so the court did the dirty work for him.LOOK, LET ME BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A TAX!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax/)
surprised this hasn't gotten more play on this board. :dunno:
Someone tell me, what are the downside of this is. TIA.
so the court did the dirty work for him.LOOK, LET ME BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A TAX!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax/)
almost middle class families have/or have access/means to get healthcare so your point is entirely moot.
I may be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), but now that this is being openly called a tax, I think this isn't as big of a political win as he wanted. The next 4 months are going to be interesting and probs even more super charged than the last one.
I may be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), but now that this is being openly called a tax, I think this isn't as big of a political win as he wanted. The next 4 months are going to be interesting and probs even more super charged than the last one.
I haven't read the ruling yet, but talk about bullshit semantics. If you don't get insurance, they fine you. You fail to fulfill an obligation and they penalize you. Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. It's a rough ridin' fine, not a tax.
For example, you fail to stop at a stop sign, cop sees you and tickets you. You get fined for your failure to fulfill your obligation to stop. Nobody calls that a rough ridin' tax. It's a punitive measure designed to correct undesirable behavior. That's its primary function. A collateral consequence is that the government gets some of your money. Does not make it a tax.
It's a punitive measure designed to correct undesirable behavior.
I may be Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), but now that this is being openly called a tax, I think this isn't as big of a political win as he wanted. The next 4 months are going to be interesting and probs even more super charged than the last one.
I haven't read the ruling yet, but talk about bullshit semantics. If you don't get insurance, they fine you. You fail to fulfill an obligation and they penalize you. Tax: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. It's a rough ridin' fine, not a tax.
For example, you fail to stop at a stop sign, cop sees you and tickets you. You get fined for your failure to fulfill your obligation to stop. Nobody calls that a rough ridin' tax. It's a punitive measure designed to correct undesirable behavior. That's its primary function. A collateral consequence is that the government gets some of your money. Does not make it a tax.
I don't disagree. I meant that he the R's will rail him for such a "tax" until election time. If it was all upheld without being openly defended as a tax right in the media, it may have been a bigger win for him politically.
Fox News Reports: New Evidence Suggests John Roberts Born in Kenya
Romney vs Obama, who the eff cares they are both huge losers.
are you people retards? calling it a tax is far more logical than calling it interstate commerce. they take your money, which you are required by law to pay, and use that money to provide a civic service. that's a rough ridin' tax.
the notion that it isn't a tax, because you are allowed not pay the tax, provided you engage in a behavior they wish to encourage is infantile. our entire tax code is built around that concept.
LULZso the court did the dirty work for him.LOOK, LET ME BE CLEAR, THIS IS NOT A TAX!
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-in-2009-its-not-a-tax/)
almost middle class families have/or have access/means to get healthcare so your point is entirely moot.
Only you would be this naive to think 30 million more people are going to be covered without the middle class paying for it. Thinking people have been screaming "this is a tax" for 2 years, but the morons believed Obama-Pelosi-Reid that this won't cost us anything. In the mean time, insurance rates have gone up in anticipation.
are you people retards? calling it a tax is far more logical than calling it interstate commerce. they take your money, which you are required by law to pay, and use that money to provide a civic service. that's a rough ridin' tax.
the notion that it isn't a tax, because you are allowed not pay the tax, provided you engage in a behavior they wish to encourage is infantile. our entire tax code is built around that concept.
It's no different than a sin tax. Or the fed saying, raise the drinking age or lose highway funding.
It's no different than a sin tax. Or the fed saying, raise the drinking age or lose highway funding.
Didn't the court just rule this to be unconstitutional?
if this is it, it doesn't look like itIt's no different than a sin tax. Or the fed saying, raise the drinking age or lose highway funding.
Didn't the court just rule this to be unconstitutional?
"It is not the government's job to keep everyone alive In earlier ages, when people young or old were sick....they died"ask him how he feels about abortion and letting old people die in shitty homes
- A conservative telling me why new Healthcare plan is bad
"It is not the government's job to keep everyone alive In earlier ages, when people young or old were sick....they died"ask him how he feels about abortion and letting old people die in shitty homes
- A conservative telling me why new Healthcare plan is bad
Legallize pot and end the FDA would solve a lot of health care issues. Not everything, mind you.
Obamacare though is a mess.
Legallize pot and end the FDA would solve a lot of health care issues. Not everything, mind you.
Obamacare though is a mess.
and you wonder why people think ron paul supporters are crazy.
eff NOLegallize pot and end the FDA would solve a lot of health care issues. Not everything, mind you.
Obamacare though is a mess.
and you wonder why people think ron paul supporters are crazy.
The pharmaceutical companies run the FDA, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). The FDA doesnt allow new drugs because it would affect their bottom line (or the corporations that are the FDA). The barriers for entry are ridiculous in this industry. If there was no FDA and people could choose their own treatments, prices would go down. A lot.
Before you babble on about "Durrr Ron Paul supporters durrr" please google Stanislaw Burzynski and understand the implications of his situation. Thx.
Legallize pot and end the FDA would solve a lot of health care issues. Not everything, mind you.
Obamacare though is a mess.
and you wonder why people think ron paul supporters are crazy.
Actually pretty scary. I read an article about pharm companies not researching or producing many new antibiotics because they don't make Enough money off drugs that people don't take forever.
The pharmaceutical companies run the FDA, Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). The FDA doesnt allow new drugs because it would affect their bottom line (or the corporations that are the FDA). The barriers for entry are ridiculous in this industry. If there was no FDA and people could choose their own treatments, prices would go down. A lot.
Before you babble on about "Durrr Ron Paul supporters durrr" please google Stanislaw Burzynski and understand the implications of his situation. Thx.
Still confused. Supreme Court says it is a tax, but White House still says it isn't. :dunno:Hmm...quite the pickle
Still confused. Supreme Court says it is a tax, but White House still says it isn't. :dunno:
Poor people still aren't going to buy health insurance.
Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).
Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).
It's more than your taxes. It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.
Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.
Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).
It's more than your taxes. It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.
Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.
A lot of people right now who don't have insurance are not getting medical treatment until they have to go to the ER. Then they can't pay for it, and our insurance charges us for it. If they go when problems first begin, they will be much cheaper than that ER visit. At least I like to think so.
My other point is that as of right now, one out of 8 children are uninsured, and 20% of children are not receiving proper immunizations. They have no control over that, their parents do. Maybe some of them still won't get them them because their parents are being dicks. Who knows. But I would pay double my taxes (WAY over what taxes are estimated to rise, in case you haven't looked) to save a handful of kids' lives. I understand that the money that will be gained won't be spent in the most efficient way, but if only a few kids' lives are saved because of this tax increase, how can you say it's not worth it? What if you knew all the kids, would it be worth it then?
Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).
It's more than your taxes. It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.
Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.
A lot of people right now who don't have insurance are not getting medical treatment until they have to go to the ER. Then they can't pay for it, and our insurance charges us for it. If they go when problems first begin, they will be much cheaper than that ER visit. At least I like to think so.
My other point is that as of right now, one out of 8 children are uninsured, and 20% of children are not receiving proper immunizations. They have no control over that, their parents do. Maybe some of them still won't get them them because their parents are being dicks. Who knows. But I would pay double my taxes (WAY over what taxes are estimated to rise, in case you haven't looked) to save a handful of kids' lives. I understand that the money that will be gained won't be spent in the most efficient way, but if only a few kids' lives are saved because of this tax increase, how can you say it's not worth it? What if you knew all the kids, would it be worth it then?
You can keep saying that people against this policy want children dead, but that's not really the issue.
I'll have you tag along to court with me sometime soon and you can decide yourself whether ANY policy is going to be effective with/for people who don't give a crap about anything except their next cig.
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
LOLZ if you think the ACA is going to make poor people stop using the ER as a primary care physician or cause them to suddenly give a crap about the well being of their children. If anyone needs a dose of practicality and reality its sheltered morons like you.Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).
It's more than your taxes. It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.
Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.
A lot of people right now who don't have insurance are not getting medical treatment until they have to go to the ER. Then they can't pay for it, and our insurance charges us for it. If they go when problems first begin, they will be much cheaper than that ER visit. At least I like to think so.
My other point is that as of right now, one out of 8 children are uninsured, and 20% of children are not receiving proper immunizations. They have no control over that, their parents do. Maybe some of them still won't get them them because their parents are being dicks. Who knows. But I would pay double my taxes (WAY over what taxes are estimated to rise, in case you haven't looked) to save a handful of kids' lives. I understand that the money that will be gained won't be spent in the most efficient way, but if only a few kids' lives are saved because of this tax increase, how can you say it's not worth it? What if you knew all the kids, would it be worth it then?
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).
Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?
Understand your point about dirtbags but there are many more people without insurance that would love to have some.
Oh man, Trim and FSD on the same team. This is great.
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).
Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?
Especially so.
Oh man, Trim and FSD on the same team. This is great.
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).
Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?
Especially so.
Fair enough. Then how come nobody knows about it? Can we raise taxes to inform everyone of this?
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).
Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?
Especially so.
Fair enough. Then how come nobody knows about it? Can we raise taxes to inform everyone of this?
Nope. Just post up in a hospital lobby and figuratively hold everyone's hand through the process.
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).
Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?
Especially so.
Fair enough. Then how come nobody knows about it? Can we raise taxes to inform everyone of this?
Nope. Just post up in a hospital lobby and figuratively hold everyone's hand through the process.
There are plenty of people who have looked for ways to decrease their medical bills and did not know this was an option. If the ACA is able to take care of these people, even if they had this option before and were uniformed about it, then I think it's worth paying for. But now I won't be pissed at people who are oppose to the ACA, assuming it's for similar reasons that you're against it.
welcome to the Pit, trim :thumbs:
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).
LOLZ if you think the ACA is going to make poor people stop using the ER as a primary care physician or cause them to suddenly give a crap about the well being of their children. If anyone needs a dose of practicality and reality its sheltered morons like you.Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).
It's more than your taxes. It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.
Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.
A lot of people right now who don't have insurance are not getting medical treatment until they have to go to the ER. Then they can't pay for it, and our insurance charges us for it. If they go when problems first begin, they will be much cheaper than that ER visit. At least I like to think so.
My other point is that as of right now, one out of 8 children are uninsured, and 20% of children are not receiving proper immunizations. They have no control over that, their parents do. Maybe some of them still won't get them them because their parents are being dicks. Who knows. But I would pay double my taxes (WAY over what taxes are estimated to rise, in case you haven't looked) to save a handful of kids' lives. I understand that the money that will be gained won't be spent in the most efficient way, but if only a few kids' lives are saved because of this tax increase, how can you say it's not worth it? What if you knew all the kids, would it be worth it then?
The best thing we could do for health care is to start sterilizing imbeciles. Ruth Bader and Sys concur.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
They may not retire immediately, but I think the bigger problem is that the profession will not be as lucrative as it once was. The assumption is that this may be a deciding factor in young people investing the time and effort it takes to become a doctor. Factor in the additional time it will take to pay off student loans due to the lower earnings and it seems somewhat reasonable that a 22 year old will say, "eff that, I ain't going to become a doc and then work until I am 70 to pay off my student loans."I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
They may not retire immediately, but I think the bigger problem is that the profession will not be as lucrative as it once was. The assumption is that this may be a deciding factor in young people investing the time and effort it takes to become a doctor. Factor in the additional time it will take to pay off student loans due to the lower earnings and it seems somewhat reasonable that a 22 year old will say, "eff that, I ain't going to become a doc and then work until I am 70 to pay off my student loans."I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
They may not retire immediately, but I think the bigger problem is that the profession will not be as lucrative as it once was. The assumption is that this may be a deciding factor in young people investing the time and effort it takes to become a doctor. Factor in the additional time it will take to pay off student loans due to the lower earnings and it seems somewhat reasonable that a 22 year old will say, "eff that, I ain't going to become a doc and then work until I am 70 to pay off my student loans."I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
What is that 22 year old going to do instead?
They may not retire immediately, but I think the bigger problem is that the profession will not be as lucrative as it once was. The assumption is that this may be a deciding factor in young people investing the time and effort it takes to become a doctor. Factor in the additional time it will take to pay off student loans due to the lower earnings and it seems somewhat reasonable that a 22 year old will say, "eff that, I ain't going to become a doc and then work until I am 70 to pay off my student loans."I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
What is that 22 year old going to do instead?
Law School? :dunno:
I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.
Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).
Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?
Especially so.
Fair enough. Then how come nobody knows about it? Can we raise taxes to inform everyone of this?
Nope. Just post up in a hospital lobby and figuratively hold everyone's hand through the process.
There are plenty of people who have looked for ways to decrease their medical bills and did not know this was an option. If the ACA is able to take care of these people, even if they had this option before and were uniformed about it, then I think it's worth paying for. But now I won't be pissed at people who are oppose to the ACA, assuming it's for similar reasons that you're against it.
I'm against the absurdly large number of americans who live their lives in disarray. I'm not necessarily against the motivation behind the ACA, but I don't think it'll make a difference. The takeaway for a shitload of people will be "Obama made hospitals free" as they roll into their local ER.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
My friend's father flys to Italy for medical care. People are weird.
That was just for the lawyers on here.They may not retire immediately, but I think the bigger problem is that the profession will not be as lucrative as it once was. The assumption is that this may be a deciding factor in young people investing the time and effort it takes to become a doctor. Factor in the additional time it will take to pay off student loans due to the lower earnings and it seems somewhat reasonable that a 22 year old will say, "eff that, I ain't going to become a doc and then work until I am 70 to pay off my student loans."I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
What is that 22 year old going to do instead?
Law School? :dunno:
Those professions seem like they would require different skill sets. I think engineer is more likely, but being a doctor would have to become a lot less lucrative before kids want to be engineers instead of doctors.
That was just for the lawyers on here.They may not retire immediately, but I think the bigger problem is that the profession will not be as lucrative as it once was. The assumption is that this may be a deciding factor in young people investing the time and effort it takes to become a doctor. Factor in the additional time it will take to pay off student loans due to the lower earnings and it seems somewhat reasonable that a 22 year old will say, "eff that, I ain't going to become a doc and then work until I am 70 to pay off my student loans."I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
What is that 22 year old going to do instead?
Law School? :dunno:
Those professions seem like they would require different skill sets. I think engineer is more likely, but being a doctor would have to become a lot less lucrative before kids want to be engineers instead of doctors.
If the average family physician loses 33% of their income, assuming the average income is about $180k for a family physician (I know some make a hell of a lot more, but some make a hell of a lot less- I googled it and $180k seemed like a decent average and it makes the math easy), then the average income drops to $120k. Throw in the $100k in med school loans, it seems reasonable to me that some kids will gladly jump on the engineer train and start out at $70k (or whatever it is these days) and work their way up without the medical school debt. Don't forget that the engineer starts making money 8 years earlier than the physician.
Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
However, if they can't get into med school now, do you want them taking care of you when they are able to get in simply because the most qualified people chose not to pursue the career field? Something to consider.
Okay. It will all be excellent.Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
However, if they can't get into med school now, do you want them taking care of you when they are able to get in simply because the most qualified people chose not to pursue the career field? Something to consider.
It couldn't be worse than what I've got now. They would still have to graduate from med school to be a doctor. Why should I care if they had a few bad grades freshman year in college?
Okay. It will all be excellent.Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
However, if they can't get into med school now, do you want them taking care of you when they are able to get in simply because the most qualified people chose not to pursue the career field? Something to consider.
It couldn't be worse than what I've got now. They would still have to graduate from med school to be a doctor. Why should I care if they had a few bad grades freshman year in college?
No, I took that into consideration when I said it will ALL be excellent. (And they said Utopia could not be attained- HA, I laugh in their faces!)Okay. It will all be excellent.Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
However, if they can't get into med school now, do you want them taking care of you when they are able to get in simply because the most qualified people chose not to pursue the career field? Something to consider.
It couldn't be worse than what I've got now. They would still have to graduate from med school to be a doctor. Why should I care if they had a few bad grades freshman year in college?
You are also neglecting to mention that because all of these more qualified people are becoming engineers so we will have better medicine, better roads, healthier foods, lower priced goods, and a better economy.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
My friend's father flys to Italy for medical care. People are weird.
Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
However, if they can't get into med school now, do you want them taking care of you when they are able to get in simply because the most qualified people chose not to pursue the career field? Something to consider.
It couldn't be worse than what I've got now. They would still have to graduate from med school to be a doctor. Why should I care if they had a few bad grades freshman year in college?
Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
However, if they can't get into med school now, do you want them taking care of you when they are able to get in simply because the most qualified people chose not to pursue the career field? Something to consider.
It couldn't be worse than what I've got now. They would still have to graduate from med school to be a doctor. Why should I care if they had a few bad grades freshman year in college?
Jfc, where do you live? In the forest somewhere? I called the day before, got a full physical the next day and received my lab results (no AIDS) the next day.
Maybe you are just a bad person. I have moved several times and I never have that problem..."Why certainly Mr. dobber, what day would you like to see the best Dr. in the State of (wherever I just moved to)?"Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
However, if they can't get into med school now, do you want them taking care of you when they are able to get in simply because the most qualified people chose not to pursue the career field? Something to consider.
It couldn't be worse than what I've got now. They would still have to graduate from med school to be a doctor. Why should I care if they had a few bad grades freshman year in college?
Jfc, where do you live? In the forest somewhere? I called the day before, got a full physical the next day and received my lab results (no AIDS) the next day.
Had you seen the doctor at any point before you called? Try getting an appointment with a doctor as a new patient some time. It's not easy.
It's complete bullshit, too. You call to schedule an appointment and they tell you they can get you in today. Then they find out you aren't in their system, and they either refuse to see you at all or tell you it will be 2 months. That crap should absolutely be illegal.
Maybe you are just a bad person. I have moved several times and I never have that problem..."Why certainly Mr. dobber, what day would you like to see the best Dr. in the State of (wherever I just moved to)?"Do you not think others who cannot currently get into med school would replace them?They may. :dunno:
However, if they can't get into med school now, do you want them taking care of you when they are able to get in simply because the most qualified people chose not to pursue the career field? Something to consider.
It couldn't be worse than what I've got now. They would still have to graduate from med school to be a doctor. Why should I care if they had a few bad grades freshman year in college?
Jfc, where do you live? In the forest somewhere? I called the day before, got a full physical the next day and received my lab results (no AIDS) the next day.
Had you seen the doctor at any point before you called? Try getting an appointment with a doctor as a new patient some time. It's not easy.
It's complete bullshit, too. You call to schedule an appointment and they tell you they can get you in today. Then they find out you aren't in their system, and they either refuse to see you at all or tell you it will be 2 months. That crap should absolutely be illegal.
That was just for the lawyers on here.They may not retire immediately, but I think the bigger problem is that the profession will not be as lucrative as it once was. The assumption is that this may be a deciding factor in young people investing the time and effort it takes to become a doctor. Factor in the additional time it will take to pay off student loans due to the lower earnings and it seems somewhat reasonable that a 22 year old will say, "eff that, I ain't going to become a doc and then work until I am 70 to pay off my student loans."I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
What is that 22 year old going to do instead?
Law School? :dunno:
Those professions seem like they would require different skill sets. I think engineer is more likely, but being a doctor would have to become a lot less lucrative before kids want to be engineers instead of doctors.
If the average family physician loses 33% of their income, assuming the average income is about $180k for a family physician (I know some make a hell of a lot more, but some make a hell of a lot less- I googled it and $180k seemed like a decent average and it makes the math easy), then the average income drops to $120k. Throw in the $100k in med school loans, it seems reasonable to me that some kids will gladly jump on the engineer train and start out at $70k (or whatever it is these days) and work their way up without the medical school debt. Don't forget that the engineer starts making money 8 years earlier than the physician.
You're doing something wrong, NK.
The doctor I have now wasn't taking any more patients according to my insurance booklet, so I called him directly and explained I wanted the best doctor in the system, and he accepted me and the wife.
When dougie moved to town, the Dr. called him.The doctor I have now wasn't taking any more patients according to my insurance booklet, so I called him directly and explained I wanted the best doctor in the system, and he accepted me and the wife.
Did you call him at his residence or did you actually get him to talk to you on the phone from his office?
The doctor I have now wasn't taking any more patients according to my insurance booklet, so I called him directly and explained I wanted the best doctor in the system, and he accepted me and the wife.
Did you call him at his residence or did you actually get him to talk to you on the phone from his office?
The doctor I have now wasn't taking any more patients according to my insurance booklet, so I called him directly and explained I wanted the best doctor in the system, and he accepted me and the wife.
Did you call him at his residence or did you actually get him to talk to you on the phone from his office?
The only way to get to a doctor is through their nurse. Schmooze up the nurse and see what happens.
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
My friend's father flys to Italy for medical care. People are weird.
I agree that's pretty weird, unless he uses it as an excuse for a vacation in Italy, in which case it is awesome, but my point was it takes him a very long time to see a doctor in Canada, so he crosses the border into Seattle.
I have no doubt that the poor people will just continue to use the ER. It is very difficult to find a family practitioner that sees new patients now, and the larger patient pool this provides will make it completely impossible. Nobody is going to wait in line for hours at a walk in clinic to get preventative care.
Just wait until the mass retirement of doctors not willing to work for the mandated fees for service. Expect 6 month waits to see a nurse practitioner. It will be rare to actually see a real doctor.
It already is very hard to see a real doctor, and that has nothing to do with this legislation.
Also, I don't really buy this doctors quitting because of fees stuff. What else are they going to do that provides them the lifestyle they currently enjoy? The government forcing the doctors to provide service at a rate that's not quite as ridiculous as they are currently charging doesn't seem that ridiculous to me.
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
My friend's father flys to Italy for medical care. People are weird.
I agree that's pretty weird, unless he uses it as an excuse for a vacation in Italy, in which case it is awesome, but my point was it takes him a very long time to see a doctor in Canada, so he crosses the border into Seattle.
Yeah I go to kstat. Much better than family doc for most stuff. But 99% of the "inconvenience" stuff has to do with licensing/high barriers to entry/oligopoly. There was an article somewhere on the interwebs I read about a primary care doc that was taking clients on his iphone for home visits to be more convenient and cut overhead. Some competing docs filed a couple complaints to the state board accusing him of prescription selling and he went back to a brick and mortar. The volume of doctors offices even in the U.S. is high, and also relatively efficient in terms of patients/per hr. the problem is that innovation is really, really hard.
Specialists are relatively hard to see/expensive anywhere in the U.S (but still easier to see) and just hard to see in a socialized medical care scheme.
Since the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
Uh oh, Trim.QuoteSince the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
Uh oh, Trim.QuoteSince the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
I got really upset today when I saw that Monday would've been the perfect day for you to come watch court with me in Abilene and Manhattan except that there's one particular case in Wichita I can't delegate away or continue.
Uh oh, Trim.QuoteSince the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
I got really upset today when I saw that Monday would've been the perfect day for you to come watch court with me in Abilene and Manhattan except that there's one particular case in Wichita I can't delegate away or continue.
Uh oh, Trim.QuoteSince the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
I got really upset today when I saw that Monday would've been the perfect day for you to come watch court with me in Abilene and Manhattan except that there's one particular case in Wichita I can't delegate away or continue.
I don't doubt there are people like the people you're talking about. But those stats are pretty cool. I mean, we have this state that pretty much already implemented Obamacare, and it's working. People who didn't have health insurance before are using it. IT'S WORKING, TRIM!! IT'S EFFING WORKING!!!
That being said, I'll still go to court with you sometime.
Uh oh, Trim.QuoteSince the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
I got really upset today when I saw that Monday would've been the perfect day for you to come watch court with me in Abilene and Manhattan except that there's one particular case in Wichita I can't delegate away or continue.
I don't doubt there are people like the people you're talking about. But those stats are pretty cool. I mean, we have this state that pretty much already implemented Obamacare, and it's working. People who didn't have health insurance before are using it. IT'S WORKING, TRIM!! IT'S EFFING WORKING!!!
That being said, I'll still go to court with you sometime.
Uh oh, Trim.QuoteSince the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
I got really upset today when I saw that Monday would've been the perfect day for you to come watch court with me in Abilene and Manhattan except that there's one particular case in Wichita I can't delegate away or continue.
I don't doubt there are people like the people you're talking about. But those stats are pretty cool. I mean, we have this state that pretty much already implemented Obamacare, and it's working. People who didn't have health insurance before are using it. IT'S WORKING, TRIM!! IT'S EFFING WORKING!!!
That being said, I'll still go to court with you sometime.
I think implementing on the state level is fantastic. They can be much more reactive to the needs of their particular residents needs. It would also add an element of competition between the states to see who had the best system (cost vs level of service) to draw business to the state. If you have a problem with your states health care, or lack there of, you can start looking at relocating. Everyone would win.
Federal programs suck. All of them.
Uh oh, Trim.QuoteSince the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
I got really upset today when I saw that Monday would've been the perfect day for you to come watch court with me in Abilene and Manhattan except that there's one particular case in Wichita I can't delegate away or continue.
I don't doubt there are people like the people you're talking about. But those stats are pretty cool. I mean, we have this state that pretty much already implemented Obamacare, and it's working. People who didn't have health insurance before are using it. IT'S WORKING, TRIM!! IT'S EFFING WORKING!!!
That being said, I'll still go to court with you sometime.
I think implementing on the state level is fantastic. They can be much more reactive to the needs of their particular residents needs. It would also add an element of competition between the states to see who had the best system (cost vs level of service) to draw business to the state. If you have a problem with your states health care, or lack there of, you can start looking at relocating. Everyone would win.
Federal programs suck. All of them.
I'm all for that. Tell your people to draw up a plan and give it to Romney. I'd vote for that. But right now it's Obama's plan vs. what we have now. And with those two options, I'll take Obama's plan.
Uh oh, Trim.QuoteSince the law was approved in 2006, Massachusetts residents are more likely to have a place they usually go when they are sick or need advice (up 4.7 percent), more likely to have had a preventive care visit (up 5.9 percent), more likely to have had multiple doctor visits (up 5 percent) and more likely to have had a dental visit (up 5 percent), the Blue Cross Blue Shield report found.
I got really upset today when I saw that Monday would've been the perfect day for you to come watch court with me in Abilene and Manhattan except that there's one particular case in Wichita I can't delegate away or continue.
I don't doubt there are people like the people you're talking about. But those stats are pretty cool. I mean, we have this state that pretty much already implemented Obamacare, and it's working. People who didn't have health insurance before are using it. IT'S WORKING, TRIM!! IT'S EFFING WORKING!!!
That being said, I'll still go to court with you sometime.
I think implementing on the state level is fantastic. They can be much more reactive to the needs of their particular residents needs. It would also add an element of competition between the states to see who had the best system (cost vs level of service) to draw business to the state. If you have a problem with your states health care, or lack there of, you can start looking at relocating. Everyone would win.
Federal programs suck. All of them.
I'm all for that. Tell your people to draw up a plan and give it to Romney. I'd vote for that. But right now it's Obama's plan vs. what we have now. And with those two options, I'll take Obama's plan.
Once Obamacare is fully implemented, there will be no Mass Health, or whatever they call it. There will be no more choice. If you don't like what you get, oh well. Can't put the genie back in the bottle.
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
i know 4 people very well that live in canada. two in their late 20's and 2 in late 40's/early 50's. none of them have ever had a problem seeing a doctor when they need too. the two that have needed surgeries received them much quicker than they would have been able to in the US. my mom, who is a director in a hospital, went up to winnipeg about 3 months ago because the guy she is involved with was having surgery, and she was amazed at how easy, simple, and fast the whole experience was.
i have asked him about this issue and he jokingly laughs and calls the 2-6 month wait to see doctors "bullshit propaganda".
I can't say that I have ever had a to wait more than 2 weeks to see a doctor. My Canadian friend is very envious. He sometimes comes to the US and pays out of his own pocket to see a doctor.
i know 4 people very well that live in canada. two in their late 20's and 2 in late 40's/early 50's. none of them have ever had a problem seeing a doctor when they need too. the two that have needed surgeries received them much quicker than they would have been able to in the US. my mom, who is a director in a hospital, went up to winnipeg about 3 months ago because the guy she is involved with was having surgery, and she was amazed at how easy, simple, and fast the whole experience was.
i have asked him about this issue and he jokingly laughs and calls the 2-6 month wait to see doctors "bullshit propaganda".
I've got a great idea, let's get the Canadian government to run our healthcare.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
'been out of town, but I can't wait for the first thread talking about some government study in regards to the health industry and how doctors are lazy and underpaid - and the only reason they got into the industry is for the 3 month vacation during the summers. Excited for the upcoming threads on "let's fix the medical industry by providing vouchers so everyone can afford the private sector".
#teamFSD
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
'been out of town, but I can't wait for the first thread talking about some government study in regards to the health industry and how doctors are lazy and underpaid - and the only reason they got into the industry is for the 3 month vacation during the summers. Excited for the upcoming threads on "let's fix the medical industry by providing vouchers so everyone can afford the private sector".
#teamFSD
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is ridiculous, but it's not really any more ridiculous than being charged $8 for a single tylenol pill and $25 for a box of tissues during a hospital stay.
'been out of town, but I can't wait for the first thread talking about some government study in regards to the health industry and how doctors are lazy and underpaid - and the only reason they got into the industry is for the 3 month vacation during the summers. Excited for the upcoming threads on "let's fix the medical industry by providing vouchers so everyone can afford the private sector".
#teamFSD
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is ridiculous, but it's not really any more ridiculous than being charged $8 for a single tylenol pill and $25 for a box of tissues during a hospital stay.
Link?
'been out of town, but I can't wait for the first thread talking about some government study in regards to the health industry and how doctors are lazy and underpaid - and the only reason they got into the industry is for the 3 month vacation during the summers. Excited for the upcoming threads on "let's fix the medical industry by providing vouchers so everyone can afford the private sector".
#teamFSD
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is ridiculous, but it's not really any more ridiculous than being charged $8 for a single tylenol pill and $25 for a box of tissues during a hospital stay.
Link?
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/may/01/observational-care.aspx (http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2012/may/01/observational-care.aspx)
Zachor, who works as an office manager for the Minnesota Citizens Federation, a consumer advocacy group,
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127077&page=1#.T_WmT_UwD5M (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=127077&page=1#.T_WmT_UwD5M)
Inside the Casey Anthony Trial
Defense attorney Jose Baez discusses his famous client and behind the scenes details of the high-stakes trial.
‘GMA’ Deals and Steals
Exclusive deals on products made in the USA.
Battle of the Hair Straighteners
We put at-home hair straighteners to the test to see which ones work the best.
One hospital even used "disposable mucus recovery system" as a name for tissues.Enough said.
http://www.ehow.com/info_7826464_do-cant-pay-hospital-bills.html (http://www.ehow.com/info_7826464_do-cant-pay-hospital-bills.html)
Russell Huebsch has written freelance articles covering a range of topics from basketball to politics in print and online publications. He graduated from Baylor University in 2009 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science.
NK, identify a person who's overpaid for tissues or whatever. I'll pay myself for their time to provide us all the records pertaining to the incident, and we'll see if it's a legit issue or not. OK?
NK, identify a person who's overpaid for tissues or whatever. I'll pay myself for their time to provide us all the records pertaining to the incident, and we'll see if it's a legit issue or not. OK?
I don't think anybody actually ends up paying those prices, but don't you think there is something wrong with a system where it's standard practice for hospitals to itemize services like kleenexes, tylenol pills, and bags of ice at rates that are double or triple the actual cost? Why not just charge the actual cost of those items and then bill for the room and staff hours like any other reputable business would? Also, LOL at comparing a hospital stay to eating out.
NK, identify a person who's overpaid for tissues or whatever. I'll pay myself for their time to provide us all the records pertaining to the incident, and we'll see if it's a legit issue or not. OK?
I don't think anybody actually ends up paying those prices, but don't you think there is something wrong with a system where it's standard practice for hospitals to itemize services like kleenexes, tylenol pills, and bags of ice at rates that are double or triple the actual cost? Why not just charge the actual cost of those items and then bill for the room and staff hours like any other reputable business would? Also, LOL at comparing a hospital stay to eating out.
Read what a chargemaster is and how they're made along with how overhead costs get paid for in reputable businesses. And tonight, ask for separate tabs for your meal and your waitress service.
NK, you and Al Franken can keep coming up with urban myths to bitch about. Meanwhile, here in the real world, including at the aforementioned court date I'd hoped to lead a field trip to, hospitals are suing people who haven't paid the "reasonable value" for the goods and services. Why isn't it just the amount billed? Because, as I'm sure you can appreciate, a creditor can't just declare a price after the fact and that becomes the price. There's no agreed-upon amount due, so the creditor is only entitled to the reasonable value of what was provided. Guess what that reasonable value is ALWAYS determined to be?
It's the amount billed, including whatever allegedly exorbitant cost for a tylenol pill you're mad about, because hospitals charge enough to cover costs and overhead, and have a formula (which leads to the chargemaster). In fact, many hospitals are non-profit entities, meaning they're charging exactly enough and often not enough to cover costs.
If you think you have the data to prove that what hospitals charge is above and beyond the reasonable value of those goods and services, you really ought to figure out a way to become a lawyer or associate with a lawyer that wants to specialize in helping people not pay their medical bills, because so far nobody else has figured it out.
Your messing up the restaurant analogy. Tipping out the help would only be at a dirty strip club where the girls are independent contractors and receive no money from an establishment. At a restaurant, your bill for food is paying for the food, the rent, the utilities, the staff, the cost of having a bunch of food on hand that may or may not be eaten, etc. Kind of like how an emergency room has to keep a shitload of stuff on hand to deal with any number of situations, even though a good chunk of it will never get used.
To me, it's more of a transparency issue than anything. I wouldn't care if hospitals charged thousands of dollars for a box of kleenexes if they were up front about that charge and you could bring your own box. It's not the total on the bill that I have a problem with so much as the methodology they use to arrive at that total.
Trim, I want in on the field trip, but really need it to happen on a Sat.
True story: Mrs. SF had to have a minor procedure a while back (she's fine and thanks for the T's and P's). The dr office lady called me up and asked me if I wanted to run it all on insurance??? I was like, WTF are you talking about? She said, "you have awesome insurance so you want to". I said, WTF are you talking about and she said, never mind, I just wanted to check. I asked her again why would I not want it to go on my insurance. Her reply: " Well, since it is a minor procedure, some people would just pay out of pocket. I said, why would I want to do that? She says: "well, if you pay out of pocket the hospital will charge you around $1200, but if you run it through your insurance the hospital and dr will bill them about $8000 and paying the lesser amount yourself puts less towards your maximums".
I am fracking fascinated by this. I have great insurance so I didn't really give a shazbot!, but it was amazing to me. I mean, ideally I should have called up my hr person lady and said "hey, I will pay this out of pocket if you reimburse me, it will save you 7 grand". When it was all cleared I looked and the final payment was 4 grand.
I'm fascinated by all the anger produced by this. This is a small part to a very large problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ANECDOTES
The hospital does not charge all of their customers the same rate for the same service,
and you never have any idea of what to expect the bill to be until it arrives, other than to expect it to be expensive.
Quote from: the health care debateANECDOTES
I'm fascinated by all the anger produced by this. This is a small part to a very large problem.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well, my hospital-going experience is limited to a 3 hour wait at the walk-in clinic with pneumonia because no doctor was willing to see me, but I think it makes people angry because it is incredibly nontransparent. The hospital does not charge all of their customers the same rate for the same service, and you never have any idea of what to expect the bill to be until it arrives, other than to expect it to be expensive.
It’s a lawyer’s dream!
Officials have already drafted 13,000 pages of new regulations for the new ObamaTax law.
FOX News reported:
With the Supreme Court giving President Obama’s new health care law a green light, federal and state officials are turning to implementation of the law — a lengthy and massive undertaking still in its early stages, but already costing money and expanding the government.
The Health and Human Services Department “was given a billion dollars implementation money,” Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg of Montana said. “That money is gone already on additional bureaucrats and IT programs, computerization for the implementation.”
“Oh boy,” Stan Dorn of the Urban Institute said. “HHS has a huge amount of work to do and the states do, too. There will be new health insurance marketplaces in every state in the country, places you can go online, compare health plans.”
The IRS, Health and Human Services and many other agencies will now write thousands of pages of regulations — an effort well under way:
“There’s already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they’re not even done yet,” Rehberg said.
“It’s a delegation of extensive authority from Congress to the Department of Health and Human Services and a lot of boards and commissions and bureaus throughout the bureaucracy,” Matt Spalding of the Heritage Foundation said. “We counted about 180 or so.”
There has been much focus on the mandate that all Americans obtain health insurance, but analysts say that’s just a small part of the law — covering only a few pages out of the law’s 2700.
“The fact of the matter is the mandate is about two percent of the whole piece of the legislation,” Spalding said. “It’s a minor part.”
Much bigger than the mandate itself are the insurance exchanges that will administer $681 billion in subsidies over 10 years, which will require a lot of new federal workers at the IRS and health department.
“They are asking for several hundred new employees,” Dorn said. “You have rules you need to write and you need lawyers, so there are lots of things you need to do when you are standing up a new enterprise.”
For some, though, the bottom line is clear and troubling: The federal government is about to assume massive new powers.
FYP (attempt at lawyer joke)If stuff is good,Idon't care if it'slike lots of pages.
FYP (attempt at lawyer joke)If stuff is good,Idon't care if it'slike lots of pages.
FYP (attempt at lawyer joke)If stuff is good,Idon't care if it'slike lots of pages.
Good try, good effort.
FYP (attempt at lawyer joke)If stuff is good,Idon't care if it'slike lots of pages.
Good try, good effort.
LOL!
BTW, you were slaying it earlier with NK. Every time he tried to turn it into something else, you lawyered him like a boss. (not joking)
The hospital does not charge all of their customers the same rate for the same service,
This isn't true. The charges are uniform. Some people have insurance or some sort of coverage with which that coverage provider has long ago negotiated a contract by which should the insurance provider make prompt payment of a predetermined percentage, the health provider will by agreement write off the other portion. Insurance companies then use those arrangements to sell themselves to prospective insurance customers (employers or individuals) as the best insurance provider.
If you have a coupon for something and get half-off whatever you're buying, you're not getting charged less than the guy without coupon.and you never have any idea of what to expect the bill to be until it arrives, other than to expect it to be expensive.
What are you proposing? You get in a car wreck and are mumped up and taken to the hospital. At what point should the price negotiation take place?
I'll be having a summary judgment hearing in the next 2 months on all these issues. I really want you to come. PM me your contact info so when I have to schedule, I can make sure you're available. We'll pak after I win.
ANALOGIES!
Quote from: the health care debateANALOGIES!
YES!!!
NK, do you do a lot of emergency urgent care projects?
You don't think the itemized bills look just a little bit ridiculous?
You don't think the itemized bills look just a little bit ridiculous?
The real-life ones? No.
That's good to know. I've honestly only seen the ones people bitch and moan about on the internet. I'm sure the claims are exaggerated, but it really is strange to me that something like a tylenol pill would show up on a bill at all.
That's good to know. I've honestly only seen the ones people bitch and moan about on the internet. I'm sure the claims are exaggerated, but it really is strange to me that something like a tylenol pill would show up on a bill at all.
Yeah, if I didn't have my primary career as co-owner of goEMAW, internet bitching and moaning would be a real pain in my ass.
you people should listen to the links i linked. they mention some of this stuff, and then you'd know more than you know now.
They're an hour each. Will skimming the transcripts suffice?
They're an hour each. Will skimming the transcripts suffice?
cliff notes - a lot of the stuff you've been saying is wrong. good listens though. entertaining.
I've skimmed through about 60% of the first one and see my first reference to nazis.
I've skimmed through about 60% of the first one and see my first reference to nazis.
i shouldn't have missed that. were they referencing weber, curry or steve?
Whichever one discourages prostate exams. Probably Currie.
1,000's of pages of new regulations, plus countless other new regulations being piled on to business, in addition to the volumes of regulations that already exist.
Yep, that's an environment for job growth ladies and gentleman.
1,000's of pages of new regulations, plus countless other new regulations being piled on to business, in addition to the volumes of regulations that already exist.
Yep, that's an environment for job growth ladies and gentleman.
With all of the new regulations over the last 3 years, you can be sure that nearly every business owner will be breaking a law in some way without knowing it. It will give the government the hammer they need to control every aspect of our lives. Lawyers rejoice (until their rates are capped).
On come on guys, if you're for a reasonable regulatory environment that's code word for unfettered operations that pollute and kill all peoples.look at all these jobs created by unregulated business
Are you saying this ruling will hurt the dems in the long run.
WE MUST ELECT ROMNEY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gM&feature=plcp
:jerk: :jerk:
WE MUST ELECT ROMNEY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gM&feature=plcp
:jerk: :jerk:
State vs federal
sooo..... the exact words that came out of Romney's mouth synching up perfectly with the exact words that came out of Obama's mouth of what they think the governments role & what they would do as president with ACA are not enough to convince you that Romney is a rough ridin' carbon copy of Obama?WE MUST ELECT ROMNEY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gM&feature=plcp
:jerk: :jerk:
State vs federal
sooo..... the exact words that came out of Romney's mouth synching up perfectly with the exact words that came out of Obama's mouth of what they think the governments role & what they would do as president with ACA are not enough to convince you that Romney is a rough ridin' carbon copy of Obama?WE MUST ELECT ROMNEY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gM&feature=plcp
:jerk: :jerk:
State vs federal
I don't think I could write a better comedy.
But go on guys... lets keep debating ACA like there's an actual alternative.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
sooo..... the exact words that came out of Romney's mouth synching up perfectly with the exact words that came out of Obama's mouth of what they think the governments role & what they would do as president with ACA are not enough to convince you that Romney is a rough ridin' carbon copy of Obama?WE MUST ELECT ROMNEY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gM&feature=plcp
:jerk: :jerk:
State vs federal
I don't think I could write a better comedy.
But go on guys... lets keep debating ACA like there's an actual alternative.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So great. I brought this up to my conservative uncle on the 4th of July and asked him what he thought the difference between Romney and Obama's plan would be. He said they'd be way different. I told him that every time Romney talks about his plan, everything he says is straight from Obama's plan. He retorted with, "no it's not". I told him he should look it up and get back to me. Spoiler alert: He hasn't gotten back to me.
sooo..... the exact words that came out of Romney's mouth synching up perfectly with the exact words that came out of Obama's mouth of what they think the governments role & what they would do as president with ACA are not enough to convince you that Romney is a rough ridin' carbon copy of Obama?WE MUST ELECT ROMNEY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gM&feature=plcp
:jerk: :jerk:
State vs federal
I don't think I could write a better comedy.
But go on guys... lets keep debating ACA like there's an actual alternative.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So great. I brought this up to my conservative uncle on the 4th of July and asked him what he thought the difference between Romney and Obama's plan would be. He said they'd be way different. I told him that every time Romney talks about his plan, everything he says is straight from Obama's plan. He retorted with, "no it's not". I told him he should look it up and get back to me. Spoiler alert: He hasn't gotten back to me.
Just out of curiosity (I honestly don't know), but does Romney's state plan include bazillions of dollars for things that have nothing to do with healthcare and did he have to pay a bunch of people to vote for it so it would pass? Also, was it so big that 99% of the people that have to implement have no idea whether or not they are doing it right?
Are you saying this ruling will hurt the dems in the long run.
$500,000,000,000 in new taxes the firstyeardecade.
sooo..... the exact words that came out of Romney's mouth synching up perfectly with the exact words that came out of Obama's mouth of what they think the governments role & what they would do as president with ACA are not enough to convince you that Romney is a rough ridin' carbon copy of Obama?WE MUST ELECT ROMNEY!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gM&feature=plcp
:jerk: :jerk:
State vs federal
I don't think I could write a better comedy.
But go on guys... lets keep debating ACA like there's an actual alternative.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
So great. I brought this up to my conservative uncle on the 4th of July and asked him what he thought the difference between Romney and Obama's plan would be. He said they'd be way different. I told him that every time Romney talks about his plan, everything he says is straight from Obama's plan. He retorted with, "no it's not". I told him he should look it up and get back to me. Spoiler alert: He hasn't gotten back to me.
Just out of curiosity (I honestly don't know), but does Romney's state plan include bazillions of dollars for things that have nothing to do with healthcare and did he have to pay a bunch of people to vote for it so it would pass? Also, was it so big that 99% of the people that have to implement have no idea whether or not they are doing it right?
Really glad this thread moved past NK's futile and boring rant about hospital bill itemization and "transparency ".
Really like where its going regarding regulation. Took a libtard less than 10 minutes to allege the right is opposed to all regulation. So Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), and more proof they are losing, badly.
Who said anything about having NO regulations?But you don't want regulation. To say that you want any kind is dishonest at best, and actually closer to an out right lie. You want some bullshit minimalist reg you can point to on a piece of paper without any kind of enforcement agency (EPA, OSHA, FDA, etc). At that point you don't have regulation. You have a bullshit argument that you can point to when called out on your hypocrisy.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/06/why-romney-wont-repeal-obamacare.htmli cnt wait for romney to be elected and the continuation of the same policy. War, heath care, destroying civil liberties... turning us into a police state. The future is great.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/06/why-romney-wont-repeal-obamacare.htmli cnt wait for romney to be elected and the continuation of the same policy. War, heath care, destroying civil liberties... turning us into a police state. The future is great.
Those with goEMAW platinum will soon get to hear a recorded call of a guy mad about having to pay his bill say he was going to go out and shoot all republicans because they're against obamacare.
Not clear on the recording, but I think he ended the call mumbling that he was #TeamNutsKicked.
Those with goEMAW platinum will soon get to hear a recorded call of a guy mad about having to pay his bill say he was going to go out and shoot all republicans because they're against obamacare.
Not clear on the recording, but I think he ended the call mumbling that he was #TeamNutsKicked.
:lol: :thumbs:
I've never had a hospital bill, but I would pay it. There is a huge difference between thinking something costs too much vs. going ahead and getting that service anyway and then refusing to pay.
Really glad this thread moved past NK's futile and boring rant about hospital bill itemization and "transparency ".
Really like where its going regarding regulation. Took a libtard less than 10 minutes to allege the right is opposed to all regulation. So Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), and more proof they are losing, badly.Who said anything about having NO regulations?But you don't want regulation. To say that you want any kind is dishonest at best, and actually closer to an out right lie. You want some bullshit minimalist reg you can point to on a piece of paper without any kind of enforcement agency (EPA, OSHA, FDA, etc). At that point you don't have regulation. You have a bullshit argument that you can point to when called out on your hypocrisy.
If you actually read the ACA there are some good regs in there, like saying you have to occupy a certain square footage of space in order to qualify as a medic** service provider. Why do we need regs like that? Becuase too many people were gaming the system running claims with no....wait for it.....enforcement.