- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question about our debt ?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:33 pm to BamaAtl
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:33 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
This isn't an answer.
Yes it is. It's not difficult. If you can't afford something, make more or spend less.
quote:
It's also not an option for people with pre-existing conditions without the ACA's protections.
In a majority of states, it was.
1
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:33 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
That's a smaller number than if it were repealed
possibly, but it's also a demographic who is making many more "good" choices
many bad decision makers are being rewarded at the expense of many good decision makers
how is that rational?
quote:
Let's tweak it to reduce this number
impossible. that money has to come from somewhere and the policy has to be uniform
plus, i don't want to steal from somebody else to benefit me b/c that's immoral
quote:
Yes and no. We know high risk pools don't work.
i wouldn't have minded if we just extended Medicaid to these people if they couldn't secure insurance
but i also wish that we eliminated regulations on HCPs when they accept Medicaid or Medicare
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:34 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Nobody makes those decisions now due to EMTALA.
bullshite. The federal government made it an absolute decision when they passed the law.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:34 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
What if they were born with the condition, and wanted to start a business, and no insurance company would offer them a policy? Should someone born with a genetic defect be barred from being an entrepreneur in this country?
i'm perfectly willing to discuss PECs but they don't really apply to the "ER scenario"
i already said earlier in this thread i'm willing to discuss PECs as an individual issue
what this discussion tree was discussing was ER abuse, which is another issue
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:35 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
If you can't afford something, make more or spend less.
If you're unable to make more because illness prevents you from the necessary training/education, and the cost is prohibitive to the point that spending less won't allow you to purchase it...die in the streets?
quote:
In a majority of states, it was.
Quite the opposite. The huge waiting lists for high risk pools made them inaccessible and unworkable for the vast majority of individuals who needed their assistance.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:36 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Nobody makes those decisions now due to EMTALA.
that law means that fedgov is making that decision via the law
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
In the context of repealing the ACA or an alternative to it, even discussing ER visits involves PECs. It's all inextricably tied together, because if someone with a PEC without insurance comes to the ER (regardless of the reason), someone has to pay.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:39 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
illness prevents you
If only we previously had a way to handle this...
quote:
Quite the opposite.
Link?
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that law means that fedgov is making that decision via the law
Under the assumption that being told to treat everyone who needs emergent care wasn't a decision, but point taken.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:41 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
If only we previously had a way to handle this...
We didn't...not everyone with a PEC qualifies for SSDI (or should).
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:41 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
In the context of repealing the ACA or an alternative to it, even discussing ER visits involves PECs
repealing the ACA has nothing to do with reducing regulations on ERs and you know that
i know you get off on trying to be technical with your poster of average intelligence on here, but that slight of hand won't work on me
quote:
because if someone with a PEC without insurance comes to the ER (regardless of the reason), someone has to pay.
and i said that i'm willing to discuss PECs apart from anything else in the ACA, and that this shift to PECs as the only real argument for the ACA is kind of dishonest (Given the arguments at passage). PECs are a very small portion of the ACA. you claim to know the data, what are the estimates of persons with PEC who weren't insured prior to the ACA? i'm guessing less than 5M of the 20M that the law was written to help
so we have
1. ER discussion (EMTALA entirely)
2. PEC discussion (as a part of the ACA)
3. everything else from the ACA
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:42 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Under the assumption that being told to treat everyone who needs emergent care wasn't a decision
that is a decision
i'm not making a subjective valuation of the decisions being regulated, but it's still a decision
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:43 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
PEC
....
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and i said that i'm willing to discuss PECs apart from anything else in the ACA, and that this shift to PECs as the only real argument for the ACA is kind of dishonest (Given the arguments at passage).
Taking away PECs, how do we handle the 20M people who will unquestionably lose their insurance without a replacement plan ready to go? These are individuals who undoubtedly could not afford insurance pre-ACA, but now have it and are benefiting from it.
Additionally, are you willing to throw away the improvements wrought by the ACA that have nothing to do with payor mix and coverage limits? The reduction in HAIs and readmissions are real benefits, and are due to CMS reimbursement rules tied up in the ACA (and MACRA, which is a whole other issue tied to the ACA that Republicans haven't considered). How do we replicate these successes - which are unquestionably saving lives and money for the US health care industry - without regressing?
quote:
what are the estimates of persons with PEC who weren't insured prior to the ACA?
Last estimate I saw was that 1 in 4 Americans have a PEC that would make it difficult for them to get insurance on the individual market with ACA repeal. From December 2016 if I remember correctly. Of course, this number includes those on group plans and CMS plans, so it's not comprehensive...but this isn't some minuscule number that we're talking about.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:50 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:54 pm to BamaAtl
quote:
Taking away PECs, how do we handle the 20M people who will unquestionably lose their insurance without a replacement plan ready to go?
just so we're clear, you're saying those with PECs who will lose coverage is a small part of this 20M?
and to answer, it's a matter of personal budgeting in most cases. what is more important: cable or insurance? a cell phone or insurance? a high car note or insurance? 2 car noes or insurance?
quote:
How do we replicate these successes - which are unquestionably saving lives and money for the US health care industry - without regressing?
i would have to see the actual data to discuss this. i can't answer due to ignorance
quote:
Last estimate I saw was that 1 in 4 Americans have a PEC that would make it difficult for them to get insurance on the individual market with ACA repeal.
1 in 4 total americans? 80M people? that's 4x the # of people the ACA was supposed to save (20M)
quote:
Of course, this number includes those on group plans and CMS plans, so it's not comprehensive.
yeah that's why i asked about the #s of those who weren't insured
quote:
but this isn't some minuscule number that we're talking about.
the # of people who weren't insured b/c of a PEC is between 0 and 20M
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:55 pm to BamaAtl
An opinion piece from a liberal pro-ACA organization...
Come on.
Come on.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:56 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 1/15/17 at 6:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and to answer, it's a matter of personal budgeting in most cases. what is more important: cable or insurance? a cell phone or insurance? a high car note or insurance? 2 car noes or insurance?
I was saying ignoring the issue of PEC, 20M people will be without insurance in 2018 if repeal passes without a replacement. And we both know that it isn't a matter of budgeting - without subsidies for many people coverage is unaffordable regardless of the sacrifices they're willing to make.
quote:
1 in 4 total americans? 80M people? that's 4x the # of people the ACA was supposed to save (20M)
As I said, a number of those are already helped by plans that don't discriminate based on PEC (group plans from employers, Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, etc).
quote:
the # of people who weren't insured b/c of a PEC is between 0 and 20M
What # are you comfortable revoking insurance from with no alternative, just to repeal the ACA? For me, that number is zero.
Posted on 1/15/17 at 7:02 pm to BamaAtl
I wouldn't call it neutral, but it's slightly better.
Still nothing more than an opinion.
Still nothing more than an opinion.
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News