rickman said:
rickman wrote:
On 3/4/2013 5:56 PM, Joerg wrote:
rickman wrote:
On 3/4/2013 12:25 PM, Joerg wrote:
[...]
I am not the guy who said the sky is falling. AFAIR that was Obama who
said the sequester will be disastrous, and now said it won't be so bad.
Great, huh?
My prediction is this: We will see a rising number of patients, first
from Medicare and then from Obamacare, who will face increasing
difficulty finding a doctor that will take them. I personally know
Medicare patients who have already experienced that trend. Then,
longer
term, this whole new "health system" will implode.
What you don't get is that doctors who don't take Medicare and
Obamacare
patients will find they don't have many patients. Why do you think
they
take Medicare patients now? They don't like sitting around waiting
for
people to come in the door.
My prediction is this: first we will see a lot of complaining from
doctors who find there are a lot more people who will have
insurance to
get care, but the reimbursements are lower. Then the costs of
insurance
will rise as the ever higher costs are passed on until the insurance
starts to become unaffordable. Then everyone can see the problem
isn't
insurance, it is the inflated cost of medical care. ...
Now you have described the implosion I meant.
This isn't caused by insurance. It will be brought to the attention of
everyone whereas now only those without insurance see the problem.
Same thing. Premiums go super-inflationary, people who had good coverage
pre-Obamacare are financially forced out -> poof.
It is happening already. Obamacare makes it happen faster because
everyone is on board. ...
Yeah, it's forcing people out of insurance. And that's sick. Pretty soon
there will only two groups who can "afford" it: The highest income class
and the lower income classes. The latter get it subsidized by the middle
class who may get stiffed.
Ok, we'll see.
Read my links again. Those contain information from government source.
The Canadians I met in US hospitals had not very nice things to day
about their system. Because they had to travel to the US for treatment.
Many of the links you have posted in this have *no* information content,
just opinion from people with a clear bias. The last couple of links do
indicate facts, but they don't condemn the entire health system. Just
as our system has flaws, the British system has flaws. No, it's not
perfect, but it is a lot better than ours if you don't have insurance
and is pretty comparable even if you do have insurance. You were able
to get a colonoscopy in a day, but that is very atypical. If it were
common that would imply that we have resources sitting around waiting
for patients and that is expensive, just the sort of thing that drives
up health care costs, rather than Obamacare as you claim.
If Obamacare is causing insurance cost increases, what has been causing
it for the last several decades?
Waiting lists are "spots"?
<shaking head>
You shake your head when I point out that this is one small problem in a
huge health care system.
Lots. A major one is tort law and Obamacare fixed nothing about that.
For obvious reasons. Sticking the head in the sand about it won't make
that problem go away.
You don't respond to my challenges to this claim. In Maryland they
passed a law limiting damages for medical claims to $250k. That should
solve the problem, no? But still medical costs rise steadily.
You can force it via the courts. When the government runs it that option
is realistically gone. In countries with socialized medicine people then
have one choice: If they are rich they go to countries such as the US
and pay out of pocket. If they are not rich they usually do not have any
more options, it's the end of the rope.
Courts! By then you are DEAD! People from this country go overseas for
medical care so they can afford it! ONLY the very rich come to this
country.
The millisecond the first letter from an attorney arrives via certified
mail they will give you a ton of attention. A government agency OTOH
will generally not give a hoot.
BS! Insurance companies will give you "attention", but that doesn't
equal care. My friend is dead with a pretty clear link to the denied
coverage for her cancer treatment. She may have died anyway, but the
insurance company made that certain.
I do not subscribe to that sort of strange thinking.
Strange? I suppose you consider the money to give to Walmart to still
be yours as well?
BT. It is much easier than going against some agency. Although I've done
that, too.
Sure, you can complain all day to the insurance company. It won't get
you care. If you get it put on national TV they *might* do some good.
I do know of a doctor who was a leukemia researcher. He developed the
very sort of disease they were working on and took the experimental
treatment his lab had developed. The other researchers chipped in to
pay for the first month or two of treatment which worked. In the mean
time they were able to convince the insurance company to pay for
continued care. I don't know of any other examples like this. But this
was clearly done for the publicity.
Waiting lists are not spot problems. People die on waiting lists and the
very existence of those lists is corroborated by government data.
Waiting lists that impact health are the exception rather than the rule.
That is a function of how much money is spent on health care. That is
what is going to change in this country because the costs are rising so
absurdly. You like your doctors? You can continue to pay them. I will
prefer it when the rates are managed as well as the care.
With Obamacare it sure can. That is one of very many reasons I am
against Obamacare. Not against all aspects of it but against most of them.
Ok, this is my last post on this unless something changes. We are just
going in circles and you won't discuss any facts other than the waiting
list.