- 14,808
I believe every Obama plan comes with a free colonoscopy.
Health Care Reform Sticks It to Connecticut Children
- Thread starter Alston
- Start date
-
- Tags
- health care reform
- 1,861
Yeah, but with the local you know for sure he had his hands on your shoulders whispering sweet nothings in your ear, whereas with the general you just wake up wondering.........
....at least thats what they tell me.
- 10,275
Not that there's anything wrong with that
Jerry, George. Wait. It's Gerry. No it isn't. Did you know that Larry David played George Steinbrenner?
Jerry, George. Wait. It's Gerry. No it isn't. Did you know that Larry David played George Steinbrenner?
- 8,448
Since this thread has deviated from its original subject matter, I may as well ask this question..
Is the carrier you refer to CIGNA by any chance? I hear that CIGNA is granting the 9/23/10 Preventive Care (and other) benefits to all policyholders, both old and new.
If it is a company other than CIGNA, could you share the name with us? Perhaps other insurers are following CIGNA's lead in order to keep their respective customer bases from being taken by a competitor after September 23rd.
-Allen
Some are of the impression preventive care and maternity are retroactive to the date of the law. This is why GR & Time pulled maternity shortly after Obamacrap became law.
Of course since HHS has no clue what is in the bill or how it works, it might be retroactive to the beginning of the Bush tax cuts.
Of course since HHS has no clue what is in the bill or how it works, it might be retroactive to the beginning of the Bush tax cuts.
- 619
Just wait till the doctors start dropping out like rats abandoning a sinking ship..
- 8,448
Why would the doctors drop out right when Obama has given them to ability to generate many thousands of dollars each year in extra revenue via the Preventive Care mandates? As soon as physicians start attending their end-of-year meetings and learning new "sales" ideas for using the various mandates to their fullest, health insurers will begin sending billions of additional $$$ to the medical profession. Much of this money was part of our compensation and reward incentive packages prior to Obamacare forcing health insurance companies to take it away from the agents.
In fact, one of my clients is a psychiatrist. He's frothing at the mouth over the potential increase in income from screening and rehabilitating smokers, obese people, and those who think they might be prone to depression. Jim is particularly hopeful for a "triple-play" as he calls it... That is, a Depressed-Fat-Smoker who needs lots of sessions.
Honestly, I think there should be a monetary limit on how much an insurance company should be made to pay for the rehabilitation aspect of these Preventive Care mandates. But as of yet, I haven't seen or heard anything in this regard from the Govt or from any insurance company. Have any of you read of a limit to how much an insurer can be made to pay for Preventive Care on any one individual? (OOPS.. I forgot. There can be no more internal limits with any aspect of a major medical policy.) Maybe we should all become some type of registered counselor!
-AC- Thread starter
- #38
- 1,432
I think that people can look at governments and insurance companies the same way that a child looks at his or her parents in a certain sense.
When a mother tells her daughter that she can't have a pony, the child thinks that Mommy just doesn't want to give her a pony.
Having no real concept of money and the limitations of her parents' income she doesn't realize that buying a pony could mean that the mortgage won't get paid and/or that her parents can never retire and/or that she won't go to college.
Of course the insurance companies make more money than you or I or you and I. They make so much that it is almost as unfathomable to me as my parents' income was when I was in first grade. But there is a limit on what they can do.
They can't be mandated to insure the medically uninsurable unless there there is a reciprocal mandate on the population in general to get insurance.
Something close to that is coming in 2014, I guess, but for now there is no reciprocal mandate that all kids get insurance. Therefore this health care reform mandate is backfiring.
Demonizing the insurance companies doesn't make them any more evil than any other corporations in any other business sector.
Pretending that they are so profitable that they can absorb all these extra costs without it affecting what they are able to do is simply a fantasy.
I think that we should be compassionate. We should do what we can to help those in need, but we have to find ways to pay for it or limit what we do to what we can pay for. We can't just tell corporations that they have to pay for stuff because we think they should.
Mandates without funding is a first cousin to taxation without representation in my opinion.
When a mother tells her daughter that she can't have a pony, the child thinks that Mommy just doesn't want to give her a pony.
Having no real concept of money and the limitations of her parents' income she doesn't realize that buying a pony could mean that the mortgage won't get paid and/or that her parents can never retire and/or that she won't go to college.
Of course the insurance companies make more money than you or I or you and I. They make so much that it is almost as unfathomable to me as my parents' income was when I was in first grade. But there is a limit on what they can do.
They can't be mandated to insure the medically uninsurable unless there there is a reciprocal mandate on the population in general to get insurance.
Something close to that is coming in 2014, I guess, but for now there is no reciprocal mandate that all kids get insurance. Therefore this health care reform mandate is backfiring.
Demonizing the insurance companies doesn't make them any more evil than any other corporations in any other business sector.
Pretending that they are so profitable that they can absorb all these extra costs without it affecting what they are able to do is simply a fantasy.
I think that we should be compassionate. We should do what we can to help those in need, but we have to find ways to pay for it or limit what we do to what we can pay for. We can't just tell corporations that they have to pay for stuff because we think they should.
Mandates without funding is a first cousin to taxation without representation in my opinion.
Last edited:
1) This only impacts PCP's.
2) Primary care doesn't pay well.
3) Just because a colonoscopy may be free doesn't mean everyone will want one.
4) "Free" can impact buying habits but not when it comes to seeing a doctor.
Counselors may in fact see an uptick, particularly with the parity rules.
- 14,808
I think the pay is in line with the amount of work...not the amount of education. Just how much is my PCP supposed to be reimbursed when, literally, he spends 5 minutes in the room and writes a script? $20 should do it.
If they can't make it on true market value of seeing a patient for 5 to 10 minutes then we need to rethink the system. Let's ramp up the nurse practitioners.
This especially burns me when I go specifically to see the doctor and get pawned off on the nurse. Does the doctor still get full reimbursement for that visit?
If they can't make it on true market value of seeing a patient for 5 to 10 minutes then we need to rethink the system. Let's ramp up the nurse practitioners.
This especially burns me when I go specifically to see the doctor and get pawned off on the nurse. Does the doctor still get full reimbursement for that visit?
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
Los Angeles Fires Become Existential Test for California’s Stopgap Insurer- Latest: marindependent
-
