Enterprise Data Resources- Ecommerce Project Manager
-www.usedbarcode.net
Wrong. The money from the fines will go to the govt to pay for giving away health insurance to the poor, not private insurers. The govt may see a windfall from it but private insurers will only see increased rates for care.
Even if they were getting care previously, it was not to the same levels that would be provided by private insurers.
No reason to believe that will change in any significant way. See my next response for my reasoning.
As you already stated, most of the uninsured go to the ER. If those same people had insurance you assume they would be going to a primary care doc instead. Imagine just 10% of the currently uninsured go this route. That is another 3M patients wanting to see a doctor, but we already dont have enough primary care doctors in the US and the shortfall is growing every year.
http://depts.washington.edu/uwrhrc/u...ing_MDs_PB.pdf
This is from 2009, before Obamacare, and it was already a matter of concern. This paper deals with metro vs rural docs, but the info is just as relevant.
As for increased medicare and medicaid recipients, I can see them having a much harder time finding a doctor willing to take them.
http://www.actionnewsjax.com/content...b5M_DTlkw.cspx
Almost 9500 docs opted out of medicare in 2012.
This is something I didnt know and is actually quite scary. If true, the dems gave the federal govt the power to take away a docs ability to write a prescription.
Electronic records will save money but what will be the security cost? We already know there are elements within the govt that will abuse the public trust and give away confidential info for political purposes (See IRS). We also know HHS has failed every information security milestone and audit to date.
Preventive care saves money? Not so much.
Think preventive medicine will save money? Think again | Reuters
Oh and Blank, you need to call up Reuters and get this Journalist for breaking on their commandments by using a question mark in a title.
I simply dont see how you are coming to this conclusion.
Last edited by BanginJimmy; 08-29-2013 at 04:10 PM.
I never said it would go to the insurers. If the government using it to provide insurance to the poor, then they will not need to raise as much of it from taxes.
People may go more often if they have insurance but it can also lead to savings in the long run by finding problems sooner and by going to a GP instead of the ER.
Yes doctor shortages are a real problem. But is the solution to make sure we don't allow more people to see doctors or is to to train more doctors?
I can't say I have done all that much analysis personally on this. Of course it depends very much on how much security you think it requires. Plenty of room for debate on that alone.
Actually that article shows preventative care can save money. It says "Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings. Childhood immunizations, and probably some adult immunizations (such as for pneumonia and the flu), are cost-saving, found a 2009 analysis for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation." What they are saying is that not all things that are billed as "preventative care" save money. I agree and think we should stick to the ones that do save money.
You don't see how I came to the conclusion that health care costs will continue to rise? The reuters article you referenced shows how preventative medicine can save money.
So you agree this will cause rates to rise?
Who is preventing anyone from seeing a doc now? Absolutely no one. Its just a matter of paying for it.
HHS Inspector General: Obamacare Privacy Protections Way Behind Schedule; Rampant Violations Of Law Possible - Forbes
Dont forget the preceeding paragraph.
Who is most likely to use all these preventive services though? My guess would be those that already care and actively invest in their health. Reasoning tells me that those that dont take an active interest in their health, such as the obese and smokers, are more likely to have chronic illnesses and are less likely to seek preventive services. This will drasticly change the ratio of money saved vs money spent and use up all of that 2 cents per $100 spent.Originally Posted by article
I dont see how you are coming to the conclusion that some provisions will cut costs and offset some of the measures that raise costs. Its like you are saying I am saving money by buying a $15 item over a $10 item that does the same thing because I will get a .2% discount on the $15 item.
What about CNN? Their main headline on their site right now is, "Does Congress get a say in this?" and the article below it is titled, "REVENGE PORN: SHOULD IT BE ILLEGAL?", and then the other one in the main box that reads, "U.S. to go it alone after UK vote fails?" Are they "All clear." with their headlines?
LOLOL
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Assuming all 3 are editorials, since I didnt read them...
"Does Congress Get a Say In This?"
Answer: No, next...
"Revenge Porn: Should it be illegal?"
Answer: No. Next....
"U.S. to go it alone after UK vote fails?"
Answer: No. Next....
Did you miss the headline he was pointing out?
"Think Preventative Medicine Will Save Money?.....
[Answer in the headline]: Think again"
I don't see how you're pointing out an inconsistency here. Just trying to find an exception to the rule to disprove the whole thing?
You know what they say about assumptions.....
The answer to the first one is not "No". If you looked closer, it actually is, "How much say will Congress have on Syrian chemical weapons response?" - as in they don't know yet. Congress wants a voice on Syrian chemical weapons response - CNN.com
The answer to the second one is not "No" either. California is looking to make it illegal, and the article states it so.
The answer to the third ones is not "No" - again, you fail (3 strikes you're out). An official has already stated that the US is looking at unilateral action against Syria. You shouldn't have assumed "No".
I've already shown that your "journalism rule" was not true. It's only a "journalism rule" in your own mind.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
The question in the headline was not "How much say will Congress have on Syrian chemical weapons response?"
Good try
The question in the headline was not "Is California Looking To Make Revenge Porn Illegal?"The answer to the second one is not "No" either. California is looking to make it illegal, and the article states it so.
Are you just trolling, are you changing the headlines as you go along to try to prove me wrong or what? You're not to good at this....
You failed at this. Sorry.The answer to the third ones is not "No" - again, you fail (3 strikes you're out). An official has already stated that the US is looking at unilateral action against Syria. You shouldn't have assumed "No".
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Really? I happened to save the screenshots - just because I knew that you would set yourself up for it.
All of those headlines are right there.
These guys don't know what they are doing though right?
How many journalism awards did your high school teacher win, and how many years did he/she spend writing as a copy editor for major news outlets?
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Ok. So you require further explanation of the guideline. I will help you. I'm not at a desktop, so my clicks result in something completely different, so we'll go off your screenshots. Thank you for taking them.
Is this the headline you're asking about?
1.
Or is this the headline you're asking about?
2.
It would seem to me that #2 is the actual headline. From what I can see, the headline doesn't appear to be a yes or no question. And from what I can sew, it doesn't appear to be an editorial.
#1 also appears to be a headline to another story as well. "Does congress have a say in this? Lawmakers...."
Are we still on track here?
We are way off track from the original subject - no disagreement from me on that.
"Does Congress get a say in this?" in the first screenshot links to the article in screenshot #2.
The other titles that have "?" link to different articles, not the one in screenshot #2. I figured that should have been obvious to you.
Your statement previously was that a question mark should never be used in a headline, correct?
Are you saying that only applies to editorials now?
If so, what do you make of these editorials on major news outlets? Do you think that you know more than these professional copy editors do concerning their own jobs?
Last edited by David88vert; 08-30-2013 at 05:13 PM.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Yes I agree.
I didn't say anyone is prevented from seeing a doc. I am saying if we have a shortage of doctors, that's not a problem with Obamacare, that is a problem of needing to train more doctors.
I didn't. The preceeding paragraph supports my point. Preventative care done right will save money. Huge piles of money? No, but savings non the less.
I think what you are saying is that the savings will be less than expected if preventative services are offered but I don't see how offering them will result in a negative savings. Immunizations aren't just for people who are otherwise unhealthy. They are important for the most physically fit/healthy people too.
Except I never said the savings will equal the extra expenses. See my response to the first quote above.