IGX

Terry B. wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Terry B. wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Terry B. wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:You'll notice, not one single dingleberry leftist has even dared to come into this thread and present a counter arguement that Obama and the Democrat party lied to get Obamacare passed or that their plan an unmitigated disaster.

That's because you're the only one here wanting to simplify things down to a "left vs right" issue.

It is simple: The resident lefitist are missing in action. They and they alone own this mess. They didn't say maybe this would work. They didn't say, hey let's rolll the dice on this cool, idea. They promised nothing but unicorns, rainbows and never ending goodness. The result? Choas; and exactly the opposite of what was promised.

They don't get to stand along with the rest of America and say "Gee Willikers guys! What happened? Who did this?" as if they don't own this mess lock stock and barrel.

Do the voices in your head ever tell you to hurt yourself?

Move along cunt. As usual, you have nothing to contibute; even in rebuttal.

Because, if they do, you should listen to them.

The far left isn't the problem.

The far right isn't the problem.

The problem is uneducated, misinformed hillbillies like yourself who believe that it's a baseball game, er, sorry, NASCAR race, where all you need to do is spew drunken vitriol towards the other team while humping an American flag to be a productive member of society.

SPOKEN LIKE A TRU LEFTIST MORON!

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:The ACA really screwed the fucking pooch. Going to be interesting for the next 6-18 months. I still hear celebrities say how awesome Obama is, recently Sara Silverman on Stearn. Yet none of them will discuss these ramifications.

Because it's easy to be a Lib cunt when you are rich.

Part of why the speak Lib shit, it makes them feel better for being rich for essentially playing.

" See, I'm not such a narcissistic cunt, I care about the poor. I SAID Double Moccachino, you idiot!"

I'm on the finance side of healthcare-I've worked about 30 years for insurance companies, hospitals and physician groups.

Things are actually way worse than it appears. Here's the next "crisis" that not many are paying attention to but will be the top story in January.

In order to offer a more price competitive product on the Exchanges, most insurance companies are giving physicians and hospitals a reduced fee schedule/payment for Exchange based members. These rates are a joke. When providers see what they're getting paid, they'll be bailing out of these plans as quickly as possible. Many hospitals and physicians deemed too expensive are being cut out of product offerings altogether. It will be exceedingly difficult for people to find a doctor.

On top of that, close to half of doctors don't know if they are even participating in these plans. Health plans have done a purposefully shitty job of telling providers which plans (if any) they are included in. Stay tuned for howls of outrage when people that signed up can't find care.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen ... exchanges/

Don't worry. They will delay that until after the next election. Then it will the Republican's fault people can't find a doctor.

This will send Bats on a thrill kill spree...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/ ... ns-already

lasalle wrote:I'm on the finance side of healthcare-I've worked about 30 years for insurance companies, hospitals and physician groups.

Things are actually way worse than it appears. Here's the next "crisis" that not many are paying attention to but will be the top story in January.

In order to offer a more price competitive product on the Exchanges, most insurance companies are giving physicians and hospitals a reduced fee schedule/payment for Exchange based members. These rates are a joke. When providers see what they're getting paid, they'll be bailing out of these plans as quickly as possible. Many hospitals and physicians deemed too expensive are being cut out of product offerings altogether. It will be exceedingly difficult for people to find a doctor.

On top of that, close to half of doctors don't know if they are even participating in these plans. Health plans have done a purposefully shitty job of telling providers which plans (if any) they are included in. Stay tuned for howls of outrage when people that signed up can't find care.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen ... exchanges/

The government, through Medicaid and Medicare, has been pushing down payment for years. It's already getting tough to find surgeons who take insurance.
Before Obamacare passed, a hospital administrator and a doctor told me that we were headed towards a system where doctors don't take insurance at all. So I'm guessing that this will speed up that process.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:Before Obamacare passed, a hospital administrator and a doctor told me that we were headed towards a system where doctors don't take insurance at all.

So what does it mean for a doctor to "take insurance" in the first place?

Kazuya Mishima wrote:This will send Bats on a thrill kill spree...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/ ... ns-already

What's to be mad about? It's to be expected. Ninety Five percent of blacks vote lock step for the same political party and socialist agenda. Quite simply; they deserve to have large portions of their population suffer from every social ill under the sun.

When you blindly vote for your oppressors, you deserve what you get.

nafod wrote:<null>

They take payment from the insurance companies. But the insurance companies follow the government in paying the doctors less. And so the doctors were/are looking for other ways to be paid.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

nafod wrote:<null>

They take payment from the insurance companies. But the insurance companies follow the government in paying the doctors less. And so the doctors were/are looking for other ways to be paid.

When I deployed, there were very few docs in my home area who took Tricare for the family. The curse of the mobilized reservist. This just meant we had to go through the ass pain of the doing a claim for reimbursement ourselves. Not insignificant.

lasalle wrote:I'm on the finance side of healthcare-I've worked about 30 years for insurance companies, hospitals and physician groups.

Things are actually way worse than it appears. Here's the next "crisis" that not many are paying attention to but will be the top story in January.

In order to offer a more price competitive product on the Exchanges, most insurance companies are giving physicians and hospitals a reduced fee schedule/payment for Exchange based members. These rates are a joke. When providers see what they're getting paid, they'll be bailing out of these plans as quickly as possible. Many hospitals and physicians deemed too expensive are being cut out of product offerings altogether. It will be exceedingly difficult for people to find a doctor.

On top of that, close to half of doctors don't know if they are even participating in these plans. Health plans have done a purposefully shitty job of telling providers which plans (if any) they are included in. Stay tuned for howls of outrage when people that signed up can't find care.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen ... exchanges/

That'll be fun.

I read an article, maybe in Forbes, about a growing number of doctors who are shifting to cash (or check, I would guess) only businesses.

Their rates are lower, and their profit margins are holding steady since they don't have the same compliance costs, don't have to wait for reimbursement etc.

Don't know how many physicians in California are doing this, but I would guess the number will probably grow.

My plan all along was to pay the penal-tax and just find a doctor that'll take cash for regular appointments. If I were to get sick or injures (again), I'd just sign up then.

I got a letter that said I can stay on my plan through 2014, even though my insurer isn't on the California exchanges for at least the first year. Something about changing the date range on policies, I think. Too lazy to look for the letter right now.

I'm still deciding if I want to keep it or just pay the 1% and sign up for coverage if I get sick or injured (again).

"More and more doctors are going to cash only practices."

I have been hearing this since 1993. I hope it does happen because it will reconnect the consumer with monetary transaction. Have you ever seen how people treat the store manager at Target when they want to return something they aren't satisfied with that cost $22.99? WAIT until a hospital tries to get $22.99 out of that consumer for a Tylenol. Of course there aren't any hospitals even talking about going cash only. Impossible.

When they say cash, they don't mean they don't take checks and credit cards, that means their patients pay them and if they are going to get reimbursed by insurance, that's their headache. Even a small doctor's office will devote a significant amount of staff time and money jumping through insurance hoops, battling to get paid as much as possible for what they do, etc. You know why they do it? Because it (eventually) pays.

baffled wrote:My plan all along was to pay the penal-tax and just find a doctor that'll take cash for regular appointments. If I were to get sick or injures (again), I'd just sign up then.

I got a letter that said I can stay on my plan through 2014, even though my insurer isn't on the California exchanges for at least the first year. Something about changing the date range on policies, I think. Too lazy to look for the letter right now.

I am in the same boat, I got the first letter that my plan is gone as of Feb 2014. If I understand correctly I'm getting another that it's extended through 2014 but haven't got it yet.

I was threatening to say fuck them and take the the penalty option. But if you have an accident or something you could rack up a big bill before you could get signed up. Of course hospitals will probably get wise and add an insurance clerk to EMT crews so they can sign you up on the ride in. Maybe I'll get a bracelet that says "sign me up if I'm knocked out."

nafod wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

nafod wrote:<null>

They take payment from the insurance companies. But the insurance companies follow the government in paying the doctors less. And so the doctors were/are looking for other ways to be paid.

When I deployed, there were very few docs in my home area who took Tricare for the family. The curse of the mobilized reservist. This just meant we had to go through the ass pain of the doing a claim for reimbursement ourselves. Not insignificant.

There could be a problem here if the doctor charges you a lot more for the service than your insurance will reimburse. You'd be on the hook for the difference.

We've all probably heard about the screwing that hospitals give uninsured people that come in, they charge them way WAY more than they get from insurance companies, which to me sounds like the worst kind of price gouging ever. Except that for 90% of those people, they don't care if it's a billion dollars because they're never paying it anyway, so they don't care what number they make up. It's that unlucky 10% that actually pay their way that get fucked royally.

Note that this kind of shit would not be tolerated in the auto insurance world - pricing is somewhat uniform.

ccrow wrote:"More and more doctors are going to cash only practices."

I have been hearing this since 1993. I hope it does happen because it will reconnect the consumer with monetary transaction. Have you ever seen how people treat the store manager at Target when they want to return something they aren't satisfied with that cost $22.99? WAIT until a hospital tries to get $22.99 out of that consumer for a Tylenol. Of course there aren't any hospitals even talking about going cash only. Impossible.

When they say cash, they don't mean they don't take checks and credit cards, that means their patients pay them and if they are going to get reimbursed by insurance, that's their headache. Even a small doctor's office will devote a significant amount of staff time and money jumping through insurance hoops, battling to get paid as much as possible for what they do, etc. You know why they do it? Because it (eventually) pays.

Several major trends--
doctor shortage: https://www.aamc.org/download/100598/data/
doctors getting squeezed on payments from insurance companies and Medicare
unclear Obamacare rules
rising deductibles mean you have to pay out of pocket anyway

Going to cash limits the pool of patients, and may increase it's quality (from the doctor's perspective).

ccrow wrote:

nafod wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:

nafod wrote:<null>

They take payment from the insurance companies. But the insurance companies follow the government in paying the doctors less. And so the doctors were/are looking for other ways to be paid.

When I deployed, there were very few docs in my home area who took Tricare for the family. The curse of the mobilized reservist. This just meant we had to go through the ass pain of the doing a claim for reimbursement ourselves. Not insignificant.

There could be a problem here if the doctor charges you a lot more for the service than your insurance will reimburse. You'd be on the hook for the difference.

We've all probably heard about the screwing that hospitals give uninsured people that come in, they charge them way WAY more than they get from insurance companies, which to me sounds like the worst kind of price gouging ever. Except that for 90% of those people, they don't care if it's a billion dollars because they're never paying it anyway, so they don't care what number they make up. It's that unlucky 10% that actually pay their way that get fucked royally.

Note that this kind of shit would not be tolerated in the auto insurance world - pricing is somewhat uniform.

This is a big issue. The insurance companies NEVER pay the sticker price. Nobody expects them to pay it.

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: This is a big issue. The insurance companies NEVER pay the sticker price. Nobody expects them to pay it.

Baked in to the price the insurance companies pay is the loss the hospitals take on the uninsured and underinsured. EVERYONE subsidizes the uninsured in one form or another.

As to the other posts: yes, many more MDs are going cash only or charging a monthly retainer. That really only works for primary care: certainly doesn't work for procedure based providers like Cardiologists and hospitals. Net: third party payment (Insurance or government) will be with us forever.

PEACE IN OUR TIME!



Barry O and Lurch desperatly try to change the subject; damn the consequences. Barry O and the Dems need anything that looks like an accomplishment. Even if it only lasts for a news cycle or two.

nafod wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:Before Obamacare passed, a hospital administrator and a doctor told me that we were headed towards a system where doctors don't take insurance at all.

So what does it mean for a doctor to "take insurance" in the first place?

Hey you fucking idiot! It means they take insurance!

protobuilder wrote:

nafod wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote:Before Obamacare passed, a hospital administrator and a doctor told me that we were headed towards a system where doctors don't take insurance at all.

So what does it mean for a doctor to "take insurance" in the first place?

Hey you fucking idiot! It means they take insurance!

I thought they worked for money.

lasalle wrote:Baked in to the price the insurance companies pay is the loss the hospitals take on the uninsured and underinsured. EVERYONE subsidizes the uninsured in one form or another.

lasalle wrote:

The Ginger Beard Man wrote: This is a big issue. The insurance companies NEVER pay the sticker price. Nobody expects them to pay it.

Baked in to the price the insurance companies pay is the loss the hospitals take on the uninsured and underinsured. EVERYONE subsidizes the uninsured in one form or another.

Well when you think about it every business that extends credit has bad debts and has to offset the cost of getting stiffed, it's baked into the price of almost everything you buy; everyone pays for the deadbeats. It's built into the couple points the credit card company takes for every purchase and you don't even feel it.

With health care, it's an abject disaster. Why the difference? Hospitals can't decide not to extend credit and refuse care to people they know damn well are going to stiff them. The government compels the hospital to provide the care, but it doesn't offer to pick up the tab - it just lets the hospital figure out how to make that back.

So rather than the government picking up the tab and passing it back to everyone through taxes, the hospitals pick up the tab and pass it back to everyone with higher prices. But we're already paying for the uninsured and underinsured right? If this plan has rates go up, it better have hospital costs going down, because they won't have to gouge to compensate for getting stiffed so often.

I trust that this extremely complicated problem has been rigorously and carefully addressed somewhere in that healthcare bill and that our congressmen have reviewed it carefully before passing the bill, and consulted at length with the appropriate experts to insure that the plan is sound and viable and in line with their constituents' will and well being. So it should be straightened out soon.

One of the basic tenets of Obamacare is that the government will help lower-income Americans -- anyone making less than about $45,900 a year -- pay for the health insurance everyone is now mandated to have.

But a CNN analysis shows that in the largest city in nearly every state, many low-income younger Americans won't get any subsidy at all. Administration officials said the reason so many Americans won't receive a subsidy is that the cost of insurance is lower than the government initially expected. Subsidies are calculated using a complicated formula based on the cost of insurance premiums, which can vary drastically from state to state, and even county to county.

Back in April, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a congressional subcommittee that any individual making under that $45,960 threshold -- or four times the poverty level of $11,490 for an individual -- would qualify for "an upfront tax subsidy."

"Somebody who's making $25,500 would definitely qualify for a subsidy if he or she is purchasing coverage in the individual market," Sebelius added.

Despite the secretary's assurance, a 25-year-old living in Nashville, Tennessee, making $25,500 will not qualify for a subsidy, for example.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/politics/ ... -subsidies

Wealthy has been redefined.

What the hay, alienate your family at Thanksgiving by pushing failed Decocratic party initiatives.



While you're at it, you might as well hit them all up for a loan to start your new AmWay business.

Nothing says Thanksgiving like desperate failure!

Batboy2/75 wrote:What the hay, alienate your family at Thanksgiving by pushing failed Decocratic party initiatives.



While you're at it, you might as well hit them all up for a loan to start your new AmWay business.

Nothing says Thanksgiving like desperate failure!

Add on that Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns group wants people to start arguments about gun control, and you've got plenty of fodder for the obligatory drunken arguments.

Fucking liberals really are anti-family, after all.