Huh? Of course I’ve heard of such excesses. That wasn’t the question. So, then you have some sort of cite that demonstrates that ACA will make the $27 Tylenol pill go the way of the dodo then? Please share.
Your cite offered the startling revelation that ACA will force people into policies that meet ACA requirements. Where did it indicate the horrors with their current coverage you were scaring me so with? Funny, you seem to know it’s all largely terrible somehow, even though these people don’t. Hmm.
It’s not yet clear which numbers will be bigger. It’s also important to note that the $25 aspirin doesn’t just stem from offsets to lower reimbursement rates; they’re also a bargaining chip. Private insurers reimburse according to fee schedules, which are sometimes “take it or leave it” arrangements for providers, but are more frequently negotiated between insurers and individual providers. If the hospital’s base charge for aspirin is $25 then it’s a lot easier to justify charging the insurer $3 under the fee schedule.
Sounds like the real answer is: we don’t know, but there isn’t any compelling reason to think it’s going to decrease significantly.
More importantly, though… Hospitals aren’t going to suddenly decide that it’s fine and dandy to be less profitable. If they get squeezed in one area, I have no doubt they will figure out how they can make up the difference in another area.
“Good starting point” does not mean that all your questions are answered. Hence, the word “starting”. I’ve read a lot about this, you can too. Fighting ignorance does not require that I type my fingers off.
However, if your whole point is pissing me off, insinuating dishonesty without proving squat is a good way to start. You got, you bring, otherwise, here’s your cuppa.
What this will basically depend on is how many previously uninsured people actually sign up for coverage. The amount hospitals eat on write-offs ($34 billion) is vastly bigger than the amount they claim to be eating on below-cost federal reimbursement, and adds about $900 to the cost of a policy for a family of four.
It also depends on whether hospitals can keep up with the demand. If we suddenly have a whole slew of newly insured people who start using the hospitals more, then demand goes up. I’m trying to remember what happens when supply lags demand, but for some reason I just can’t put my finger on it. And I presume there are quite a few other imponderables out there, making it very hard to predict exactly what will happen. Else, we’d all know whether or not to short Bayer stock!
It’s unlikely that the newly insured will result in increased demand for hospital services, except for outpatient services which cannot be provided in a clinic setting (certain types of diagnostic procedure, for example).
Insured patients will treat in a clinical setting rather than a hospital setting, where billed rates are much closer to actual cost (because non-hospital providers don’t have to provide care to uninsured patients regardless of ability to pay, jacking up prices for everyone else).
Think about your own health insurance: look at the copay or coinsurance for doctor visits versus hospital visits. You (presumably) don’t go to the hospital unless you really have to, because your copay is probably ten times higher than the copay for a visit to your PCP (assuming you’re lucky enough to not have coinsurance for hospital care instead.)
So the likely spike in demand won’t affect hospitals much at all in terms of patient volume.
No, its a sarcastic reference to bland and empty political philosophical abstractions to justify allowing people to suffer in service to an empty concept. Someone who is sick and in pain has no use for freedom, unless that means freedom from sickness. For the hungry, it means freedom from want. Right at the moment, for me, it means freedom from having to explain the bleeding obvious.
I would say certain brands of conservative have already made it a pejorative, since to them it really means “absence of government intrusion I don’t like.”
