5 Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: nobodyknows
I see, you just want to bitch and moan.

If what I see being done is wrong, irresponsible, or a potential injustice, then you're damn right.

You show yourself to be a mental midget if you can't grasp the difference between seeing a doctor you don't like versus not seeing a doctor, e.g. not getting the care you need to stay alive.

When did I say anything about doctor selection specifically?

But, now that you've mentioned it, YES, I certainly oppose any changes that would make my family's care worse than it is now -- which includes our current freedom to choose our own doctors.

Please feel free to use the words "common good" in your response. After all, we know that's where you're going with this tripe.

What's to stop your employer from shoving you into a plan where you don't have a choice of doctors under the current system?

The job market -- competition for highly educated and highly skilled employees currently allows me to shop for my preferred benefits. It's fucking fantastic.

The proposed bill essentially guarantees that my employer would do exactly that once every company in my industry figures out that it's cheaper to just pay the 8% fine. Uncool.

that's total bullshit but if you want to tell lies to yourself so you believe that then more power to you. so you can "shop" by deciding what job to take by who has the best plan? so if that's the case what do you do when your company changes providers and your rates go up and deductibles go up? do you quit and go look for another job with better health plans?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
The job market -- competition for highly educated and highly skilled employees currently allows me to shop for my preferred benefits. It's fucking fantastic.

The proposed bill essentially guarantees that my employer would do exactly that once every company in my industry figures out that it's cheaper to just pay the 8% fine. Uncool.

that's total bullshit but if you want to tell lies to yourself so you believe that then more power to you. so you can "shop" by deciding what job to take by who has the best plan? so if that's the case what do you do when your company changes providers and your rates go up and deductibles go up? do you quit and go look for another job with better health plans?

My personal job selection depends on a lot of factors, but healthcare benefits for my family have always been one of the most important.

To answer your question, I'd simply do what any responsible person would do -- that is, I'd weigh all of the factors and make an educated decision whether to stay or to leave.

I've been involved in company mergers where our benefits changed dramatically, and my personal insurance premiums increased as well. I stayed in the job for a hundred other reasons. When it was all said and done, the increased premiums led to even better coverage and care, so I think I made the correct decision.

It is/was certainly nice to have that choice though, which is why I must oppose any proposals that seemingly encourage employers to drop such benefits.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
So the 60 to 80% of Americans who do currently have those freedoms can just go to hell, right?

Where do you get those figures? Let's take just one "freedom" -- freedom to choose your doctor. The fact is, very few Americans enjoy such freedom today. Most employer-based plans limit patient choice to physicians who have agreed to accept a specific fee schedule. If the physician doesn't agree, you have to "choose" someone else or pay for the visit yourself. There's nothing in any legislation under discussion that would change that.

The issue is not really whether or not you can consult with the physician of your choice; it's whether someone else can be compelled to pay for your choice.

There are similar fallacies in every one of the Fortune's author's points.

Bullcrap. I can go to any doctor I want as can most all Americans and it will be covered by insurance.

Bullshit and try and comprehend what you are reading before you comment next time. She is spot on. She is talking about in and out of network doctors.

EDIT: He's to She's

No. My statement is correct. You can go to any doctor and get covered by health insurance. Athena said that was incorrect, it is absolutely correct.

THAT IS YOUR CHOICE. That is the whole point of the article.

you are free to choose your own health insurance and your own doctor, the choice is YOURS

bu-bu-bu-but It costs a few 10s of dollars more a month doesn't mean the choice isn't yours. Don't eat out once or twice a month and the premium cost is covered. See how consequences of one's decisions are left up to the individual?

dude you really have no fucking clue on how health insurance works. I have united Healthcare and if i go out of network i have to pay the majority of the bill unless its an emergency.

http://www.uhc.com/source4wome...2000003010b10a____.htm

PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) ? Like an HMO, you choose doctors who are in the plan's network, but you don't have to designate a primary care doctor. You can go to doctors outside of the network, but you'll pay a higher percentage of the cost. For visits and services within the network, you'll typically pay a copayment (a fixed amount) or coinsurance (a percentage of the cost) for health care services.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Citrix

dude you really have no fucking clue on how health insurance works. I have united Healthcare and if i go out of network i have to pay the majority of the bill unless its an emergency.

http://www.uhc.com/source4wome...2000003010b10a____.htm

PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) ? Like an HMO, you choose doctors who are in the plan's network, but you don't have to designate a primary care doctor. You can go to doctors outside of the network, but you'll pay a higher percentage of the cost. For visits and services within the network, you'll typically pay a copayment (a fixed amount) or coinsurance (a percentage of the cost) for health care services.

Yes. Exactly! You are starting to understand how health insurance works now. You get to choose whatever doctor you want. If you had a better plan the difference between in and out of network would be minimal - maybe you could go get a better plan?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: spidey07
No. My statement is correct. You can go to any doctor and get covered by health insurance. Athena said that was incorrect, it is absolutely correct.

THAT IS YOUR CHOICE. That is the whole point of the article.

you are free to choose your own health insurance and your own doctor, the choice is YOURS

bu-bu-bu-but It costs a few 10s of dollars more a month doesn't mean the choice isn't yours. Don't eat out once or twice a month and the premium cost is covered. See how consequences of one's decisions are left up to the individual?

dude you really have no fucking clue on how health insurance works. I have united Healthcare and if i go out of network i have to pay the majority of the bill unless its an emergency.

http://www.uhc.com/source4wome...2000003010b10a____.htm

PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) ? Like an HMO, you choose doctors who are in the plan's network, but you don't have to designate a primary care doctor. You can go to doctors outside of the network, but you'll pay a higher percentage of the cost. For visits and services within the network, you'll typically pay a copayment (a fixed amount) or coinsurance (a percentage of the cost) for health care services.

I think that he means that we can go to the doctor of our choice and ask that doctor which health insurance companies he/she has contracts with. Then, if we so choose, and we can afford it, we are free to switch to that company for our coverage.

It may be much more expensive, to the point of being cost-prohibitive for some, but it's still a "choice."

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

FEAR!!! OMG!!!

Little Johnny SkinsFan is going to die in Mommy and Daddy's arms!

WTF does that even mean!?

It means he is a partisan hack, that's all.

 

[miketheidiot]

Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

i hear that the only reward for being healthy is not having to pay healthcare costs

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: rudder
Of course there will be rationing. Without a way to pay for this one of two things will happen. Strict rationing or reduced payments to doctors for their services.

And those who say health care reform will pay for itself... hogwash. That is what the state of tennessee thought about its single payer health care system. The rolls swelled and swelled and people took advantage of getting prescriptions and visits at no cost. And once you go down this road it is very hard to turn around.

THIS

no not this. with national universal coverage, freeloaders will stay were they are and not have to flood into a certain state and overload the system.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Duhhhhh


59,760,000 get SS or SSI so subtract 106 million from your 300 million and you have 194 million. Take that figure by 70% and you have 136 million, whcih IS less then half of 300 million.

<Yawn>

Thank you for supporting my position that LIMITED AND SPECIFIC health care reform is needed. Take this, for example. Do they differentiate between existing private and "public" coverage? No. These polls presumably include BOTH options in the results. My position is that radical reform and dumping everyone on a new "public" option (which is what WOULD happen) is not necessary. If people are satisfied with their private insurance -- let me keep it. If people are satisfied with what government option they are on -- let them keep it.


Oh, and the 70% is one figure. Most other figures are well above 80%. If we wanted to use the ABC/USA Today poll result (88%) and use your logic, the number is 170 million who are satisfied.

Sorry, but for this to work properly we're going to have to dump private insurance. They are the problem, not the solution.

Think about it. Instead of having a conversation of what can be done to cut costs and improve health care for EVERYONE there are a sizable number of people only worried they're going to "lose" some quality of coverage.

I'm tired of arguing with idiots who claim they are for health care reform........ as long as they are guaranteed not to "lose" something in the deal?? You guys must have a really guilty conscience about something??

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Sorry, but for this to work properly we're going to have to dump private insurance. They are the problem, not the solution.

Think about it. Instead of having a conversation of what can be done to cut costs and improve health care for EVERYONE there are a sizable number of people only worried they're going to "lose" some quality of coverage.

I'm tired of arguing with idiots who claim they are for health care reform........ as long as they are guaranteed not to "lose" something in the deal?? You guys must have a really guilty conscience about something??

For starters, all of the discussion thus far has revolved around the current plan in Congress. Secondly, you are damn right that a lot of people worry about losing quality coverage. Also, calling people who disagree with you "idiots" doesn't help. Explain to me:

A. Why should I "lose" something so that other people (a minority of the population, as has been shown) should "gain" something? And by "I," I am also referring to the majority of people who are insured and happy.

B. Why should I have a guilty conscience?

I guess my questions above are rhetorical. We can just agree to disagree, as reasonable people are allowed.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
On pages 16 and 17 of the bill you will find language that leads me to that belief;

You mean the part about grandfathering and giving plans 5 years to conform with the requirements? Do you have some reason to think that your current plan (or that offered my any other major employer) doesn't already conform? I think this is manufactured hysteria. Doesn't the fact that so many bankrupts say that their medical bills pushed them into failure even though they had coverage indicate that their is a need for some sort of baseline definition of coverage?

as well as the seemingly intentional changes for businesses that would encourage them to drop their current healthcare benefits for more than a few dollars in savings -- remember when I mentioned the "public option" safety net allowing businesses to eliminate the benefits without the catastrophic outcomes they might face if they did so today?

That is going to happen in large sectors of the economy no matter what but I really don't see anything there that "encourages" it. The unsustainability of the current model is a much bigger factor. General Motors' largest single vendor was not a steel company or auto-parts supplier, but Blue Cross. And even though that was true 15 years ago during the fabled Clinton fiasco, GM did not step up and support reform. Instead, the board chose to try to keep up the fantasy that it could somehow control the problem itself. You will not find very many corporate boards willing to follow GM into the abyss. They will look to minimizing public outrage but they will do what they have to do to maintain their own solvency.

I'm old enough to remember when most company health plans included retirees. As recently as 15 years ago, upper tier companies covered both early retirees and over-65s completely. After the failed Clinton attempt at health care reform though, they started jettisoning retirees. Now they leave early retirees to their own devices and many do not have any kind of supplementary coverage for over-65s; it's Medicare or nothing (The same thing happened to traditional defined benefit pension plans BTW).

I actually believe that such talk is just that -- talk. It's misleading propaganda. I believe that Congress, the Admin, and most supporters of the current proposals know that it will encourage or eventually force most people to join the "public option."

I believe that's actually their goal; but, of course, very few of them will ever admit that out loud -- although some of them here have. Admitting as much, to the general public, would essentially condemn their entire effort to failure, and they'd never achieve the 100% Government-controlled system they so desire.

I don't understand what you mean by a ""government controlled system -- no one wants that. What people want is a more rational way to finance health care. There is not one word in the linked bill or any other that would give "government" control over treatment. And any "public option" will probably end up being a crippled by those who think that for-profit companies have to be protected at the expense of the national welfare.

Tell that to the 2% to 8% of small business employees who will lose their jobs as a result of the fines levied against their companies. The three largest and most respected small business organizations in America estimate that 1+ million jobs will be lost as a result.

I'll propose the same questions to you that I asked Sandorski... he never answered them:

If you can't find your preferred answer to either one, please feel free to add your own.

I can't really answer your question because I don't know have enough information about what the status quo is or what these folks are actually saying. I'm not disputing you, just saying that like the AMA "endorsement", things can be read in multiple ways.

The bill has a sliding scale of manadatory contribution to a public exchange for businesses with a payroll of less than $400K but I have no idea how that fits with their other expenses and I have no idea how those companies feel about it.

All of which is really just fodder for conversations like this one because...we are talking about a proposed bill from a committee that really has nothing to say about what will or will not go to the floor. It's the Senate finance bill -- the one being drawn up by 6 Senators who collectively represent less than 3% of the population -- that is more likely to get to the floor.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: blanghorst
A. Why should I "lose" something so that other people (a minority of the population, as has been shown) should "gain" something? And by "I," I am also referring to the majority of people who are insured and happy.

You shouldn't -- and you don't necessarily have to. The only scenario under which you would lose would be if the plan started from the premise that the most important factor would be to protect the interests of private, for-profit insurers -- which is exactly what is going on now.

Those who have good coverage have been persuaded to believe that this is a zero sum game. They think that what they have is somehow better than that enjoyed by their counterparts in other countries that operate under different models but they are wrong. Many become aware of the problems only when they have a real medical crisis and others realize how bad things are outside their sheltered garden only when they lose their jobs (or sometimes when they change jobs).

We in this country have been working with the same dysfunctional model for over 60 years and look what it has brought us: bankruptcy at all levels -- personal, corporate, and government -- and care disparity unequaled among industrialized nations. Critics point to the financial problems with Medicare without ever acknowledging that its biggest problem is that it was purposely constructed to mirror the fee for service model promoted by the private insurance industry and physicans. Medicare's rate of cost escalation, is in fact lower than that of the industry overall and another illustration of the fundamental problems associated with our approach to health care financing.

Why markets can?t cure healthcare

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
On pages 16 and 17 of the bill you will find language that leads me to that belief;

You mean the part about grandfathering and giving plans 5 years to conform with the requirements? Do you have some reason to think that your current plan (or that offered my any other major employer) doesn't already conform? I think this is manufactured hysteria. Doesn't the fact that so many bankrupts say that their medical bills pushed them into failure even though they had coverage indicate that their is a need for some sort of baseline definition of coverage?

as well as the seemingly intentional changes for businesses that would encourage them to drop their current healthcare benefits for more than a few dollars in savings -- remember when I mentioned the "public option" safety net allowing businesses to eliminate the benefits without the catastrophic outcomes they might face if they did so today?

That is going to happen in large sectors of the economy no matter what but I really don't see anything there that "encourages" it. The unsustainability of the current model is a much bigger factor. General Motors' largest single vendor was not a steel company or auto-parts supplier, but Blue Cross. And even though that was true 15 years ago during the fabled Clinton fiasco, GM did not step up and support reform. Instead, the board chose to try to keep up the fantasy that it could somehow control the problem itself. You will not find very many corporate boards willing to follow GM into the abyss. They will look to minimizing public outrage but they will do what they have to do to maintain their own solvency.

I'm old enough to remember when most company health plans included retirees. As recently as 15 years ago, upper tier companies covered both early retirees and over-65s completely. After the failed Clinton attempt at health care reform though, they started jettisoning retirees. Now they leave early retirees to their own devices and many do not have any kind of supplementary coverage for over-65s; it's Medicare or nothing (The same thing happened to traditional defined benefit pension plans BTW).

I actually believe that such talk is just that -- talk. It's misleading propaganda. I believe that Congress, the Admin, and most supporters of the current proposals know that it will encourage or eventually force most people to join the "public option."

I believe that's actually their goal; but, of course, very few of them will ever admit that out loud -- although some of them here have. Admitting as much, to the general public, would essentially condemn their entire effort to failure, and they'd never achieve the 100% Government-controlled system they so desire.

I don't understand what you mean by a ""government controlled system -- no one wants that. What people want is a more rational way to finance health care. There is not one word in the linked bill or any other that would give "government" control over treatment. And any "public option" will probably end up being a crippled by those who think that for-profit companies have to be protected at the expense of the national welfare.

Tell that to the 2% to 8% of small business employees who will lose their jobs as a result of the fines levied against their companies. The three largest and most respected small business organizations in America estimate that 1+ million jobs will be lost as a result.

I'll propose the same questions to you that I asked Sandorski... he never answered them:

If you can't find your preferred answer to either one, please feel free to add your own.

I can't really answer your question because I don't know have enough information about what the status quo is or what these folks are actually saying. I'm not disputing you, just saying that like the AMA "endorsement", things can be read in multiple ways.

The bill has a sliding scale of manadatory contribution to a public exchange for businesses with a payroll of less than $400K but I have no idea how that fits with their other expenses and I have no idea how those companies feel about it.

All of which is really just fodder for conversations like this one because...we are talking about a proposed bill from a committee that really has nothing to say about what will or will not go to the floor. It's the Senate finance bill -- the one being drawn up by 6 Senators who collectively represent less than 3% of the population -- that is more likely to get to the floor.

We'll have to agree to disagree, it's as simple as that. I've read approximately 40% of the bill itself, and I don't like what I see -- at all. Much of the problem centers around the ambiguity of the language and a severe lack of specifics that are to be left up to the all-powerful "Commissioner" after the passage of the bill. The specifics that ARE there do not bode well for the continuity of our current private employer-based healthcare, which is what provides great care for my family today.

IOW, it's a shitty piece of legislation that I can not and will not support. My family's care and well-being are just too damn important to me.

They need to scrap the proposals and start over with people like me in mind -- the majority -- or our chances for effective reform are doomed. Period.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

And this is bad because? Do even know what it means?

Many large employers do not have any health insurance at all; they pay for employee health expenses out of current revenue. Employers aren't obligated to offer health benefits; they do so to attract workers. If someone can say "I'll pay your medical expenses" but doesn't set aside money to do that, all of his workers are at risk of finding themselves without coverage at any time.

This provision would provide some way to verify that companies who do this actually have the funds to pay for the care they have promised to provide for their employees. I expect that it would be as successful as the regulations regarding private pensions -- which let employers underfund them until they go bankrupt -- but at least it would shine a light on the more outrageous abuses.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends

Hospitals today face a big problem because most people haven't made any end of life arrangements. This results hospitals providing "care" against the known wishes of the patient...because the patient never wrote anything down. All this says is that people will have to say what they want. There is no "Govt say", it's a mandate that patients say what they want.

Almost every other point in this post is similarly misguided. You don't know what the bill actually means, you are just copying some other alarmist message and getting it more coverage on the net.

You are forgetting a huge factor. The family has final say in the end of life treatment. No government official should have say in a life or death situation. IF you want that kind of control in your life, move to Syria or 1940's Germany.

people already generally have that sort interference in their lives, just from a corporate bureaucrat whose job is to give you as little coverage as possible.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
My family's care and well-being are just too damn important to me.

That's fine. What is your employer's position about health care reform? Do you know? Have the HR folks held any sessions to explain how you might be affected by different approaches?

FWIW, I'm not a supporter of any of these bills...because I don't think they constitute any sort of meaningful reform.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Now instead of private companies rejecting you, the government can do it for them!

You seriously think they won?t exclude undesirables as soon as the costs mount up? It will begin with the most vulnerable among us, the elderly. Then we'll work it down to a point where if your bank's records (owned by the government) don't show you purchasing the proper government approved foods, then you'll be denied health care.

One step at a time, first they have to steal this power from the people. Then they'll figure out how to use and abuse it later.

you realize that we live in a democracy right, and this woudl never fly politically, right?

nice fearmongering though

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Citrix

dude you really have no fucking clue on how health insurance works. I have united Healthcare and if i go out of network i have to pay the majority of the bill unless its an emergency.

http://www.uhc.com/source4wome...2000003010b10a____.htm

PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) ? Like an HMO, you choose doctors who are in the plan's network, but you don't have to designate a primary care doctor. You can go to doctors outside of the network, but you'll pay a higher percentage of the cost. For visits and services within the network, you'll typically pay a copayment (a fixed amount) or coinsurance (a percentage of the cost) for health care services.

Yes. Exactly! You are starting to understand how health insurance works now. You get to choose whatever doctor you want. If you had a better plan the difference between in and out of network would be minimal - maybe you could go get a better plan?

PPO networks are generally huge. It's not the same tinyass network in the HMO where you are directed by your primary care physician. I've had PPO coverage my whole life and it's more than satisfactory. My mom's a health freak and I've gotten a bunch of eye exams to check eye pressure, retina maps, I've done dermatology work, etc etc...

And to the guy who says I'm going to be denied treatment because I had acne, go suck it because I've done accutane. I'll call you when I get denied aite?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: Athena

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
My family's care and well-being are just too damn important to me.

That's fine. What is your employer's position about health care reform? Do you know? Have the HR folks held any sessions to explain how you might be affected by different approaches?

FWIW, I'm not a supporter of any of these bills...because I don't think they constitute any sort of meaningful reform.

Well, at least we can agree to oppose the current bills, even if our opposition is for very different reasons. One of us may eventually end up with the reform we're looking for, or we'll both lose.

As for my employer, I really don't know. Unfortunately, I'm stuck in the middle of Iraq right now on my 4th deployment with the Army Reserves, so I haven't been to work at my "real" job lately.

And, before you even ask -- I guess if worse comes to worse, I could always switch my family to the Army's Tricare coverage, but it doesn't compare well with my civilian employer-based coverage, and it's actually much more expensive, so I'd prefer not to.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Sorry, but for this to work properly we're going to have to dump private insurance. They are the problem, not the solution.

Think about it. Instead of having a conversation of what can be done to cut costs and improve health care for EVERYONE there are a sizable number of people only worried they're going to "lose" some quality of coverage.

I'm tired of arguing with idiots who claim they are for health care reform........ as long as they are guaranteed not to "lose" something in the deal?? You guys must have a really guilty conscience about something??

For starters, all of the discussion thus far has revolved around the current plan in Congress. Secondly, you are damn right that a lot of people worry about losing quality coverage. Also, calling people who disagree with you "idiots" doesn't help. Explain to me:

A. Why should I "lose" something so that other people (a minority of the population, as has been shown) should "gain" something? And by "I," I am also referring to the majority of people who are insured and happy.

B. Why should I have a guilty conscience?

I guess my questions above are rhetorical. We can just agree to disagree, as reasonable people are allowed.

Hi, what are you losing again?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: blanghorst

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Sorry, but for this to work properly we're going to have to dump private insurance. They are the problem, not the solution.

Think about it. Instead of having a conversation of what can be done to cut costs and improve health care for EVERYONE there are a sizable number of people only worried they're going to "lose" some quality of coverage.

I'm tired of arguing with idiots who claim they are for health care reform........ as long as they are guaranteed not to "lose" something in the deal?? You guys must have a really guilty conscience about something??

For starters, all of the discussion thus far has revolved around the current plan in Congress. Secondly, you are damn right that a lot of people worry about losing quality coverage. Also, calling people who disagree with you "idiots" doesn't help. Explain to me:

A. Why should I "lose" something so that other people (a minority of the population, as has been shown) should "gain" something? And by "I," I am also referring to the majority of people who are insured and happy.

B. Why should I have a guilty conscience?

I guess my questions above are rhetorical. We can just agree to disagree, as reasonable people are allowed.

Hi, what are you losing again?

Given the current proposals, he, like me, could possibly lose his high-quality employer-based coverage.

It's a real threat to the care and well-being of our families that we've both worked very hard to ensure.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: Citrix

dude you really have no fucking clue on how health insurance works. I have united Healthcare and if i go out of network i have to pay the majority of the bill unless its an emergency.

http://www.uhc.com/source4wome...2000003010b10a____.htm

PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) ? Like an HMO, you choose doctors who are in the plan's network, but you don't have to designate a primary care doctor. You can go to doctors outside of the network, but you'll pay a higher percentage of the cost. For visits and services within the network, you'll typically pay a copayment (a fixed amount) or coinsurance (a percentage of the cost) for health care services.

Yes. Exactly! You are starting to understand how health insurance works now. You get to choose whatever doctor you want. If you had a better plan the difference between in and out of network would be minimal - maybe you could go get a better plan?

PPO networks are generally huge. It's not the same tinyass network in the HMO where you are directed by your primary care physician. I've had PPO coverage my whole life and it's more than satisfactory. My mom's a health freak and I've gotten a bunch of eye exams to check eye pressure, retina maps, I've done dermatology work, etc etc...

And to the guy who says I'm going to be denied treatment because I had acne, go suck it because I've done accutane. I'll call you when I get denied aite?

The bit about being denied because of acne isn't for acne treatment, its for not listing minor things like acne on an application and then later having your coverage cancelled much later during major illness because of the earlier omission. Aite?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Hi, what are you losing again?

Given the current proposals, he, like me, could possibly lose his high-quality employer-based coverage.

It's a real threat to the care and well-being of our families that we've both worked very hard to ensure.

This.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: DLeRium
PPO networks are generally huge. It's not the same tinyass network in the HMO where you are directed by your primary care physician. I've had PPO coverage my whole life and it's more than satisfactory..

It depends on where you are and who your carrier is. If you are in one of the top medical markets and have one of the larger carriers, the network may be very large. In other places they can be very restrictive.

And to the guy who says I'm going to be denied treatment because I had acne, go suck it because I've done accutane. I'll call you when I get denied aite?

FWIW, I think that was a reference to the case of Robin Beaton, whose individual coverage with Blue Cross was retroactively cancelled when she developed breast cancer. After it approved her doctor's proposed surgery, the insurance company decided to re-examine her medical history and found that she had previously been treated for acne -- which the reviewer decided was synonymous with "precancerous". Blue Cross then rescinded her coverage and informed her that it woud not pay for her scheduled mastectomy.

Acne medications are also included in lists that some insurers use to automatically reject new subscribers.

Both situations highlight something that most people are not aware of unless someone they know has been affected: your current coverage is no indicator of whether or not you will be able to get/retain good coverage in the future. If you are hopping from one employer-paid plan to another, you are usually safe. If at some point you go out on your own though, you could pay premiums for months and even years only to be denied coverage for treatment when you need it because of a medical incident that was fully covered by your previous plan. People have been canceled for things that they did not even know were in their records or minor ailments that had nothing to do with the claim of the moment.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: blackangst1
*snip*

Hey boss you ought to link the blog or site you "obtained" that from.

http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Daverino
F.U.D.

Which part?

Being an obfuscating Fecal Brain you cut and paste (most likely from Freeper World) a list created by a Tea Bagger named Peter Fleckstein.

You then link to a copy of the original bill when asked where you "obtained" the information.

That would make you completely and totally dishonest because the 'comments' on the cut-n-paste are Fleckstein's - verbatim.

Thats not where I got it from. I answered where I got it from, in case you missed it.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Nope, I don't have that kind of time, which is exactly what those disinformation sites count on. The OP is somewhat more credible, though its frequent use of phrases like "could [insert imaginary Chicken Little scenario]" and repeated assertions of speculation as fact reveal the agenda behind the piece. There are undoubtedly all sorts of ways a national health care system will be flawed and may be abused, but there are just as many flaws and just as many ways the for-profit providers in the current system DO abuse it. At least with a government system the bureaucrats who are screwing with us are nominally accountable to us. The executives of today's for-profit system have zero public accountability short of a few costly lawsuits ... invariably settled out of court with non-disclosure restrictions.

I find it more noteworthy that you were intentionally dishonest. It tells me what I need to know about you, which in turn affects how I will evaluate other things you say.

Sorry but this is a load of Bull S....

Your going to gripe and harp about the source but when it comes to the actual tangible content, well you don't have time....

Does the source really matter if what it is saying is true?? guess not when you are blind and don't give a S huh.

And your argument pro govt solution from an accountability stadpoint is probabily the stupidest thing I have read here to date. Thanks for the laugh.