To Oluseyi: I appreciate your time to counter

I understand some of your points (I'm sure from reading the bill you can understand it's quite daunting), but many of the problems arise in that the bill, like any bill, may not explicitly define itself, but the meanings are in there.

1.) Do you think that illegal immigrants are going to be excluded? How will they do that? Certainly someone in this country that does not pay taxes shouldn't be allowed healthcare coverage.


2.) Regarding physicians all being paid the same:

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate
established under section 223

PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED
PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree not
to impose charges (in relation to the payment
rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C)

So all physicians that participate will be affected by this.


3.) Your comparison of a company that contributes to the private healthcare that THEY provide to THEIR employees to a company being TAXED for not participating in the public option really doesn't make any sense.

Democrats read the bill explicitly, trusting in their party and the government to make sound decisions for their health and well-being.

Republicans read the bill implicitly, noticing that the bill gives the government more control over their health and well-being.

That seems to be the central debate. I don't think it's fair to call Republicans (not all of them at least) "fear-mongers" for reading the bill this way, it's just a fundamental difference in trusting the government.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
2.) Regarding physicians all being paid the same:

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate
established under section 223

PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED
PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree not
to impose charges (in relation to the payment
rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C)

So all physicians that participate will be affected by this.

People will have to accept certain amounts for payment, AFTER they've explicitly agreed to accept payments on that basis for the year?!!

OH THE HORROR!

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
2.) Regarding physicians all being paid the same:

(A) PREFERRED PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree to accept the payment rate
established under section 223

PARTICIPATING, NON-PREFERRED
PHYSICIANS.—Those physicians who agree not
to impose charges (in relation to the payment
rate described in section 223 for such physicians) that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C)

So all physicians that participate will be affected by this.

People will have to accept certain amounts for payment, AFTER they've agreed to accept payments on that basis for the year?!! OH THE HORROR!

Think of it this way. If you're a physician and this bill went into effect, you either agree to the payment terms, or you become a "non-preferred" "non-participating" physician. Which sounds better to you? Stuck between a rock and a hard place

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Think of it this way. If you're a physician and this bill went into effect, you either agree to the payment terms, or you become a "non-preferred" "non-participating" physician. Which sounds better to you? Stuck between a rock and a hard place

Golly gee whiz.... silly government having those "non-preferred providers" instead of "OUT-OF-NETWORK providers" LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN IN THE WORLD HAS. Damn them! DAMN THOSE COMMIE BASTARDS ALL TO HELL.








I'll say again...

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
the author of the list has little understanding of insurance.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on August 9, 2009 11:04:22 PM]

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Think of it this way. If you're a physician and this bill went into effect, you either agree to the payment terms, or you become a "non-preferred" "non-participating" physician. Which sounds better to you? Stuck between a rock and a hard place

Golly gee whiz.... silly government going around using "non-preferred" instead of "OUT-OF-NETWORK" LIKE JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER INSURANCE PLAN IN THE WORLD DOES.



I'll say again...

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
the author of the list has little understanding of insurance.

Again though. The goal of the bill is to get public healthcare for everyone. Being "out of network" with the public plan would be idiotic.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Again though. The goal of the bill is to get public healthcare for everyone. Being "out of network" with the public plan would be idiotic.

No ... "idiotic" is this line of discussion you're trying to start up now. The goal of the public option is to give people an acceptable insurance alternative ... I'm pretty sure that even a high-schooler can tell that's an awfully different goal than "guaranteeing that a person will be able to force any healthcare agent in the country to render services to him."


You sit here complaining about your imagined doom wherein the government FORCES DOCTORS TO DO AS THEY SAY, and now that you've found out it's nothing like that, you're trying to argue that it's "idiotic" to give the doctors the freedom to decide whether they should accept a patient's insurance or not? Wow....

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Again though. The goal of the bill is to get public healthcare for everyone. Being "out of network" with the public plan would be idiotic.

It works perfectly fine here in Australia. Not all doctors are available to people with only public health care. Some doctors work only in private health institutions (e.g. private hospitals) where they see only patients with private health insurance.

Other doctors work in private practices which don't do bulk billing (bulk billing is the system whereby you don't pay for vists to a GP). I'd say* about half of GPs do bulk billing, the other half do not (and for the ones that don't do it, if you go to visit them, you can take your bill to medicare and they'll reimburse you for some of the cost).

* That's just a guess, but I know in my area (relatively wealthy) there's only one or two GPs who actually do bulk billing. I'm sure in more working-class areas, there are more doctors who do bulk billing than not.

Oh, and just for full disclosure, I haven't read the bill (well, other than the bits that have been quoted here). I'm just trying to add a perspective from someone who lives in a hybrid public/private system...

^^

As an addendum, it works fine here in the United States, as well. Our government already offers an insurance plan that uses a system of participating providers. The 40 million customers of the insurance don't generally have trouble finding a doctor to accept the insurance.

Quote: Original post by Codeka

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Again though. The goal of the bill is to get public healthcare for everyone. Being "out of network" with the public plan would be idiotic.

It works perfectly fine here in Australia.

I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to this bill if I didn't think it would effectively run private insurance into the ground.

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to this bill if I didn't think it would effectively run private insurance into the ground.

As I've essentially said, from where I"m standing the greatest failing of all this is that the final bill won't run private insurance into the ground.