(06-24-2017 07:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you don't think that there are people on medicaid now that get bumped from it as a result of this bill, or people that have insurance with preventive care coverage now and will lose that aspect of coverage as a result of this bill becoming law you aren't think this thing through. If you acknowledge that that will be the case you should be able to see how people will die prematurely as a result. Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death.

What about the people who had to switch to ACA compliant policies (folks who actually pay for their health insurance instead of getting a handout like Medicaid) but whose deductibles are now so high they put off care because they can't pay for doctor visits and medical tests and invariably some of them will miss out on their own early diagnosis and die because of it?

I have just such a high deductible plan. We think twice about going to a doctor now because we bear the full cost up to 6K when insurance kicks in. We are the people who if something develops wait and hope it goes away. We didn't pre-ACA policy but do now. Biggest difference between then and now is the high deductible.

As you say "Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death." But people like me and there are many other people out here in my same situation will now have later diagnosis and treatment yielding poorer outcomes.

Whose access to affordable early care matters more...?

(06-24-2017 04:39 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Both parties are killing us with their crappy health care bills, but they won't stop fighting with each other and get their heads out of their asses to work together to come up with ideals to save Medicaid, Medicare and the health industry. They all get money from special interest groups and ignoring us completely.

Agree.

(06-24-2017 08:56 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 07:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  . Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death.

So is eating healthy, not smoking and living healthy lifestyle in general.


Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

They certainly are.

(06-24-2017 10:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 07:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you don't think that there are people on medicaid now that get bumped from it as a result of this bill, or people that have insurance with preventive care coverage now and will lose that aspect of coverage as a result of this bill becoming law you aren't think this thing through. If you acknowledge that that will be the case you should be able to see how people will die prematurely as a result. Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death.

What about the people who had to switch to ACA compliant policies (folks who actually pay for their health insurance instead of getting a handout like Medicaid) but whose deductibles are now so high they put off care because they can't pay for doctor visits and medical tests and invariably some of them will miss out on their own early diagnosis and die because of it?

I have just such a high deductible plan. We think twice about going to a doctor now because we bear the full cost up to 6K when insurance kicks in. We are the people who if something develops wait and hope it goes away. We didn't pre-ACA policy but do now. Biggest difference between then and now is the high deductible.

As you say "Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death." But people like me and there are many other people out here in my same situation will now have later diagnosis and treatment yielding poorer outcomes.

Whose access to affordable early care matters more...?

You do realize that the senate and house bills will drive deductibles up even higher than they are now don't you? Premiums will go up significantly more as well. Also many of the preventive care provisions required in the ACA policies will most likely eliminated and you will be paying out of pocket for the tests or opt out of getting them in a timely manner. If this bill passes we will be going from the fry pan to the fire.

If you do not want to pay out of pocket for lab work, you should be able to purchase the option where It is covered 100%. As for me, I'd rather pay $200 once a year than $200 per month.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-24-2017 10:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 10:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 07:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you don't think that there are people on medicaid now that get bumped from it as a result of this bill, or people that have insurance with preventive care coverage now and will lose that aspect of coverage as a result of this bill becoming law you aren't think this thing through. If you acknowledge that that will be the case you should be able to see how people will die prematurely as a result. Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death.

What about the people who had to switch to ACA compliant policies (folks who actually pay for their health insurance instead of getting a handout like Medicaid) but whose deductibles are now so high they put off care because they can't pay for doctor visits and medical tests and invariably some of them will miss out on their own early diagnosis and die because of it?

I have just such a high deductible plan. We think twice about going to a doctor now because we bear the full cost up to 6K when insurance kicks in. We are the people who if something develops wait and hope it goes away. We didn't pre-ACA policy but do now. Biggest difference between then and now is the high deductible.

As you say "Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death." But people like me and there are many other people out here in my same situation will now have later diagnosis and treatment yielding poorer outcomes.

Whose access to affordable early care matters more...?

You do realize that the senate and house bills will drive deductibles up even higher than they are now don't you? Premiums will go up significantly more as well. Also many of the preventive care provisions required in the ACA policies will most likely eliminated and you will be paying out of pocket for the tests or opt out of getting them in a timely manner. If this bill passes we will be going from the fry pan to the fire.

Please show me where I defended the senate or house bill.

I asked about those who actually pay for their own insurance who now have high deductibles and are not able to afford their care and will have poorer outcomes as a direct result of the ACA.

You plead the case of the Medicaid entitlement beneficiary who wold lose coverage...I plead the case of the person paying their own way who is getting hosed.

BTW The basic preventative tests the ACA mandates are peanuts. Big whoop I get a free baseline mammogram and a pap smear! (I got these before the ACA too...) My now high deductible plan doesn't pay for CBCs, MRIs, CT Scans, sonograms, diagnostic mammograms, etc. until the $6K threshhold is reached...the $6K is over and above premiums (which are higher now too).

(06-24-2017 11:03 PM)EverRespect Wrote:  If you do not want to pay out of pocket for lab work, you should be able to purchase the option where It is covered 100%. As for me, I'd rather pay $200 once a year than $200 per month.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That's where have flexibility to pay for the coverage you want/need would be ideal not the one size fits all crap we have now with the ACA.

(06-24-2017 10:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You do realize that the senate and house bills will drive deductibles up even higher than they are now don't you? Premiums will go up significantly more as well. Also many of the preventive care provisions required in the ACA policies will most likely eliminated and you will be paying out of pocket for the tests or opt out of getting them in a timely manner. If this bill passes we will be going from the fry pan to the fire.

The end of civilization is nigh.

(06-25-2017 09:30 AM)LeFlâneur Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 10:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  You do realize that the senate and house bills will drive deductibles up even higher than they are now don't you? Premiums will go up significantly more as well. Also many of the preventive care provisions required in the ACA policies will most likely eliminated and you will be paying out of pocket for the tests or opt out of getting them in a timely manner. If this bill passes we will be going from the fry pan to the fire.

The end of civilization is nigh.

#exponetionallyrising

#asweknowit

(06-25-2017 09:27 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 10:52 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 10:10 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-24-2017 07:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  If you don't think that there are people on medicaid now that get bumped from it as a result of this bill, or people that have insurance with preventive care coverage now and will lose that aspect of coverage as a result of this bill becoming law you aren't think this thing through. If you acknowledge that that will be the case you should be able to see how people will die prematurely as a result. Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death.

What about the people who had to switch to ACA compliant policies (folks who actually pay for their health insurance instead of getting a handout like Medicaid) but whose deductibles are now so high they put off care because they can't pay for doctor visits and medical tests and invariably some of them will miss out on their own early diagnosis and die because of it?

I have just such a high deductible plan. We think twice about going to a doctor now because we bear the full cost up to 6K when insurance kicks in. We are the people who if something develops wait and hope it goes away. We didn't pre-ACA policy but do now. Biggest difference between then and now is the high deductible.

As you say "Early diagnoses and regular treatment of things like diabetes, heart disease and cancer are a matter of life and death." But people like me and there are many other people out here in my same situation will now have later diagnosis and treatment yielding poorer outcomes.

Whose access to affordable early care matters more...?

You do realize that the senate and house bills will drive deductibles up even higher than they are now don't you? Premiums will go up significantly more as well. Also many of the preventive care provisions required in the ACA policies will most likely eliminated and you will be paying out of pocket for the tests or opt out of getting them in a timely manner. If this bill passes we will be going from the fry pan to the fire.

Please show me where I defended the senate or house bill.

I asked about those who actually pay for their own insurance who now have high deductibles and are not able to afford their care and will have poorer outcomes as a direct result of the ACA.

You plead the case of the Medicaid entitlement beneficiary who wold lose coverage...I plead the case of the person paying their own way who is getting hosed.

BTW The basic preventative tests the ACA mandates are peanuts. Big whoop I get a free baseline mammogram and a pap smear! (I got these before the ACA too...) My now high deductible plan doesn't pay for CBCs, MRIs, CT Scans, sonograms, diagnostic mammograms, etc. until the $6K threshhold is reached...the $6K is over and above premiums (which are higher now too).

I value and am concerned about the well being of all of us equally.

Actually I was pointing out both medicaid and individual insurance coverage. You will be paying even more in deductibles, premiums and co-pays than you are under the ACA. You will suffer more financially if this GOP bill becomes law than you are suffering currently.

I have to admire the logically sound argument she and the Democrats have framed.

Oh, wait a sec.

(06-25-2017 09:27 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  You plead the case of the Medicaid entitlement beneficiary who wold lose coverage...I plead the case of the person paying their own way who is getting hosed.

Somebody is going to get hosed until we adopt an approach that correctly addresses the underlying real issues. You can screw young people and the middle class to provide entitlement coverage to the poor. Or you can make things affordable for the middle class and not provide entitlement coverage to the poor.

It's not health insurance that determines how many die, it's health care. Until we find ways to create more health care, the number of deaths is going to be pretty constant. All that changes with Obamacare is that the group getting screwed changes. That will change again under any republican approach presented so far.

(06-25-2017 02:24 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 09:27 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  You plead the case of the Medicaid entitlement beneficiary who wold lose coverage...I plead the case of the person paying their own way who is getting hosed.

Somebody is going to get hosed until we adopt an approach that correctly addresses the underlying real issues. You can screw young people and the middle class to provide entitlement coverage to the poor. Or you can make things affordable for the middle class and not provide entitlement coverage to the poor.

It's not health insurance that determines how many die, it's affordable health care for everyone. Until we find ways to create more health care, the number of deaths is going to be pretty constant. All that changes with Obamacare is that the group getting screwed changes. That will change again under any republican approach presented so far.

attaboy fify....to the rest, you and me both know that won't happen due to politics....

they don't see the underlying problem and only attack the msm "now".... it's pathetic

at this point, the pragmatic can only allow 'em to die in the '1 vs. 0'

one can only offer solutions to delay the inevitable....when they're ignored, it's outside of rational scope....therefore, people MUST die one way or the other.....

NObody wants to hear that.....but that's the way she plays out.....

50 years ago, nobody worth mentioning in the public eye gave this ne'r a thought.....dipshites....
'
man, when we were tokin' this was a simple topic of how screwed we knew we would become.....\

**** the boomers....you ****** us and you knew it.....

Here is the problem with "affordable health care for everyone"--you can make it good, you can make it available to everyone, or you can make it cheap. If you do a really, really good job, you can do two of the three. But you can't do all three. The laws of economics don't change.

Single-payer and single-provider systems do it cheap, they are in theory available to everyone but they ration with queueing, and they are not high quality. The good news for them is that, statistically at least, providing universal crappy health care is pretty effective over a population taken as a whole. It doesn't do much for people who have injuries or illnesses that weren't in the budget, but those are a small part of the population and thus of little impact statistically.

(06-25-2017 08:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem with "affordable health care for everyone"--you can make it good, you can make it available to everyone, or you can make it cheap. If you do a really, really god job, you can do two of the three. But you can't do all three. The laws of economics don't change.

Single-payer and single-provider systems do it cheap, they are in theory available to everyone but they ration with queueing, and they are not high quality. The good news for them is that, statistically at least, providing universal crappy health care is pretty effective over a population taken as a whole. It doesn't do much for people who have injuries or illnesses that weren't in the budget, but those are a small part of the population and thus of little impact statistically.

Yep...as with most things the rules of good, fast, or cheap pick 2 of the 3 applies to healthcare.

(06-25-2017 08:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem with "affordable health care for everyone"--you can make it good, you can make it available to everyone, or you can make it cheap. If you do a really, really god job, you can do two of the three. But you can't do all three. The laws of economics don't change.

Single-payer and single-provider systems do it cheap, they are in theory available to everyone but they ration with queueing, and they are not high quality. The good news for them is that, statistically at least, providing universal crappy health care is pretty effective over a population taken as a whole. It doesn't do much for people who have injuries or illnesses that weren't in the budget, but those are a small part of the population and thus of little impact statistically.

The political reality is you are correct. If I were dictator, I could do all 3. There would be a lot of angry lawyers and a lot of laid off HHS and private employees in the medical industry, but it really would not be difficult to create a system that does all 3.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(06-25-2017 08:38 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(06-25-2017 08:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem with "affordable health care for everyone"--you can make it good, you can make it available to everyone, or you can make it cheap. If you do a really, really god job, you can do two of the three. But you can't do all three. The laws of economics don't change.

Single-payer and single-provider systems do it cheap, they are in theory available to everyone but they ration with queueing, and they are not high quality. The good news for them is that, statistically at least, providing universal crappy health care is pretty effective over a population taken as a whole. It doesn't do much for people who have injuries or illnesses that weren't in the budget, but those are a small part of the population and thus of little impact statistically.

Yep...as with most things the rules of good, fast, or cheap pick 2 of the 3 applies to healthcare.

Don't know how many times I've had to explain that.

(06-25-2017 08:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Here is the problem with "affordable health care for everyone"--you can make it good, you can make it available to everyone, or you can make it cheap. If you do a really, really good job, you can do two of the three. But you can't do all three. The laws of economics don't change.

Single-payer and single-provider systems do it cheap, they are in theory available to everyone but they ration with queueing, and they are not high quality. The good news for them is that, statistically at least, providing universal crappy health care is pretty effective over a population taken as a whole. It doesn't do much for people who have injuries or illnesses that weren't in the budget, but those are a small part of the population and thus of little impact statistically.

Obamacare did none of the 3. It is dismantling the excellent care we have and is driving prices up even more than before. It is providing insurance to more but not all and is not truly addressing care for more as prices are limiting access.

We had great care for most. And we had not great care for the rest. But it was really expensive.

Still bitter it seems.......