Hmmm

[Loki]

So they got it wrong?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...premium-rates/

[stjoebirdsfan]

Talk to anyone in the health care field before you gloat too much. . .

[Melchior]

So in the face of facts, you turn to anecdotal evidence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/op...anted=all&_r=0

This is a good article.

[T.D-Bag]

So in the face of facts, you turn to anecdotal evidence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/op...anted=all&_r=0

This is a good article.

What if any argument did you expect? The real test comes when the hiccups in advancing anything of this magnitude is blown up to catastrohpic proportions, by the Media and the RW'ers, who were all for Obamacare when it was advanced by the Heritage Foundation and the GOP in the 1990's

[stjoebirdsfan]

So in the face of facts, you turn to anecdotal evidence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/op...anted=all&_r=0

This is a good article.

I could give a shit about conservatives and liberals. I just know every person I know in the field is terrified of what's going to happen on their end.

[Loki]

Why?

They have a problem with people who couldn't afford health care before now can pay for a policy?

It's about time the US joined the rest of the civilized world in that regard.

[Loki]

No, every person isn't.

My wife's neurologist thinks the insurance companies are scum bags. His words. He's never had an issue with Medicare, nor has my wife. The issues are always with the insurance companies and the roadblocks they put up and the delaying tactics they use to pay doctors.

[stjoebirdsfan]

Edit- who cares. Some guy in Forbes said it'll work so no use arguing,

[Melchior]

That's not really what the article said; it just said that the costs of a policy through the CA exchange was lower than anticipated.

I keep hearing anecdotes about how health care professionals hate it, but no reason as to why. I'm open to reasonable arguments.

[Riccardo]

My wife is in health care

More red tape, less compensation for healthcare providers. It's simple economics - more will be covered, quality will decrease.

[IronEagle]

More red tape, less compensation for healthcare providers. It's simple economics - more will be covered, quality will decrease.

I'm in healthcare.

It all depends on where the money ends up. The less of it that ends up in administration, and insurance companies pockets, the better.

There is no reason why the health care market cannot be made more efficient. Like any industry there is no reason why you can't achieve better results while spending more money while improving effieciency.

Problem is the previous model requires a middleman controlling the gates and skimming $$$. Also a big problem is that this is a really complex thing which we all depend upon. It's not exactly voluntary to purchase health care when you need it.

I always remember that Obamacare was MittRomney care before it got demogauged. Romney should have run on his record there. It's kind of scary his "base" wouldn't allow him to do that. Hell, they'd probably being trying to obstruct a President Romney right now!

[IronEagle]

That's not really what the article said; it just said that the costs of a policy through the CA exchange was lower than anticipated.

I keep hearing anecdotes about how health care professionals hate it, but no reason as to why. I'm open to reasonable arguments.

I think they don't like the uncertainty for the most part. Also some of the people who profit the most, and thus have the most to lose are concerned. Bottom line is whether we end up with Obamacare or status quo we (the people, as in our government) are going to spend a lot of $$ on health care.

The question is if the money will be wisely spent... especially the public and insurance $$.

Private people with lots of money to spend on healthcare are able to spend their dollars as they see fit. They probably don't get the biggest cost benefit for their $ but it doesn't matter to them because they have $ to burn.

For me the problem I would like to addressed is how do you provide the best health care as favorably as possible for the most people at the least cost?

[Riccardo]

I agree

I'm in healthcare.

It all depends on where the money ends up. The less of it that ends up in administration, and insurance companies pockets, the better.

There is no reason why the health care market cannot be made more efficient. Like any industry there is no reason why you can't achieve better results while spending more money while improving effieciency.

Just don't see this attempt doing much if anything to improve efficiency. All for less ending up in administration/insurance companies, but there will also be less to primary care providers. My wife works in kidney dialysis - the companies that provide it are being effected directly - and the people that require this care are typically not those that can afford good health care.

[IronEagle]

Just don't see this attempt doing much if anything to improve efficiency. All for less ending up in administration/insurance companies, but there will also be less to primary care providers. My wife works in kidney dialysis - the companies that provide it are being effected directly - and the people that require this care are typically not those that can afford good health care.

I'm curious...what percentage of the people who your wife provides care for have their care currently paid for by the government, whether directly or indirectly? I understand it's a private company providing the care and I assume they make a profit from doing so. But I would imagine an insurance company and/or the federal government is involved in paying somehow.

[Riccardo]

Units vary dependent on location

Most in hers are on Medicare/Medicaid