Swing States poll: Women push Romney into lead

PrintSmith...you and I apparently have very different friends...most everyone I know does take advantage of preventative services covered by insurance. Make an appointment for an annual physical and you will quickly find out how popular they are. Schedule a colonoscopy, you will find them booked out for weeks. Many people DO avail themselves of these services. You don't,I get that. But your intent to prevent others from getting what you don't want is troubling.

Archer, why not have both choices? Why can't I choose a more affordable HDP with a HSA "insurance" and you can have the full blown pre-paid HMO plan with all inclusive Heath care and no co-pays. I just want pure high expense insurance, and I'll pay cash for everything else. Why the mandatory one-size fits all plan?

Why do you think all that won't be available?

Pretty sure most women swingers are democrats.

archer wrote: Heisenberg, most colonoscopies, when covered by insurance are less than $1000 to the ins company. When a person pays out of pocket because they have no insurance...or insurance won't cover it...they are about $2000, or were then. For me, I had to have it done in a hospital, under general anesthesia, with an anesthesiologist present and an assistant to the doctor because a particular condition made it a high risk procedure for me. But even $2000 is enough to convince people not to have it done without insurance,

$2000 is still ridiculous and that cost is what needs to be addressed first. Building a massive government involved program without addressing the costs of health care is foolish, but not a surprise when clueless people with no accountability for the bottom line are writting the bill.

archer wrote: PrintSmith...you and I apparently have very different friends...most everyone I know does take advantage of preventative services covered by insurance. Make an appointment for an annual physical and you will quickly find out how popular they are. Schedule a colonoscopy, you will find them booked out for weeks. Many people DO avail themselves of these services. You don't,I get that. But your intent to prevent others from getting what you don't want is troubling.

I don't seek to prevent anyone from getting anything archer, I simply object to being taxed by the level of government which is least accountable to me and over which I have the least say in order to provide it for others who for whatever reason are incapable, or unwilling, to provide it for themselves. To date I have never been unable to arrange a same day visit with a doctor when I thought it necessary to visit with one regardless of whether that doctor was practicing locally or a member of the large HMO that I am currently insured through. Perhaps the lead time necessary for routine care is longer when the appointment is scheduled simply because it is time for one's annual physical and the doctor only schedules a limited amount of them per day in order to ensure that those who need to see them, as opposed to those who simply wish to see them, are seen when they need to be seen. The same could easily be true for those scheduling a colonoscopy for no other reason than they have reached a given milestone with regards to their age.

archer wrote: Why do you think all that won't be available?

The ACA ensures that it won't. Once fully implemented I will be unable to purchase a lower cost plan with a contractual maximum benefit. Neither will I be able to obtain a plan which allows me to pay for all of my routine care out of pocket. Every policy will by law be required to provide a yearly exam paid for 100% by the insurance company, the cost of which, plus profit of course, will be added to the cost of my policy regardless of whether or not I actually receive that yearly exam.

There are additional mandates that similarly drive up the cost of my insurance even more. But not to worry, as long as I agree to be taxed by the insurance company to be in compliance with the dictates of the federal government I will be eligible for public subsidy of the cost of the insurance policy provided my income falls below a set multiple of the officially declared poverty level. We'll overlook that I will be taxed more, or the federal government will accrue more charges on the national credit card, in order to ensure that those who qualify for having their premiums subsidized by everyone else will recieve their charity subsidy.

That is correct PS, my current individual insurance plan I have had for 10 years does not even come close to the mandated EHB "essential health benefits" coverages required under the Obama/Sebelius ACA mandate. EHB covers far more than "insurance" and is modeled after workplace style plans, which are great if your employer is paying for it.

This news article covers a study which questions the benefits of systematic annual health checks. For whatever it is worth. I'm not against preventative care and screenings, just how to pay for it and who decides. And it absolutely is not "insurance"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19964600

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7968734.stm

PS- you might as well go in and get all these tests that are paid 100%. No matter if you feel great- or not.

I know that's exactly what I'm going to do- I'm going to get every "free" test that they offer. If everyone does this- the doctors office will be booked up for months, and the costs will skyrocket, but hey- "free" is "free". It won't be long before they change the "rules", so get it while it's still "free".

Thanks for the links LOL.

In another time I was married to a very loving caring doc who volunteered in 3rd world countries. Getting the basics there was unheard of. In the USA it is overprescribed.

My own personal opinion, stay away from all of it unless you really need it. All those unnecessary CAT scans, MRI's, Mammograms etc. build up and are lethal. But then maybe that is the plan to remove a few from the gene pool?