All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Real Opinions? Who Do You Vote For And Why?
11/2/2012 12:13 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/29/2012 4:44:00 PM (view original):
The bigger problem with healthcare is the cost and insurance coverage.   Obamacare doesn't really address that other than to say "This is what will be paid."   Doctors now have to decide the "write-off" as tec mention or to deny service to those whose insurance won't pay the desired price.   Therefore, those on medicaid and whatever abomination that is Obamacare will have less options.   Less options = longer waits and, quite possibly, less quality in care.
Do I?
I'm not arguing with you on any of those points.
11/2/2012 12:14 PM
Have you been unable to keep up?   If so, I'm back to this:  "You may be a wonderful insurance rep.  You fail miserably at reading comprehension and retention.   That makes me sad.  You either have a mental issue(like ADHD or autism) that you don't take care of or you're just kind of dumb.  I don't know which it is but it makes me sad."
11/2/2012 12:14 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):
The entire topic turned to Obamacare and it's coverage of everyone in the US. 

And I'm back to this: "No.  I theorized that mass health care would cause health care costs to go up because people would now make unnecessary visits because "I have insurance."   So maybe you've just been confused for the last few days."

I've never once argued that Obamacare is the way to go. Or that it's good.

My only argument is that we shouldn't raise copays to discourage people from seeking medical care for small problems.
11/2/2012 12:15 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/31/2012 2:28:00 PM (view original):
We know the benefit of going to the doctor.   The question is actually "Is a doctor's visit necessary?" and "How much will I pay for it if it isn't?"

Seriously, which word(s) am I using that confuses you?

I'll use smaller ones and spread them out.   

People....will....be....less....likely.....to....go.....to....the...doctor.....for.....nonsense......if.....it....costs.....them....a.....semi-significant......fee.
???
11/2/2012 12:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:01:00 PM (view original):
YOU ADMITTED YOU WORK FOR A ******* INSURANCE COMPANY! 

Don't you think your view might be a little skewed?
I run a brokerage. That's different. A medicare for all type bill would negatively affect revenue.
Wow, you really do filter everything through your little prism, don't you?   People in the insurance industry think EVERYONE needs insurance.  Just like when I went to a knee surgeon for a consultation for a torn meniscus.  You know what he recommended...?   SURGERY.

The fact is, insurance isn't the reason people don't get healthcare (until the last possible moment).  It's that they dont' ******* care... If they did, they wouldn't eat Big Macs and sodas and not exercise and not eat vegetables or fruits.  They wouldn't lay around watching Honey BooBoo instead of walking around the block or doing some calisthenics or getting some job training to make them employable.
11/2/2012 12:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/31/2012 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/31/2012 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/31/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):
I actually agree that regular check-ups are a good thing.    I'll try to be more clear.   

More people with insurance = more unnecessary visits to the doctor

Do you agree?
Do we need to start over at this point?
Sure.

More people having insurance will probably lead to some unnecessary doctors visits. But the benefit of more people having insurance and receiving preventative care and care for minor problems before they become major problems far outweighs the cost of the extra people who didn't have insurance before and now go to the doctor when they just have a cold.

Again, other than a yearly check up, there is no benefit to going to the doctor if you are healthy. You only go if you are sick or in pain. We want people to go when they are sick or in pain and we want people to go to the doctor if the cut on their hand needs stitches.
And this
11/2/2012 12:16 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:12:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/29/2012 4:44:00 PM (view original):
The bigger problem with healthcare is the cost and insurance coverage.   Obamacare doesn't really address that other than to say "This is what will be paid."   Doctors now have to decide the "write-off" as tec mention or to deny service to those whose insurance won't pay the desired price.   Therefore, those on medicaid and whatever abomination that is Obamacare will have less options.   Less options = longer waits and, quite possibly, less quality in care.
Do I?
I'm not arguing with you on any of those points.
Truthfully, you're not arguing with me at all.

You're looking at your insurance ledger that says "$800,000 for cancer treatment that MIGHT have been caught with a $100 check-up" and running with it.   IOW, you're not applying the real world to your numbers world. 
11/2/2012 12:17 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):
The entire topic turned to Obamacare and it's coverage of everyone in the US. 

And I'm back to this: "No.  I theorized that mass health care would cause health care costs to go up because people would now make unnecessary visits because "I have insurance."   So maybe you've just been confused for the last few days."

I've never once argued that Obamacare is the way to go. Or that it's good.

My only argument is that we shouldn't raise copays to discourage people from seeking medical care for small problems.
So you've been unable to keep up.   OK.   Fair enough.
11/2/2012 12:17 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 10/31/2012 5:58:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/31/2012 5:36:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 10/31/2012 5:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/31/2012 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 10/31/2012 12:18:00 PM (view original):
I actually agree that regular check-ups are a good thing.    I'll try to be more clear.   

More people with insurance = more unnecessary visits to the doctor

Do you agree?
Do we need to start over at this point?
Sure.

More people having insurance will probably lead to some unnecessary doctors visits. But the benefit of more people having insurance and receiving preventative care and care for minor problems before they become major problems far outweighs the cost of the extra people who didn't have insurance before and now go to the doctor when they just have a cold.

Again, other than a yearly check up, there is no benefit to going to the doctor if you are healthy. You only go if you are sick or in pain. We want people to go when they are sick or in pain and we want people to go to the doctor if the cut on their hand needs stitches.
Yet people do it now.  They go because they can. 

Man:  "My back is hurting a little.   Gonna go to the doc to make sure I didn't do something when I was raking the yard."  

Doc:  "Yeah, you're 50 and you worked in the yard for 6 hours.   Stop and buy some Icy Hot on the way home."

Doesn't happen if sore back cost $125.   Man waits a couple of days and figures it out.

Multiply that by hundreds of thousands and you'll see why insurance goes up and quality of healthcare goes down.

We're still going in circles as you pull things out of your ***.

Yes, that happens. People go to the doctor when they have a cold. When they hurt their back. When their foot hurts.

But that $150 or $300 or $450 dollar visit is not what drives premiums up. Those are drops in the bucket compared to premiums collected for those people. What drives rates up are the people that don't go to the doctor for ten years and then get diabetes. Or have a stroke or a heart attack or get diagnosed with stage four cancer. Those bills end up costing insurance companies hundreds of thousands of dollars each at a minimum.

Increasing copays to $125 (or whatever) will only cause more people to skip the doctor more often and has a negative effect.

I'm starting to feel sorry for you.
And this
11/2/2012 12:18 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:17:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/2/2012 12:13:00 PM (view original):
The entire topic turned to Obamacare and it's coverage of everyone in the US. 

And I'm back to this: "No.  I theorized that mass health care would cause health care costs to go up because people would now make unnecessary visits because "I have insurance."   So maybe you've just been confused for the last few days."

I've never once argued that Obamacare is the way to go. Or that it's good.

My only argument is that we shouldn't raise copays to discourage people from seeking medical care for small problems.
So you've been unable to keep up.   OK.   Fair enough.

Just this.

11/2/2012 12:19 PM
You're off the rails.

Your exact argument was that people going to the doctor for small problems is the problem with health care.
11/2/2012 12:20 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:01:00 PM (view original):
YOU ADMITTED YOU WORK FOR A ******* INSURANCE COMPANY! 

Don't you think your view might be a little skewed?
I run a brokerage. That's different. A medicare for all type bill would negatively affect revenue.
I just read this more closely.  You're actually more wrong than I originally thought.

ObamaCare wouldn't negatively affect revenue at all.  It would increase revenue up to your capacity to serve.  However, it would affect MARGIN. 
11/2/2012 12:22 PM
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:20:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Posted by toddcommish on 11/2/2012 12:01:00 PM (view original):
YOU ADMITTED YOU WORK FOR A ******* INSURANCE COMPANY! 

Don't you think your view might be a little skewed?
I run a brokerage. That's different. A medicare for all type bill would negatively affect revenue.
I just read this more closely.  You're actually more wrong than I originally thought.

ObamaCare wouldn't negatively affect revenue at all.  It would increase revenue up to your capacity to serve.  However, it would affect MARGIN. 
Obamacare is not a medicare for all program.

Everyone has to buy insurance privately. That would be good, but the thought is that people and companies will skip it and pay the fine instead. Or reclassify employees to part time. That's bad for revenue.

Medicare for all would eliminate (or reduce) private insurance. That would be bad for me.
11/2/2012 12:22 PM
Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2012 12:19:00 PM (view original):
You're off the rails.

Your exact argument was that people going to the doctor for small problems is the problem with health care.
WOW.

A sudden influx of insurance-covered population would lead to a brand new problem with health care(the one you just mentioned that I inferred).  Know what would cause a sudden influx of insurance-covered population?  Obamacare.

Just wow.
11/2/2012 12:25 PM
You really haven't been able to piece together seperate posts have you?  

That makes me sad.
of 18
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > Real Opinions? Who Do You Vote For And Why?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.