Health Care Thread

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,048
47,229
You so sure about that? Aetna here only will give them to you after you already have a prior history only.
Guess you didn't read III:

Aetna considers diagnostic mammography medically necessary for members with signs or symptoms of breast disease or history of breast cancer.

Note: Diagnostic mammography is covered regardless of whether the member has preventive services benefits

Which is why your doctor would order it. Duh
 

Zhaun_sl

shitlord
2,568
2
How is the changes to insurance really different than us having to pay more for car insurance due to other people who drive shitty when you don't, or childless people taxes going to schools they don't use, etc.?
 

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
8,627
29,799
2010 was the peak of tea party frenzy
2012 was a good indicator of the way people felt about it by then
2013 with ted cruz, government shutdown, etc. people have really began to get worn out by then.

an election like 2010 happens once, maaaaaybe twice in a century
Bro, I'm on your side, but come on, those things don't happen in a vacuum. This is America, retards are allowed to vote and the pendulum always swings back. Obummer fucked it up for the rest of us. It sucks, but that's fact Jack. The quicker we face facts and deal with it, the less damage the Retard Brigade can do.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
79,042
157,098
I dont understand what the conservatives want.

Are they asking to be able to pick and choose a plan and the diseases/conditions it covers ala carte based on what THEY think might happen to them health wise in the next few decades?
 

Asshat wormie

2023 Asshat Award Winner
<Gold Donor>
16,820
30,968
Umm forcing customers onto insurance companies at low values is not trickle down economics in the slightest. I don't think you understand what that is, at all.

Right now insurance companies can charge what they want and offer what they want and turn down who they want (there are some minor stipulations but that is the overall).

When this all goes into effect they have very little control over their policies. How can you call that trickle down?
The insurance companies are getting more customers and thus making more profits. Atleast thats the idea. And these profits should be shared with the customers in the form of reduced premiums. This shit is the definition of trickle down.
 

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
I think you're being too generous here:

Note the lack of WHEN in his future tense like I stated... CBO estimate was coincidentally $2700 in savings per family in 2020 or whatever the end of their estimate window was.

As I said, context - which he never clarified - but technically might be accurate since we're in the first third still. Not that anyone who didn't read the CBO report would think it to not be immediate from shitty phrasing though.
 

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
I thought the healthcare market was good but it obviously needed change. I just would have preferred the scalpel versus sledgehammer approach. Frankly, I think a better fix to healthcare would have been tort reform but that's just me.

I agree 100% that nothing is going to change as long as politicians are more interested in elections than results. Pretty sad.
See Texas on tort reform - max lawsuit is low as shit there now - and savings is 0.1%... Every bit matters but tort barely did anything there, which isn't optimistic for the nation.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
79,042
157,098
Yeah, tort reform always seemed to be a comically poor way to alleviate health care costs.

Basically the implications is that lawsuits and damages are driving up the costs entirely with nothing else contributing, so limiting damages and lawsuits would fix the entire thing.

It's not like healthcare is a commodity that is needed by everyone in their life and since it affects life and death, costs are irrelevant to the sufferer. That could never be the reason why the healthcare market is so fucked up and distorted.
 

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
Capitalism won a long time ago. It is the strongest and best system for people as a whole, as long as it is checked by proper government oversight. The insurance system didn't need to be taken over by the government it just needed to be overseen better by the people we voted in to do that job. The reason the people we voted in did such a bad job is because there are too many clueless people like you who chose to believe their lies and vote for them, rather than hold them accountable for it.

What you need to do is grow up a little and realize that your fantasy of a perfect government that will take care of everyone from cradle to grave is an impossible dream that will never be realized because of basic human nature. And you can't change human nature.
LOL - if you honestly believe anything you said here including my own ideals which are pretty much libertarian - the real version, not the religious right pseudo libertarians - I honestly don't know what to say to you.

The ACA sucks and barely is worth a damn because it made a small step forward in exchange for some freedoms - but it is better than the direction previously. Personally I'd love to see insurance for healthcare banned except for a new type of catastrophic plan that only covers hospitalization items that would be automatic via taxes and other non hospital stuff would be cash. Possibly subsidized by the Fed to keep costs low for people but FUUUUUUUCCCCCCKKKKKKK insurance companies being involved in coverage.

If the ACA did that, then sign me up as a supporter, otherwise I'm still a critic that doesn't like it but acknowledges some small improvements.
 

Vaclav

Bronze Baronet of the Realm
12,650
877
a_skeleton_03: That's true for all NEW plans, grandfathered plans were exempt from that list.
 

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,762
a_skeleton_03: That's true for all NEW plans, grandfathered plans were exempt from that list.
The grandfathered plans that are dissapearing? Yeah gonna be great
biggrin.png
 

Flipmode

EQOA Refugee
2,092
312
So that is what every plan HAS to cover.



Can't discriminate based on age so if you are 70 or 18 you need it.

I don't pretend to read things and understand them 100% when it comes to complicated legal stuff so in no way am I saying that it is backing up what he is saying. I just know that it is part of the EHB and the EHB is mandatory for ALL plans.
My employer plan has "forced" me to have all those coverages the last 20 years. Where was the outcry then?
 

Synj

Dystopian Dreamer
<Gold Donor>
7,930
34,670
Note the lack of WHEN in his future tense like I stated... CBO estimate was coincidentally $2700 in savings per family in 2020 or whatever the end of their estimate window was.

As I said, context - which he never clarified - but technically might be accurate since we're in the first third still. Not that anyone who didn't read the CBO report would think it to not be immediate from shitty phrasing though.
I understand what you mean by tense, I'm just not willing to give Obama a pass on it.
 

Synj

Dystopian Dreamer
<Gold Donor>
7,930
34,670
See Texas on tort reform - max lawsuit is low as shit there now - and savings is 0.1%... Every bit matters but tort barely did anything there, which isn't optimistic for the nation.
That's pretty interesting and I didn't know that. I know for a fact though that many diagnostics are ordered by providers simply as a CYA. Would probably take many years to change that paradigm, so I still think long term reform would help but results are what they are.
 

Synj

Dystopian Dreamer
<Gold Donor>
7,930
34,670
Yeah, tort reform always seemed to be a comically poor way to alleviate health care costs.

Basically the implications is that lawsuits and damages are driving up the costs entirely with nothing else contributing, so limiting damages and lawsuits would fix the entire thing.

It's not like healthcare is a commodity that is needed by everyone in their life and since it affects life and death, costs are irrelevant to the sufferer. That could never be the reason why the healthcare market is so fucked up and distorted.
Patients demanding unnecessary diagnostics and providers ordering them for fear of lawsuit has definitely driven costs up. Not saying it's the only thing but I assure you that the $10-50K/yr malpractice premiums that providers pay has a definite impact on the cost of medicine.
 

Flipmode

EQOA Refugee
2,092
312
Really? You as a single man had prenatal care in your coverage?
Yes. As did everyone one else on the group plan. And mental health benefits. And chiropractic. Tons of crap I don't personally use but that was and has been part of every employer policy I've ever had.
 

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
79,042
157,098
Patients demanding unnecessary diagnostics and providers ordering them for fear of lawsuit has definitely driven costs up. Not saying it's the only thing but I assure you that the $10-50K/yr malpractice premiums that providers pay has a definite impact on the cost of medicine.
I'm not saying that lawsuits and CYA tests dont drive up costs, I am pointing out that as a proportion of rising costs, tort law reform is really small. The motivation behind tort reform is clear, corporations want to minimize the losses they take for hospital/doctor fuckups and try to spin this as some sort of magic bullet solution for all healthcare issues which it isn't. It's like being given a bandaid after you just stepped on a landmine. So the actual interest is not to help control healthcare costs for the industry, its to make yourself some extra money.

The real issue here is that there are certain industry sectors that simply cant function in a traditional free market arrangement because of the innate irrationality of the actors participating in those markets (i.e. disregard for cost vs. reward motivation, efficiency vs. waste, etc.).

Health care is one of those, education is another, government is the third. Those are basic societal needs in which there isnt or shouldnt be a profit motive. That's why its comical when conservatives advocate this "one size fits all" solution of herp derp free market capitalism to any problem they encounter. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.