Originally Posted by JohnMc82

It was rejected by committee, after Baucus failed to include it in his rough draft... but that's Lieberman's fault?

And the folks pushing the amendment - Schumer & Rockefeller - are the radical left?

At the very least, I have to give you points for creativity.

You obviously have no clue as to how the U.S. Senate works.

It will probable take you quite some time to even get an inkling so let me see if I can cut it short for you. You see, there is this guy named Harry Reid, The last name sounds like "reed" which is a plant, but Harry is not a plant. Instead, Harry Reid is the Senate Majority Leader, which is like a captain of a baseball team. In his case, he is the captain of the Democrats that are in the Senate. There are more of them there than there are of the other team - the other team is called Re-pub-li-cans. Since there are more of Harry's team, he gets to have more power to do things but it is not unlimited power - he can't for instance lift up a building nor can he go faster than a speeding train. In fact the other team, the Re-pub-li-cans can be really mean and block Harry and the other team (De-mo-crats) from doing things by using a fil-i-bus-ter. Think of it as one of those mallets you use when your mom takes you to Chucky Cheese to play Wack-a-Mole.

Now Harry can stop the meanie Republicans from wacking him with the fil-i-bus-ter if he can get ALL of his team, 60 of them, to say, "no, you bad meanin Republicans, you cannot wack us with your filibuster." But he has to get ALL 60 of his team to say that.

Unfortunately, back in the closing days of 2009 (that is just 4 years ago but apparently that is beyond your memory capacity), a guy on Harry's team, name Joe Lieberman, said he would not be the 60th vote. This made Harry very mad but there was not much he could do about it.

Now don't believe me; let's just see what Harry said about it -

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/ma...anted=all&_r=0

Reid Faces Battles in Washington and at Home

HARRY REID WAS HOARSE and hacking, drawn and more stooped than usual on a Sunday morning 12 days before Christmas. It was not yet noon, and Reid was in his second-floor corner office in an empty United States Capitol. He had arrived to bad news. Joseph Lieberman, the independent Connecticut senator, had announced on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he would not support the Senate health care plan, which meant that Reid did not have the 60 votes he needed. Lieberman’s announcement, which torpedoed a compromise that Reid helped to midwife, caught the Senate majority leader by surprise. Reid had spoken with Lieberman two days earlier, and one of Lieberman’s top aides participated in the Saturday-afternoon conference call that Reid orchestrates for Democratic senators who will be appearing on the Sunday talk shows. “He double-crossed me,” Reid said stiffly, associates later recounted. “Let’s not do what he wants. Let the bill just go down.”

Rahm Emanuel, the president’s chief of staff, arrived at Reid’s office not long afterward — casually dressed, a cup of coffee in one hand — and after a brisk meeting, a decision was reached: Reid would abandon his compromise, which was intended to appease proponents of a government-run insurance plan. The concession would not sit well with a lot of Democrats, not to mention the powerful constituency of union voters in Nevada, where Reid is up for re-election in November. But there was little discussion. Reid and Emanuel are exemplars of the just-get-it-done style of legislating. As it turned dark outside, Reid began pulling senators aside in the lobby just off the Senate floor, speaking in a strained whisper as he presented the case in characteristically pragmatic terms. “I’m with you; I’m for you,” he told Tom Harkin of Iowa, one of the Senate’s traditional New Deal Democrats, who was pained that the public option was dying.

“Harry has a very good way of sort of bringing you back to reality,” Harkin told me a few days later, “this wonderful way of shrugging his shoulders and saying: ‘If you can get Lieberman to vote with you, fine. Otherwise, chalk it up and move on.’ He calmed me down.”
.
.
.

Now, there is this thing called "shee-ple." It is people that act like sheep. They are easily manipulated by really rich and powerful meanie people. What these really rich and powerful people rely on is that sheeple don't pay attention or soon forget what actually happened and instead start believing the horseshit that these meanies keep saying over and over again.


.... Let's just hope those meanies don't tell you to drive off a cliff.

If I remember correctly (and I followed it closely at the time, but that's no guarantee), the committee had taken out the public option, because Baucus wanted something "that could get 60 votes." He got it through the committee, with Republican Snowe's deciding vote. Then more liberal Democrats tried to bring the public option back on the floor, and Reid put it back in. That's when Liebermann stopped it, and after Brown was elected in Jan.2010, it was no longer possible to bring it back in any case, and the bill as it was had to pass by means of reconciliation rather than through another Senate vote. The last hurdle was a close vote in a heavily Democratic House.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

If I remember correctly (and I followed it closely at the time, but that's no guarantee), the committee had taken out the public option, because Baucus wanted something "that could get 60 votes." He got it through the committee, with Republican Snowe's deciding vote. Then more liberal Democrats tried to bring the public option back on the floor, and Reid put it back in. That's when Liebermann stopped it, and after Brown was elected in Jan.2010, it was no longer possible to bring it back in any case, and the bill as it was had to pass by means of reconciliation rather than through another Senate vote. The last hurdle was a close vote in a heavily Democratic House.

That's pretty much what happened on the surface of things. Two thumbs up for succinctly laying it out.

What one needs to realize is that there is CONSTANT pulse taking of the caucus and of potential needed x-over votes, if any, in particular. For typical legislation, that is done by the sub-committee chair staffers; for more key legislation, by the Committee Chair - for something as big as the ACA, it is ALL directed out of the Majority Leader's office with usually two check-ins every day by the senior leadership and with the WH. That was why Lieberman's switch was seen not only as betrayal but an intentionally planned set-up - it is why he is not in the Senate any longer and generally hated. He is a worm, but hard to find one of those Far Lefty Obama-bashers who even remember who this guy was - 'ah, didn't he use to be a friend of Al Gore or something like that?'

Wouldn't it be nice to have a crystal ball that tells us which illness or accident we might have in the future?

Exchange plans hide your true financial exposure

How much protection does health insurance offer and how can consumers know?

A comment from Don McCanne, M.D.:

Think about this. When electing a plan you have to decide in advance whether or not you are going to have breast cancer or develop diabetes or have a heart attack next year. Then you have to see how much out-of-pocket expenses you will be left with after the plan makes its payments.

In the case of breast cancer, even though Plans C and G are actuarilly equivalent, you would choose Plan G with out-of-pocket expenses estimated to be $7,983 since Plan C would have out-of-pocket expenses of $12,907.

But wait. Suppose you are going to develop diabetes instead. Then you need to pick Plan C with out-of-pocket expenses of $960, since Plan G would entail $4,383 in expenses. Or if you are going to have a heart attack, you would save some with Plan G at $6,237 as opposed to C at $8,400.

But then consider this. These numbers were not available in the plan information provided by the exchanges. They were not even available in the detailed insurance contracts that you receive after you purchase a plan. These numbers had to be calculated by policy experts who meticulously reviewed each plan. They didn't even include costs incurred because of care unavoidably obtained out-of-network. Further, because the calculations are quite laborious, they did not provide them for the hundreds or thousands of other disorders you could develop next year. But then, really, who knows what next year holds for us?

For ACA, the calculations would be even more difficult. Although there are ten categories of essential health benefits that must be included in the coverage, the insurers are allowed to vary the benefits within each of the ten categories as long as they remain actuarially equivalent. Imagine the calculating tool that would be required to compare plan coverage. It would challenge the Obamacare exchange computer systems in complexity.

The bottom line? Because of private health plan chicanery, it is impossible to know what expenses you may face in the next year. But if you develop a major disorder, there is a great risk that you will have to pay more than the out-of-pocket limit that is posted on the exchange plan descriptions.

For no more than our current national health expenditures, we could have had prepaid health care with first dollar coverage for everyone. We still can by enacting a single payer national health program - an expanded and improved Medicare for all.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/novemb...ncial-exposure


Edit: To take out some of my sarcasm that adds nothing to the conversation.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Wouldn't it be nice to have a crystal ball that tells us which illness or accident we might have in the future?

Exchange plans hide your true financial exposure

How much protection does health insurance offer and how can consumers know?

A comment from Don McCanne, M.D.:

Think about this. When electing a plan you have to decide in advance whether or not you are going to have breast cancer or develop diabetes or have a heart attack next year. Then you have to see how much out-of-pocket expenses you will be left with after the plan makes its payments.

In the case of breast cancer, even though Plans C and G are actuarilly equivalent, you would choose Plan G with out-of-pocket expenses estimated to be $7,983 since Plan C would have out-of-pocket expenses of $12,907.

But wait. Suppose you are going to develop diabetes instead. Then you need to pick Plan C with out-of-pocket expenses of $960, since Plan G would entail $4,383 in expenses. Or if you are going to have a heart attack, you would save some with Plan G at $6,237 as opposed to C at $8,400.

But then consider this. These numbers were not available in the plan information provided by the exchanges. They were not even available in the detailed insurance contracts that you receive after you purchase a plan. These numbers had to be calculated by policy experts who meticulously reviewed each plan. They didn't even include costs incurred because of care unavoidably obtained out-of-network. Further, because the calculations are quite laborious, they did not provide them for the hundreds or thousands of other disorders you could develop next year. But then, really, who knows what next year holds for us?

For ACA, the calculations would be even more difficult. Although there are ten categories of essential health benefits that must be included in the coverage, the insurers are allowed to vary the benefits within each of the ten categories as long as they remain actuarially equivalent. Imagine the calculating tool that would be required to compare plan coverage. It would challenge the Obamacare exchange computer systems in complexity.

The bottom line? Because of private health plan chicanery, it is impossible to know what expenses you may face in the next year. But if you develop a major disorder, there is a great risk that you will have to pay more than the out-of-pocket limit that is posted on the exchange plan descriptions.

For no more than our current national health expenditures, we could have had prepaid health care with first dollar coverage for everyone. We still can by enacting a single payer national health program - an expanded and improved Medicare for all.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/novemb...ncial-exposure


Edit: To take out some of my sarcasm that adds nothing to the conversation.

Another attempt of apocalyptic fear mongering from the Far Lefties pretty easily tempered by pointing out (which the article conveniently fails to do) that the maximum out-of-pocket costs for ANY Marketplace plan are $6,350 for an individual plan and $12,700 for a family plan.

With the example of breast cancer, the maximum OOP would be hit regardless of which individual plan. Under the family OPP limit, one plan would hit the maximum OPP at the supposed $8K cost, but the other wouldn't - however, you would have to be a complete idiot to believe your health care costs for breast cancer would be under $8K.

So the complaint here is that if you have a family plan, you may have picked the plan that has cheaper premiums but runs the risk that you could thread the needle and pay more for an illness that while very serious and causing you to spend thousands more, the difference becomes non-existent as you approach the maximum OPP limit of $13K that is common to all plans.

Now how important is that for the vast majority of people that would never experience such "needle threading" compared to knowing that whatever may come you have an ultimate limit?

And how interesting is it that the author of the article and our own Debs don't even point that out? Are they really interested in informing you about what your real choices are or are they more interesting in spreading their apocalyptic horseshit?

What is being explained in this article are the gaps in coverage. The same applies to ACA.

From the article about true financial exposure:

It is impossible to know what your out-of-pocket expenses will be for any given plan that you select.
In ACA, just as in the Massachusetts exchange, plans in the same metal tier (bronze in the example above) must be actuarially equivalent; that is, they must pay the same average percentage of covered expenses, leaving the balance to be paid the patient. But the definition of what is covered can vary, even while maintaining actuarial equivalency. Thus, even though the plans have an annual out-of-pocket limit, that applies only to covered services, which can vary by plan.

Massachusetts exchange and the gaps in coverage.


To illustrate how coverage can vary — and how challenging it might be for consumers to appreciate the differences — we mapped the simulated claims scenarios against specific health insurance policies.

Figure 2. Seemingly similar Massachusetts policies work differently

Plan C - Bronze
Deductible $2,000
Patient out-of-pocket costs
Breast cancer $12,907
Heart attack $8,400
Diabetes management $960

Plan G - Bronze
Deductible $2,000
Patient out-of-pocket costs
Breast cancer $7,983
Heart attack $6,237
Diabetes management $4,383


Massachusetts has made great strides toward assuring that all residents will have basic health insurance protection, and the Commonwealth Connector has surpassed other states in the amount and quality of comparative health plan information provided to consumers. Yet even in that state, gaps in coverage persist and consumers may not easily appreciate what those gaps could cost if they get seriously ill.

Originally Posted by Deb C

What is being explained in this article are the gaps in coverage. The same applies to ACA.

From the article about true financial exposure:

It is impossible to know what your out-of-pocket expenses will be for any given plan that you select.
In ACA, just as in the Massachusetts exchange, plans in the same metal tier (bronze in the example above) must be actuarially equivalent; that is, they must pay the same average percentage of covered expenses, leaving the balance to be paid the patient. But the definition of what is covered can vary, even while maintaining actuarial equivalency. Thus, even though the plans have an annual out-of-pocket limit, that applies only to covered services, which can vary by plan.

Massachusetts exchange and the gaps in coverage.


To illustrate how coverage can vary — and how challenging it might be for consumers to appreciate the differences — we mapped the simulated claims scenarios against specific health insurance policies.

Figure 2. Seemingly similar Massachusetts policies work differently

Plan C - Bronze
Deductible $2,000
Patient out-of-pocket costs
Breast cancer $12,907
Heart attack $8,400
Diabetes management $960

Plan G - Bronze
Deductible $2,000
Patient out-of-pocket costs
Breast cancer $7,983
Heart attack $6,237
Diabetes management $4,383


Massachusetts has made great strides toward assuring that all residents will have basic health insurance protection, and the Commonwealth Connector has surpassed other states in the amount and quality of comparative health plan information provided to consumers. Yet even in that state, gaps in coverage persist and consumers may not easily appreciate what those gaps could cost if they get seriously ill.

Look at those prices for dealing with breast cancer, heart attack and even diabetes management. While they are convenient numbers for the purpose of the author (i.e spreading apocalyptic horseshit), does anyone believe those numbers represent the costs of medical care to deal with those conditions?

Regardless of what plan you choose from the exchanges, there is an OOP limit for individuals of just under $7K and for a family just under $13K. It is more likely that with any of the three conditions, you will hit those thresholds making any difference between plans moot.

One could argue that the $7K/$13K should be lowered, but that would result in premiums being raised for everyone. Some would argue that maybe the govt should pick up the $7K/$13K or even just take over the entire system with single payer. Some people don't pay attention to reality and live in magic pony land.

Do people realize that if the ACA were to be overturn that around 167 million people would get a notice that their insurance has been cancelled?

Think about it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Look at those prices for dealing with breast cancer, heart attack and even diabetes management. While they are convenient numbers for the purpose of the author (i.e spreading apocalyptic horseshit), does anyone believe those numbers represent the costs of medical care to deal with those conditions?

Of course not. The actual cost is a fraction of those numbers -- which is sort of the whole problem. The system you keep flogging does no more or less than enshrine and perpetuate the wrongheaded idea that price is properly cost plus huge margins for every segment of the medical cartel up and down the line, times another sizeable margin for the "insurance" middlemen as their skim.

Were we to actually look at cost (as opposed to the horseshit you and yours want people to think of as cost), the conversation would be a lot different. I'd even venture to guess that torches and pitchforks might be featured.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Do people realize that if the ACA were to be overturn that around 167 million people would get a notice that their insurance has been cancelled?

Think about it.

OK.

So, IOW, your saying that 'some people'* might temporarily lose coverage
(that is, if they don't decide to purchase a plan that
they choose is appropriate for their needs, of course).

<chuckle!>

Talk about pretending that something is "too big to fail".
(Sounds kinda like "Magic Pony Land^TM", IMO. )


Prince

PS: Yes, 'lower prices' do indeed suck for the consumer.
(and make purchasing health-insurance much more un-affordable).

--------------
* the ones that actually want insurance.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course not. The actual cost is a fraction of those numbers -- which is sort of the whole problem. The system you keep flogging does no more or less than enshrine and perpetuate the wrongheaded idea that price is properly cost plus huge margins for every segment of the medical cartel up and down the line, times another sizeable margin for the "insurance" middlemen as their skim.

Were we to actually look at cost (as opposed to the horseshit you and yours want people to think of as cost), the conversation would be a lot different. I'd even venture to guess that torches and pitchforks might be featured.

I assume you prefer the cash-and-carry method, which is fine for the healthy. Just don't get sick.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

OK.

So, IOW, your saying that 'some people'* might temporarily lose coverage
(that is, if they don't decide to purchase a plan that
they choose is appropriate for their needs, of course).

<chuckle!>

Talk about pretending that something is "too big to fail".
(Sounds kinda like "Magic Pony Land^TM", IMO. )


Prince

PS: Yes, 'lower prices' do indeed suck for the consumer.
(and make purchasing health-insurance much more un-affordable).

--------------
* the ones that actually want insurance.

For now, you have the ACA or the status quo ante. Are you serioulsy arguing that the Wild West system of pre-2010 is the better choice, or do you have a magic third option to offer? If a third option, tell us how to get there from here ... or 2010, if it's easier.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I assume you prefer the cash-and-carry method, which is fine for the healthy. Just don't get sick.

You presume, based on the fact that it contradicts every one of the several things I've written on the matter over the course of years here?

That's certainly an... original.... basis for presumption.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Look at those prices for dealing with breast cancer, heart attack and even diabetes management. While they are convenient numbers for the purpose of the author (i.e spreading apocalyptic horseshit), does anyone believe those numbers represent the costs of medical care to deal with those conditions?

Regardless of what plan you choose from the exchanges, there is an OOP limit for individuals of just under $7K and for a family just under $13K. It is more likely that with any of the three conditions, you will hit those thresholds making any difference between plans moot.

One could argue that the $7K/$13K should be lowered, but that would result in premiums being raised for everyone. Some would argue that maybe the govt should pick up the $7K/$13K or even just take over the entire system with single payer. Some people don't pay attention to reality and live in magic pony land.

Speaking of diabetes -

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/...-sees-premiums

Type 2 Diabetes Patient Sees Premiums Plummet From $500 to $1 Under Obamacare

A retired woman in Pittsburgh, who suffers from Type 2 diabetes, is celebrating after she said her monthly health insurance premiums went from over $500 to just over $1 because of President Barack Obama's health care reform law.

Since the October 1 roll-out of the Affordable Care Act, many Republicans and much of the media have been focused on the fact that a small percentage of Americans have been not been able to keep low-quality insurance plans that failed to meet federal standards.

But 57-year-old Gail Roach told WTAE that she found a great deal by completing her application by phone instead of using the broken Healthcare.gov website.

Roach said that because of her pre-existing condition, her retirement health care had cost her $509 a month. After spending some time talking to a specialist, she was able to find a plan for just $70 a month.

"I couldn't believe it, I just couldn't believe it," Roach recalled. "It was within my budget."

However, the savings didn't stop there. After tax credits and something called the Cost Sharing Benefit, Roach's monthly premiums plummeted to just $1.11.

"I'm telling people that they need to look into this, they need to be patient about it," she advised. "If you go on the website and you can't get through the website, call the number that's on the website and just be very patient because it's very much worth it."

If they can get that website working by the end of this month, expect a shitload of these type of stories coming out. It will fit very well with the Holiday Season and a good start to the new year.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Of course not. The actual cost is a fraction of those numbers --

Tell that to the AMA and the cancer/heart/kidney specialist who needs to make the payment on one of his second homes in the Caribbean.

Have I mentioned to you that I don't do magic pony land? I believe I have, but just in case, let me remind you - I don't do magic pony land.

P.s. Have you found that place, current or in history, where society works without govt holding the monopoly on sanctioned violence? Have you got that video yet of shooting 100+ rounds with a revolver? Have you got a pic of that magic pony pooin out gold nuggets yet? ect. ect. ect.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

OK.

So, IOW, your saying that 'some people'* might temporarily lose coverage
(that is, if they don't decide to purchase a plan that
they choose is appropriate for their needs, of course).

<chuckle!>

Talk about pretending that something is "too big to fail".
(Sounds kinda like "Magic Pony Land^TM", IMO. )


Prince

PS: Yes, 'lower prices' do indeed suck for the consumer.
(and make purchasing health-insurance much more un-affordable).

--------------
* the ones that actually want insurance.

Dufus, the point is that what the ACA-haters are screaming about (i.e cancellation notices) would be exactly the same thing that would happen if the ACA was now overturned just magnified to be around 170 MILLION policies (it's called open season re-enrollment for employer-based plans; when was the last time anyone experienced getting more coverage and/or less premium with their open enrollment? )

If you think that is no big deal or want to talk about nuances, that is fine with me; just don't be a hypocrite and turn around and suggest that those same cancellations are a problem on the much much smaller scale of the ACA.

In fact, the widespread cancellations with the ACA repealed would be much worse because there would be none of the standards that were imposed by the ACA. Like M&L said it would be a return to the wild wild West, where the faster/bigger gun would win out. Guess who has the faster/bigger gun? Hint: it's not you, me or the 175 million that would get their insurance cancelled.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You presume, based on the fact that it contradicts every one of the several things I've written on the matter over the course of years here?

That's certainly an... original.... basis for presumption.

I don't think anyone has a clue what you support in this area. Most of the time you spout the anarchist's line of the tyranny of the govt but then on occasion you tell us of the wonders of the tattered remains of the Soviet system.

The only real question is does this come from muddled ability to communicate or from muddled thinking.

Originally Posted by playwrite

...the tattered remains of the Soviet system....

You're a liar. A proven, demonstrated liar who continues to lie.

The only real question is does this come from muddled ability to communicate or from muddled thinking.

See the above.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You're a liar. A proven, demonstrated liar who continues to lie.


See the above.

Oh we're back to that again -

I'm the liar because you refuse to clearly and succinctly state what you believe, and instead give us either these mysterious references to previous posts you made that makes it all clear or give us a post of verbiage from some sort of random word generator that no one can explain including yourself.

Yea, that makes me the tricksey Master liar.

I guess someone had to step up and fill Glick's shoes and provide us with zombie entertainment. I just never thought it would be you.

Poor Smeagol

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You presume, based on the fact that it contradicts every one of the several things I've written on the matter over the course of years here?

That's certainly an... original.... basis for presumption.

Yes, I read of your exploits in Russia that involved inexpensive services for what was for all purposes well care. I didin't hear of more urgent care needs. I assume you didn't need any expensive drugs or medical procdures that involved the use of fancy medical devices - no serious illness or shattered bones. Either that, or an intermediary was negotiating on your behalf.

Not long ago, I helped my DIL organize her device inventory, and asked about a few items. None were even slightly cheap ... even at cost. Much of the cost was soft, in that it was appended services necessay to use or implant the device successfully. Some consisted of training; some, direct support to the surgical team. I assume you would prefer using SOTA medicine on your family. If so, items like this are part of the deal.

But discounting only gets you so far.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Yes, I read of your exploits in Russia that involved inexpensive services for what was for all purposes well care.

Ah yes. Like the ten days our newborn son spent under round-the-clock care in the NICU. And the respirator he was rushed onto when he came out not breathing. And the feeding tube.

All sorts of inexpensive "well care", that.

I assume you didn't need any expensive drugs or medical procdures that involved the use of fancy medical devices - no serious illness or shattered bones.

Respirator, MRI, CAT, all manners of EKG and ultrasounds. They're not 'fancy' in the sense of freshly-invented, but they sure as hell do some technologically-specialized stuff. And regular attention from pediatric neurologists for the duration and extending beyond. Nothing fancy about what those guys do.

Either that, or an intermediary was negotiating on your behalf.

Stop making stuff up. If you can't invent an interpretation of the facts that fits your preconceived worldview... it's time to start considering whether your worldview is maybe a bit faulty.

Not long ago, I helped my DIL organize her device inventory, and asked about a few items. None were even slightly cheap ... even at cost. Much of the cost was soft, in that it was appended services necessay to use or implant the device successfully. Some consisted of training; some, direct support to the surgical team.

You mistake price for cost. Even "wholesale" price isn't cost (in the American system). As to the 'soft' costs like training, those are also artifacts purely of the dysfunctional system in the USA. Training quite simply does not cost what is charged for it. Nor does staffing. The cartelization of medicine in the USA artificially inflates (largely through supply restriction... but that's what cartels do) the price of medical provision by orders of magnitude above what it actually costs.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Now yer talkin'!
I thank you, playdude, and my friend the surfboarding neurosurgeon with the second home in Costa Rica also thanks you.

Totally different story for primary docs. As you most likely know, not every doctor makes a ton of money.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Absolutely.
I just thought it was spectacular that playdude was using second homes in tropical locales as a counter-argument to Justin's comment about the "actual costs" of health care.
Insurance companies pay lots of $$$ for procedures, not a lot for other stuff. Not sure why that is.

It's easy. Procedures and "stuff" (drugs, medical devices, etc) can be counted. Why do you think that everything is coded? It's not for medical reasons, that's for sure.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Yeah, that's a great point.
There are no codes for different types of appointments, and they sure as heck can't be counted! (((sarcasm)))

OK, there is also the problem of who, what, where. If I make a visit to the dermatologist for an annual exam, does that mean I see an MD, or can this be a PA or an NP? In my case, I see a PA, who does a bang-up job ... but he isn't an MD. Is the coding different? I doubt it. There's also the issue of physicality. If I get a cast on my broken ankle, that's simple and straight forward. If I get told how to be good and not aggrevate my sprained ankle, is that as "valuable"? Personally, not having to mess with a cast is valuable to me ... but that's me.

Then again, the insurance industry may be using the squeeze to avoid paying much. If you don't like it, too bad. Apparently the ACA will now mandate that mental health services must be on par with physical helath services. That may make some big changes. Let s know after the fact.

As much as I like ACA, why can't these folks stop emitting #FAILS?

Originally Posted by ACA web site with tack ons

Obamacare National Phone Number Easy To Remember: 1-800-F*CK-YO!

your ObamaHugsCare.If you take a look at the alphanumerical combinations of the national Obamacare phone number, this is what you get:
1-800-3 (F) 1(*) 8 (U) – 2 (C) 5 (K) 9 (Y) 6 (O)

...