What I hope the Supreme Court does to health care.

[Phantasmal]

I like this, it would work like gap insurance with medicare recipiants.

He is wrong though, Meicare pays bare bones and there is supplemental insurance in most states, the problem when you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Actually, it's like this. Once again, you fail to see the obvious ANSWERS. They've been put before you many times. You ignore them, or you're too stupid to comprehend them. It's one or the other.

Well then, obviously I am blind... highlight the answers you have given to the question I posed...

What are the incentives to the federal employees to be efficient?

 

[Jarod]

1) Thank you. I am glad that example helped you understand.

2) How would it be unconstitutional?

3) If it helps lower costs of health care for everyone, how would that not be helpful to society as a whole?

1) You are welcome, thank you for explaining it.

2) The Constitution says you have a right to a trial by jury... But if the government comes in and limits the possable verdict, how much of a trial by jury is that?

3) I doubt it will lower the cost of health care for anyone, and even if it did, it would be at the expense of holding people responsable for there mistakes. When noone is held accountable for mistakes the quality of care will go down.

 

[Jarod]

He is wrong though, Meicare pays bare bones and there is supplemental insurance in most states, the problem when you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

I understand, it would have to be changed. The required insurance would have to pay 100% of a low basic minimum, then if you wanted extras that is what you would have to buy the gap insurance for.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

1) You are welcome, thank you for explaining it.

2) The Constitution says you have a right to a trial by jury... But if the government comes in and limits the possable verdict, how much of a trial by jury is that?

3) I doubt it will lower the cost of health care for anyone, and even if it did, it would be at the expense of holding people responsable for there mistakes. When noone is held accountable for mistakes the quality of care will go down.

2) The jury still decides guilt and innocence, the cap would be no different than setting a minimum or maximum jail sentence for criminal offenses.

3) You are still holding people responsible Jarod. They still have a black mark on their record (doctors/hospitals) and the insurance company still pays the individual (or their family in case of death). A higher award does not punish the doctor more (other than higher malpractice insurance for all doctors). A higher award does not punish insurance companies (they just factor that in to future premium increases).

 

[Jarod]

2) The jury still decides guilt and innocence, the cap would be no different than setting a minimum or maximum jail sentence for criminal offenses.

3) You are still holding people responsible Jarod. They still have a black mark on their record (doctors/hospitals) and the insurance company still pays the individual (or their family in case of death). A higher award does not punish the doctor more (other than higher malpractice insurance for all doctors). A higher award does not punish insurance companies (they just factor that in to future premium increases).

2) You are not finding them guilty or innocent, you are finding them liable or not liable.

3) Do you not understand that the INsurance company can already limit how much they are willing to pay, by limiting the amount of coverage available. Every insurance policy has a cap! Rates will not be affected, a $500,000 policy will still cost the same price as a $500,000 policy because the exposure is the same. Unless you can get a Doctor to pay for a $500,000 policy for a case that has a $250,000 limit.

 

[Jarod]

There is no limit on the amount of money damages negligance can cause, but if you put a cap on the amount of damages someone can be forced to pay you are promoting illresponsability.

Additionally you are taking power from the people (juries) and placing it the hands of the Government.

 

[cancel2 2022]

What I can see somewhat working is single payer with the option for supplemental insurance. Single payer that pays for the bare bones, supplemental that pays for more. What I see offered is craptacular insurance that everybody must buy and no supplemental insurance plans.

What you are advocating is a little like the NHS, if you want a flashier decor and prettier nurses then you can take out private insurance. I used to have that at T-Mobile with AXA PPP. One thing that happened when the NHS was set up was to allow consultants to practice privately but only when they had done their regular hours first. Aneurin Bevan described this as "stuffing their mouths with gold".



[url]http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/01/07/nhs-consultants-are-they-really-stuffed-with-gold/
[/URL]

 

[Damocles]

Medicare is a type of insurance, you improperly call it an entitlement.

I did not call it an entitlement.

 

[Phantasmal]

Well then, obviously I am blind... highlight the answers you have given to the question I posed...

What are the incentives to the federal employees to be efficient?

What are the incentives for any employee to be efficient, these days it is called, you have a job!

 

[Phantasmal]

I did not call it an entitlement.

Well, let's see, the discussion is Medicare and you jumped in with your whole "entitlements" comment, it leads one to believe you are including Medicare.

Sometimes you are as clear as mud!

 

[Howey]

How? How will capping the malpractice hurt those injured or the families of those killed (which is what I assume you mean)?

Capping the award will affect the injured or the family if personal injury, suffering or other awards are limited. There is no assigned value to life.

Competition does lower prices. Unless you are claiming that the insurance companies would collude on pricing. Are you claiming that?

Without safeguards, yes, I am.

Selling insurance across State lines has long been proposed as an option to increase competition and choices in health insurance, but there are serious pitfalls with this approach when it is not coupled with adequate consumer protections. The Affordable Care Act allows health care to be sold across State lines when both States agree and consumer protections are maintained. Without the consumer protections included in the Affordable Care Act, we run the risk of creating an environment where there is a “race to the bottom” in which insurers have an incentive to sell plans from the State with fewest consumer protections. Under section 1333, by July 1, 2013, the Secretary of HHS, in consultation with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), will issue regulations for the creation of health care choice compacts. Under these compacts, two or more States may agree to allow qualified health plans to sell insurance in their States. Plans will be subject to the laws and regulations of the State in which the plan was written or issued. Additionally, these plans must offer the same required by the consumer’s State. Health care choice compacts are effective beginning January 1, 2016. These provisions ensure that interstate sale of health insurance is not a back-door attempt to disadvantage higher-risk individuals or preempt critical consumer protections.

Get rid of Medicaid and Medicare and Social Security and Welfare and Defense and Education and that will save even more.

I could be equally silly and say get rid of the Defense Department and that will save even more. Are you still incapable of having an adult conversation?


No middle man? LMAO... except of course for the government? A government who would determine fees, co pays, what procedures are covered, etc...?

Yes, and the government will work to keep those fees, copays, etc., down. {Look at the VA model of efficiency) as opposed to a for-profit hospital, insurance company, drug company, or DME supplier raping the customer. Have you been in the hospital lately?

For the price she was charged for her insulin during her 18 hour stay at St. Luke's Hospital, Zachor would have enough to cover her out-of-pocket expenses for a three-month supply under her private Medicare Advantage plan if she had been home. The tab for one water pill to control high blood pressure could buy a three-week supply. And the bill for one calcium tablet could have purchased enough for three weeks from the national chain pharmacy where she gets them over-the-counter.

The insurance companies do it too.

Blue Cross had an agreement with the health care provider for a set fee for the service they provided (it was a medical test). The agreed fee was $250 less than they charged us, and they were trying to get the difference from us.

 

[Damocles]

Well, let's see, the discussion is Medicare and you jumped in with your whole "entitlements" comment, it leads one to believe you are including Medicare.

Sometimes you are as clear as mud!

Discussion currently, with the person I quoted (and in the post I quoted to begin the exchange), was about single payer. Sometimes you need to pay attention.

Then I also put quote marks around the word "entitlements" for a reason.

 

[Damocles]

He is wrong though, Meicare pays bare bones and there is supplemental insurance in most states, the problem when you don't have the money, you don't have the money.

Again... if it pays the bare bones then you have what you need. I think it is a crappy option, but it is something that I can see working. A set level... There is zero reason I need to pay for your boob job or (for that matter) you for my penile implant. There is zero "need" for that.

Also, the thread isn't about Medicare, the thread is about Obamacare and Jarod's hopes.

 

[Phantasmal]

Again... if it pays the bare bones then you have what you need. I think it is a crappy option, but it is something that I can see working. A set level... There is zero reason I need to pay for your boob job or (for that matter) you for my penile implant. There is zero "need" for that.

Also, the thread isn't about Medicare, the thread is about Obamacare and Jarod's hopes.

Yes, but when you interjected yourself we were discussing Medicare, and Obamacare isn't an entitlement, either.

 

[Phantasmal]

SF, my daughter says under the Affordable Care Act there will be less fraud. She said it use to be $1 in every $10, but now with the new system which is a pay and chase, like credit card companies use, where they don't pay every claim automatically, it is researched. People use to sell their Medicare numbers to Medical suppliers, as an example and these suppliers would bill Medicare for their products, now the claim is researched and if there is no reason for the applicant to receive said supply, then the claim is denied.

She said you may research at smp.org for the latest numbers, and http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/help-and-support/fraud-and-abuse/fraud-and-abuse-overview.aspx.

 

[Rune]

Dear Douchebag... I sell insurance contracts constantly. ).

You have no fucking clue what you are talking about, you are just making moronic statements and living in a make believe world. You might want to shut the fuck up in the future to avoid looking like such an ass clown.

Insurance brokers are some of the most over paid shills in any industry. They are leaches on society.





Attorneys typically charge a fee in these situations based on the amount won... do they not? Correct me if I am wrong, but don't most of them charge about the same fee too? About 25-33% of the award amount?

No. More like 33-40%

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

2) You are not finding them guilty or innocent, you are finding them liable or not liable.

Is that the case regardless of whether or not their are caps Jarod? Does anything change in that regard other than the cap?

3) Do you not understand that the INsurance company can already limit how much they are willing to pay, by limiting the amount of coverage available. Every insurance policy has a cap! Rates will not be affected, a $500,000 policy will still cost the same price as a $500,000 policy because the exposure is the same. Unless you can get a Doctor to pay for a $500,000 policy for a case that has a $250,000 limit.

Yes, do you understand that if there are caps on awards that the doctors will not have to buy policies that have as high a limit as they do today?

 

[Damocles]

Yes, but when you interjected yourself we were discussing Medicare, and Obamacare isn't an entitlement, either.

No, I specifically quoted a post about single payer. Pay attention.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF, my daughter says under the Affordable Care Act there will be less fraud. She said it use to be $1 in every $10, but now with the new system which is a pay and chase, like credit card companies use, where they don't pay every claim automatically, it is researched. People use to sell their Medicare numbers to Medical suppliers, as an example and these suppliers would bill Medicare for their products, now the claim is researched and if there is no reason for the applicant to receive said supply, then the claim is denied.

She said you may research at smp.org for the latest numbers, and http://www.medicare.gov/navigation/help-and-support/fraud-and-abuse/fraud-and-abuse-overview.aspx.

thanks... I will look at that as soon as I get a chance