Posted on 04/04/2006 12:51:34 PM PDT by SmithL
It sure does. Now I can't wait to get back out there for a vacation. LOL.
Those mountains go all the way to South American and the Pacific Ocean - Los Andes. Impressive, indeed.
Hope to see ya around. Have a great day.
Thanks -- it was great seeing you this evening!
It seems to me that for a long time anyway, MA was far in the lead as to "mandated benefits," esp. the most stupid ones! Is this still true, do you know?
I've also seen something recently about companies that don't provide health ins. offering group rates on an ins package that includes only the routine stuff practically anyone can afford -- just no coverage for serious stuff, which sounds backwards to me. But what do I know?
Is there anything at all out there to indicate that he is a conservative? (I'm in MA, and -- while I admit he's more moderate that the Dems, I haven't seen any real sign of conservativism. I also think he's spineless.)
Many of these companies would like to get out, but the cost is prohibitive (in order to leave, you have to pay a hefty fee into the state reinsurance pool). And, by the way, the reinsurance pool (CAR) just happens to be largely controlled by one company (Commerce) whose chairman is heavily connected ($$$) with the State Legislature.
Now, health insurance companies will soon be fleeing, as their costs escalate and their ability to control them evaporates. And as usual, they, not the government, will be blamed.
If I were governor of a south west state, I would meet the illegals and give them bus tickets to Boston, with brochures about health-care.
Not always. Medical professionals used to provide was is called professional courtesy to their colleagues and to those in need. My understanding is that is no longer possible. All patients must be billed. Whether the M.D. aggressively tries to collect is another story.
I was really referring to ethical freedom. But it's true that meddlesome regulations from the government and from insurance companies may interfere with the traditional and laudable practice of physicians freely choosnig to provide some care to people who can't pay. I don't know the details, but I think this is primarily due to government regulations surrounding Medicare/Medicaid, which often impose across the board regulation on doctors, even in their dealings with non-Medicare/Medicaid patients. As usual, the way to fix the problem is get to rid of government involvement (both direct, and through its regulation of insurance companies).
It is the inevitable conclusion of your statement that doctors have an ethical obligation to provide "life-saving" treatment without regard for ability to pay, and of your tacit endorsement of federal laws requiring the same.
Seems like a reasonable attempt at a solution. Even the poor will now have some sort of private (if subsidized) insurance, so they can go the family doctor for coughs colds and bumps and bruises instead of tying up emergency rooms for what should be just routine doctors visits... Which of course is the MOST expensive health care choice there is, but the only one that exists for the truly indigent.
I was briefly uninsured back in college... I was to old to continue on my mothers policy, and could not justify the outrageous cost of insurance as a full time student living on my own making around minimum wage and paying for college.
Fortunately I was relatively healthy, but anyway, I went to a doctor, and what normally would have been a $50 or $60 office visit plus a prescription for another $50... I got some free samples of what he was going to prescribe me, and he billed me $20 for the visit.
There was a time when the sliding scale was common place... the wealthy paid more, and the indigent and poor paid less for their medical care... Now a days if you tried that generally the rich would be suing you for gouging them...
The entire concept of a society and the responsibilities of excess wealth have been virtually destroyed.... and we as a nation are far far far worse off because of it.
That is the implication, yes, in life and death situations. Both ethical and legal obligation. No further comment from me.
I work for a large BCBS company. We have to buy our insurance like everyone else, and those of us with professional incomes pay more than those in the lower pay grades. There was no use fighting it and this change was presented as "fair". Imagine that, a product priced on a sliding scale that is based on your income. Same product, different price.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.