How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[we vs us]

Whiff and a miss.

If you bring all the uninsured under the same insurance plan as everyone else, the rest of us still wind up subsidizing the cost.  It's simply shifting cost centers.  Instead of paying higher rates for the treatment due to the charge off costs which are factored in for non-payers, now you wind up picking it up on the front end with higher premiums.

That's actually the point.  We know that, in one form or another we will always be subsidizing the cost of folks with few or no resources.  That will happen either outside the insurance system or within the insurance system.  By shifting their cost center into the insurance system, at least there's an opportunity for them to contribute something of their resources to their care.  They might also avail themselves of more preventative care; of more personalized care (a long term provider, rather than just an ER doc), and better education through insurance plans (don't laugh; insurance folks are CONSTANTLY trying to educate people to be healthier). 

The outcome then might theoretically cost less and ensure better results from our system.  It's not just that they're expensive and will stay expensive. Moving them under insurance umbrellas will hopefully make folks cheaper to treat.

[nathanm]

The outcome then might theoretically cost less and ensure better results from our system.  It's not just that they're expensive and will stay expensive. Moving them under insurance umbrellas will hopefully make folks cheaper to treat.

To that point, I used to know a couple of folks who were essentially destitute (working minimum wage jobs 30 hours a week..food stamp qualified, actually) who ended up having what would have been relatively routine things end up requiring an ambulance, an ER visit, and major surgery because of a lack of treatment. In one case, a simple round of antibiotics would have cleared up the ulcer before it perforated.

Lots of people feel like they can't afford a doctor, whether they really can or not. Maybe the answer isn't requiring health insurance, maybe it's expansion of free/dirt cheap health clinics and subsidization of whatever medicine is prescribed by those clinics. Who knows, but Northwest Medical Center wouldn't have had to eat a hundred thousand in charges (not to mention the charges for the surgeon, the anaesthesiologist, and so on) had that woman had access to a free health clinic where she could have gotten antibiotics.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Boggles the mind.  Shifting cost centers.  Ok, let's go with that.  If we shift 30% of the medical bill (hospital, doctor, medicine, etc) to even 30% of the insurance bill (which won't happen), then the cost shifting has ended up saving a TON of money to me personally.  And $250 billion to the American taxpayer.  But that wouldn't go into the pocket of big insurance or big medicine, so we can't have that, can we.

[guido911]

Stop complaining about "judicial activism" in the Florida decision Obama White House says, you guessed it: Jonathan Turley???

Borrowing an attack that has more often been heard from Republican administrations, Stephanie Cutter, a senior adviser to President Obama, issued a statement denouncing Vinson as a "judicial activist." That charge was quickly picked up by Democratic lawmakers. The evidence cited for this charge was the fact that Vinson "declared that the entire law is null and void even though the only provision he found unconstitutional was the (individual mandate) provision," which requires every citizen to buy health insurance.

What the White House does not mention is that it played a game of chicken over health care with the court and lost a critical battle in Florida. Instead of inserting a "severability clause" designed to protect an act from this type of global rejection, the legislation was rammed through a divided Congress with diminishing public support.

The absence of the clause was just one of the flaws in this legislation, which even sponsors now admit must be amended to address serious problems ranging from paperwork overload to uncertain costs to questions over what plans will count under the law. Even for some of us who support national health care, the bill unnecessarily triggered the constitutional fight that led to its rejection in two federal courts. There were alternatives to achieve the same end, but what was lacking was a willingness to reconsider these provisions with the approach of the new Congress.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-02-03-turley03_ST_N.htm

When you lose this guy, who is next?

[we vs us]

I don't think they've "lost" anybody.  The criticism is fair, but it doesn't mean Turley's advocating throwing out the law.  He even mentions that he supports national healthcare. 

And as for judicial activism:  what's good for the goose . . . .

[Townsend]

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/08/133503755/alternatives-to-mandating-insurance-maybe

Alternatives To Mandating Insurance? Maybe

[Townsend]

Oh look, a job saver...

GOP Takes Latest Abortion Fight To The Tax Code

http://tinyurl.com/4ev8aar

[Conan71]

Oh look, a job saver...

http://tinyurl.com/4ev8aar

Madcow was on a tear last night about the GOP bringing out more anti-abortion bills and very little job growth bills. 

Might be because government generally tends to inhibit commerce with legislation, not promote it. 

I have to admit, on the surface I see the Republicans doing exactly what they accused the Dims of doing: ignoring the real issues while they work on passing a slate of legislation which does nothing to confront the real problems most people are concerned about.

[Hoss]

Madcow was on a tear last night about the GOP bringing out more anti-abortion bills and very little job growth bills. 

Might be because government generally tends to inhibit commerce with legislation, not promote it. 

I have to admit, on the surface I see the Republicans doing exactly what they accused the Dims of doing: ignoring the real issues while they work on passing a slate of legislation which does nothing to confront the real problems most people are concerned about.

And you're surprised about that....why?



Politicians are still politicians, no matter what letter is appended or prepended to their name on the newscast.  Big lobbies, unfortunately, still own them.

[guido911]

Madcow was on a tear last night about the GOP bringing out more anti-abortion bills and very little job growth bills.  

Might be because government generally tends to inhibit commerce with legislation, not promote it.  

I have to admit, on the surface I see the Republicans doing exactly what they accused the Dims of doing: ignoring the real issues while they work on passing a slate of legislation which does nothing to confront the real problems most people are concerned about.

I am not sure that's totally accurate. The repub house voted to real Obamacare, which is what those that elected them wanted. Next week they will vote to defund it.  Rand Paul has put forth an effort to cut the deficit by 500B, the House at a much smaller 32B, which is what the people that elected them wanted. Today certain provisions of the Patriot Act were allowed to expire in the House. I just read that the Repub House will be looking to defund the stimulus bill.

[Conan71]

I am not sure that's totally accurate. The repub house voted to real Obamacare, which is what those that elected them wanted. Next week they will vote to defund it.  Rand Paul has put forth an effort to cut the deficit by 500B, the House at a much smaller 32B, which is what the people that elected them wanted. Today certain provisions of the Patriot Act were allowed to expire in the House. I just read that the Repub House will be looking to defund the stimulus bill.

Yeah, but Democrats are in denial that Obamacare was going to kill job creation, so basically repealing Obamacare does nothing for job creation.  Capiche?

[guido911]

Yeah, but Democrats are in denial that Obamacare was going to kill job creation, so basically repealing Obamacare does nothing for job creation.  Capiche?

Got it. Thanks for straightening me out.

[Conan71]

Boggles the mind.  Shifting cost centers.  Ok, let's go with that.  If we shift 30% of the medical bill (hospital, doctor, medicine, etc) to even 30% of the insurance bill (which won't happen), then the cost shifting has ended up saving a TON of money to me personally.  And $250 billion to the American taxpayer.  But that wouldn't go into the pocket of big insurance or big medicine, so we can't have that, can we.

That still doesn't correct the gross decentralization of health care into all these specialty hospitals and take into account the cost of paying for utilizing all this new diagnostic and surgical equipment which has helped make medical costs so staggering in addition to people who can't afford or won't pay for the care they received. 

In other words, the providers will never drop their prices.  With more people being on insurance, it might help mitigate gratuitous price increases so long as doctors and entire health systems don't opt out of taking health insurance and go straight cash.  It's just not as simple as people have tried to make this on the surface.  They passed the bill and we still don't know what all was in it. 

[Red Arrow]

In other words, the providers will never drop their prices. 

I tend to agree but I do know of one exception.  A friend retired a few years ago and told his dentist he was losing dental coverage.  My friend offered to pay in cash what the agreed upon insurance company rates were and the dentist agreed.

If you were told you would only be compensated at 50% of your ordinary and customary rates, wouldn't you immediately double your rates? 

[Conan71]

I tend to agree but I do know of one exception.  A friend retired a few years ago and told his dentist he was losing dental coverage.  My friend offered to pay in cash what the agreed upon insurance company rates were and the dentist agreed.

If you were told you would only be compensated at 50% of your ordinary and customary rates, wouldn't you immediately double your rates? 

Yup.