Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[krill]

Are you implying that people who don't have health insurance by their own choice are no better than illegal aliens, who also get emergency medical care?

 

I've probably asked this question about a half dozen times in our various health care debates and never once got an honest answer. I assume because most people can see it's a ridiculous false choice, but so is choosing not to buy health insurance, and then expecting medical care in an emergency, like that's something that magically happens with no cost. It's a huge cost, and one of the reasons a band-aid in an ER cost $500.

[carlfense]

Individuals who are vigorously opposed to buying health insurance should be able to opt out by waiving their right to emergency medical services, in the same way you can choose not to have auto insurance by not driving, or mortgage insurance by not having a mortgage. That seems completely fair and sensible. Eventually, I think we'd get use to ambulances driving off or ERs baring their door to dying people; I mean, it would be their choice, right? I assume that those of you who who don't want to carry health insurance would be first in line to sign up.

That sounds reasonable. I'm sure Congress would support a minor fix to the law, right?

[carlfense]

Are you implying that people who don't have health insurance by their own choice are no better than illegal aliens, who also get emergency medical care?

 

I've probably asked this question about a half dozen times in our various health care debates and never once got an honest answer. I assume because most people can see it's a ridiculous false choice, but so is choosing not to buy health insurance, and then expecting medical care in an emergency, like that's something that magically happens with no cost. It's a huge cost, and one of the reasons a band-aid in an ER cost $500.

Exactly. We already have socialized medicine in the United States. It's just that it's the most inefficient care possible. That great socialist, Ronald Wilson Reagan, signed into law a bill saying that anyone with an emergency medical condition can't be turned away by most hospitals regardless of whether they can pay for the care that they receive.

 

Nothing screams efficiency like waiting until the situation is an emergency before we start paying for health care.

[carlfense]

[BigRedBuster]

An interesting discussion on controlling costs.

 

LINK

 

This is something that really hasn't been discussed. The effort has been to get everyone on an insurance plan which is an admirable goal. However, one heck of a lot of the problem is the actual cost of health care. Some how we have to give the patient the ability to actually be a wise consumer of health care and also motivate them to look at it that way.

 

This is the main reason why I am for larger deductibles. No, I don't want someone deciding if they want to fix their heater or have back surgery. But, when you have very low deductibles, the patient has no skin the game and no motivation to actually care about what anything costs. Here is an example. We went to higher deductible plans several years ago. Our health costs went down. One example of why is that most of our employees started asking for generic drugs instead of the more expensive name brand drugs.

 

Now, imagine if as a consumer of health care, you were able to search what doctor in your area gets the diagnosis correct more often AND is less expensive. I would think that would be a winning situation for everyone except the doctor that has sky high fees and does a crappy job.

[carlfense]

But, when you have very low deductibles, the patient has no skin the game and no motivation to actually care about what anything costs.

Other than literally having their own skin in the game?

 

Now, imagine if as a consumer of health care, you were able to search what doctor in your area gets the diagnosis correct more often AND is less expensive. I would think that would be a winning situation for everyone except the doctor that has sky high fees and does a crappy job.

Perhaps even some sort of mechanism for determining the most effective delivery of care? And maybe some sort of system whereby a doctor/hospital that has abnormally high rates of patient readmission face consequences?

[BigRedBuster]

But, when you have very low deductibles, the patient has no skin the game and no motivation to actually care about what anything costs.

Other than literally having their own skin in the game? What???

 

Now, imagine if as a consumer of health care, you were able to search what doctor in your area gets the diagnosis correct more often AND is less expensive. I would think that would be a winning situation for everyone except the doctor that has sky high fees and does a crappy job.

Perhaps even some sort of mechanism for determining the most effective delivery of care? And maybe some sort of system whereby a doctor/hospital that has abnormally high rates of patient readmission face consequences?

[CornHOLIO]

14% "Clear Winners"?

"Affordable " is relative. How do we know they might not have other higher priorities than having insurance?

They might be the "Working Poor" that are too proud to use food stamps and could use that money for real nessecities.

[carlfense]

But, when you have very low deductibles, the patient has no skin the game and no motivation to actually care about what anything costs.

Other than literally having their own skin in the game?

What???

You know . . . their health.

[BigRedBuster]

What does that have to with controlling costs and deciding which doctor to go to if two offer the same service?

[carlfense]

What does that have to with controlling costs and deciding which doctor to go to if two offer the same service?

Ah. I see what you intended now. You meant to say something like "But, when you have very low deductibles, the patient has no skin the game and <therefore> no motivation to actually care about what anything costs."

 

Apologies.

[BigRedBuster]

What does that have to with controlling costs and deciding which doctor to go to if two offer the same service?

Ah. I see what you intended now. You meant to say something like "But, when you have very low deductibles, the patient has no skin the game and <therefore> no motivation to actually care about what anything costs."

 

Apologies.

 

[carlfense]

What does that have to with controlling costs and deciding which doctor to go to if two offer the same service?

Ah. I see what you intended now. You meant to say something like "But, when you have very low deductibles, the patient has no skin the game and <therefore> no motivation to actually care about what anything costs."

 

Apologies.

 

I thought that the "no skin in the game" angle was going to head down the path of the claim that someone with low deductible insurance has no incentive to choose a healthy lifestyle. My father likes that argument.

[BigRedBuster]

One heck of a lot of people don't give a sh#t about their health and that's a problem, but, I have not found that higher deductibles helps that situation. They just sit and bitch about how horrible it is that they have to pay something for lung cancer treatments while they are still smoking two packs a day.

[carlfense]

One heck of a lot of people don't give a sh#t about their health and that's a problem, but, I have not found that higher deductibles helps that situation. They just sit and bitch about how horrible it is that they have to pay something for lung cancer treatments while they are still smoking two packs a day.

Can't fix stupid.