What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

I have no idea how you're interpreting that as an "endorsement" of Obamacare. If there are 10 milllion "young invincibles" out there (there are probably more) that "ought to be" paying $1500 per year in premiums, that's $15 BILLION in free money - year after year - for those companies. Spending $500M once to get $15B in perpetuity is just a smart business decision out of self interest, nothing more.


But Lynah, why would you shell out 500M bucks for a law that's going to fail in 3,2,1.....wait, 3,2,1...wait again....

I mean, if the law is unstainable, is this not wasted money????

At least until people are priced out and just decide to pay the tax. Heck, that's what my generation is doing. Ever since this was enacted, I saw this as exactly what you wanted: a pathway to single payer with a backdoor tax.


As I've told you before and don't mind repeating, the problem with your theory is that it places zero value on having insurance. In your view, a person would pay a 200 dollar fine instead of a 201 dollar premium because that means an extra buck;

In reality, few people (outside of maybe libertarians) think this way. That's why in Massachusetts, young people got the insurance instead of paying the fine.
 
Last edited:
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

If you like your plan, you might be able to keep it, but not necessarily your doctor.

Gosh, who suspected that there would be unintended consequences? Oh yeah - lots of people (including Chief Justice Roberts).



Oh boo hoo freakin hoo. Insurers change doctors all the time. Call me old fashioned but when did it become commonplace for adult male conservatives to be so comfortable with crying in public? Must the The Boehner Effect I guess. One can picture the tears welling up in the eyes of USCHO righty posters whenever they read a story about how somebody's doctor retired and now they *gasp* have to find another one!
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Oh boo hoo freakin hoo. Insurers change doctors all the time. Call me old fashioned but when did it become commonplace for adult male conservatives to be so comfortable with crying in public? Must the The Boehner Effect I guess. One can picture the tears welling up in the eyes of USCHO righty posters whenever they read a story about how somebody's doctor retired and now they *gasp* have to find another one!

There's a big difference between retired and "retired". Lynah is referring to "retired", where the person is still well and able to practice, but is out of that particular picture for administrative reasons. I believe there is someone that commonly posts in this thread and can shed some light on this.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Oh boo hoo freakin hoo. Insurers change doctors all the time. Call me old fashioned but when did it become commonplace for adult male conservatives to be so comfortable with crying in public? Must the The Boehner Effect I guess. One can picture the tears welling up in the eyes of USCHO righty posters whenever they read a story about how somebody's doctor retired and now they *gasp* have to find another one!

To be honest I remember Doctor changes being the norm the entire time I've had health insurance. Along with changed insurance companies cause of huge rate increases and changed plans.

The crying is deafening considering nothing that is happening hasn't already been happening before.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

But Lynah, why would you shell out 500M bucks for a law that's going to fail in 3,2,1.....wait, 3,2,1...wait again....

I mean, if the law is unstainable, is this not wasted money????
Young people are supposed to be signed up by March 2014. That's an immediate-term pool of at least $15B in free money regardless of whether the law "works" long term or not. I know you're not really this dense, so stop pretending.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

There's a big difference between retired and "retired". Lynah is referring to "retired", where the person is still well and able to practice, but is out of that particular picture for administrative reasons. I believe there is someone that commonly posts in this thread and can shed some light on this.

But what difference does it make? People have to deal with changing doctors all the time, whether the doctor retires, moves geographically, moves to a different practice, etc etc. What Lynah is referring to is nonsense with all due respect.

Young people are supposed to be signed up by March 2014. That's an immediate-term pool of at least $15B in free money regardless of whether the law "works" long term or not. I know you're not really this dense, so stop pretending.

But Lynah, isn't the law supposed to collapse by then?
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

For the first time, I'm doing real research on the ACA...and it's interesting.

The primary goals of the policy is 1) make healthcare more available 2) improve the quality healthcare 3) lower costs of healthcare. This is coming straight from industry experts.

The primary approach of the ACA to accomplish this is incentivized creation and growth of private cooperative or managed healthcare organizations such as ACOs. The net message here is that the ACA is creating a positive revolutionary reorganization of healthcare for the better. This is a very capitalistic, private sector outcome.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

For the first time, I'm doing real research on the ACA...and it's interesting.

The primary goals of the policy is 1) make healthcare more available 2) improve the quality healthcare 3) lower costs of healthcare. This is coming straight from industry experts.

The primary approach of the ACA to accomplish this is incentivized creation and growth of private cooperative or managed healthcare organizations such as ACOs. The net message here is that the ACA is creating a positive revolutionary reorganization of healthcare for the better. This is a very capitalistic, private sector outcome.

No, no, no, no. It's the socialism. Everyone knows that.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

There's a big difference between retired and "retired". Lynah is referring to "retired", where the person is still well and able to practice, but is out of that particular picture for administrative reasons. I believe there is someone that commonly posts in this thread and can shed some light on this.
Nothing to do with retirement of the doctors. The doctors in the story are still active, practicing doctors - they've just been kicked out of United's network so some of their long term patients have to either find new doctors still in United's network or they have to change to an insurer that does include their doctor. Now, if some of doctors lose enough patients because of this, they may opt to retire earlier than otherwise planned, but that would be down the road and is not addressed in the article.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Nothing to do with retirement of the doctors. The doctors in the story are still active, practicing doctors - they've just been kicked out of United's network so some of their long term patients have to either find new doctors still in United's network or they have to change to an insurer that does include their doctor. Now, if some of doctors lose enough patients because of this, they may opt to retire earlier than otherwise planned, but that would be down the road and is not addressed in the article.

Again, boo hoo hoo. People have to change doctors all the time for lots of reasons. I'm going to assume society has figured out how to handle it when a doctor stops seeing his patients for whatever reason (here's a hint: find another one).
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

But what difference does it make? People have to deal with changing doctors all the time, whether the doctor retires, moves geographically, moves to a different practice, etc etc. What Lynah is referring to is nonsense with all due respect.
If something is bad, then more of it is worse. Like saying, "well, I can't pay my bills anyway, so might as well rack up more debt." Since in the past one doctor retired and one moved, that makes it okay?

But Lynah, isn't the law supposed to collapse by then?
I have no idea what "collapse" even means in this sentence. If you want my prediction of what is going to happen, here you go:

1. The law is not going to change in the immediate future. There's just not enough political power on either side to make any substantial changes.
2. The law is going to have lots of unintended consequences, the net result of which is that most people will be paying more for health care. More health care will be provided, to be sure, but health care will continue to grow as a percentage of our GDP overall.
3. The costs will rise faster than the dispensing of care, and more and more people will drop out and pay the tax instead, so only marginally more people will have health insurance than before, and at a cost much greater than before.
3. Eventually (probably 5-10 years), costs will get so out of control and so many people will continue to be uninsured that there will be enough of an outcry that some things about the law will be modified (can't predict the ways) to attempt to correct the unintended consequences of this version. And then we're back to step 1. Rinse and repeat.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Again, boo hoo hoo. People have to change doctors all the time for lots of reasons. I'm going to assume society has figured out how to handle it when a doctor stops seeing his patients for whatever reason (here's a hint: find another one).

Exactly. When I moved to Colorado, my doctor didn't move with me. Now factor in how often people move? I believe I saw a statistic that about 1/4 of Americans have moved cities in the last 5 years. My guess is their doctors didn't move with them either. Moreover, my guess is there were several doctors that moved away from their patients as well.

In sum, having to change your doctor is fairly commonplace in this country.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Exactly. When I moved to Colorado, my doctor didn't move with me. Now factor in how often people move? I believe I saw a statistic that about 1/4 of Americans have moved cities in the last 5 years. My guess is their doctors didn't move with them either. Moreover, my guess is there were several doctors that moved away from their patients as well.

In sum, having to change your doctor is fairly commonplace in this country.
Yes - "having to" is commonplace. The people in this article DIDN'T have to, they just have to pay more than before as a direct consequence of ACA. So much for the "affordable" care act.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Yes - "having to" is commonplace. The people in this article DIDN'T have to, they just have to pay more than before as a direct consequence of ACA. So much for the "affordable" care act.

A bit of a leap in logic there, no? I'd be careful trusting the reporting coming out of CNN if I were you, but I thought conservatives already knew that? :confused:
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

A bit of a leap in logic there, no? I'd be careful trusting the reporting coming out of CNN if I were you, but I thought conservatives already knew that? :confused:
Rover

all I know is that my eldest son could not find a primary care physician in MA. Nobody was taking new patients. And his insurance, at the time, required him to have a PCP as a condition of coverage. Catch 22.

That was Massachusetts. Multiply that by 50 (57?) other states (especially for Medicare patients) and there may be a problem.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Rover

all I know is that my eldest son could not find a primary care physician in MA. Nobody was taking new patients. And his insurance, at the time, required him to have a PCP as a condition of coverage. Catch 22.

That was Massachusetts. Multiply that by 50 (57?) other states (especially for Medicare patients) and there may be a problem.

My insurance didn't change and I'm not getting two pre-existing conditions covered by my insurance for my daughter. Both of them are considered "voluntary" and not necessary even they both effect her in ways that I'm not willing to discount.
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Rover

all I know is that my eldest son could not find a primary care physician in MA. Nobody was taking new patients. And his insurance, at the time, required him to have a PCP as a condition of coverage. Catch 22.

That was Massachusetts. Multiply that by 50 (57?) other states (especially for Medicare patients) and there may be a problem.


All I know is we've never had a problem getting a PCP even when we've switched our employee sponsored insurance. I'm not sure where your son lives in Mass, but in the metro area there's a lot of doctors as I did the Doc Find once and 500 names came up within a 10 mile radius of where I live. I was actually surprised at how many there are, and yes I do realize Mass might be ayptical in this regard (hey, we're elite, what else can you say? ;) )
 
Re: The PPACA Implementation Phase II - Love it or Lose it!

Exactly. When I moved to Colorado, my doctor didn't move with me. Now factor in how often people move? I believe I saw a statistic that about 1/4 of Americans have moved cities in the last 5 years. My guess is their doctors didn't move with them either. Moreover, my guess is there were several doctors that moved away from their patients as well.

In sum, having to change your doctor is fairly commonplace in this country.

While "having to" change your doctor is fairly commonplace, being able to find a new one is definitely getting harder than it was. There are more doctors retiring than are being added as new ones; and provider networks are becoming more restricted than before. There are documented stories about counties in Florida that have 19 OB-GYN total for 295,000 people, presumably half of which are women. Toss out the youngest and oldest, you still have 19 OB-GYN for, say, 100,000 women, or about 5,000 women per OB-GYN. That's 100 per week or 20 per day if each is seen only once a year. If a visit is 30 minutes long, that's a 10 hour day with no breaks of any kind to do anything else except see patients....and of course the law mandates other new obligations upon doctors beyond patient care.

Tweak the numbers a little if you will, you are still looking at a big mismatch between how many people want to see doctors and how much time is available within which to be seen, especially if follow-up care is needed. More and more care by necessity will come from nurse practitioners and physician assistants, there just aren't enough doctors to handle the increased demand with restricted supply.

My new doctor isn't taking new patients and hasn't been for awhile, the only reason she agreed to accept me was that my previous doctor had been part of the same practice as hers and he retired from seeing patients (he still works part-time teaching). He didn't want to retire either, he told me at our last visit (end of last year) that he loved the practice of medicine and enjoyed seeing patients, he was reluctantly leaving patient care because he wasn't willing to put up with the new rules and regulations being forced upon him against his better professional judgment. Those were his words, not mine.

Provider networks are getting smaller at the same time more people are looking for practitioners. I've read about several small towns who will be left with no doctors whatsoever because the sole practitioner in town is unwilling to comply with the new provider mandates.

When people bring these facts out, the typical response is that PPACA was meant or intended to blah blah blah and how could anyone criticize it based on such noble ambitions? well, if it doesn't work in practice, that's empirical data. Sensible people adjust their behavior when they get data telling them that something is going wrong. Idealogues insist that we must keep doing the same thing, only harder and more of it. The two sides are talking past each other entirely and neither one is hearing what the other is saying. It's a situation in which both are "right" because they are talking about two different things entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top