[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What is this rationing stuff about, death panels about?

I'm somewhat certain that the script requires "death panel" be used whenever talking about health care in Canada.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Absolutely not, but the more insureds seeking medical attention for acne, the less insurers have available for the more serious conditions like those you mention above. It's not apologetics, it's just the way of things. I've yet to hear how happy the most vocal complainants would be as self-employeds earning the avg profit margin of a health insurer. All I'm sayin' is hate the game, not the playa.

You know how much $30/mo acne medication is going to cost the health insurance company? $0.

$5,000 deductible. Everything will be out of my pocket, not the insurance company.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

You know how much $30/mo acne medication is going to cost the health insurance company? $0.

$5,000 deductible. Everything will be out of my pocket, not the insurance company.

Actually, that medication will cost most insurers something less than $30, but still not 0. Many insurance companies develop relationships with either pharmacies or pharmaceutical companies to get group pricing, but there's still nothing "free" about the meds. Like with many things, "retail" pricing for medications tends to be inflated and subject to negotiation, but individuals don't have enough leverage to get better pricing. Insurers, corporations/employers, and hospital corporations have lots of leverage, and they can get much better prices. But no pharmaceutical company is going to hand over their products to anyone for free.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Actually, that medication will cost most insurers something less than $30, but still not 0. Many insurance companies develop relationships with either pharmacies or pharmaceutical companies to get group pricing, but there's still nothing "free" about the meds. Like with many things, "retail" pricing for medications tends to be inflated and subject to negotiation, but individuals don't have enough leverage to get better pricing. Insurers, corporations/employers, and hospital corporations have lots of leverage, and they can get much better prices. But no pharmaceutical company is going to hand over their products to anyone for free.

I read his statement as "Because of a $5000 deductible, hyteckit has no intention of covering the costs of his acne medication through an insurance company".

This makes this even more interesting. With a $5000 deductible, this insurance coverage would be only useful for extremely serious medical circumstances: major surgery, long term hospital stay, etc. I can't imagine how a pre-existing condition of acne would affect *any* medical cost that would result in +$5000 of expenses, and thus result in disqualifying you as a potential customer.

Sounds to me as though the insurance company just doesn't want any new customers.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I read his statement as "Because of a $5000 deductible, hyteckit has no intention of covering the costs of his acne medication through an insurance company".

This makes this even more interesting. With a $5000 deductible, this insurance coverage would be only useful for extremely serious medical circumstances: major surgery, long term hospital stay, etc. I can't imagine how a pre-existing condition of acne would affect *any* medical cost that would result in +$5000 of expenses, and thus result in disqualifying you as a potential customer.

Sounds to me as though the insurance company just doesn't want any new customers.

a serious skin infection from the acne could easily balloon into a 20-50k medical problem. Be amazed at how expensive just the little things can turn in to.

[Waragainstsleep]

New life plan:

1: Setup up US - based medical insurance Company;
2: Sell cheapest policies across the board. Undercut everyone else;
3: Refuse to pay for any treatment ever using the argument that since we are all "dying from the moment we are born" that 'life is a pre-existing medical condition';
4: Buy a yacht and marry a playboy bunny.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

I read his statement as "Because of a $5000 deductible, hyteckit has no intention of covering the costs of his acne medication through an insurance company".

This makes this even more interesting. With a $5000 deductible, this insurance coverage would be only useful for extremely serious medical circumstances: major surgery, long term hospital stay, etc.

Wow, that sounds like... insurance!

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

a serious skin infection from the acne could easily balloon into a 20-50k medical problem. Be amazed at how expensive just the little things can turn in to.

Um... what? Is it one of those cases where you are more likely get hit by a bus?
85% of teenagers get acne. How many of them turned into some serious skin infection from acne that end up costing 20k to 50k?

Isn't that like saying people with white skin are more likely to get skin cancer which could easily ballon into a $100k to $200k medical problem? Does it mean white skin is a pre-existing condition?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Wow, that sounds like... insurance!

Yep. The sad thing is, if the US reverted TODAY to free catastrophic care insurance for EVERYONE, it would probably cost less than what they spend on Medicare, Medicaid and all other programs.

But then again, suddenly people can't get boob jobs, acne jobs and contraceptives anymore, so it's a complete no-go. Anything short of the government covering any- and every silly request is not worthy of the free rider's approval.

-t

[Athens]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Um... what? Is it one of those cases where you are more likely get hit by a bus?
85% of teenagers get acne. How many of them turned into some serious skin infection from acne that end up costing 20k to 50k?

Isn't that like saying people with white skin are more likely to get skin cancer which could easily ballon into a $100k to $200k medical problem? Does it mean white skin is a pre-existing condition?

Don't ignore context

I was replying to this

This makes this even more interesting. With a $5000 deductible, this insurance coverage would be only useful for extremely serious medical circumstances: major surgery, long term hospital stay, etc. I can't imagine how a pre-existing condition of acne would affect *any* medical cost that would result in +$5000 of expenses, and thus result in disqualifying you as a potential customer.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Don't ignore context

I was replying to this

I understand your context. I just don't agree with the argument.

We are talking about acne, pre-existing conditions, and cost the health insurance companies. That's the context.


You say acne might lead to skin infection cost over $20k, which is more than the yearly deductible, thus costing the health insurance company.

I'm saying how likely does that happen when 85% of teenagers have acne?

Should people with white skin be denied health insurance because people with white skin have a 500% higher chance of getting skin cancer than blacks & hispanics, and 1000% higher chance than Asians?

I'm betting there's a higher chance of white folks getting skin cancer than people developing serious skin infection from acne that cost over $20k.

[Athens]

I don't agree with pre-existing conditions at all, im for universal equal health insurance. I was just pointing out a justification of why they would use that as a reason to deny based on acne.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Athens 

I don't agree with pre-existing conditions at all, im for universal equal health insurance. I was just pointing out a justification of why they would use that as a reason to deny based on acne.

I get that.

I'm saying that's a stupid justification because the health insurance can classify 'white skin' as a pre-existing condition you are born with and deny all white folks health insurance.

[Athens]

Don't think they would if they could?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Um... what? Is it one of those cases where you are more likely get hit by a bus?
85% of teenagers get acne. How many of them turned into some serious skin infection from acne that end up costing 20k to 50k?

Statistics only matter to insurance companies when they benefit the insurance companies.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Yep. The sad thing is, if the US reverted TODAY to free catastrophic care insurance for EVERYONE, it would probably cost less than what they spend on Medicare, Medicaid and all other programs.

I don't see why it should be single payer. People have no issue buying all sorts of other catastrophic insurance.

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But then again, suddenly people can't get boob jobs, acne jobs and contraceptives anymore, so it's a complete no-go. Anything short of the government covering any- and every silly request is not worthy of the free rider's approval.

This is where we need health service plans that help smooth out the cost of healthcare for non-catastrophic events. Or HSAs and a healthy cash price market.

[Athens]

Advantage to single payer health care is the large income pool and the low administrative costs for the rest of the system.

Currently private insurance companies cherry pick the most healthy people to insure and try to exclude those not healthy with "pre-existing" conditions and bet that these healthy people will not be heavy users of insurance. This leaves the less healthy and the more high risk people to state and federal run programs or no insurance at all.

Single payer system gets every one under one pool averaging out the cost better.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Advantage to single payer health care is the large income pool and the low administrative costs for the rest of the system.

The administrative savings are heavily countered by the fraud in a US-scale system. Medicare is ~15% fraud ($60B of $460B spending) according to their own IG and that only covers about a quarter of the population.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

But then again, suddenly people can't get boob jobs, acne jobs and contraceptives anymore, so it's a complete no-go. Anything short of the government covering any- and every silly request is not worthy of the free rider's approval.

-t

Is this thread about government insurance?

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What is this rationing stuff about, death panels about?

It has nothing to do with a "script" or Canada, except I guess they have to have some kind of national committee to determine who lives or dies. I haven't considered it before, but I guess that makes sense.

All insurance is based on cost/benefit analysis by panels of doctors and administrators and actuarial/insurance types. You set premiums based on likelihood of occurrance (on average) and cost of coverage. Some procedures/therapies are denied because they don't have enough of a quality of life benefit for the recipient compared to their cost. Right now this is done by private insurance companies with oversight by the states (incl. Medicaid) and Medicare. Under a nationalized system, this would be done by committees at the national level. "Death Panels" is a term used by Sarah Palin to describe these committees as they would be implemented at the national level.

Given actual, observed Medicare outcomes and experiences so far, it's reasonable to assume that there would be plenty of things that are likely to be disallowed under a government-run system that are actually covered on a cost-effective private insurance basis now. It's also reasonable to assume that rationing would occur based on political outcomes and not just medical or cost-benefit ones.

It's further reasonable to assume that some things that aren't covered now because they aren't reasonable, or because they are controllable at the individual-choice level might be covered by a government plan even though they would represent a transfer of wealth from one group to another.

If you doubt this, please examine the recent stimulus spending experience regarding solar and alternative energy firms. It's reasonable to assume that someone would have subjected candidate borrowers to a cost/benefit analysis, but actual outcomes suggest that it was done, instead, based on who had the best access to politicians.

Extrapolate this to health care. Witness what we're seeing now - remind young, college-age women that folks on the Right expect them to pay for their own behavior choices. Wanna buy votes from a particular demographic? Change health care options for those folks. One more way to purchase votes, and control our lives, and make society dependent upon government for access to what they should be able to pay for in an otherwise free market.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mduell 

The administrative savings are heavily countered by the fraud in a US-scale system. Medicare is ~15% fraud ($60B of $460B spending) according to their own IG and that only covers about a quarter of the population.

And what kind of fraud do you expect under a single payer system with every one covered. Isnt the largest amount of fraud in Medicare from those who do not qualify for it or pretending to be someone else?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by finboy 

It has nothing to do with a "script" or Canada, except I guess they have to have some kind of national committee to determine who lives or dies. I haven't considered it before, but I guess that makes sense.

All insurance is based on cost/benefit analysis by panels of doctors and administrators and actuarial/insurance types. You set premiums based on likelihood of occurrance (on average) and cost of coverage. Some procedures/therapies are denied because they don't have enough of a quality of life benefit for the recipient compared to their cost. Right now this is done by private insurance companies with oversight by the states (incl. Medicaid) and Medicare. Under a nationalized system, this would be done by committees at the national level. "Death Panels" is a term used by Sarah Palin to describe these committees as they would be implemented at the national level.

Given actual, observed Medicare outcomes and experiences so far, it's reasonable to assume that there would be plenty of things that are likely to be disallowed under a government-run system that are actually covered on a cost-effective private insurance basis now. It's also reasonable to assume that rationing would occur based on political outcomes and not just medical or cost-benefit ones.

It's further reasonable to assume that some things that aren't covered now because they aren't reasonable, or because they are controllable at the individual-choice level might be covered by a government plan even though they would represent a transfer of wealth from one group to another.

If you doubt this, please examine the recent stimulus spending experience regarding solar and alternative energy firms. It's reasonable to assume that someone would have subjected candidate borrowers to a cost/benefit analysis, but actual outcomes suggest that it was done, instead, based on who had the best access to politicians.

Extrapolate this to health care. Witness what we're seeing now - remind young, college-age women that folks on the Right expect them to pay for their own behavior choices. Wanna buy votes from a particular demographic? Change health care options for those folks. One more way to purchase votes, and control our lives, and make society dependent upon government for access to what they should be able to pay for in an otherwise free market.

Is this a assumption or has obamacare actually have that documented.

Here the way it works is the Doctor has final say over treatment not MSP. If the person requests a treatment the doctor thinks is not needed the person wont get it with that doctor. The person always has the option of going from doctor to doctor to doctor until they find one that will prescribe anything. But generally it all comes down to the doctors. Even very specialized and expensive treatments can be prescribed if the doctor can make a case to MSP that it will benefit the person or no other option is available which MSP will then cover as a special case. I can't say all provinces do the same thing for special treatments because every province has a different medical system. But the doctor being the final say in treatment is pretty universal. The only time Approval is needed from MSP for something is when its something not covered.

But this is a good example of taking things to the extreme, and also really shitty American reporting full of flaws

Canada News: Windsor family refuses court order to let baby die - thestar.com

The baby has zero hope of recovery and is on life support. Was on life supports for months. The doctors refused to do a procedure that costs a lot of money just so the brain dead baby could die at home. I think it was justified. The hospital after months of attempts to get consent from the parents to pull the plug on the baby finally had to get a court order to end life support. At the end of the day the family had the baby transferred to a for profit hospital in Detroit that was more then happy to take the families money for a procedure that made absolute zero sense and had zero impact on quality of life of the brain dead baby.

The same story this time from American bullshit perspective

Canadian Family In Life Support Battle Places Hope In Michigan Hospital | Fox News

Lets see which points they got wrong

The parents of a Canadian boy ordered off life support by government health officials are pinning their hopes on Michigan Children's Hospital in Detroit.
Moe Maraachli and his wife, Sana Nader, of Windsor, Ontario, are asking the Detroit hospital to accept their 13-month-old son, Joseph, currently kept alive by a respirator at a Canadian hospital. The family wants Michigan Children’s Hospital to perform a tracheotomy on the child, who suffers from a rare, progressive neurological disease which, Canadian doctors say, has left him in a vegetative state beyond recovery.
Joseph’s parents believe that if the Detroit hospital will accept the child and conduct the operation, in which doctors would place a breathing tube in his windpipe, he could be cared for at home.
But time could quickly be running out.
Canadian health care allocation officials already ruled that Joseph had to be taken off life support and allowed to die in the hospital. A Canadian judge then ruled that Moe Maraachli had to give his consent to having the breathing tube removed by Monday. He refused.
Maraachli says turning off life support could cause his son to choke and suffocate. He told Fox News on Wednesday that the doctors at London Health Sciences Centre have said the “best treatment” is to “let him die… I don’t know what kind of treatment that [is].”
The family believes this procedure will allow Joseph to breathe on his own, and thereby be able to go home and likely die there.
Doctors are now asking the Canadian government to allow them to remove the breathing tube without the family’s consent. The Ontario hospital contends that a tracheotomy would be painful for the boy, despite their argument that Joseph is in a vegetative state.
But officials there appear to be cooperating with the transfer request, noting in a statement, “We can confirm that we have sent the medical record, which is over 1,000 pages to the Children's Hospital of Michigan...This is an extremely difficult time for the family, and our goal is to continue to provide compassionate care and support to baby Joseph and his family."
The London Health Services Centre says it will wait until it hears back from the Detroit hospital before making any further decisions about life support.

by government health officials - Don't know when doctors suddenly became government health officials...
Canadian health care allocation officials - Totally made up, does not exist, talk about utter garbage
Doctors are now asking the Canadian government to allow them to remove the breathing tube without the family’s consent. - Partially right, the Hospital asked the Attorney General for consent which has that power to decide for disabled and mentally handicapped people which a brain dead baby is. This only because of spending months to try and convince unreasonable parents the best thing for there child. The only people that supported these nut cases in wasting tons of tax payer money and resources are those religious nut cases that believe life no matter how bad, no matter how painful no matter the cost is more important because of some god crap over reason. CTV had gotten the opinion of Doctors in the UK, France, India and the US and all where of the same opinion that the Canadian doctors where right in the assessment. Even the American doctor agreed but then was asked if he was to perform the treatment on the child would he, and he said yes, I run a business and who am I do deny the parents there wish, if they can afford to pay for it. Im trying to find that clip on youtube right now hoping some one posted it.

But I didn't realize how much political spin US news sites (I know fox news isn't worthy to be called a news site) put on Canadian medical stories until I read this one for this post.

I doubt the death panel thing is any thing more then a political spin by for profit medical insurance companies trying to scare Americans.

[Athens]

Oh surprise, the Detroit hospital rescinded its acceptance of the child after getting the medical file. Decided to look up how this all ended.

Joseph Maraachli case - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

After reading the entire wiki page, the amount of American involvement from pro life groups and the massive amounts of money wasted in all this, from donations to legal fees. it just anger's me how retarded these parents are. Should be a law to put people away to criminal stupidity.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Athens 

At the end of the day the family had the baby transferred to a for profit hospital in Detroit that was more then happy to take the families money for a procedure that made absolute zero sense and had zero impact on quality of life of the brain dead baby.

Actually, it was never the family's money that the hospital would have taken; there was no way they could have afforded the procedure without some form of assistance either by health insurance or donations. The money they were planning to use was all donated as a result of the amount of exposure they received because of the story. Those using the "death panels" argument and opposed to universal health care point to this story as an example of everything that's wrong with universal health care. But, they neglect to mention that, under the current US system, there is no way this family would have been able to afford the procedure without significant donations which would be difficult to raise without political involvement. Where would the pro-life organizations that helped raise tonnes of cash have been without the media attention?

Incidentally, this story is where I first heard Americans talking about "death panels" with relation to health care.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Oh surprise, the Detroit hospital rescinded its acceptance of the child after getting the medical file.

So, you're saying that American hospitals have Death Panels too and also make decisions about who can live or die, even when people come in cash-in-hand?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And what kind of fraud do you expect under a single payer system with every one covered. Isnt the largest amount of fraud in Medicare from those who do not qualify for it or pretending to be someone else?

They just busted a doctor who certified over $400MM in fraudulent claims and pocketed the reimbursements.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you're saying that American hospitals have Death Panels too and also make decisions about who can live or die, even when people come in cash-in-hand?

In the US, Death Panels are the health insurance companies.

Hospitals jack up the price of everything by about 500% to 1000%, so if you don't have health insurance, you are getting raped by price gouging with 'cash-in-hand'.

A pillow cost you $200. One night stay is $3000. Of course they'll negotiate it down to $300 if you don't have the 'cash-in-hand' because their prices are highly inflated.

Health insurance is just a protection against those highly inflated prices. Health insurance say they'll pay for 90%. In reality, it just brings the cost down closer to the real cost.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Athens 

And what kind of fraud do you expect under a single payer system with every one covered. Isnt the largest amount of fraud in Medicare from those who do not qualify for it or pretending to be someone else?

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but patients faking being someone else to get covered isn't even in the top 3 types of Medicare fraud:

1. Phantom Billing: The medical provider bills Medicare for unnecessary procedures, or procedures that are never performed; for unnecessary medical tests or tests never performed; for unnecessary equipment; or equipment that is billed as new but is, in fact, used. In which case, every form of billing, phantom or patient, can be prevented through carefully checking.
2. Patient Billing: A patient who is in on the scam provides his or her Medicare number in exchange for kickbacks. The provider bills Medicare for any reason and the patient is told to admit that he or she indeed received the medical treatment.
3. Upcoding scheme and unbundling: Inflating bills by using a billing code that indicates the patient needs expensive procedures.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

Actually, it was never the family's money that the hospital would have taken; there was no way they could have afforded the procedure without some form of assistance either by health insurance or donations. The money they were planning to use was all donated as a result of the amount of exposure they received because of the story. Those using the "death panels" argument and opposed to universal health care point to this story as an example of everything that's wrong with universal health care. But, they neglect to mention that, under the current US system, there is no way this family would have been able to afford the procedure without significant donations which would be difficult to raise without political involvement. Where would the pro-life organizations that helped raise tonnes of cash have been without the media attention?

Incidentally, this story is where I first heard Americans talking about "death panels" with relation to health care.

And the same kind of court thing occurred in the US as well in the case of Terri Schiavo

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak 

So, you're saying that American hospitals have Death Panels too and also make decisions about who can live or die, even when people come in cash-in-hand?

If you call a ethical refusal as a death panel for making the right medical choice sure lol In the end only a religious church did it and the family and pro-life idiots had to look all over the US to find one that would.

Originally Posted by subego 

They just busted a doctor who certified over $400MM in fraudulent claims and pocketed the reimbursements.

No system is immune to corrupt doctors. Medicare or Blu-cross, a corrupt doctor billing fraudulently happens in all systems. Thats a poor example of fraud because its not specific to Medicare or Medicad.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but patients faking being someone else to get covered isn't even in the top 3 types of Medicare fraud:

1. Phantom Billing: The medical provider bills Medicare for unnecessary procedures, or procedures that are never performed; for unnecessary medical tests or tests never performed; for unnecessary equipment; or equipment that is billed as new but is, in fact, used. In which case, every form of billing, phantom or patient, can be prevented through carefully checking.
2. Patient Billing: A patient who is in on the scam provides his or her Medicare number in exchange for kickbacks. The provider bills Medicare for any reason and the patient is told to admit that he or she indeed received the medical treatment.
3. Upcoding scheme and unbundling: Inflating bills by using a billing code that indicates the patient needs expensive procedures.

And these are not limited to Medicare, but can occur to any insurance provider.

Im not even sure half of that can occur here. I mean doctors are limited to x number of patients per day to avoid 2 minute script doctors that try to stuff as many as possible in a day. Its meant to ensure people have a 15 minute window with a doctor. Some doctors still rush through people to go home early but overall its hard for them to fake the number of people they saw. As for costs, everything is a contract rate and expensive and complicated procedures are usually refereed to a specialist or hospital to be performed so the billing code thing wouldn't work in a lot of situations here either. Diagnostics, and blood tests and other tests are refereed to testing companies and are not performed at the GP's either. There is fraud in our system, but it is harder to get away with it.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Athens 

No system is immune to corrupt doctors. Medicare or Blu-cross, a corrupt doctor billing fraudulently happens in all systems. Thats a poor example of fraud because its not specific to Medicare or Medicad.

BCBS has a profit motive to investigate and reduce billing fraud. No government bureaucrat's paycheck depends on finding and stomping out fraud, they can just soak the taxpayers until it becomes a political issue.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by mduell 

BCBS has a profit motive to investigate and reduce billing fraud. No government bureaucrat's paycheck depends on finding and stomping out fraud, they can just soak the taxpayers until it becomes a political issue.

Seems like there are plenty of "government bureaucrats whose paycheck depends on finding and stomping out fraud" seeing as how it's in their job description. An entire departmental office of them in fact.

Office of Inspector General | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Now one can quibble about how effective they are. However, one can't claim they don't exist. I'm just saying ...

OAW

[mattyb]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

New life plan:

1: Setup up US - based medical insurance Company;
2: Sell cheapest policies across the board. Undercut everyone else;
3: Refuse to pay for any treatment ever using the argument that since we are all "dying from the moment we are born" that 'life is a pre-existing medical condition';
4: Buy a yacht STAFFED BY playboy bunnIES.

Corrected that for you mate.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by mduell 

BCBS has a profit motive to investigate and reduce billing fraud. No government bureaucrat's paycheck depends on finding and stomping out fraud, they can just soak the taxpayers until it becomes a political issue.

There's are departments dedicated to investigating Medicare fraud.

Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT)

Welcome to the United States Department of Justice

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...-false-billing

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

In the US, Death Panels are the health insurance companies.

Hospitals jack up the price of everything by about 500% to 1000%, so if you don't have health insurance, you are getting raped by price gouging with 'cash-in-hand'.

A pillow cost you $200. One night stay is $3000. Of course they'll negotiate it down to $300 if you don't have the 'cash-in-hand' because their prices are highly inflated.

Health insurance is just a protection against those highly inflated prices. Health insurance say they'll pay for 90%. In reality, it just brings the cost down closer to the real cost.

Right. So, to summarize:
- Death panels in public health care = EVIL!1!!11!!!
- Death panels in private enterprise = $$$$$$$

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Is this a assumption or has obamacare actually have that documented.

Nope, there are some treatments that won't be covered regardless of how many doctors you go to. That's how it works RIGHT NOW for Medicare, Medicaid and all insurance companies. Doctors don't get to make the final decision on patient coverage, although they can recommend whatever treatment they want to. This is how ObamaCare will work too, except for the part where you complain loudly enough (and have a community march) and your outcomes get treated differently, just like in all other government contexts.

[Athens]

so since they all do the same thing why go after obamacare for something already in practice now anyways...

My issues with Obamacare has more to do with sustainability, it cant be sustained as a co cohabitation system with private insurance. Private insurance will cherry pick healthy people, state/government insurance will be stuck with the sickly or poor people. Insurance companies will continue to get insanely rich while the state/government run system will go very broke.