Will these Obamacare steps benefit you or your family?

[BigRedChief]

Will these steps benefit you or your family?

1. No pre-existing conditions.
2. No cap on benefits. If I or a member of my family need to battle cancer, they will get the help they need.
3. Insurance companies can't drop me or my family if we get sick.
4. Carrying your kids on your health insurance until the age of 26.
5. Insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of all revenue on healthcare. If they go over, we get a refund.
6. A shitload of preventive services will be free. Googled the list.http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskf...uspsabrecs.htm

Spin off from another thread. Going to make this a private poll

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

It is not a myth, if you understood the facts correctly , which you do not.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/ea...-june_2011.pdf

I have read studies that suggest an 18-20 BILLION dollar savings....

Adults without medical insurance are much more likely to go to the ER, according to the CDC.

If you start looking at why, it becomes really clear.....it is mostly becuase they have no other alternative and it won't cost them any cash out of pocket immediately (if ever).

To try and say there is no problem with uninsured people going to the ER for things they would normally be able to see a doctor about is just plain dishonest..

And again you are just plain WRONG. I have provided links to the FACTS. I have read your CDC report and it does nothing to prop up your argument. It's sad that you are so blind on this issue that you can't see this. The myth you are propagating has been debunked time and time again.

Let's dumb it down yet again...

Do you agree that less than 20% of ER visits are by the uninsured?

Do you also agree that ER abuse (using the ER as a local doctor's office and going multiple times) is mostly a function of those on Medicaid?

Can we at least get agreement on these two FACTS?

EDIT: HAHAHA I see you edited your post to include the HHS doc which supports MY POINT.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Do you also agree that ER abuse (using the ER as a local doctor's office and going multiple times) is mostly a function of those on Medicaid?

Part of the problem where we think we are disagreeing may be related to how we define abuse, but hell yes medicaid abuse is massive...not only that but there should more be co-pays to prevent people from this abuse

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Part of the problem where we think we are disagreeing may be related to how we define abuse

I count anything that is not a genuine EMERGENCY as abuse. Using that definition, it's people on Medicaid who are twice as likely to be offenders.

CHeck this article out and tell me exactly where it goes wrong...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...ly-exaggerated

[Pawnmower]

The main problem is you are focused on the abusers who are covered...(which is a great place to work on!)

I am focused on people who aren't necessarily "abusing" the system per se, but have actual emergencies and just never pay the bill...which technically is not abuse - yet leads to higher costs for everyone despite not being "abuse"

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I count anything that is not a genuine EMERGENCY as abuse. Using that definition, it's people on Medicaid who are twice as likely to be offenders.

CHeck this article out and tell me exactly where it goes wrong...

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...ly-exaggerated

Ive read the article (skimmed it) and while there isn't anything I saw that was wrong, it never said WHY there is a massive amount of new medicaid users (pre obama care, since any effect Obama care MIGHT or might not have on medicaid isnt known yet).....or address that but to me some of it is a separate problem.
It also doesnt talk about uninsured people who use the ER, and that effect.

I am all in favor of slashing abuse from medicaid, so I am hardly one to argue against that.

I am just trying to ALSO slash the use of the ER by uninsured people, which while NOT technically abuse, is a massive waste of money.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Part of the problem where we think we are disagreeing may be related to how we define abuse, but hell yes medicaid abuse is massive...not only that but there should more be co-pays to prevent people from this abuse

only 15 percent of frequent users were uninsured. Nearly two-thirds (60 percent) of frequent visitors to the ER were covered by government insurance—Medicaid or Medicare.

Patients who frequent the ER may constitute only about 5-8 percent of ER patients, but they account for approxinately one-quarter of all ER visits, where care is often free to the patient and they can avoid having to book an appointment in advance. Both reports conclude frequent users of the ER tend to be in poor health.

So what about Obamacare will make these people who will then be on govt insurance be any different than the people who are now on govt insurance and abuse the ER?

You claim that these people are short sighted and stupid for not having health insurance (probably true on both accounts). How will them having insurance change those facts about them? I see a ton of newly insured idiots heading to the ER anytime they get a boo boo.

Like most liberal ideas... it sounds good on paper but it doesn't take into account the reality of ACTUAL human behavior. Like I said before in some perfect hippie paradise it would generate a ton of savings. In the real world just the opposite effect will likely occur.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

Ive read the article (skimmed it) and while there isn't anything I saw that was wrong, it never said WHY there is a massive amount of new medicaid users.....or address that but to me some of it is a separate problem.
It also doesnt talk about unin

I am all in favor of slashing abuse from medicaid, so I am hardly one to argue against that.

I am just trying to ALSO slash the use of the ER by uninsured people, which while NOT technically abuse, is a massive waste of money.

I agree with you 1000% but Obamacare does none of this. Not one itty bitty bit.

I'd make the ****ers work their bills off through some hospital community service type of deal. Would have two effects... #1 helps hospital pay the bills and #2 acts as a powerful deterrent to going to the ER without insurance and then expecting not to pay your bill

[Pawnmower]

* and yes, Medicaid patients use the ER the most, but do you know who uses it the second most?

Uninsured patients......50% more than insured ones.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I agree with you 1000% but Obamacare does none of this. Not one itty bitty bit.

Well in theory it SHOULD....I am willing to wait to giove it a chance to address the problem.


It worked in Mass. I think something like it could work, when you

-get everyone in the insurance pool, or at least the vast majority

- have an exchange system that allows for changing plans and shopping


I don't see why it wouldnt address the problem...do you not think more people will be insured under obama care?

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

So what about Obamacare will make these people who will then be on govt insurance be any different than the people who are now on govt insurance and abuse the ER?

They wont all be on Govt insurance, the exchanges are private insurance companies in a fair market competition....if they can't beat the government in a fair competition, what good are the companies anyhow?

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You claim that these people are short sighted and stupid for not having health insurance (probably true on both accounts). How will them having insurance change those facts about them? I see a ton of newly insured idiots heading to the ER anytime they get a boo boo.

I believe (I admit this is speculation on my part) that the MAIN reason that people abuse medicaid is the lack of Co-pays.

This absolutely will not happen with a private company, and will most likely go away with medicaid.

Even a low co-pay for an ambulance ride, say 20$, deducted out of the person's welfare / entitlements would solve this.


edit:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...icaid-co-pays/

higher medicaid copays under obama care ** and I personally think it should be about 5 times higher for ambulance rides or non emergency ** it doesnt charge enough, but its a start

The rule also allows Medicaid programs to charge a bit more for non-emergency trips to the emergency department. It will allow states to charge some higher income Medicaid recipients (those earning between 100 and 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Line) more for those non-emergent visits. Usually, states would have to seek a waiver to charge different prices for care delivered in different settings (the emergency room instead of the primary care doctor’s office, for example).

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

* and yes, Medicaid patients use the ER the most, but do you know who uses it the second most?

Uninsured patients......50% more than insured ones.

Actually it is a 3% difference 17% compared to 20%.

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

They wont all be on Govt insurance

I'd like to see a study on this. I have a strong feeling that the uninsured that use the ER are the same ones likely to end up with Medicaid under Obamacare. Studies have already shown that the significant problem isn't the healthy uninsured people using the ER for real emergencies.

You have to get the idea out of your head that there are these droves of healthy young people with money who go around uninsured and using the ER. It's a myth. The vast majority can't afford healthcare. Obamacare doesn't drop prices so why would they suddenly be able to afford insurance? They won't. They will end up on Medicaid. And the cycle continues...

So again, your heart is in the right place but the reality is that Obamacare doesn't have anywhere close to the desired effect.


*** I agree that Medicaid copays are a joke but they will go from a complete joke to less of a joke. Nothing close to an amount that will make a significant difference.

[Pawnmower]

On a positive note, I truly feel everyone wants what is best for our country....with doctors having given the Hippocratic oath, it is a fact that we (taxpayers) will be forced to pay the health care of those who are not covered.

I think the arguments that we are having on this board and as a nation are good, as we come to terms with this fact...

I believe that most people are just focused on trying to work with this fact and lower the costs as much as possible....whether that be by single payer, private efforts, some combination system, like obama care...this will be an eternal struggle until we find a real solution...

My opinion is that health care is a right of the people, or at least it should be. In all practicality it is one since we can just go to the ER any time. We might as well work on ways to get everyone into more preventative based systems , and get everyone good health care from birth which will lower everyone's costs for the future...

Its too late for me really (im old and have insurance), but my kids and grandkids I hope never have to worry about health care as this generations and before have.

[Pawnmower]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Actually it is a 3% difference 17% compared to 20%.

That isn't what I read, and also not reflected in the articles I already posted


You have to get the idea out of your head that there are these droves of healthy young people with money who go around uninsured and using the ER.

Well, thats not exactly my position, it is slightly more complicated.

If you read my posts from before, my goal is to get more healthy people into the insurance pool. A Huge part of the problem isn't (as yuou said) healthy people using the ER in droves....Its healthy people who DO NOT HAVE INSURANCE and therefore are not in the insurance pool.....then they join only later in life when they are older and sicker....****ing up the pool even more and not spending their healthy years in it

If we had everyone in the pool from birth, the spread would be maximum....

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Pawnmower

On a positive note, I truly feel everyone wants what is best for our country....with doctors having given the Hippocratic oath, it is a fact that we (taxpayers) will be forced to pay the health care of those who are not covered.

I think the arguments that we are having on this board and as a nation are good, as we come to terms with this fact...

I truly believe that most people are just focused on trying to work with this fact and lower the costs as much as possible....whether that be by single payer, private efforts, some combination system, like obama care...this will be an eternal struggle until we find a real solution...

My opinion is that health care is a right of the people, or at least it should be. In all practicality it is one since we can just go to the ER any time. We might as well work on ways to get everyone into more preventative based systems , and get everyone good health care from birth which will lower everyone's costs for the future...

Its too late for me really, but my kids and grandkids I hope never have to worry about health care as this generations and before have.

I am 100% in DISagreement about health care being a right. I think that type of thinking has already led us down a dark path. BUT I'm a realist and know that I am part of a shrinking minority on this issue. I'm willing to look at any solution that addresses the REAL underlying issues. My problem is that Obamacare does almost NOTHING good in this respect. The only thing that it does that I support is to allow for more nationwide insurance competition. I don't like the implementation but no one can argue that more competition is a bad thing.

Obamacare is one step forward and a solid 5 steps BACK.