joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Available to some....because they are priced out of the American medical market ?
Shouldn't we address that ?
Of course, we should! Too bad no one in Washington DC has any idea how to actually lower the costs of care. The GOP's fall back is tort reform, which is usually reported as only increasing costs 2%. That's almost not even a fucking dent! The Democrat's have proven (through Obamacare) that they don't know how to lower the costs of procedures and services either.
It's a damn shame. It truly is.
This is going to sound confusing, but I'll try to make it painless to understand. The purpose of the ACA was not to lower the overall costs. Because it does lower overall costs. In effect, I just say to opposing ideas and said they are both true, right? And that cant be right, right?
Well...
What is the ACA exactly? From what I understand of the law, its basically a logistics engine. Before the ACA went into effect, the number and kinds of policies were so great, that the number of policies from different insurance companies....didnt....overlap. Courts had a bitch of a time determining how one plan stacked up with many others. At best one would say one plan was 'close' in somethings, but different in others (yet the court's focus during a case would be those polices that were similar or same, rather than different).
The ACA would create four types of policy levels. These levels left some room for insurance companies to 'jockey' for more market share. The plans at each level would require an amount ('X') be paid by the customer for a medical process. And require the company to pay another amount ('Y'). That 'X' and 'Y' may and may not be the same or near-equal values, depending on the four levels (Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum).
In additional, all the plans, regardless of cost, would cover a set of options deemed 'important'. These plans would be placed on a state exchange rather than a national exchange. This was figured (I'm speculating here), that the costs in New Hampshire would be different from Oklahoma. So the plan cost would be structured for each state individually. Now note, this is not a perfect system, and the bugs will always be worked out as time processes.
The ACA controls costs to a limited extent, and thereby, allows people to pay less for medical insurance. HOWEVER, inflation pushes up prices. Company decisions, promotions and hiring of people, equipment, and drugs; all can increase and at different levels.
Is there a safe way to reduce medical costs financially speaking? Not really. We'd have to create an economic depression that lasts for about ten years. I dont think....anyone...wants to go down that road. Because all things in the money market apparatus are really inner connected to each other. While I understand how it operates, I'm not entirely sure I could explain it to you over this medium. If we were sitting at a table together, I think I could explain. Would take me about a half hour to an hour. And maybe time after that attempting to answer the questions you would no doubtfully have.
When we talk about the medical industry, its really tied into so many other industries. Banking, finanical, defense, agriculture, energy, education, and research just to name a few. And that each of these have sub domains of sub domains from the main concepts. That one sub of a sub domain interacts directly and indirectly with another primary domain. Its really fascinating and confusing. You'd love it DS! That much I do know.
|
RE: Medical tourism....to Cuba - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread