Check out some similar questions!

Catsmine · Mar 29, 2014, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by talaniman

So now tell me how YOU can afford any sickness, or injury that may befall your family during your life.

As I said before, Concierge service is on the rise. The doctor doesn't take ANY insurance, and only sees subscribing members. Everything done in the office is paid for by the monthly subscription. Lab tests and hospital stays are negotiated through the doctor on a cash basis, usually at about 30 - 45% of billed costs.

smearcase · Mar 29, 2014, 07:42 AM

What prevents the Dr. who only sees subscribing patients from giving less care to increase his profit or taken to the extreme, pull the plug on high cost patients? If the patient is paying 30-45%, who is absorbing the remaining cost?

talaniman · Mar 29, 2014, 07:48 AM

Originally Posted by Catsmine

As I said before, Concierge service is on the rise. The doctor doesn't take ANY insurance, and only sees subscribing members. Everything done in the office is paid for by the monthly subscription. Lab tests and hospital stays are negotiated through the doctor on a cash basis, usually at about 30 - 45% of billed costs.

Your choice of course, but I fail to see how it saves you money or eliminates the need for insurance. My own research indicates it could be quite costly. Clearly only the more well off can avail themselves of this option.

Concierge medicine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old link I know.

Other insurers do not oppose concierge medicine as long as patients are clearly informed that the fees will not be reimbursed by their health plan.

talaniman · Mar 29, 2014, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by smearcase

What prevents the Dr. who only sees subscribing patients from giving less care to increase his profit or taken to the extreme, pull the plug on high cost patients? If the patient is paying 30-45%, who is absorbing the remaining cost?

Depends on your private insurance policy, or you will pay if the insurance company doesn't, as an added cost not covered.

Catsmine · Mar 29, 2014, 08:53 AM

Originally Posted by smearcase

What prevents the Dr. who only sees subscribing patients from giving less care to increase his profit or taken to the extreme, pull the plug on high cost patients? If the patient is paying 30-45%, who is absorbing the remaining cost?

The insurance companies are the remaining cost. As far as less care for profits, those individuals prefer to work for the insurance companies, where care doesn't matter anyway.

smoothy · Mar 31, 2014, 06:42 PM

Obamacare Navigators Enrolling People at Mexican Consulate

Obamacare Navigators Enrolling People at Mexican Consulate | Right Wing News

smoothy · Apr 1, 2014, 05:46 AM

HITLER FINDS OUT ABOUT HIS OBAMACARE... somethng a bit on the light hearted side.
http://safeshare.tv/w/jyeqLxShwx

tomder55 · Apr 1, 2014, 02:27 PM

7.1 million people signed up for Obamacare ..........APRIL FOOLS !!

talaniman · Apr 1, 2014, 03:26 PM

What will the excuse be tomorrow?

speechlesstx · Apr 1, 2014, 05:10 PM

According to Jonah Goldberg we have 50 million uninsured today when we only had 30 million uninsured to cover under Obamacare. So what exactly was the gain here? Math isn't this regime's specialty, all those jobs "saved or created," GM having paid back "every taxpayer dollar, " a constant adjusting down of the economic numbers every quarter, that mythical $2500 every family was going to save, the promises of keeping your insurance and doctors and every other fudged number they've given us, what exactly did we gain and why should we believe anything from this regime?

tomder55 · Apr 12, 2014, 10:50 AM

Kathleen Sebelius resigned this week . The emperor said "Heck of a job ! " .

Replacing her will be Sylvia Burwell (safe to assume she will survive confirmation since Reid changed the rules ) ,who's notable achievement was shutting down the War memorials during the government shutdown. The emperor sure knows how to pick em. I wonder if she will bring her punitive ways with her when administering Obamacare ?

talaniman · Apr 12, 2014, 12:35 PM

Her last confirmation at OMB was 96-0. Before Reid changed the rules.

Sylvia Mathews Burwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On March 3, 2013, President Obama nominated Burwell to head the White House Office of Management and Budget.^{[SIZE=3][[/SIZE][SIZE=3]13[/SIZE][SIZE=3]][/SIZE]} On April 24, the U.S. Senate confirmed Burwell to be the head of the OMB in a 96-0 vote.^{[SIZE=3][[/SIZE][SIZE=3]14[/SIZE][SIZE=3]][/SIZE]}

9 Things You Might Not Know About HHS Nominee Sylvia Burwell - ABC News

tomder55 · Apr 13, 2014, 02:27 AM

yeah well the head of HHS will have some 'splainin' to do . I for one would do everything to hold up her appointment until the emperor sends detailed breakdown of the 7 million people who signed up for Obamacare on the exchanges. I am curious about how many of them did not have coverage before their policies were cancelled under the new rules. Guessing less than a million Americans are newly insured.

The only person who has been honest about Obamacare's intent has been Zeke Emanuel. The real bombshell will come when the employer mandate kicks in and according to Emanuel ,most employers will abandon health coverage by 2025.

Catsmine · Apr 13, 2014, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

most employers will abandon health coverage by 2025.

Setting the stage for the Progressive dream of Single Payer Control

NeedKarma · Apr 13, 2014, 03:47 AM

Single Payer

You mean what the rest of the industrialized world is doing?

Catsmine · Apr 13, 2014, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You mean what the rest of the industrialized world is doing?

Just as Lenin instructed.

NeedKarma · Apr 13, 2014, 05:36 AM

Haha, a true sign of ignorance.

paraclete · Apr 13, 2014, 02:28 PM

well if you want ignorance it has been clearly demonstrated in this implementation

NeedKarma · Apr 13, 2014, 03:12 PM

True. They'll never get it together. It'll always be a playground for the wealthy and the righties here are their lapdogs.

paraclete · Apr 13, 2014, 05:22 PM

Yes do you think Pol Pot might have been right afterall?