Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: AUTailgatingRules on February 27, 2014, 02:13:07 PM
-
1. How many of the supposed 4 million that have signed up so far were the people that were kicked off their old insurance
2. If we are only going to sign up 5- 6 million people, what are we going to do with the other 25 million who remain uninsured? ( 30 million is the number I kept hearing were previously uninsured)
3. If Obamacare only insures 5-6 million people and costs $1.5 trillion, why did we not just buy insurance for these people and leave the system alone ( would have been much cheaper)
4. Of the $4 million that have signed up so far, how many have actually paid.
5. 6.5 million people lost their old insurance and 4 million have signed up for Obamacare, are we not 2.5 million in the hole?
-
Maths. It's whats for dinner!
-
I don't know the answers to your questions, but I believe Wes was fairly knowledgeable about Obamacare. Maybe he'll show up.
It seems to me like we're setting up a future of socialized medicine, which in my opinion, is the best option of the three.
-
It seems to me like we're setting up a future of socialized medicine, which in my opinion, is the best option of the three.
The founding fathers never intended for you to have socialized medicine. I visited the Supreme Court building and Moses told me that personally.
-
1. How many of the supposed 4 million that have signed up so far were the people that were kicked off their old insurance
2. If we are only going to sign up 5- 6 million people, what are we going to do with the other 25 million who remain uninsured? ( 30 million is the number I kept hearing were previously uninsured)
3. If Obamacare only insures 5-6 million people and costs $1.5 trillion, why did we not just buy insurance for these people and leave the system alone ( would have been much cheaper)
4. Of the $4 million that have signed up so far, how many have actually paid.
5. 6.5 million people lost their old insurance and 4 million have signed up for Obamacare, are we not 2.5 million in the hole?
My answer to all 5 is that this is a bigger failure than anyone could have imagined and is only a good thing for people that want us to become even more socialized. We are socialist. Many of us hate the idea and are reticent in admitting it.
-
I just want my free shit
Where it be?
-
My answer to all 5 is that this is a bigger failure than anyone could have imagined and is only a good thing for people that want us to become even more socialized. We are socialist. Many of us hate the idea and are reticent in admitting it.
You will never hear that from the MSM. Never Ever.
-
My answer to all 5 is that this is a bigger failure than anyone could have imagined and is only a good thing for people that want us to become even more socialized. We are socialist. Many of us hate the idea and are reticent in admitting it.
It's not a failure. A failure would imply that the results are not what the people who put this into place wanted. Less people are paying into private insurance and are relying on the government. Next step will be to de-privatize hospitals, medical research, and pharmaceuticals in order to control costs so that more people can afford health care.
-
It's not a failure. A failure would imply that the results are not what the people who put this into place wanted. Less people are paying into private insurance and are relying on the government. Next step will be to de-privatize hospitals, medical research, and pharmaceuticals in order to control costs so that more people can afford health care.
And less people can pay more.
-
I don't know the answers to your questions, but I believe Wes was fairly knowledgeable about Obamacare. Maybe he'll show up.
It seems to me like we're setting up a future of socialized medicine, which in my opinion, is the best option of the three.
I too would like to hear Wes opine.
I know everyone's expecting me to defend it since you've all decided I'm the pinko lib'ruhl hippie, but in actuality I consistently oppose big government programs like this.
The only difference you will see from me is I'm not rooting for its total collapse just because I don't think it's the best way to go about healthcare reform. I am able to empathize with people who needed coverage that truly were unable to get it, and recognize the need for some kind of reform. If the ACA truly made healthcare more affordable to more people and extended coverage to people who previously could not get coverage (i.e. people with preexisting conditions) without all the problems we're seeing, I'd be all for it, even if it meant me being wrong about it.
Because of this, I'd genuinely like to hear a rational argument that it's not the total failure I currently believe it to be.
-
I too would like to hear Wes opine.
I know everyone's expecting me to defend it since you've all decided I'm the pinko lib'ruhl hippie, but in actuality I consistently oppose big government programs like this.
The only difference you will see from me is I'm not rooting for its total collapse just because I don't think it's the best way to go about healthcare reform. I am able to empathize with people who needed coverage that truly were unable to get it, and recognize the need for some kind of reform. If the ACA truly made healthcare more affordable to more people and extended coverage to people who previously could not get coverage (i.e. people with preexisting conditions) without all the problems we're seeing, I'd be all for it, even if it meant me being wrong about it.
Because of this, I'd genuinely like to hear a rational argument that it's not the total failure I currently believe it to be.
It has never been about affordable health care for people that truly can not afford it. Those people get put on medicaid.
It's about GIVING health care to the lower middle class and middle class that because of bad decisions, can not afford health care.
How many people that were belly aching about not being able to afford health care owned a cell phone? How many had cable TV and Netflix accounts? How many had more car than they could afford?
The reason they could not afford health insurance is because they CHOSE not to. To those people, I say tough shit when you get hit with big medical bills.
This has always been about control. The more we promise people, the more they become reliant on big government, the more free stuff we give them, the more they keep voting for us. It is about maintaining power, pure and simple.
Just look at what they are running on now. $10.10 minimum wage. Give them a raise and they will vote for us. Truly pitiful
-
I know everyone's expecting me to defend it since you've all decided I'm the pinko lib'ruhl hippie, but in actuality I consistently oppose big government programs
This is the only reason I haven't sent one of my guys (Guido) to see you. There is still hope for you. Not much, but some.
-
The reason they could not afford health insurance is because they CHOSE not to. To those people, I say tough shit when you get hit with big medical bills.
This. They kept floating around the 45 million number, which was BS. Of those, many made over 75,000 a year, but CHOSE to spend their money elsewhere while taking advantage of programs like Peach care (GA) for their children.
So when you boil it down, maybe 30 million. Ans what is 30 million of 300 million?
So for 10% of the country, you screw the other 90%.
There's your reform right there!
-
It has never been about affordable health care for people that truly can not afford it. Those people get put on medicaid.
If you're single, under 65, and make $18,000 a year, you're not eligible for Medicaid, but at the same time not likely to be able to afford insurance.
Not defending ACA, just pointing out that not all people incapable of affording insurance on their own can turn to Medicaid.
-
If you're single, under 65, and make $18,000 a year, you're not eligible for Medicaid, but at the same time not likely to be able to afford insurance.
Not defending ACA, just pointing out that not all people incapable of affording insurance on their own can turn to Medicaid.
AND not likely to choose to get it under obummer care either!
-
AND not likely to choose to get it under obummer care either!
Probably not, considering that the penalty for doing so in 2014 is 1% or $95 per person, whichever is higher. So they could pay a $180 penalty, or insurance premiums for the year. But should they decide that they want insurance, the ACA gives them credits to lower the monthly cost. Those credits are unfortunately from other taxpayers, but still, if the person earning $18,000 wanted insurance, they have a better chance of being able to get it under ACA than they did previously.
-
There's your reform right there!
We ought to get us some of that reform.
(http://qfxblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/o-brother-where-art-thou.jpg)
-
We ought to get us some of that reform.
(http://qfxblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/o-brother-where-art-thou.jpg)
You don't say much, friend, but when you do it's to the point and I salute you for it.
-
If you're single, under 65, and make $18,000 a year, you're not eligible for Medicaid, but at the same time not likely to be able to afford insurance.
Not defending ACA, just pointing out that not all people incapable of affording insurance on their own can turn to Medicaid.
Still most limey to have a cell phone, cable T.V, smoke cigs, ETC that could be dropped in order to afford coverage. A person in that situation really only needs catastrophic coverage which up until Obamacare was very cheap.
-
Those credits are unfortunately from other taxpayers, but still, if the person earning $18,000 wanted insurance, they have a better chance of being able to get it under ACA than they did previously.
I'll help pay their premiums when I am allowed to look into their financed and make the changes needed n order to budget what what they truly can afford. If I can not find the money in their budget by canceling luxury items that are not needed, I will help on the insurance side.
Again, this person is still uninsured under Obamacare so why the hell is it all for?
-
Still most limey to have a cell phone, cable T.V, smoke cigs, ETC that could be dropped in order to afford coverage. A person in that situation really only needs catastrophic coverage which up until Obamacare was very cheap.
That is correct. I had it once. In fact id be fine with having it again only. But now I am mandated to buy what the government deems correct because they know what's best for me.
Chad, if something you believe is inherently wrong exists (and I am with you there), why would you ever root for it to be successful?
I want bad things to go away. I don't want them to grow and thrive. They're like a cancer that does no good. Why would you not want something like that to die? I couldn't imagine anyone saying they hope criminals keep on doing bad things or Stalin or Lenin keep starving people and killing millions. And no I'm not comparing those guys to anyone. It's the premise of having something inherently bad before you.
-
It has never been about affordable health care for people that truly can not afford it. Those people get put on medicaid.
It's about GIVING health care to the lower middle class and middle class that because of bad decisions, can not afford health care.
This is not really true. It's more about getting healthcare to people who were previously denied due to preexisting conditions, etc. That, and lowering the premiums to make healthcare more affordable to everyone.
Again, that was the stated goal. Not necessarily how it turned out.
Also, you're making a lot of assumptions about the spending habits of the people who the ACA was aiming to benefit. I would posit that there are plenty of people who genuinely can't afford their premiums whether they had a Netflix account or not, as well as people who couldn't get coverage due to preexisting conditions whether they were on food stamps or were Warren Buffett.
Granted, there probably are people who just don't prioritize health care coverage over some of those luxury items you mentioned. Which is the #1 reason I generally oppose the ACA. Those people shouldn't have to buy something they don't want. Now those people are probably just paying the penalties, as VV alluded to.
-
That is correct. I had it once. In fact id be fine with having it again only. But now I am mandated to buy what the government deems correct because they know what's best for me.
Chad, if something you believe is inherently wrong exists (and I am with you there), why would you ever root for it to be successful?
I want bad things to go away. I don't want them to grow and thrive. They're like a cancer that does no good. Why would you not want something like that to die? I couldn't imagine anyone saying they hope criminals keep on doing bad things or Stalin or Lenin keep starving people and killing millions. And no I'm not comparing those guys to anyone. It's the premise of having something inherently bad before you.
I think what he wants is people with PEC's to be able to get affordable coverage and those who truly can't afford coverage to be able to have it. I am with him, but I don't see where this is happening with Obamacare.
-
Not sure how I got tagged as the ACA expert/advocate.
My thoughts: Reform of the system was/is needed. This is a first step...it will not be the last (program could be expanded or it could be reduced). The roll-out was poorly executed.
That's about all I know at this point, but everyone should continue the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the meantime.
-
That is correct. I had it once. In fact id be fine with having it again only. But now I am mandated to buy what the government deems correct because they know what's best for me.
Chad, if something you believe is inherently wrong exists (and I am with you there), why would you ever root for it to be successful?
I want bad things to go away. I don't want them to grow and thrive. They're like a cancer that does no good. Why would you not want something like that to die? I couldn't imagine anyone saying they hope criminals keep on doing bad things or Stalin or Lenin keep starving people and killing millions. And no I'm not comparing those guys to anyone. It's the premise of having something inherently bad before you.
Because I'm ok with being wrong.
The comparisons you are trying to make are a far cry from getting health care to everyone who wants it. Stalin and Lenin starving & killing millions is clearly unjustifiably bad.
If you can step away from the partisan rhetoric enough to realize that Democrats aren't inherently evil and are in reality taking an approach that they sincerely believe is best for everyone, whether I philosophically agree or not, that is a much healthier way to have civil discourse.
I don't want the people or the economy to suffer to prove I'm right. I don't want to see the country burn because I don't agree with every decision the government is making. If the benefits of the ACA truly turned out to outweigh its problems, then we're all better off. Great. I was wrong. I guess the disconnect is some of you think that any victory for president-you-didn't-vote-for is an epic DISASTER in the grand scheme of things. I simply disagree with that notion.
-
I think what he wants is people with PEC's to be able to get affordable coverage and those who truly can't afford coverage to be able to have it. I am with him, but I don't see where this is happening with Obamacare.
:thumsup:
-
Still most limey to have a cell phone, cable T.V, smoke cigs, ETC that could be dropped in order to afford coverage. A person in that situation really only needs catastrophic coverage which up until Obamacare was very cheap.
This is a generalization of what all people who make $18,000 do; doesn't apply to everyone. But if people are leeching off the entitlement system in such a way that they can make $18,000 and still afford all of that (which many are), then fix the entitlement system. Doesn't have anything to do with the healthcare system.
As far as catastrophic coverage being adequate, that's not the case. The cost of various medicines and treatments for even non-catastrophic events can be astronomical. There are many reasons for this, some of which can't and shouldn't be addressed by government legislation, but it's incorrect to presume that the only medical treatment an average person shouldn't be able to afford without insurance is catastrophic in nature.
I'll help pay their premiums when I am allowed to look into their financed and make the changes needed n order to budget what what they truly can afford. If I can not find the money in their budget by canceling luxury items that are not needed, I will help on the insurance side.
Again, this person is still uninsured under Obamacare so why the hell is it all for?
The government has calculated national standards for living. These are used by a variety of government agencies to determine who is eligible for government assistance programs, as well as to create a defined poverty level. The underlying premise is that, regardless of whether someone is choosing to waste their money on unnecessary items, they still wouldn't be able to afford the necessary items based on national and regional standards/averages for those items. I'm not arguing that these national standards are necessarily accurate or should be the only factor considered, but they're there.
If you want to require every applicant to submit a financial information statement to insure that not only are they legitimately classified as within the parameters of the poverty level, but that they also don't have unnecessary expenses, be my guest...but you're just advocating that the government spend more resources to produce, regulate, and review necessary documents and procedures. Unless the government finds some money hidden somewhere (or if they ever become fiscally responsible), that cost is going to be covered by the taxpayers. Will it be less than the ACA's costs? We wouldn't know until the government implements it, but I'm just pointing out that you're advocating that we spend taxpayers' money instead of spending taxpayers' money.
-
I'll help pay their premiums when I am allowed to look into their financed and make the changes needed n order to budget what what they truly can afford. If I can not find the money in their budget by canceling luxury items that are not needed, I will help on the insurance side.
Again, this person is still uninsured under Obamacare so why the hell is it all for?
Sorry my friend you are not going to have any choice. None of "us" are.
-
Let me re-state as I have gotten a little off track.
If Obamacare is only helping the "lower middle-class" poor and those with pre-existing conditions that could not afford coverage, why do you have to overhaul the entire system to get this done?
Why do my insurance premiums and my deductibles have to double in cost to cover these people? Would have been much cheaper to just pay for insurance for these people or let them onto medicare. After all we are only talking about 4,000,000 so far that have signed up. How can spending trillions to implement Obamacare possibly be worth getting insurance for less than 5% of the population?
It's not about insurance, IT'S ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL
-
All of this change for only 10% of the people?
Could we not have come up with a easier solution that did not penalize the responsible citizens.
And this bullshit about partisan rhetoric! I do not listen to what the right tells me. I make up my own mind by using common sense. If it happens to align itself with partisan rhetoric, then that tells me a lot of other people see the issue the same as I. And that does not make it an incorrect view.
10% people. Really. Our country is to be run with the 10% as the rule, not the exception!
And the only PEC change that was needed was for people that did not previously have health insurance. (this is about insurance, not care. everyone can get care) If you previously had health insurance the medical portability act of 1996 took care of you!
-
Let me re-state as I have gotten a little off track.
If Obamacare is only helping the "lower middle-class" poor and those with pre-existing conditions that could not afford coverage, why do you have to overhaul the entire system to get this done?
Why do my insurance premiums and my deductibles have to double in cost to cover these people? Would have been much cheaper to just pay for insurance for these people or let them onto medicare. After all we are only talking about 4,000,000 so far that have signed up. How can spending trillions to implement Obamacare possibly be worth getting insurance for less than 5% of the population?
It's not about insurance, IT'S ABOUT POWER AND CONTROL
This guy gets it. Everything else is a red herring. Especially that last sentence.
-
Not sure how I got tagged as the ACA expert/advocate.
My thoughts: Reform of the system was/is needed. This is a first step...it will not be the last (program could be expanded or it could be reduced). The roll-out was poorly executed.
That's about all I know at this point, but everyone should continue the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the meantime.
Agree that change was needed.
What we got, was not it though.
-
Not sure how I got tagged as the ACA expert/advocate.
My thoughts: Reform of the system was/is needed. This is a first step...it will not be the last (program could be expanded or it could be reduced). The roll-out was poorly executed.
That's about all I know at this point, but everyone should continue the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the meantime.
Because Obamacare is your fault. And now you deflect the blame as if you had nothing to do with it.
-
I think what he wants is people with PEC's to be able to get affordable coverage and those who truly can't afford coverage to be able to have it. I am with him, but I don't see where this is happening with Obamacare.
The stories I've heard (anecdotal, but still) are that people with PEC's are still not able to get affordable coverage. Some of the premium prices I've heard quoted were shocking.
-
The stories I've heard (anecdotal, but still) are that people with PEC's are still not able to get affordable coverage. Some of the premium prices I've heard quoted were shocking.
Which is why I said "I don't see where this happening with Obamacare.". I have heard those same stories and if they are true, then it's ridiculous the amount they will have to pay. I am not saying that someone who has MS shouldn't have a higher premium than someone who is healthy as a horse, but it shouldn't be so astronomical they have to struggle to pay the bills. How we get there, I have no clue, but it's something that I would like to see.
-
The stories I've heard (anecdotal, but still) are that people with PEC's are still not able to get affordable coverage. Some of the premium prices I've heard quoted were shocking.
But they were not denied.
See how the ONE saved them!
-
But they were not denied.
See how the ONE saved them!
Right, but that is not the point Chizad was making. He wants to see people with PEC's get "affordable" insurance coverage, not what it cost through the exchange or being denied. Same as I do. I can tell you though that these people it's happening to don't think they are being saved, they know they have been lied to.
-
Which is why I said "I don't see where this happening with Obamacare.". I have heard those same stories and if they are true, then it's ridiculous the amount they will have to pay. I am not saying that someone who has MS shouldn't have a higher premium than someone who is healthy as a horse, but it shouldn't be so astronomical they have to struggle to pay the bills. How we get there, I have no clue, but it's something that I would like to see.
You bring down costs. And to do that you have to address why they are high. Most know the answer. They just refuse to address it for obvious reasons. Congress and most Presidents are hell bent on refusing to acknowledge that tort reform is needed and is at the root of much of the insurance "crisis". Medical malpractice insurance is insanely expensive. And it drives a lot of what the contracted prices are for services.
Root cause - it's something they refuse to get to. Everything is just a band aid for a symptom. A very expensive band aid.
-
You bring down costs. And to do that you have to address why they are high. Most know the answer. They just refuse to address it for obvious reasons. Congress and most Presidents are hell bent on refusing to acknowledge that tort reform is needed and is at the root of much of the insurance "crisis". Medical malpractice insurance is insanely expensive. And it drives a lot of what the contracted prices are for services.
Root cause - it's something they refuse to get to. Everything is just a band aid for a symptom. A very expensive band aid.
Agree. We also need to open up competition across state lines and have providers cover over state lines.
-
You bring down costs. And to do that you have to address why they are high. Most know the answer. They just refuse to address it for obvious reasons. Congress and most Presidents are hell bent on refusing to acknowledge that tort reform is needed and is at the root of much of the insurance "crisis". Medical malpractice insurance is insanely expensive. And it drives a lot of what the contracted prices are for services.
Root cause - it's something they refuse to get to. Everything is just a band aid for a symptom. A very expensive band aid.
Yes, Med Mal is insanely expensive. I come from a family of doctors and know first hand what they pay. But, the Med Mal insurance racket is just that, a racket. In Alabama, for instance, there is one Med Mal conglomerate that insures the vast majority of docs and medical facilities and last time I saw their profit margin....holy shit!!! They are raping the medical profession over the colds.
-
Yes, Med Mal is insanely expensive. I come from a family of doctors and know first hand what they pay. But, the Med Mal insurance racket is just that, a racket. In Alabama, for instance, there is one Med Mal conglomerate that insures the vast majority of docs and medical facilities and last time I saw their profit margin....holy shit!!! They are raping the medical profession over the colds.
Lawyers are the popular target, but insurance companies are the biggest problem in the medical industry.
-
Agree. We also need to open up competition across state lines and have providers cover over state lines.
I agree and a million dollar verdict is too much for a guy who lost his pinky toe in a botched toe nail operation. Unless, of course, it is my toe. That's one problem with limits. Who sets the limits?
I agree that this would likely be a more effective means of making care more affordable.
-
The only way to make health care affordable is to make it fee for service.
If you have a cold and need to go to the doctor, you pay the costs
If you need t rehab a knee, you pay the costs
If you need to take meds for a particular ailment, you pay the costs
If you have catastrophic event: Heart attack, stroke, long hospital stay etc, you have catastrophic insurance to cover the costs.
Could you imagine expecting your auto insurance to cover the cost of an oil change? or a tire rotation, or new bake pads? No you have auto insurance to cove the costs of a major wreck. Health care should be the same.
-
Lawyers Insurance companies are the popular target, but insurance companies the providers (hospitals) and pharmaceutical companies are the biggest problem in the medical industry.
Fixed.
-
Why do my insurance premiums and my deductibles have to double in cost to cover these people? Would have been much cheaper to just pay for insurance for these people or let them onto medicare.
My understanding is that the primary reasons for the cost increase are A.) the new law requires more comprehensive coverage that includes mental care, maternal care, etc.; more coverage = higher price, and B.) the health insurance companies are trying to offset the anticipated costs of covering more types of services for more people, especially those with PECs.
So even if the government simply paid for the insurance for these uninsured individuals, the insurance companies would have still increased their prices due to the fact that they still have to cover more people and more services. Plus you'd likely have an increased tax rate to pay for the government's footing of the insurance premiums.
After all we are only talking about 4,000,000 so far that have signed up. How can spending trillions to implement Obamacare possibly be worth getting insurance for less than 5% of the population?
That number may or may not be accurate, but there's a problem in that we can't pinpoint how many people have signed up "for/due to Obamacare."
That number you're quoting represents the people who have gotten insurance through the healthcare exchange. All the healthcare exchange does is assist you with getting quotes from private health insurance companies, as well as determining whether you are eligible for any credits to offset the cost of those quotes.
This means that people who were previously uninsured may be signing up for healthcare directly with the insurance companies, and not through the exchange. Even if we could obtain those numbers, there probably still isn't a statistical distinction between those who were previously uninsured, nor is there a statistical distinction between those who were going to get insurance anyways or only got it due to the ACA.
The same thing can be said in regard to the Medicaid expansion. 6 million people have signed up for Medicaid since they could start enrolling in the ACA's expansion of the public program. But that number includes people who would have been eligible for Medicaid previously, alongside those who are newly eligible, so we don't have real numbers as to exactly how many people this has helped.
-
Lawyers are the popular target, but insurance companies are the biggest problem in the medical industry.
So you and Ken Nugent rub dongs eh?
If costs weren't so damn high we wouldn't even need insurance. You know like before 50 years ago. Insurance companies are another symptom of a problem. Keep digging.
-
Fixed.
Agree. It gets lost on people that insurance companies should not even be needed for routine medical care. But they are. Why?
-
So you and Ken Nugent rub dongs eh?
If costs weren't so damn high we wouldn't even need insurance. You know like before 50 years ago. Insurance companies are another symptom of a problem. Keep digging.
Medical malpractice lawsuits are only part of the equation.
Physicians are paid about 5 times more in the U.S. than in peer countries. Specialists can be even worse. Although some of this is simply due to the U.S. market being whacky when it comes to medical costs, there are other problems. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services pays much more for specialist services than peer governments. Private insurers do a shitty job of negotiating with specialists. There is unnecessary waste of supplies and medicine in the medical industry. There are unnecessary treatments being rendered because physicians want to rush patients through by just prescribing a common medicine/treatment to see if it works, and if not, then try another, and if it still doesn't work, then do an actual diagnosis of symptoms and look for an accurate course of action with appropriate testing. So on and so forth.
The airline industry had similar problems years ago. Labor costs were absurd, and it caused many airlines to eventually go bankrupt. Pilots don't make what they did years ago (which was sometimes comparable to physicians now, actually), but once they straightened out their costs and made things more reasonable, the business model was fine...and all without reducing safety issues that they were initially concerned with.
-
Medical malpractice lawsuits are only part of the equation.
Physicians are paid about 5 times more in the U.S. than in peer countries. Specialists can be even worse. Although some of this is simply due to the U.S. market being whacky when it comes to medical costs, there are other problems. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services pays much more for specialist services than peer governments. Private insurers do a shitty job of negotiating with specialists. There is unnecessary waste of supplies and medicine in the medical industry. There are unnecessary treatments being rendered because physicians want to rush patients through by just prescribing a common medicine/treatment to see if it works, and if not, then try another, and if it still doesn't work, then do an actual diagnosis of symptoms and look for an accurate course of action with appropriate testing. So on and so forth.
The airline industry had similar problems years ago. Labor costs were absurd, and it caused many airlines to eventually go bankrupt. Pilots don't make what they did years ago (which was sometimes comparable to physicians now, actually), but once they straightened out their costs and made things more reasonable, the business model was fine...and all without reducing safety issues that they were initially concerned with.
You bring up an interesting thought.
Just what exactly are pediatricians and general practitioners so good at that they warrant a minimum of $150k/year salary? I mean honestly, how many times have you gone to an Urgent Care or other family physician and had them do something that you could not have learned how to do yourself?
PAs and nurse practitioners could easily take over the "You have the sniffles, here's a Z-Pack" market and cut costs exponentially.
-
You bring up an interesting thought.
Just what exactly are pediatricians and general practitioners so good at that they warrant a minimum of $150k/year salary? I mean honestly, how many times have you gone to an Urgent Care or other family physician and had them do something that you could not have learned how to do yourself?
PAs and nurse practitioners could easily take over the "You have the sniffles, here's a Z-Pack" market and cut costs exponentially.
The city that I work for has gone in with two adjacent cities to contract with a health provider for the employees. No co-pay, and free generic meds in your hand when you walk out of the door. They use PAs in the clinics. A doctor comes by each day to review charts and basically sign off on them. They don't keep any controlled substances on site, but they can write you a prescription for it.
This works out for the city, because we are self-insured. BCBS AL administers the plan and everything, though. Instead of getting charged whatever your doctor decides to charge them for, whether you received it or not, the city pays a fixed rate. The provider is using PAs, and the cities pay to setup the facilities, maintain them, etc. It's a pretty good deal for everybody involved, really. I've gone 3 times so far for things like stomach bug, sinus infection, etc. I get the same type of treatment I would have at an Urgent Care, except I have meds in my hand when I walk out of the door. PAs and LPNs really are the wave of the future in this world of Obamacare.