Actually, you DO get to select your doctor under either Medicare or Medicaid - I don’t know where this meme came from that with a government plan you won’t have a choice of doctor when reality demonstrates otherwise.
The main problem with Medicaid from a patient’s point of view is that there are people who need medical care, can’t get private insurance, and yet don’t qualify for Medicaid. The main problem with Medicaid from a provider’s viewpoint is that the reimbursement rate is lower than for private insurance plans, which is part of the reason not all doctors accept Medicaid. However, many do.
Eh, I’m not so sure how much it would affect insurance premiums. That is just hospitals, and there will always be “deadbeat” expenses. And, no matter what the hospital charges, the insurance company is only going to pay whatever the contracted fee is for that DRG code (unless things have changed radically since I last paid medical claims).
Your cite just went to a Google listing, so I’m not sure which one you wanted to use to support that premiums are higher because hospitals are getting so many people thru their ER that don’t pay.
Which, of course, had nothing to do with it. If you worked for a surgeon and he assisted at a surgery, if his bill hit Medicare before the primary surgeon’s bill, his would be denied. What is more likely is that you were working for a GP’s office - those simple sorts of claims were not the ones that caused issues for the most part.
OK - so?
And I should take someone seriously who just sticks a cite in a thread and says “see, I’m right!” without quoting the part they think applies. If you want to make a point and back it up with a cite, it seems that it falls to you to point out what part of the link you think applies, and not expect me to go digging thru it.
I’m snipping the rest of that rant because your posts are always way too long anyway. If you wish to be uninsured for everything, that is your choice but some of us are smart enough to know that it is entirely possible that other medical problems could arise.
You seem to feel that because your husband has on-going medical problems, someone else should be paying for them. Who is it that you want to pay - me? Your next door neighbor? These things that you demand be paid for by the government - you do know that it comes from the pockets of the average citizen, right? If so why is it that you expect that I should consider your husband more important than mine? We have bills too you know. Or is it that you just think that everyone who is in a better place financially than you are should be drug down too?
A few pennies a month…:rolleyes:
Do you read? What I said was clearly set in the here and now.
Cry me a river. I spend many years living on less than a dollar a day for food and I am not going to go back there just because you seem to think it is unfair that I have insurance.
This has nothing to do with what I said. I have no problem with your state providing you with insurance.
I’m not. I’m telling you that no matter what anyone’s problem or history is, I am not happy with being told that I must pay to provide yet another government handout, and I will resist it as much as I can.
Which, of course, I have never said.
No, you pre-judge, or you jump to the most negative conclusion you possibly can. Such as the previous paragraph - just because I said at some point during these insurance discussions that there are far too many people who get into financial trouble because of irresponsibility, you now state that I have said that all such people are “irresponsible and undeserving”. Which really isn’t all that surprising - emotional people do tend to exaggerate.
No, I don’t because I don’t think that anyone who is actually in a position to be implimenting a UHC in this country should be looking at Canada or the UK anyway. I just don’t see how one can compare a smaller country (UK) or population (Canada), who have both had UHCs for decades, to the US with the issues we have today.
Besides, you want me to cite that I have heard grumblings from friends in the UK and Canada?
I’d say it’s an open question whether there are 46 million people in the US who only have money for food and shelter, but don’t qualify for Medicaid. I personally think that a big chunk of that 46 million are choosing to do something with their money (other than necessities) than buy insurance. It is probably very true of young people.
No, Curlcoat doesn’t even have a worldview, and she doesn’t like socialized medicine because it would be run by the government. Curlcoat does not trust the government to be able to do anything efficiently and without graft.
Curlcoat also doesn’t think that the current system is broken so badly that it cannot be fixed.
Well, if they’re anything like what you heard last time…
Let me lay this out for you simply.
You, I, and everyone else who is a net taxpayer are already shouldering the burden of the cost of care for the indigent and un- or underinsured. Since we’re not getting rid of Medicaid anytime soon, it would make sense for us to see if we can work out some economies of scale here.
Single-payer systems in countries with minimal levels of government malfeasance (like ours, believe it or not) result in a lower per capita cost for roughly equivalent standards of care. Therefore, single-payer healthcare in America is a good idea.
This I would accept far faster than a universal government run health plan. I don’t know why it is that people who want to push a UHC on all of us won’t support loosening the Medicaid requirements.
Sorry, I have already said that I don’t think that comparing countries with radically lower populations, who have had a UHC in place for decades, is a dumb idea. I don’t see what is gained by beating that dead horse.
You don’t think it’s a dumb idea? Excellent. Let’s get on with it then.
To address what I think you meant: that doesn’t signify. Do you genuinely believe that administering a healthcare system for 60 million people is radically different from administering one for 300 million?
Even if you do, so what? Medicaid is administered by the states. Only the money and broad policy come from the feds. There’s little reason to believe an American UHC plan would be much different.
Your vote by itself is immaterial, but you threatening a private insurance company with the insurance commissioner, the BBB or a local news station tends to get results.
Note that Canada doesn’t have a national health care plan. Canada has a bunch of provincial health care plans which are heavily subsidized by the federal government provided that they meet certain minimum requirements (universal coverage being the most important), and are therefore broadly similar but differ in detail. This is a product of the Canadian constitution, which specifically identifies health care as a provincial responsibility, but there should be no reason why a similar setup wouldn’t be feasible in the US
Mythbusting Canadian Health Care -- Part I | OurFuture.org by People's Action This is an article which will provide info on what Canadian Health Care is and is not. I have Canadian friends, (I live near the border) some times they bitch, but none has ever said they would rather have our system. They laugh when it is suggested.
