Seven million will lose insurance under Obama health law

Posted in the Grand Rapids Forum

Comments (Page 16)

Showing posts 301 - 320 of359
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#342
Mar 4, 2013
 
Shoeless Eluder wrote:
7,000,000 will lose insurance it will actually be in the end 300,000,000 will lose insurance because the goal of BHO is the elimination of private insurance. That is the truth. All of us willingly or not will be put under the auspices of the Affordable Care Act and will lose choices in every aspect of our lives.
The tables will turn and everything you do act and say will be subject to the health care LAW!!!! because why?? well its the LAW silly and if don't obey the law then you are a criminal and that is the whole point of this to make more criminals. Our so called leaders are so ready to dump us in with the rest of the world so we can be subjects instead of free men and women.
How do you come up with that? The individual mandate requires everyone to get health insurance coverage and that is "forcing" people to purchase coverage from the insurance carriers. The government does not own any insurance businesses.

Are you saying it's in the plan for the government to create their own insurance companies in the future?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#343
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Completely aware of Mass program, as I lived in Maine when it went through..... You should go and visit for a month......
So you're saying you used the MA plan while living in ME?

Interesting on how if the MA RomnyeCare is such a bad thing they haven't repealed it yet. Maybe you can tell me why they haven't.

And why is it that seeing as the Republicans are in such a fury to repeal ObamaCare why haven't we been hearing about MA being in a fury to repeal RomneyCare. Seeing as you know so much about politics why wouldn't it be the perfect comparison for the Republicans to be pushing as hard to repeal RomnyeCare while they have been with ObamaCare.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#344
Mar 4, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Noooo. What you just explained is why the cost of HEALTH INSURANCE goes up. NOT the reason medical costs increase.
Your presenting it as health care costs increase because health insurance costs increase. The only way that has any reason in it is health care providers increase their charges because there is a "deep pocket" (health insurance) available to pay the charges. Likely a more lucrative source for payment than from the patient(s).
Apparently you don't understand that insurance costs increase to keep pace with the increases of [cost] claims and to keep the profit margins.
You are correct, and my mistake.

Medical costs (not insurance) are going up for a number of reasons. Basic supply and demand is part of it. Everyday the population as a whole gets older and older people use more medical care. So demand increases. At the same time, doctors are moving out of the GP field and projections are that this trend will continue. So supply is going down. Thus costs go up.

If the government covers less of a procedure, then a doctor/hospital is going to raise the cost to get more of the cost covered.

Taxes (however you want to figure it) on medical equipment have already increased so the price of the equipment is going up.

I also touched on it with the lawyers, but lawsuits are increasing and will continue to do so. That means the insurance premiums for hospitals and doctors is increasing so costs go up. Premiums today are based on tomorrows expectations.

Cost of employees is going up so hospitals and doctors offices that have employees are paying more which gets passed on to the patients.

Cost of living increases. Gas and food is way up versus 2008 and many companies kept their prices down and took an internal hit. That can't go on forever so many companies are finally increasing prices out of necessity to get back on track.

The list goes on and on and on. It isn't any one thing and it varies by the type of specific medical cost. But at the heart of all this is the basic rule of supply and demand. As long as demand increases and supply decreases or stays the same, prices go up. When there is less demand and more supply, than prices go down. Government can't force that basic rule to be ignored, the marketplace is too smart.

When the baby boomers start dieing off, thus reducing demand and assuming that Gen X and Y are healthier and don't need as much medical care (bad assumption) health care costs will continue to go up.

If you want medical costs to go down, figure out a way to decrease demand.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#345
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct, and my mistake.
Medical costs (not insurance) are going up for a number of reasons. Basic supply and demand is part of it. Everyday the population as a whole gets older and older people use more medical care. So demand increases. At the same time, doctors are moving out of the GP field and projections are that this trend will continue. So supply is going down. Thus costs go up.
If the government covers less of a procedure, then a doctor/hospital is going to raise the cost to get more of the cost covered.
Taxes (however you want to figure it) on medical equipment have already increased so the price of the equipment is going up.
I also touched on it with the lawyers, but lawsuits are increasing and will continue to do so. That means the insurance premiums for hospitals and doctors is increasing so costs go up. Premiums today are based on tomorrows expectations.
Cost of employees is going up so hospitals and doctors offices that have employees are paying more which gets passed on to the patients.
Cost of living increases. Gas and food is way up versus 2008 and many companies kept their prices down and took an internal hit. That can't go on forever so many companies are finally increasing prices out of necessity to get back on track.
The list goes on and on and on. It isn't any one thing and it varies by the type of specific medical cost. But at the heart of all this is the basic rule of supply and demand. As long as demand increases and supply decreases or stays the same, prices go up. When there is less demand and more supply, than prices go down. Government can't force that basic rule to be ignored, the marketplace is too smart.
When the baby boomers start dieing off, thus reducing demand and assuming that Gen X and Y are healthier and don't need as much medical care (bad assumption) health care costs will continue to go up.
If you want medical costs to go down, figure out a way to decrease demand.
Yes supply and demand. Just not basic. You seem to be stuck in the high school, junior college and university 101s of economics. The posts I placed are valid that the supply side is being manipulated specifically to keep incomes and profits artificially inflated.

If we want [medical care] costs to decrease remove the regulations, and yes private organizations, of which the AMA is a private organization/union, can create their own regulations.

It's been known for decades the baby-boomers would be aging to the point of needing more medical care by the shear numbers and that has been factored into the restricting the numbers of doctors educated and the facilities to educate them....by the AMA.

It is a very big mistake to believe the tenet of supply and demand has not been manipulated to the advantage of profits.

Principles, theories, hypotheses and tenets are not necessities of absolute in their practices.

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#346
Mar 4, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes supply and demand. Just not basic. You seem to be stuck in the high school, junior college and university 101s of economics. The posts I placed are valid that the supply side is being manipulated specifically to keep incomes and profits artificially inflated.
If we want [medical care] costs to decrease remove the regulations, and yes private organizations, of which the AMA is a private organization/union, can create their own regulations.
It's been known for decades the baby-boomers would be aging to the point of needing more medical care by the shear numbers and that has been factored into the restricting the numbers of doctors educated and the facilities to educate them....by the AMA.
It is a very big mistake to believe the tenet of supply and demand has not been manipulated to the advantage of profits.
Principles, theories, hypotheses and tenets are not necessities of absolute in their practices.
I agree that removing regulations will decrease some of the costs, but removing regulations isn't the goal of the government or liberals. Government likes regulations because it helps it grow and become more important. Liberals like them because they think they can regulate "fairness" and/or human behavior.

The AMA can regulate the requirements to become a doctor but applications are way down, which they don't control. And the lower the standards the more that lawsuits and legal costs will increase, thus raising the costs even further.

Business understands how supply and demand works and works with it. Government is the one that manipulates it, by forcing price freezes, minimum wage, etc. If a bottle of water jumps to $5 because of a hurricane, business is simply responding to supply and demand. They did nothing to manipulate the price. OTOH when government says you can not sell that bottle of water for more than $2 because is isn't fair, that is manipulation. When government says the doctor/hospital will only get reimbursed $X for a proceedure, that is manipulation.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#347
Mar 4, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FLBeaver wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that removing regulations will decrease some of the costs, but removing regulations isn't the goal of the government or liberals. Government likes regulations because it helps it grow and become more important. Liberals like them because they think they can regulate "fairness" and/or human behavior.
The AMA can regulate the requirements to become a doctor but applications are way down, which they don't control. And the lower the standards the more that lawsuits and legal costs will increase, thus raising the costs even further.
Business understands how supply and demand works and works with it. Government is the one that manipulates it, by forcing price freezes, minimum wage, etc. If a bottle of water jumps to $5 because of a hurricane, business is simply responding to supply and demand. They did nothing to manipulate the price. OTOH when government says you can not sell that bottle of water for more than $2 because is isn't fair, that is manipulation. When government says the doctor/hospital will only get reimbursed $X for a proceedure, that is manipulation.
Wow. Government forcing price freezes? The last time that actually happened was when Richard Nixon instituted wage and price freezes. Because you've forgotten Nixon was a Republican.

Liberals like big government, liberals don't understand this not that nor anything you don't want them to understand in your mind. Remember who established Homeland Security? W. Bush. That wasn't a HUGE expansion of government and it reach and influence? Oh but that was needed for our "security".

Just how many times more is it necessary for me to post the proofs that it's been the Republicans that have increased the size and scope of government far more than the Democrats? You just don't want to believe it.
"From a purely statistical standpoint, the growth of entitlement spending over the past half-century has been distinctly greater under Republican administrations than Democratic ones. Between 1960 and 2010, the growth of entitlement spending was exponential, but in any given year, it was on the whole roughly 8% higher if the president happened to be a Republican rather than a Democrat."
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2...

Both political parties are not anti-government size but certainly at odds for their reasons why. Republicans want the size and scope of government to protect and preserve their wealthy and powerful benefactors. While Democrats want it to protect and preserve the well-being of the population as a whole. Not excluding the rich.

Of course you won't believe that and no matter what citations I post to back it up you will claim it/them as false.

And the despise conservatives have for fairness and equity says a lot about their attitude toward the tenet of..."in order to form a more perfect Union....". Perhaps you'll find more consolation in the AntiFederalist Papers.

I am glad to see there are those that are against the gouging of people in a life-threatening situation. And have nothing but contempt for those who believe taking advantage of those in dire straights in the name of profits as being a valuable part of free marketeering.

But of course private health insurance carriers NEVER restrict the percentage and/or amount they will pay doctors and hospitals. Or if they will pay at all. That would simply wrong wouldn't it. You'd never see a private carrier do such a thing would you.

So sorry, I don't believe in the sanctity of your god business. I believe it's supposed to be the servant of the people, not the people the servants to it.

“Where I came from”

Since: Jan 09

the universe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#348
Mar 4, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you come up with that? The individual mandate requires everyone to get health insurance coverage and that is "forcing" people to purchase coverage from the insurance carriers. The government does not own any insurance businesses.
Are you saying it's in the plan for the government to create their own insurance companies in the future?
Exactly you will become subjects of the state that is the goal of the wannabe dictator, god don't you people listen to his words?

Since: Feb 10

Grand Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#349
Mar 4, 2013
 
You should go beyond GR. Rent controls are alive and well in many parts of the country. Price controls are alive and well around the world. Go over to Wisconsin. They have price controls on thousands of items that we buy in the grocery store.
I said liberals like regulations. I said Government (which includes politicians of both stripes) like to grow government. Prior to becoming part of the government, liberals like big government and Republicans don't, but once they get paid to grow government, they both like it.

I agree that I'll never agree with your position that "Republicans want the size and scope of government to protect and preserve their wealthy and powerful benefactors. While Democrats want it to protect and preserve the well-being of the population as a whole." It's pure crap but hey, as Kerry said, we all have the right to be stupid. Unfortunately it's the only right that liberals like and try to make sure is enforced among the greatest number of people.

Of course a business would restrict the payment on something, that's what a business does. Charity would be the ones that would step up. Government does the same thing but for different reasons. As Obama said, it's time to take a pill and die. The difference is that business does it for economic reasons but allows for someone to step up and pay. Government makes a decision that one is too old, too Black, too Jewish, too Christian, too (fill in the blank) and makes it illegal to offer help.

I don't believe that business is perfect because it is simply a group of people working together and people aren't perfect. But the best business does more for people than the best government, and the worst business does far less harm than the worst government.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Collins, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#350
Mar 4, 2013
 
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're saying you used the MA plan while living in ME?
Interesting on how if the MA RomnyeCare is such a bad thing they haven't repealed it yet. Maybe you can tell me why they haven't.
And why is it that seeing as the Republicans are in such a fury to repeal ObamaCare why haven't we been hearing about MA being in a fury to repeal RomneyCare. Seeing as you know so much about politics why wouldn't it be the perfect comparison for the Republicans to be pushing as hard to repeal RomnyeCare while they have been with ObamaCare.
Drive through the state sometime..... Tons of 1989 Volvos...... Place is depressed...... The whole region is depressed...... Unless you are one of the one percent who inherited it all........
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#351
Mar 4, 2013
 
FLBeaver wrote:
You should go beyond GR. Rent controls are alive and well in many parts of the country. Price controls are alive and well around the world. Go over to Wisconsin. They have price controls on thousands of items that we buy in the grocery store.
I said liberals like regulations. I said Government (which includes politicians of both stripes) like to grow government. Prior to becoming part of the government, liberals like big government and Republicans don't, but once they get paid to grow government, they both like it.
I agree that I'll never agree with your position that "Republicans want the size and scope of government to protect and preserve their wealthy and powerful benefactors. While Democrats want it to protect and preserve the well-being of the population as a whole." It's pure crap but hey, as Kerry said, we all have the right to be stupid. Unfortunately it's the only right that liberals like and try to make sure is enforced among the greatest number of people.
Of course a business would restrict the payment on something, that's what a business does. Charity would be the ones that would step up. Government does the same thing but for different reasons. As Obama said, it's time to take a pill and die. The difference is that business does it for economic reasons but allows for someone to step up and pay. Government makes a decision that one is too old, too Black, too Jewish, too Christian, too (fill in the blank) and makes it illegal to offer help.
I don't believe that business is perfect because it is simply a group of people working together and people aren't perfect. But the best business does more for people than the best government, and the worst business does far less harm than the worst government.
Well then just know that whenever the right says it's the Liberals/Democrats that increase the size of government it's an outright known to be lie. I've proven it that it's Republicans the like the biggest government they can create. And then LIE about it saying they are against big government.

Oh and isn't it just great that business takes payments and then restrict what they pay out expecting the charities to pick up the slack. Standard for a business model, externalize the liabilities while internalizing the profits. Take the tax payers money to add to the bottom line, top management salaries and bonuses and investor dividends while expecting those same tax payers to be willing to donate to the charities to make up for the theft.

"Government makes a decision that one is too old, too Black, too Jewish, too Christian, too (fill in the blank) and makes it illegal to offer help."
Really? You just copped to thats the way business does it. But it's okay and to be expected from business. Except that business doesn't make it illegal to offer help. Business does because they control the legislation.
Really

Grandville, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#353
Mar 5, 2013
 
Oh those evil, evil businesses. I sure wish Obama would nationalize every single business in this country! It would show them!
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#354
Mar 5, 2013
 
Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Completely aware of Mass program, as I lived in Maine when it went through..... You should go and visit for a month......
Rather than driving through it, we have several customers located there that I've visited in the last year or so. I haven't seen any of the fear mongering crap you're dishing out. The people I've talked to are quite happy with the system.

Care to post a link to some actual numbers you're spouting?
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#355
Mar 5, 2013
 
Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Rather than driving through it, we have several customers located there that I've visited in the last year or so. I haven't seen any of the fear mongering crap you're dishing out. The people I've talked to are quite happy with the system.
Care to post a link to some actual numbers you're spouting?
Let me guess, you were around Boston and the 128 corridor. The money centers are not what I am talking about.. Try Wooster......
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#356
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Here is a unvarnished report on MA healthcare..... Before this program, the State cost of living was 15% higher than Michigan off the top. This report just came out Monday 3/4/13

kff.org/healthreform/8311.cfm
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#357
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
Here is a unvarnished report on MA healthcare..... Before this program, the State cost of living was 15% higher than Michigan off the top. This report just came out Monday 3/4/13
kff.org/healthreform/8311.cfm
Let's show the entire paragraph....

"The state continues to struggle with rising health care costs. State health reform in 2006 purposefully focused on expanding coverage to residents while leaving the thornier task of cost containment for future years. As a result, affordability continues to be an issue. Per capita health spending is 15% higher than the national average and although premium growth has slowed in recent years, Massachusetts has the highest individual market premiums in the country. Legislation focused on comprehensive provider payment reform and endorsed by the Governor is currently pending in the state’s legislature."

Note that those costs weren't addressed to begin with, but the government is currently moving towards that issue now. Maybe this would be a good place for Republicans to try to amend ACA before 2014. Of course they could always just keep beating the repeal drum to no effect. Then all this country's citizens wouldn't realize the text of the two paragraphs published prior to that.....

"Massachusetts succeeded in expanding coverage to nearly all state residents. Within a year of implementation the state experienced an unprecedented drop in the number of uninsured and, despite the economic recession, continues to retain the lowest rate of uninsured residents in the country. While Massachusetts has sustained gains in coverage, the rate of uninsured has continued to climb nationally [Figure 1].

Residents have experienced gains in access to health care services. More adults in Massachusetts receive preventive care services and report a usual source of care since health reform. With more residents gaining insurance coverage, demand for health care, particularly in underserved communities, has increased. Safety net providers have seen an increasing number of patients and the state continues to improve residents’ access to care by expanding primary care provider capacity. The state has increased medical school enrollment for students committed to primary care and created loan repayment opportunities for providers in underserved areas."

Imagine that..... Almost everyone has health insurance. More adults able to get preventive care. And while demand for medical professions have increased, so has the State's funding for students to take care of the increased demand.

As far as I can tell, Mass has more insured people, more people getting quality care, more demand for high paying jobs, and more people looking to fill that demand. It almost sounds like they've created good paying jobs....

The horror of it all!
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#358
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's show the entire paragraph....
"The state continues to struggle with rising health care costs. State health reform in 2006 purposefully focused on expanding coverage to residents while leaving the thornier task of cost containment for future years. As a result, affordability continues to be an issue. Per capita health spending is 15% higher than the national average and although premium growth has slowed in recent years, Massachusetts has the highest individual market premiums in the country. Legislation focused on comprehensive provider payment reform and endorsed by the Governor is currently pending in the state’s legislature."
Note that those costs weren't addressed to begin with, but the government is currently moving towards that issue now. Maybe this would be a good place for Republicans to try to amend ACA before 2014. Of course they could always just keep beating the repeal drum to no effect. Then all this country's citizens wouldn't realize the text of the two paragraphs published prior to that.....
"Massachusetts succeeded in expanding coverage to nearly all state residents. Within a year of implementation the state experienced an unprecedented drop in the number of uninsured and, despite the economic recession, continues to retain the lowest rate of uninsured residents in the country. While Massachusetts has sustained gains in coverage, the rate of uninsured has continued to climb nationally [Figure 1].
Residents have experienced gains in access to health care services. More adults in Massachusetts receive preventive care services and report a usual source of care since health reform. With more residents gaining insurance coverage, demand for health care, particularly in underserved communities, has increased. Safety net providers have seen an increasing number of patients and the state continues to improve residents’ access to care by expanding primary care provider capacity. The state has increased medical school enrollment for students committed to primary care and created loan repayment opportunities for providers in underserved areas."
Imagine that..... Almost everyone has health insurance. More adults able to get preventive care. And while demand for medical professions have increased, so has the State's funding for students to take care of the increased demand.
As far as I can tell, Mass has more insured people, more people getting quality care, more demand for high paying jobs, and more people looking to fill that demand. It almost sounds like they've created good paying jobs....
The horror of it all!
Keep lying to your self or better yet move there if the quality of life is poor here...... You can roll around the Berkshires naked.....
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Owosso, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#359
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's show the entire paragraph....
"The state continues to struggle with rising health care costs. State health reform in 2006 purposefully focused on expanding coverage to residents while leaving the thornier task of cost containment for future years. As a result, affordability continues to be an issue. Per capita health spending is 15% higher than the national average and although premium growth has slowed in recent years, Massachusetts has the highest individual market premiums in the country. Legislation focused on comprehensive provider payment reform and endorsed by the Governor is currently pending in the state’s legislature."
Note that those costs weren't addressed to begin with, but the government is currently moving towards that issue now. Maybe this would be a good place for Republicans to try to amend ACA before 2014. Of course they could always just keep beating the repeal drum to no effect. Then all this country's citizens wouldn't realize the text of the two paragraphs published prior to that.....
"Massachusetts succeeded in expanding coverage to nearly all state residents. Within a year of implementation the state experienced an unprecedented drop in the number of uninsured and, despite the economic recession, continues to retain the lowest rate of uninsured residents in the country. While Massachusetts has sustained gains in coverage, the rate of uninsured has continued to climb nationally [Figure 1].
Residents have experienced gains in access to health care services. More adults in Massachusetts receive preventive care services and report a usual source of care since health reform. With more residents gaining insurance coverage, demand for health care, particularly in underserved communities, has increased. Safety net providers have seen an increasing number of patients and the state continues to improve residents’ access to care by expanding primary care provider capacity. The state has increased medical school enrollment for students committed to primary care and created loan repayment opportunities for providers in underserved areas."
Imagine that..... Almost everyone has health insurance. More adults able to get preventive care. And while demand for medical professions have increased, so has the State's funding for students to take care of the increased demand.
As far as I can tell, Mass has more insured people, more people getting quality care, more demand for high paying jobs, and more people looking to fill that demand. It almost sounds like they've created good paying jobs....
The horror of it all!
You need to take the report in the full context..... You always miss the substance of the entire reporting......
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#360
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>You need to take the report in the full context..... You always miss the substance of the entire reporting......
The full context being that while RomneyCare took care of the coverage issue it doesn't address the cost issue. Why would that be? Because the medical industry is still a private for profit enterprise. So unless the government were to undertake instituting pricing controls on the private sector the problem will continue.

Does anyone really need to wonder how you would react if government enacted price controls on the private sector. That would be Socialism/Communism/Marxism wouldn't it.

I remember when Nixon instituted wage and price freezes. Wasn't pretty. And Nixon was a Republican no less.

The crux of it is governmental coverage policy has done the job it was intended to. It's now the "uncontrolled" pricing that is causing the ongoing problem. No surprise there.
Batch 37 Pain Is Good

Chelsea, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#361
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
The full context being that while RomneyCare took care of the coverage issue it doesn't address the cost issue. Why would that be? Because the medical industry is still a private for profit enterprise. So unless the government were to undertake instituting pricing controls on the private sector the problem will continue.
Does anyone really need to wonder how you would react if government enacted price controls on the private sector. That would be Socialism/Communism/Marxism wouldn't it.
I remember when Nixon instituted wage and price freezes. Wasn't pretty. And Nixon was a Republican no less.
The crux of it is governmental coverage policy has done the job it was intended to. It's now the "uncontrolled" pricing that is causing the ongoing problem. No surprise there.
Regulation and law suits really drive the cost up. Govt should back off and let the private sector compete..... My Grand Dad practiced in New England and took Chickens for payment at times......... No govt intrusion then and Americans were Americans and did not lawyer up like the pansies we have today......
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#362
Mar 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Batch 37 Pain Is Good wrote:
<quoted text>Regulation and law suits really drive the cost up. Govt should back off and let the private sector compete..... My Grand Dad practiced in New England and took Chickens for payment at times......... No govt intrusion then and Americans were Americans and did not lawyer up like the pansies we have today......
So you're believing it's the regulations and law suits that are the cause for physicians no longer taking chickens for payment at times?

You seem to miss the point that when a professional requires and takes something of real value, like money, for their services they have committed themselves to performing to the highest standards of the profession.

And you think the lawyers are the greedy ones? Doctors and especially hospitals are not usually slow to turn bills over to collection agencies when they don't get paid quickly.

And lets not forget that 62% of the individual bankruptcies involved medical bills. That even includes people who were insured at the time of treatment.

And they don't take chickens as payment any more.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 301 - 320 of359
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••
•••

Grand Rapids Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Grand Rapids News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Grand Rapids
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••