BBO Discussion Forums: The Affordable Care Act Greek Chorus Line - BBO Discussion Forums

Jump to content

  • 28 Pages +
  • « First
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

The Affordable Care Act Greek Chorus Line Whatever happened to journalism?

#381 User is offline   Vampyr 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 10,611
  • Joined: 2009-September-15
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

Posted 2013-December-08, 17:07

View Postkenberg, on 2013-December-08, 15:35, said:

The argument has to be a practical one. We have agreements protecting travelers. Agreements about healthcare could be part of this. The government could pick up the tab for an ill Frebchman, just as the French government picks up the tab for an ill American traveling in France. It probably would not really be a treaty, more like a trade agreement, but anyway it would be reasonable and I think that it could be presented in a way that would have fairly broad support.


I'm not so sure about the support, but a bog problem would be the enormous disparity in healthcare costs between the two countries.

View Postmike777, on 2013-December-08, 16:54, said:

Keep in mind tens of thousands of Canadians come to the USA for healthcare each year.


Do they really? I think it is a lot more common that "snowbirds", who spend the winter in Florida and other warm places, make sure that they are in Canada for six months every year so they don't lose their excellent health coverage there.
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones -- Albert Einstein
0

#382 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,663
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2013-December-08, 17:27

View Postmike777, on 2013-December-08, 16:54, said:

Keep in mind tens of thousands of Canadians come to the USA for healthcare each year.

Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care.

Quote

  • Do not come to the US for care: 99.39%
  • Come to US for care electively: 00.50%
  • Use the US for emergency care: 00.11%

The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#383 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-December-08, 17:45

A Canadian study released Wednesday found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have seen patients fleeing the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States.

The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.

Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 provinces reported an average total wait time of 19 weeks between the time a general practitioner refers a patient and the time a specialist provides elective treatment — the longest they have ever recorded.

Here is the site if you want to check out the study.

In any event pls quote me in full as you missed the main point when you quote a few words and stop reading...:)
, law suits and our 100% higher cost over Europe.



http://www.fraserinstitute.org/
0

#384 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,663
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2013-December-08, 18:11

View Postmike777, on 2013-December-08, 17:45, said:

The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.

The US is not the only place outside of Canada.

6 Million Americans Travel Abroad Each Year for Surgeries, Medical Treatments

Quote

An estimated 6 million Americans are traveling each year to such countries as India, Costa Rica, Mexico and Thailand in search of less-expensive treatments for simple and complex procedures. Even France and Belgium tend to be cheaper than the United States.

“People are going abroad for necessary medical treatments such as knee and hip replacements and cardiac procedures,” said Devon Herrick, senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, in Dallas. “And in many countries, especially places like India, the quality is very high and the price can be up to 80 percent less expensive.”

And that often includes the airline ticket.

Major U.S. health-care players are jumping on the train, including BlueShield of California. Its “Access Baja” health plan caters to Americans and Mexicans wanting to get medical care in northern Mexico. BridgeHealth International, based in Denver, also has an overseas network.

Medical Tourism FAQ’s

Quote

Why are Patients Traveling Internationally for Medical Tourism?

Patients are traveling because of the high quality of healthcare, affordability, access of care or better availability.

What are the Cost Savings?

The cost savings can be up to 90%. Please go to the Patient Pricing Page to see a worldwide comparison of surgeries and their prices.

The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#385 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,397
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2013-December-08, 18:22

View Postmike777, on 2013-December-08, 17:45, said:

A Canadian study released Wednesday found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have seen patients fleeing the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States.

The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.



1. Rand Paul just got busted for repeated instances of plagiarism. One would think that you might have learned something from this. If you're quoting other people, use quotation marks and provide a link. This hold doubly true when you are quoting a piece of ***** rag like the Daily Caller...

http://dailycaller.c...h-care-in-2011/

2. Its ridiculous to characterize the Frasier Institute as non partisan.
They are hard right libertarians.

3. Nothing that you write actually contradicts Winston's point. While 46,159 is a specific number, without context its impossible to know whether this is a significant fraction of the total number of Canadians who sought health care. In a similar vein, why should we care about the difference in wait times since 1993? Why was this number chosen? How does this compare to what happened in the US?

FWIW, the actual paper includes the following quote whic directly supports what WInston reported

Quote

In 2011, 1.0% of all patients in Canada were estimated to have received non-emergency medical treatment outside Canada, the same as in 2010.

Alderaan delenda est
0

#386 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,075
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2013-December-08, 18:58

View Postmike777, on 2013-December-08, 17:45, said:

A Canadian study released Wednesday found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have seen patients fleeing the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States.

The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.

Specialist physicians surveyed across 12 specialties and 10 provinces reported an average total wait time of 19 weeks between the time a general practitioner refers a patient and the time a specialist provides elective treatment — the longest they have ever recorded.

Here is the site if you want to check out the study.

In any event pls quote me in full as you missed the main point when you quote a few words and stop reading...:)
, law suits and our 100% higher cost over Europe.



http://www.fraserinstitute.org/


OK, I quote you in full. I opened the link you provided. It takes me to what I guess is the general Fraser site. I see "Mining Investors Wary of Quebec". I see "Equalization: A lousy deal for Ontario and the West". I see"Donate to the Fraser Institute".I see "A free and prosperous world through choice, markets and responsibility". I don't see a study.

I am up for learning something.

19 weeks is a long wait. I see it is for "elective treatment". Of course some elective treatments are more elective than others.







Ken
0

#387 User is offline   hrothgar 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 15,397
  • Joined: 2003-February-13
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Natick, MA
  • Interests:Travel
    Cooking
    Brewing
    Hiking

Posted 2013-December-08, 19:00

View Postkenberg, on 2013-December-08, 18:58, said:

OK, I quote you in full. I opened the link you provided. It takes me to what I guess is the general Fraser site. I see "Mining Investors Wary of Quebec". I see "Equalization: A lousy deal for Ontario and the West". I see"Donate to the Fraser Institute".I see "A free and prosperous world through choice, markets and responsibility". I don't see a study.

I am up for learning something.

19 weeks is a long wait. I see it is for "elective treatment". Of course some elective treatments are more elective than others.





The paper being referenced is

http://www.fraserins...2011-ff0712.pdf
Alderaan delenda est
0

#388 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-December-08, 19:01

ya but my main point really was about law suits and why does America cost 100% more than europe not to debate ten of thousands from up north.....:) WE know that Canada and UK has universal health care...and debate is there a better way to solve:

In any event it seems America costs 100% more and has roughly 50 million not covered and what roughly 12 million undocumented not covered...

As vampire and others from Europe state they seem very happy with what they have.
0

#389 User is offline   mike777 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 16,739
  • Joined: 2003-October-07
  • Gender:Male

Posted 2013-December-09, 01:16

finland and Sweden combined do not over 50-60 million uncovered.


we look at france falling apart....and we should follow them?

?Finland largest company going bankrupt and we should do that?

finland has less than nyc and we should do that?
0

#390 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,075
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2013-December-09, 06:45

View Posthrothgar, on 2013-December-08, 19:00, said:

The paper being referenced is

http://www.fraserins...2011-ff0712.pdf


Thanks
Ken
0

#391 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,663
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2013-December-09, 10:01

View Postmike777, on 2013-December-08, 17:45, said:

A Canadian study released Wednesday found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have seen patients fleeing the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States.

The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.

The study does not confirm what you claim. Of the 46,159 Canadians who fled the country for medical treatment, a much smaller number came to the US. The rest went to India and elsewhere for treatment.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#392 User is offline   y66 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 6,496
  • Joined: 2006-February-24

Posted 2013-December-09, 12:31

View PostPassedOut, on 2013-December-09, 10:01, said:

The study does not confirm what you claim. Of the 46,159 Canadians who fled the country for medical treatment, a much smaller number came to the US. The rest went to India and elsewhere for treatment.


It's not just Canada. I work with a woman from India who returned there for medical care after bouncing around the pre-Obama U.S. medical care system for 6 months and no good diagnosis.
If you lose all hope, you can always find it again -- Richard Ford in The Sportswriter
1

#393 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,663
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2013-December-09, 12:44

View Posty66, on 2013-December-09, 12:31, said:

It's not just Canada. I work with a woman from India who returned there for medical care after bouncing around the pre-Obama U.S. medical care system for 6 months and no good diagnosis.

Yes, every year millions of people in the US travel to India and other countries for medical care.
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#394 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,075
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2013-December-10, 11:03

I have grown ever more pessimistic on the subject of the ACA. As I understand it, about 800,00 people have joined up, about two thirds of them going on Medicaid. Many, in fact most, of the rest will need expensive medical care. The young and healthy are pretty much avoiding it. It is perhaps time to take another look at the finances and see how it is all going to be paid for. I think the answer is, in part, it won't be paid for in the manner that was advertised when the bill was passed.

So far the administration has managed to foresee no difficulties whatsoever in any part of this until the difficulties have jumped up and slapped them in the face. At it's most basic, I think the policy was based on duplicity and wishful thinking and, as often happens with such a base, the people who were in charge came to believe their own malarkey. Maybe they could address this with a greater regard for reality now.
Ken
0

#395 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,212
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-December-10, 15:14

duplicate
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#396 User is offline   Winstonm 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 17,212
  • Joined: 2005-January-08
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tulsa, Oklahoma
  • Interests:Art, music

Posted 2013-December-10, 15:16

View Postkenberg, on 2013-December-10, 11:03, said:

I have grown ever more pessimistic on the subject of the ACA. As I understand it, about 800,00 people have joined up, about two thirds of them going on Medicaid. Many, in fact most, of the rest will need expensive medical care. The young and healthy are pretty much avoiding it. It is perhaps time to take another look at the finances and see how it is all going to be paid for. I think the answer is, in part, it won't be paid for in the manner that was advertised when the bill was passed.

So far the administration has managed to foresee no difficulties whatsoever in any part of this until the difficulties have jumped up and slapped them in the face. At it's most basic, I think the policy was based on duplicity and wishful thinking and, as often happens with such a base, the people who were in charge came to believe their own malarkey. Maybe they could address this with a greater regard for reality now.



I think the problem goes much deeper than the ACA or healthcare. To wit:

Quote

The United States has such an unequal distribution of wealth so that it's in the league of corrupt underdeveloped countries, no longer in the league of the developed nations, according to the latest edition of the world's most thorough study of wealth-distribution.


Source:
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Black Lives Matter. / "I need ammunition, not a ride." Zelensky
0

#397 User is offline   ArtK78 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 7,786
  • Joined: 2004-September-05
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Galloway NJ USA
  • Interests:Bridge, Poker, participatory and spectator sports.
    Occupation - Tax Attorney in Atlantic City, NJ.

Posted 2013-December-10, 15:19

View Postkenberg, on 2013-December-10, 11:03, said:

I have grown ever more pessimistic on the subject of the ACA. As I understand it, about 800,00 people have joined up, about two thirds of them going on Medicaid. Many, in fact most, of the rest will need expensive medical care. The young and healthy are pretty much avoiding it. It is perhaps time to take another look at the finances and see how it is all going to be paid for. I think the answer is, in part, it won't be paid for in the manner that was advertised when the bill was passed.

So far the administration has managed to foresee no difficulties whatsoever in any part of this until the difficulties have jumped up and slapped them in the face. At it's most basic, I think the policy was based on duplicity and wishful thinking and, as often happens with such a base, the people who were in charge came to believe their own malarkey. Maybe they could address this with a greater regard for reality now.

Ken:

Are you claiming that the young and the healthy are avoiding coverage under any plan of health insurance, including employer provided health insurance? In that case, they will be subject to penalties. Now, they may decide that the penalties are less costly than obtaining health insurance, but that doesn't mean that they will not pay.

The goal of the ACA is 100% coverage. As with any 100% goal, it may not be attainable. But it is certainly in the interest of the country not to have uninsureds using emergency rooms for routine care and the other inefficiencies of the present system. Once the vast majority of Americans are covered by some form of health insurance it is hoped that most Americans will avail themselves of preventive care covered by such insurance, thus avoiding illness and the costs associated with treatment of illnesses.
1

#398 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,075
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2013-December-10, 16:26

View PostArtK78, on 2013-December-10, 15:19, said:

Ken:

Are you claiming that the young and the healthy are avoiding coverage under any plan of health insurance, including employer provided health insurance? In that case, they will be subject to penalties. Now, they may decide that the penalties are less costly than obtaining health insurance, but that doesn't mean that they will not pay.

The goal of the ACA is 100% coverage. As with any 100% goal, it may not be attainable. But it is certainly in the interest of the country not to have uninsureds using emergency rooms for routine care and the other inefficiencies of the present system. Once the vast majority of Americans are covered by some form of health insurance it is hoped that most Americans will avail themselves of preventive care covered by such insurance, thus avoiding illness and the costs associated with treatment of illnesses.


" But it is certainly in the interest of the country not to have uninsureds using emergency rooms for routine care and the other inefficiencies of the present system." I completely agree. And on a humane basis I favor the general goals of the ACA. I am extremely disappointed at how this is going. It's hardly news to say I am not alone in this.


Exactly what young people are doing or will be doing I don't know. But I know some in that category, and there are polls. My understanding is that the ACA is supposed to balance out financially somehow. I could look up old Obama statements to see exactly what was claimed, but the general idea, I am pretty sure, was that this should not require a lot of deficit spending and should not require new taxes to cover it. It should not require sharp reduction in Medicare, or sharp increases in Medicare premiums. How can this be? Well, the young and healthy are, it is hoped, going to enroll in large numbers and this will cover much of the cost. I don't think it is working out that way.

And really, why should they flock to it ? I have said before that if my Medicare premiums have to rise some to help cover the costs, I don't mind, but only as long as the costs reasonable and the costs are broadly are shared. Imagine now a 30 year old guy, in good health and making decent but not great money. Enough to not qualify for subsidies. and say that he works contractually and so must find his own insurance. First he is told "You can keep the policy you have". Then he is told "Well, no, not quite, but you will be getting a better policy and it will be worth it". Well, not quite that either. He will be getting a different policy, maybe better maybe not, he will be paying more, maybe a lot more. So the truth now comes out: No, he cannot keep the policy he has, and no the larger payment is not for better coverage, it is to pay for the costs of the ACA. A bood portion of the costs of this program are to be borne by his cohort. Might he be a bit pissed?

So far I have only asked one young person about how he plans to address the ACA . He is ignoring it. I am pretty sure others are as well. I tend to not ask people such nosy questions but pollsters do, and I understand they are finding that my hypothetical 30 year old above is apt to say screw it. Probably the view is something along the lines of when/if the gov gets its act together they will deal with it then.

If Obama wants to do anything further domestically, he has to first get this under control. The Titanic will never sink. Housing prices will always go up. Pigs will fly. And the books will balance on the ACA. Maybe so, but if this keeps sputtering like it has been, the Republicans can nominate a kangaroo in 2016 (they could and might do worse) and win the election.
Ken
0

#399 User is offline   PassedOut 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 3,663
  • Joined: 2006-February-21
  • Location:Upper Michigan
  • Interests:Music, films, computer programming, politics, bridge

Posted 2013-December-10, 17:26

View Postkenberg, on 2013-December-10, 16:26, said:

My understanding is that the ACA is supposed to balance out financially somehow. I could look up old Obama statements to see exactly what was claimed, but the general idea, I am pretty sure, was that this should not require a lot of deficit spending and should not require new taxes to cover it. It should not require sharp reduction in Medicare, or sharp increases in Medicare premiums. How can this be? Well, the young and healthy are, it is hoped, going to enroll in large numbers and this will cover much of the cost. I don't think it is working out that way.

As Art (and Mitt Romney, too, during the election) pointed out, everyone -- insured or not -- can walk into an emergency room and be treated. Those costs are already being paid.

You seem to be saying that you see large additional costs because of the ACA: costs way beyond the sum of the premiums from the formerly uninsured, the additional premiums paid by those who replace old scam policies, and the penalties from deadbeats who refuse to buy insurance.

I probably missed this, but could you explain where you see these large additional costs coming from?
The growth of wisdom may be gauged exactly by the diminution of ill temper. — Friedrich Nietzsche
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
0

#400 User is offline   kenberg 

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Advanced Members
  • Posts: 11,075
  • Joined: 2004-September-22
  • Location:Northern Maryland

Posted 2013-December-10, 18:23

View PostPassedOut, on 2013-December-10, 17:26, said:

As Art (and Mitt Romney, too, during the election) pointed out, everyone -- insured or not -- can walk into an emergency room and be treated. Those costs are already being paid.

You seem to be saying that you see large additional costs because of the ACA: costs way beyond the sum of the premiums from the formerly uninsured, the additional premiums paid by those who replace old scam policies, and the penalties from deadbeats who refuse to buy insurance.

I probably missed this, but could you explain where you see these large additional costs coming from?


First, I am claiming something simpler. I am looking at the government's income and expenses for the ACA. Consider, from http://www.nytimes.c...odayspaper&_r=0


Quote

But for all those problems, people are enrolling. More than 243,000 have signed up for private coverage through the exchanges, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, and more than 567,000 have been determined eligible for Medicaid since the exchanges opened on Oct. 1.



The money for the 567,000 new Medicaid patients, and presumably many more to come, will come from somewhere. Where? I believe that when the law was passed, this was to come from other sources within the ACA. Which other sources?

Further in the article:

Quote

Whenever her parents got sick, it fell to Ms. He, who is now 23, to help them navigate the patchwork of low-cost health services available in their city. Members of the community came together in 2012 to pay her mother's medical bills after tests uncovered precancerous cells that, left untreated, could have led to cervical cancer. Her mother receives care from a clinic that treats women and children, but Ms. He has had less luck finding a doctor to care for her father, who suffers from smoker's cough and other ailments. Both of her parents are in their 50s.

"My dad, he's getting older, and frankly he's having a lot of health issues," said Ms. He, who is studying public health as a graduate student at the University of Michigan. "It breaks your heart."




Ms. He's parents will now receive better care, and the community will not have to pick up part of the tab. That's great. I'm for it. It's fair to ask where the money is coming from.

I don't keep lists of things that people have said, but I don't think I am fantasizing that Obama claimed that the ACA books would balance, or at least mostly balance. But then he claimed that the website would be working Oct. 1. I'll hang in there with my criticism that the administration has been blind to any problems until the very last minuted. First they don't see any problem, then they deny it exists, then they say it is being worked on. Only when absolutely forced do they actually confront a problem. I am expecting that the finances will be a problem. Apparently they aren't worried. but they never are worried.


Not everyone with all issues checks into an emergency room. Some just live with the problem. My wife just had both knees replaced by a fine surgeon at a fine hospital. It costs money, mostly insurance money. Can the uninsured do this by walking into an emergency room? I don't know, but I would place a large bet that there are a fair number of things that I. as an insured person, can have done that the uninsured cannot. It will be good if everyone can have this care, but the money must come from somewhere.

Added comment about Becky's replacements: She got a CT scan, hip to toe, that was sent off to a computer with a 3-D printer, leading to knees specially designed to her bone structure, taking into account alignment problems resulting from the arthritis. She had several days of intense Physical Therapy in the hospital, and now has three days a week of one hour each day of Physical Therapy. It was thrirty days ago and she is driving, walking up and down stairs, and so on. On to the Appalachian Trail, although not quite yet. They do this at emergency rooms? They do it on insurance. The costs will change if everyone has insurance.


Again, it is not being picky to ask where the money is coming from. As we roll into 2014 election season, I expect that old statements of Obama about how the costs will be covered, how the books will balance, will be placed where I can easily find them without doing any research.


Just for starters, where is the money coming from to pay for the medical care of the 567,000 new Medicaid patients? Can this be answered on the basis of enrollments as they stand now, or must it assume large future enrollments by young and healthy adults who so far have shown no interest in enrolling?
Ken
0

  • 28 Pages +
  • « First
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • Last »
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

3 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users