Health insurance markets open; success to be seen

Oct 1, 2013 Full story: Yahoo! 139

Millions of Americans will be able to shop for the first time Tuesday on the insurance marketplaces that are at the heart of President Barack Obama's health care reforms, entering a world that is supposed to simplify the mysteries of health coverage but could end up making it even more confusing, at least initially.

Full Story
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#85 Oct 2, 2013
The Insurance company does exactly what you believe the Government will do now.

Your doctor doesn't determine the treatments you receive, and the Doctor doesn't set his own reimbursements from the Insurance Company. And the Insurance company determines if you are limited in what treatments you receive and how many.

And there is no system of appeal. The Insurance industry didn't have regulations and patients were left at the mercy and discretion of the decisions of a bean counter in the Insurance company in a windowless office in the basement.

At least with Single Payer your representative in Congress has say to give you protections on your treatment and services, with the Insurance company you have zero say and right of appeal.
LoLBama wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep dancing puppet.
It sucks that all these Dems even at the state levels are playing theses games with people's livelihoods. They either don't have a brain cell in the skull or they are just straight up Marxist Socialist drones following the leader. The only end result I can see in all this obamacare mess is this. A single payer, single serve system. What does that mean? It means basically you pay uncle sam your medical insurance and he tells you if you are sick enough to go to the doctor, he tells you if you can have treatment and he decides how much doctors get paid. Think of how it works in Cuba, doctors don't get paid SH$% so how many bright smart talented people are going to devote 8 -10 years to school to work and get paid nothing? There is already a shortage due to obamacare. I'm old enough and well educated enough to be able to tell you exactly where this is headed. Straight down the shitter. The rich will be able to get medical care because there will be 'private' practices popping up everywhere which take cash only. Everyone else will be just a number in the government system. Chaos is a coming and Hell is riding with her.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#86 Oct 2, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
It is NOT a free market when the government MANDATES everyone buy something!!!
Free market is that IF you want to sell something, you HAVE TO FIND someone interested in buying. If someone else is also selling something similar, then you might make quality adjustments or price adjustements, etc.
BUT if you are selling something and the GOVERNMENT IS FORCING people to buy what you are selling, the free market forces are in FAVOR of the INSURANCE COMPANIES!
Not exactly.

In simple terms, a free market is a summary term for an array of exchanges that take place in society. Each exchange is a voluntary agreement between two parties who trade in the form of goods and services. In reality, this is the extent to which a free market exists since there will always be government intervention in the form of taxes, price controls and restrictions that prevent new competitors from entering a market.

In a civilized society with enforcement mechanisms your ability to enter into a market is secured by the protections your taxes pay to put in place.

Freedom, even freedom to sell isn't totally free.

Now, you could sell in a third work community where there may not be any taxes and interference from the Government, but could you survive in those locations enough to keep what you earn from the good or services you sell?
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#87 Oct 2, 2013
In some states because Insurance Companies are protected from Anti Trust laws, they are functioning as monopolies.

the Exchangers are offering more competition in some State what were dominated by major insurers, some controlling more than 95% of the state insurance market.

This is common knowledge, how can you debate this issue without being aware of the insurance monopolies in some states?

The Health Care Insurance Industry had little to no regulations and were exempt from Anti Trust Laws and as such, in several States, especially southern and plain States ran monopolies. Blue Cross and it's subsidiaries writes more than 75% of all Health Care Insurance policies in America.
sheepleloveroyalty wrote:
<quoted text>
It's almost turning the health INSURANCE industry into a state sponsored monopoly. It's forcing the patients to become customers of this for profit monopoly. That's why this is nothing but a backdoor to socialized medicine. Phase One now complete.
INSURANCE should be an OPTION. INSURANCE does not cover or deal with the actual COST-the problem with health CARE in the US.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#88 Oct 2, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
It is NOT a free market when the government MANDATES everyone buy something!!!
Free market is that IF you want to sell something, you HAVE TO FIND someone interested in buying. If someone else is also selling something similar, then you might make quality adjustments or price adjustements, etc.
BUT if you are selling something and the GOVERNMENT IS FORCING people to buy what you are selling, the free market forces are in FAVOR of the INSURANCE COMPANIES!
Bingo. ACA is a windfall for the insurance companies. They can provide less coverage and recieve more money in their pockets. What a sham on the taxpayers. If it can be stopped, now is the time.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#89 Oct 2, 2013
LoLBama wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep dancing puppet.
It sucks that all these Dems even at the state levels are playing theses games with people's livelihoods. They either don't have a brain cell in the skull or they are just straight up Marxist Socialist drones following the leader. The only end result I can see in all this obamacare mess is this. A single payer, single serve system. What does that mean? It means basically you pay uncle sam your medical insurance and he tells you if you are sick enough to go to the doctor, he tells you if you can have treatment and he decides how much doctors get paid. Think of how it works in Cuba, doctors don't get paid SH$% so how many bright smart talented people are going to devote 8 -10 years to school to work and get paid nothing? There is already a shortage due to obamacare. I'm old enough and well educated enough to be able to tell you exactly where this is headed. Straight down the shitter. The rich will be able to get medical care because there will be 'private' practices popping up everywhere which take cash only. Everyone else will be just a number in the government system. Chaos is a coming and Hell is riding with her.
I wish I could disagree with you.
incredulous

Carmel, IN

#90 Oct 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You have to measure "Obamacare" against our previous system, with its millions of exclusions and price-gouging premiums.
Remember, the Affordable Care Act is the product of compromise with the GOP. Obama's original hope was for a single payer plan, which would have been a lot more "wonderful".
Liar. There was no compromise. The scumbag ran this through without the GOP but we all know, he will somehow find a way to blame them for this doomed program.
sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#91 Oct 2, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
In some states because Insurance Companies are protected from Anti Trust laws, they are functioning as monopolies.
the Exchangers are offering more competition in some State what were dominated by major insurers, some controlling more than 95% of the state insurance market.
This is common knowledge, how can you debate this issue without being aware of the insurance monopolies in some states?
The Health Care Insurance Industry had little to no regulations and were exempt from Anti Trust Laws and as such, in several States, especially southern and plain States ran monopolies. Blue Cross and it's subsidiaries writes more than 75% of all Health Care Insurance policies in America.
<quoted text>
By making more or most health care patients buy and/or use INSURANCE: a voluntary optional form of payment you are basically giving the INSURANCE INDUSTRY a lock on customers and their money; money that can be used elsewhere and in other ways. It's not about the number of INSURANCE companies or INSURANCE company competition it's about ignoring other programs, forms of payment-cash, check, credit, payment plan etc and/or controlling the costs, the cause of health care/health INSURANCE inflation. The CASH customer and provider are being forced into the INSURANCE market. Why they use CASH doesn't matter. INSURANCE should be an option, not a mandate for the patient or provider. Mandating health INSURANCE is giving the the INSURANCE INDUSTRY a defacto monopoly because it forces patient money into their hands.
sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#92 Oct 2, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Had you ever reviewed an itemized bill from the hospital? Apparently you have not, but the cost of a typical Aspirin often run as much as $50.00
The cost of care for those without coverage is passed along to those who have coverage in the extraordinary premium pricing.
If you had coverage you were paying out of pocket you would know and if you carried a policy over several years you would have seen the premium increases year to year despite you maybe not even having to had used your insurance.
No person in America who has any long standing relationship with a Health Care insurer can not say they have not been stunned by the constant price increase in premiums and the outright cost of a solid care plan.
From the post most of you who post here either don't have insurance, or have a limited policy from a third party like a job that doesn't cover much, maybe catastrophic events.
It's just no possible to not know how expensive HC Insurance has been over the last 15 years.
<quoted text>
Why is aspirin 50$ in a hospital? Big Pharma's 1000 percent mark up? A padded bill? The provider jiggering the bill to get their desired fee and not to cover their actual costs?-if staff costs are short bill the actual cost of staffing and not bump up other parts of the bill to get the desired reimbursement. How is anyone supposed to know where the actual cost issues are? Now I get it.

Keep on hearing the uninsured are THE cause of all monetary woes like it's from a talking points memo.

But just for arguments sake there are providers out there including this one where the uninsured only account for 20% of their collection problems. I used Vanguard Health Systems, a public company for available information.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104582... page 80

Managed Care and Medicare account for a much larger portion of the collection problems/unpaid debt.

Also the same provider had an increase in self pay or uninsured revenue AND an increase in revenue, approximately a 35% increase since 2011. Page 10

Be very careful to distinguish from an actual monetary loss and not getting a desired fee.

INSURANCE and an actual health care COSTS/bills are high, excessive or exorbitant. BUT in detail why is that? Until the high COST issues are answered in detail and addressed to throw money at the same problems via more INSURANCE for what was an optional voluntary form of payment and to carry is not the answer.
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

#94 Oct 2, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Had you ever reviewed an itemized bill from the hospital? Apparently you have not, but the cost of a typical Aspirin often run as much as $50.00
The cost of care for those without coverage is passed along to those who have coverage in the extraordinary premium pricing.
If you had coverage you were paying out of pocket you would know and if you carried a policy over several years you would have seen the premium increases year to year despite you maybe not even having to had used your insurance.
No person in America who has any long standing relationship with a Health Care insurer can not say they have not been stunned by the constant price increase in premiums and the outright cost of a solid care plan.
From the post most of you who post here either don't have insurance, or have a limited policy from a third party like a job that doesn't cover much, maybe catastrophic events.
It's just no possible to not know how expensive HC Insurance has been over the last 15 years.
<quoted text>
If you'd read my post, then you'd already have the answer to your first question. I've seen more medical bills than most. I know as much about hospital coding procedures as those who work in the insurance companies, pouring over those itemized bills and removing all the redundant charges.

Health care premiums have risen with the increase in health care costs.

Health care costs rose 48% between 2000 and 2010, and have risen nearly 8% since 2010, far outpacing the rate of inflation. The insurance companies don't eat those increased costs. They pass them to the consumer, instead.

We have the best medical delivery system in the world. We have more technology and more diagnostic equipment, per capita, than any other country. And we don't ration care.

We do far more elective surgeries. Hysterectomies (80% more) and C-sections top the list. If we damage a tendon or a ligament, we don't want to wait six months to a year for it to heal on its own. We want it fixed now.

We offer state of the art treatment for a wide range of diseases and administer that treatment, even when the prognosis is hopeless. Most industrialized nations, especially those with single payer systems, don't treat hopeless cases.

If we go to the doctor for moderate back pain, we are likely to be sent for an MRI immediately, rather than do six to eight weeks of physical therapy and see if the condition persists, which in most cases, it doesn't.

And American doctors treat patients at a higher level than necessary for two reasons: One, is the fear of malpractice suits, which are capped in most other industrialized nations at a level far lower than what we see here. Two, is the fact that so many are insured and don't have to pay out of pocket for unnecessary procedure and tests.

There are other reasons for the sharp increase in costs...but making up for the uninsured who don't pay is at the bottom of the list.
Chicopee

Danbury, CT

#95 Oct 3, 2013
sheepleloveroyalty wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is aspirin 50$ in a hospital? Big Pharma's 1000 percent mark up? A padded bill? The provider jiggering the bill to get their desired fee and not to cover their actual costs?-if staff costs are short bill the actual cost of staffing and not bump up other parts of the bill to get the desired reimbursement. How is anyone supposed to know where the actual cost issues are? Now I get it.
Keep on hearing the uninsured are THE cause of all monetary woes like it's from a talking points memo.
But just for arguments sake there are providers out there including this one where the uninsured only account for 20% of their collection problems. I used Vanguard Health Systems, a public company for available information.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/104582... page 80
Managed Care and Medicare account for a much larger portion of the collection problems/unpaid debt.
Also the same provider had an increase in self pay or uninsured revenue AND an increase in revenue, approximately a 35% increase since 2011. Page 10
Be very careful to distinguish from an actual monetary loss and not getting a desired fee.
INSURANCE and an actual health care COSTS/bills are high, excessive or exorbitant. BUT in detail why is that? Until the high COST issues are answered in detail and addressed to throw money at the same problems via more INSURANCE for what was an optional voluntary form of payment and to carry is not the answer.
An aspirin is $50.00 because the patient is code charged for the gross, not the two aspirins they received from the gross.

Same reason that a shot of novicain is $500, the patient is code charged for the gross, not the small amount in the syringe.

Cancer patients may receive several medications before their chemo medicine is introduced...steroid, anti histamine, pain meds or antibiotics. These drugs must be 'IV pushed' through an IV (needle into the IV tube), sometimes slowly, depending on the drug. They can be code charged for each individual push, rather than one charge of $150 to $160 for the four or five minutes it might take for a nurse to push all four drugs.

A triage nurse at a local ER might take the blood pressure and temperature of a patient. Those two items are among 19 items within that code, and the patient will be charged for the 2 items done, and the 17 that weren't.

Hospitals are making money hand over fist because of the way they code bills. Insurance companies go over every item and cut out the redundant charges.

The uninsured get soaked. So even the losses hospitals claim treating the uninsured is costing them are highly fluffed numbers.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#96 Oct 3, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
In some states because Insurance Companies are protected from Anti Trust laws, they are functioning as monopolies.
the Exchangers are offering more competition in some State what were dominated by major insurers, some controlling more than 95% of the state insurance market.
This is common knowledge, how can you debate this issue without being aware of the insurance monopolies in some states?
The Health Care Insurance Industry had little to no regulations and were exempt from Anti Trust Laws and as such, in several States, especially southern and plain States ran monopolies. Blue Cross and it's subsidiaries writes more than 75% of all Health Care Insurance policies in America.
<quoted text>
Thanks to the Democrats 70 years ago, Insurance Companies can act like Monopolies from state to state after the passage of the Democrats McCarran–Ferguson Act which was passed because of the ruling in the SCOTUS case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association which the SCOTUS stated that the Federal Government could regulate the business of insurance under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution which is what the Modern Democrats want today which is why some Democrats wanted to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act so the Federal Government could begin to regulate the Health Insurance Industry but 70 years ago the Democrats were against the Idea and is the party that is responsible for this mess that we have today with Health Insurance as we know it.

McCarran–Ferguson Act

The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.§§ 1011-1015, also known as Public Law 15, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association

United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust statute, applied to insurance. To reach this decision, the Court held that insurance could be regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause, overturning Paul v. Virginia. Congress responded by enacting the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 which limited antitrust laws' applicability to the business and assured state authority would continue over insurance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....
sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#97 Oct 3, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
......
We do far more elective surgeries. Hysterectomies (80% more) and C-sections top the list. If we damage a tendon or a ligament, we don't want to wait six months to a year for it to heal on its own. We want it fixed now.
We offer state of the art treatment for a wide range of diseases and administer that treatment, even when the prognosis is hopeless. Most industrialized nations, especially those with single payer systems, don't treat hopeless cases.
If we go to the doctor for moderate back pain, we are likely to be sent for an MRI immediately, rather than do six to eight weeks of physical therapy and see if the condition persists, which in most cases, it doesn't.
And American doctors treat patients at a higher level than necessary for two reasons: One, is the fear of malpractice suits, which are capped in most other industrialized nations at a level far lower than what we see here. Two, is the fact that so many are insured and don't have to pay out of pocket for unnecessary procedure and tests.
There are other reasons for the sharp increase in costs...but making up for the uninsured who don't pay is at the bottom of the list.
I just heard a report today that exercise can help heart disease as much as other treatments.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/02/us-...

Doctors and medical community have been poo pooing exercise for decades. I know seniors, non disabled non impaired seniors that are given scripts and 30 dollars worth of bandanges,socks & wraps for 300 dollars(insurance accepted) for swelling in the legs/edema-poor soul their heart can't pump hard enough to move that fluid. OR could it be the loss of leg muscle tone which assists the heart in moving blood and fluids around the body. Yet I know injured people with swelling in the leg given simple things like toe raises and flexibility exercises to get rid of their swelling-no prescription anti-inflammatories or industrial size ice packs. Point being yes alternatives do work or are the practical choice. But if a patient pays 1000 a month for insurance and a doctor gets 200 dolllars a visit to 'monitor' and talk to the patient for 2 minutes why not give premium treatments.

INSURANCE of anykind can cause inflation because it's viewed as somebody else's money.
sheepleloveroyal ty

Bryn Mawr, PA

#98 Oct 3, 2013
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
An aspirin is $50.00 because the patient is code charged for the gross, not the two aspirins they received from the gross.
Same reason that a shot of novicain is $500, the patient is code charged for the gross, not the small amount in the syringe.
Cancer patients may receive several medications before their chemo medicine is introduced...steroid, anti histamine, pain meds or antibiotics. These drugs must be 'IV pushed' through an IV (needle into the IV tube), sometimes slowly, depending on the drug. They can be code charged for each individual push, rather than one charge of $150 to $160 for the four or five minutes it might take for a nurse to push all four drugs.
A triage nurse at a local ER might take the blood pressure and temperature of a patient. Those two items are among 19 items within that code, and the patient will be charged for the 2 items done, and the 17 that weren't.
Hospitals are making money hand over fist because of the way they code bills. Insurance companies go over every item and cut out the redundant charges.
The uninsured get soaked. So even the losses hospitals claim treating the uninsured is costing them are highly fluffed numbers.
I still remember seeing one of the first tv show Survivor contestants interviewed who was a doctor and was asked why he didn't go into medicine full bore and he said when more time is spent on coding than the patients it wasn't for him. I read one article where the doctor said why leave money on the table.

You even see courses and programs online for doctors to increase money from coding and training for the billing clerk/coders.
Your Ex

United States

#100 Oct 3, 2013
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Not having a car is a way to not have to purchase automobile insurance.
The only way to not have HEALTH INSURANCE is to be dead!!
Cool, I don't have a car, no ins payment, no problem!
It cost me my job, so now I'm on SNAP, the wife's on WIC, but we both get bizarrely high unemployment bennies from our middle management salary range.
Well, I'm off to the ER, I twisted my ankle golfing yesterday, and the COBRA was even more expensive than our high-end employer subsidized ins.
See you in the waiting room!(Oh, and thanks for picking up the tab for me... God bless cost-shifting!)
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#101 Oct 3, 2013
Health Care cost is dictated by the Health Care insurers in America. The monopolies that are allowed determine the cost of health care in different locations.

If one insurer writes 90% of the policies then that insure determines the physician reimbursement for that location, and established premium pricing for coverage from the consumer.

It's simple, if that insure is the only game in town, then he can use is position and strength in the market to close out and gobble up the smaller competitors in the market, and that's often the case with mergers. He also determines the price and the consumer has no or little choice to purchase from other competitors because there isn't any other competitor or the larger insurer can beat the smaller competitor's pricing.

If you can not afford insurance than as a cash customer you're screwed when it comes to pricing, Doctors aren't accepting chickens from a Chicken Farmer for treatment. If you don't have insurance you're not getting treatment for the same price as the negotiated reimbursement price with the major insurers. To believe that is an option is a pipe dream and signifies the individual who thinks that's a possibility isn't insured.
sheepleloveroyalty wrote:
<quoted text>
By making more or most health care patients buy and/or use INSURANCE: a voluntary optional form of payment you are basically giving the INSURANCE INDUSTRY a lock on customers and their money; money that can be used elsewhere and in other ways. It's not about the number of INSURANCE companies or INSURANCE company competition it's about ignoring other programs, forms of payment-cash, check, credit, payment plan etc and/or controlling the costs, the cause of health care/health INSURANCE inflation. The CASH customer and provider are being forced into the INSURANCE market. Why they use CASH doesn't matter. INSURANCE should be an option, not a mandate for the patient or provider. Mandating health INSURANCE is giving the the INSURANCE INDUSTRY a defacto monopoly because it forces patient money into their hands.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#103 Oct 3, 2013
This may be hard for some of you young people to believe, but 70 years ago the ideologies of the two parties was completely reversed.

The Democrats of today were basically representing some of the republican ideologies that are popular today.

The Southern Democrats 70 years ago, known as the Dixiecrats, was a contingent of politicians and supporters that included segregationist and were full throttle against equal justice for minorities, education and humane treatment and first and foremost promoted separation of the races. Sound similar to the current Tea Party member.

It's been said in some circles that the Tea Party is an extension of the old southern democrats, those are the people active in the center of the current tea party groups. Their principles are the same. The code words and phases since the Civil Rights bill are the same, Hating Government, because of the Government enacting legislation to ensure equal treatment and access to minorities, Hating government workers and public servants, because at one time public services job were the only jobs African Americans could get outside their communities if they didn't work for themselves, Hating education, well that's a result of the 1954 Brown vs Board of Education ruling.

To much government is their mantra, because that is the one force in America that ensures a level playing field.

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks to the Democrats 70 years ago, Insurance Companies can act like Monopolies from state to state after the passage of the Democrats McCarran–Ferguson Act which was passed because of the ruling in the SCOTUS case of United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association which the SCOTUS stated that the Federal Government could regulate the business of insurance under the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution which is what the Modern Democrats want today which is why some Democrats wanted to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act so the Federal Government could begin to regulate the Health Insurance Industry but 70 years ago the Democrats were against the Idea and is the party that is responsible for this mess that we have today with Health Insurance as we know it.
McCarran–Ferguson Act
The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C.§§ 1011-1015, also known as Public Law 15, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal antitrust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by the 79th Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarran%E2%80%9...
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, 322 U.S. 533 (1944), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Sherman Act, the federal antitrust statute, applied to insurance. To reach this decision, the Court held that insurance could be regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause, overturning Paul v. Virginia. Congress responded by enacting the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 which limited antitrust laws' applicability to the business and assured state authority would continue over insurance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v....
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#104 Oct 3, 2013
Hospitals do not determine the cost of care, the insurers in their reimbursement rates determine the cost paid to hospitals on behalf of their subscribers. If the hospital is unwilling to accept the reimbursement rate they simple refuse to agree to become a provider for that insurer.

It's not complex, those insurers at the top of the food chain set the pace, if a Hospital does not comply with an insurer who writes 85% of the HC Insurance policies in a locate it's the loss of the Hospital not the insurance company because the next hospital or physician will.

You've seen more hospitals over the years close and no Health Care Insurers fold.

What makes medicine in America cutting edge in some cases it the money Government givens to universities and colleges with medical centers in funding research projects. Institutions may match government grants and funding for research, but overwhelmingly that money to find cures and fund research comes from our pockets. That tied into why emergency rooms have an obligation to treat emergencies independent if the individual has the capacity to pay. If a facility accepts grant money and funding from the federal government they are then obligated by the law to treat anyone who comes into their emergency room to a point of stabilization. Follow up care is not included in that treatment.

48% increase may have been the low mark, in 2001 I paid $560 a month for comprehensive coverage, in 2010 that same policy, uninterrupted was $850

Tort insurance is good business, that's a physician's protection and does nothing for the Health Care insurers, that's basic liability insurance as it may be for any business venture and has no factor in a Health Care insurers reimbursement schedule. If the insurers reimbursement rate is not sufficient to cover all expense request to have your practice removed from the insurers schedule of providers.

Nobody is forced to be listed as a network provider of an insurer.
Chicopee wrote:
<quoted text>
If you'd read my post, then you'd already have the answer to your first question. I've seen more medical bills than most. I know as much about hospital coding procedures as those who work in the insurance companies, pouring over those itemized bills and removing all the redundant charges.
Health care premiums have risen with the increase in health care costs.
Health care costs rose 48% between 2000 and 2010, and have risen nearly 8% since 2010, far outpacing the rate of inflation. The insurance companies don't eat those increased costs. They pass them to the consumer, instead.
We have the best medical delivery system in the world. We have more technology and more diagnostic equipment, per capita, than any other country. And we don't ration care.
We do far more elective surgeries. Hysterectomies (80% more) and C-sections top the list. If we damage a tendon or a ligament, we don't want to wait six months to a year for it to heal on its own. We want it fixed now.
We offer state of the art treatment for a wide range of diseases and administer that treatment, even when the prognosis is hopeless. Most industrialized nations, especially those with single payer systems, don't treat hopeless cases.
If we go to the doctor for moderate back pain, we are likely to be sent for an MRI immediately, rather than do six to eight weeks of physical therapy and see if the condition persists, which in most cases, it doesn't.
And American doctors treat patients at a higher level than necessary for two reasons: One, is the fear of malpractice suits, which are capped in most other industrialized nations at a level far lower than what we see here. Two, is the fact that so many are insured and don't have to pay out of pocket for unnecessary procedure and tests.
There are other reasons for the sharp increase in costs...but making up for the uninsured who don't pay is at the bottom of the list.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#105 Oct 3, 2013
So how then could a reasonable and knowledgeable individual who understand governments and parliamentary bodies consider ACA a socialist practice if as you say it's economic BOOM for private insurance companies?

That was the crux of the Republicans opposition.

Or was that just the campaign to misinform their base of supporters and low information Americans?

That certainly goes a long way why Republican seem to be opposed to education initiatives and the stead reduction in education funding. The less people know the easier it may be to keep them uninformed about basic information.

Certainly we know socialism is the system where Government owns all economic activity and produces the funding for markets and manufacturing sort of like Bush purchasing Banks, or interest in and the Automobile industry in America in 2008. That was more a socialist than this Health Care reform legislation.
incredulous wrote:
<quoted text>Bingo. ACA is a windfall for the insurance companies. They can provide less coverage and recieve more money in their pockets. What a sham on the taxpayers. If it can be stopped, now is the time.
Eleanor

Mundelein, IL

#106 Oct 3, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
So how then could a reasonable and knowledgeable individual who understand governments and parliamentary bodies consider ACA a socialist practice if as you say it's economic BOOM for private insurance companies?
That was the crux of the Republicans opposition.
Or was that just the campaign to misinform their base of supporters and low information Americans?
That certainly goes a long way why Republican seem to be opposed to education initiatives and the stead reduction in education funding. The less people know the easier it may be to keep them uninformed about basic information.
Certainly we know socialism is the system where Government owns all economic activity and produces the funding for markets and manufacturing sort of like Bush purchasing Banks, or interest in and the Automobile industry in America in 2008. That was more a socialist than this Health Care reform legislation.
<quoted text>
Yes, socialism is where the government owns all economic activity.

Here in America, however, Big Business not only owns all economic activity but also OWNS THE GOVERNMENT.

The ACA supports the big business of healthcare and the health insurance industry. It is an economic windfall for them, both now and in the future, when healthcare costs AND health insurance premiums are going to steadily increase their profitability.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

#107 Oct 3, 2013
You're trying to still acquaint ACA with or as being Socialism, this is unreal.... ROFLMAO

Oh, in America it's small Business that is the economy engine in America, Not Big Business. Don't get fooled by the zero reported by Big Business.

It's small business with less than 50 employees that is the back bone of the American economy and hire the majority of the people in the country. It's those business that are exempt from ACA. The Federal Government classifies any business with less than 500 as small businesses, but it's the business with less than 50 employees that do the heavy lifting in America. But it's the big business who pay off the politicians on capital hill to propose legislation to there benefit. And since we are a equal opportunity society you just have to take advantage where you can and find what benefits you and exploit the opening that Big Business creates.
Eleanor wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, socialism is where the government owns all economic activity.
Here in America, however, Big Business not only owns all economic activity but also OWNS THE GOVERNMENT.
The ACA supports the big business of healthcare and the health insurance industry. It is an economic windfall for them, both now and in the future, when healthcare costs AND health insurance premiums are going to steadily increase their profitability.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Health Insurance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
High court takes up major fight over health law... 3 hr xxxrayted 11
Pizza chain sued over healthcare for gay couples (Aug '14) 6 hr Brian_G 64
How court challenges to the Affordable Care Act... Mar 2 see the li 1
Free flu shots at Los Angeles County libraries Mar 1 HumanSpirit 2
Survey: Uninsured rate hit new low in 2014 Feb 25 goonsquad 3
Show Bits: Let someone else have a turn Feb 23 RustyS 18
Pima County to vote on no-smokers hiring policy Feb 23 TruthBeTold 9
More from around the web