegreekdog]

Regarding your first question:
From what I've heard from a friend who seems more knowledgeable than me on this matter, there are relative caps for insurance premiums. To use an inaccurate example, the rate for a healthy young person must be no less than 3x the price of insurance for a more risky/elderly person. So the price of insurance for the young is pegged to prices for the more risky/elderly.

Regarding the rest: Yeah, regardless of the above, it seems that insurance companies will be earning more revenue from the Affordable Care Act because people Must pay for the insurance--no matter the price (or yeah, they'll be levied a loltax or lolpenalty), but in the end it's state coercion that is the cause of increased revenues for insurance companies.


Why do people like PLAYER and JB make such well-intended appeals to the government to "help" others or "fix" problems?

Perhaps they've looked at countries that have governments who fix the problems. Israel, for example makes it's citizens purchase insurance, and they pay less and receive better care. And, of course, universally.

I will be interested to see if I end up paying less for better quality healthcare.

[Symmetry]

Regarding your first question:
From what I've heard from a friend who seems more knowledgeable than me on this matter, there are relative caps for insurance premiums. To use an inaccurate example, the rate for a healthy young person must be no less than 3x the price of insurance for a more risky/elderly person. So the price of insurance for the young is pegged to prices for the more risky/elderly.

Regarding the rest: Yeah, regardless of the above, it seems that insurance companies will be earning more revenue from the Affordable Care Act because people Must pay for the insurance--no matter the price (or yeah, they'll be levied a loltax or lolpenalty), but in the end it's state coercion that is the cause of increased revenues for insurance companies.


Why do people like PLAYER and JB make such well-intended appeals to the government to "help" others or "fix" problems?

Perhaps they've looked at countries that have governments who fix the problems. Israel, for example makes it's citizens purchase insurance, and they pay less and receive better care. And, of course, universally.

I will be interested to see if I end up paying less for better quality healthcare.

How much are you paying at the moment?

[thehippo8]

What's with that colour in that graph?

[thehippo8]

[thegreekdog]

Regarding your first question:
From what I've heard from a friend who seems more knowledgeable than me on this matter, there are relative caps for insurance premiums. To use an inaccurate example, the rate for a healthy young person must be no less than 3x the price of insurance for a more risky/elderly person. So the price of insurance for the young is pegged to prices for the more risky/elderly.

Regarding the rest: Yeah, regardless of the above, it seems that insurance companies will be earning more revenue from the Affordable Care Act because people Must pay for the insurance--no matter the price (or yeah, they'll be levied a loltax or lolpenalty), but in the end it's state coercion that is the cause of increased revenues for insurance companies.


Why do people like PLAYER and JB make such well-intended appeals to the government to "help" others or "fix" problems?

Perhaps they've looked at countries that have governments who fix the problems. Israel, for example makes it's citizens purchase insurance, and they pay less and receive better care. And, of course, universally.

I will be interested to see if I end up paying less for better quality healthcare.

How much are you paying at the moment?

For insurance, I pay approximately $200 a month for myself, my wife, and my son. My work probably pays an additional $200 a month although I've never checked (nor do I care). I pay approximatley 10% (give or take) in out-of-pocket costs. It varies greatly, so it's hard to tell. I also pay taxes that go to other peoples' healthcare. I'm not sure what dollar amount that is of my total income or tax payments (or how much of my sales taxes or excise taxes go to pay for other peoples' healthcare).

I tend to think I pay a lot of money for health insurance.

[thehippo8]

It could be worse ...

[Symmetry]

Regarding your first question:
From what I've heard from a friend who seems more knowledgeable than me on this matter, there are relative caps for insurance premiums. To use an inaccurate example, the rate for a healthy young person must be no less than 3x the price of insurance for a more risky/elderly person. So the price of insurance for the young is pegged to prices for the more risky/elderly.

Regarding the rest: Yeah, regardless of the above, it seems that insurance companies will be earning more revenue from the Affordable Care Act because people Must pay for the insurance--no matter the price (or yeah, they'll be levied a loltax or lolpenalty), but in the end it's state coercion that is the cause of increased revenues for insurance companies.


Why do people like PLAYER and JB make such well-intended appeals to the government to "help" others or "fix" problems?

Perhaps they've looked at countries that have governments who fix the problems. Israel, for example makes it's citizens purchase insurance, and they pay less and receive better care. And, of course, universally.

I will be interested to see if I end up paying less for better quality healthcare.

How much are you paying at the moment?

For insurance, I pay approximately $200 a month for myself, my wife, and my son. My work probably pays an additional $200 a month although I've never checked (nor do I care). I pay approximatley 10% (give or take) in out-of-pocket costs. It varies greatly, so it's hard to tell. I also pay taxes that go to other peoples' healthcare. I'm not sure what dollar amount that is of my total income or tax payments (or how much of my sales taxes or excise taxes go to pay for other peoples' healthcare).

I tend to think I pay a lot of money for health insurance.

So 400 dollars a month? Roughly 4,800 per year, not including taxation? With 10% additional out of pocket, let's say 5500 dollars.

Roughly 22% of US taxes go on healthcare from a casual internet look. Would that be fair?

[thegreekdog]

Let's call it $3,000 a year for insurance plus $3,000 a year out of pocket ($6,000 total). Twenty-two percent of my federal taxes would be approximately $7,000.

So I pay approximately $13,000 for my healthcare and the healthcare of others.

[jimboston]

For insurance, I pay approximately $200 a month for myself, my wife, and my son. My work probably pays an additional $200 a month although I've never checked (nor do I care). I pay approximatley 10% (give or take) in out-of-pocket costs. It varies greatly, so it's hard to tell. I also pay taxes that go to other peoples' healthcare. I'm not sure what dollar amount that is of my total income or tax payments (or how much of my sales taxes or excise taxes go to pay for other peoples' healthcare).

I tend to think I pay a lot of money for health insurance.

What your company pays can vary from state-to-state... and also from company to company... based on their size and the coverage offered.

I setup the plans for one company I worked for in Mass. The Family Plan was costing the company about $750 a month, and we passed about 25% to the employee, just under $200 a month. That was several years ago... and rates have increased.

I SUSPECT that your company's contribution is much higher... at least $400/month, and maybe as much as $600/month.

[Symmetry]

Let's call it $3,000 a year for insurance plus $3,000 a year out of pocket ($6,000 total). Twenty-two percent of my federal taxes would be approximately $7,000.

So I pay approximately $13,000 for my healthcare and the healthcare of others.

That would suggest you're paying a good deal more than the per capita average for the US, at $7950. UK per capita expenditure is $3487 by comparison.

I think I can see why you're annoyed now.

[NoSurvivors]

Lol.. Annoying orange

[PLAYER57832]

For insurance, I pay approximately $200 a month for myself, my wife, and my son. My work probably pays an additional $200 a month although I've never checked (nor do I care). I pay approximatley 10% (give or take) in out-of-pocket costs. It varies greatly, so it's hard to tell. I also pay taxes that go to other peoples' healthcare. I'm not sure what dollar amount that is of my total income or tax payments (or how much of my sales taxes or excise taxes go to pay for other peoples' healthcare).

I tend to think I pay a lot of money for health insurance.

LOL--- There is a VERY good chance that your families's coverage exceeds $1000 a month, particularly if you have a child with any type of disability or suspected "issue".

Your figures are WAY off base... and you should care, if you are going to be honest and make intelligent decisions about this issue.

The standard used to be that a company would pay 2/3, though there was always a wide range, some employers paying all and some paying less... or, of course providing no insurance subsidy at all.

Let's call it $3,000 a year for insurance plus $3,000 a year out of pocket ($6,000 total). Twenty-two percent of my federal taxes would be approximately $7,000.

So I pay approximately $13,000 for my healthcare and the healthcare of others.

MOST of the people who's insurance you are paying are children and the elderly. Not working individuals.

In most states, it is very difficult for adults to get Medicaid, particularly if they work anywhere at all.

[PLAYER57832]

It also sounds like there may be a legal reason why the insurance company is not providing benefits (namely something in the paperwork) that would perhaps not be solved by the Affordable Care Act.

This is the part I dispute, severely.

A. Yes, there likely is a "legal reason" why the person's coverage was denied. BUT.. you have to understand how very heavily things are weighted in favor of the insurance companies. They offer contracts and by using the coverage, people "give agreement" to follow... EXCEPT, the contracts are full of more legaleze than credit agreements, AND the truth is most people just don't have any other choice. Few companies offer any choice any more. The US government and very large companies are about the only exceptions. So, the "choice" and "agreement" is you have no insurance or you just take what is offered... and then wind up finding out you paid for something and are getting nothing, sometimes long after the fact.


B. You are very, very seriously underestimating the roadblocks Blue Cross, in particular puts up. I suspect if you have any experience with them, it is with their Highmark plan.. not Keystone, not Select Blue or any of the other lower options they offer. I have had all and can assure you there is a BIG difference.. and I am someone who actually got them to pay things they have denied initially. BUT.. it took me an average of 3 months PER COMPLAINT for over 2 years. It ended because our insurance ended. The only visits not questioned were for me, when I was pregnant.

AND.. before you start saying "isolated example".. that experience led me to do a more than a little investigating and questioning. Every doctor to whom I spoke mentioned similar experiences. They all saw repeated denials of claims --for reasons that always varied. Sometimes "the wrong code" was used -- even though the code was the one the office as given by the company. Sometimes the company would just claim the item was "not covered".. Remember that the literature you get from the company is not the legal contract.. and generally there is some kind of notation that this "explanation of benefits" -- or whatever is "not legally binding".

C. In the past decade, the primary reason for denying care winds up being some unmentioned pre-existing condition... and it quite seriously could be something as minor as forgetting that you got stitches 20 years earlier when you filled out a form or the date of a shot, etc.

D. By requiring insurance companies to cover people with PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, a huge source of denials has now been eliminated... and THAT is why the INSURANCE companies, but not doctors and hospitals are so heavily against this bill.