If you make an arrangement up front, a lot of doctors will take their lowest contract price for cash patients.Originally Posted by Saul Good
|
|
If you make an arrangement up front, a lot of doctors will take their lowest contract price for cash patients.
The following users like this post: Saul Good
http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/08/smal...html?hpt=hp_t2
As many doctors struggle to keep their practices financially sound, some are buckling under money woes and being pushed into bankruptcy.
It's a trend that's accelerated in recent years, industry experts say, with potentially serious consequences for doctors and patients. Some physicians are still able to keep practicing after bankruptcy, but for others, it's a career-ending event. And when a practice shuts its doors, patients can find it harder to get the health care they need nearby.
Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by physician practices spiked in March, noted Bobby Guy, co-chair of the American Bankruptcy Institute's health care committee. "Eight filings in three weeks is very unusual," said Guy.
I went there fully intending to read that article, but got distracted by the one about Jaime Pressly and Estella Warren.
The following users like this post: Saul Good
HHS To Shift $454 Million From Prevention Fund To Operate Exchanges
This is a title from an article you need to log in to see (which is why i didn't post the link) but seems pretty self explanatory. Already playing a shell game with our money and the exchanges aren't running yet. Not a good sign in my opinion
Baucus warns of 'huge train wreck' enacting ObamaCare provisions
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...#ixzz2QmHiUZiS
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
Is he not running for re election? I know his seat is up.
Last edited by KCRuf/Nek; 04-19-2013 at 01:21 AM.
Hey everyone, focus on the implementation issues. Not the bull **** law I helped author. What a dip****
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) — In a quest to save money, political leaders in Washington state are exploring a proposal that would shift some government workers out of their current health plans and onto the insurance exchange developed under President Barack Obama's health care law.
Lawmakers believe the change, which could affect thousands of part-time state employees and education workers, would save the state $120 million over the next two years. It would consequently push more health care costs onto the federal government because many of the low-income workers would likely qualify for federal subsidies.
Washington state appears to be the first major government to seriously explore the possibility of pushing public employees into the exchange, but it probably won't be the last. Rick Johnson, who advises state and local governments on health care policy at the New York-based consulting firm Segal Company, said he expects it will be an option some state and local governments will explore in the years to come.
"I can see that as one of the solutions out there," Johnson said.
A spokeswoman with the Department of Health and Human Services declined comment.
Because the federal law requires employers to provide coverage for those working at least 30 hours a week, states are exploring various ways to manage their part-time employees.
Virginia, for example, is requiring all part-time employees to work fewer than 30 hours, which will help the state avoid penalties for not providing health coverage. Florida is facing a potential $300 million penalty for not covering workers who are on duty 30 to 39 hours a week, so it's moving to extend coverage to those employees.
Washington state is in a less common situation because it already provides coverage for part-timers down to 20 hours a week.
The Washington proposal has been advanced as a way to help deal with a $1.2 billion budget shortfall. Under it, Washington state would make policy changes and secure agreements in which staffers who work between 20 and 30 hours a week would get extra compensation but lose their current health coverage. They would then be eligible to get health care in the federal plan, without any consequence for the state.
While Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern about the Washington state plan this year, it is drawing growing interest with a bipartisan group of political leaders in the state.
Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee, who supported the Obama health care law while in Congress, has reservations about the plan but also said federal rules don't dictate how employers and employees should handle insurance coverage. Inslee indicated that he may consider supporting the idea in the future.
"It's one of those ideas that's premature for us to launch this year, but I don't think we should take it off the table," Inslee said Tuesday.
Supporters of the plan say the proposal could help some part-time workers financially and could put them in a position to have better health care benefits. Lawmakers also see it as a boon for the state budget.
"I think it's a great way to fully take advantage of the Affordable Care Act," said Republican Sen. Andy Hill, one of the state's top budget writers.
K-12 workers would have to adopt new bargaining agreements to implement the change, although the state would help by offering sweeteners that would be equivalent to as much as a $2 per hour raise.
Rick Chisa, political director at the Public School Employees of Washington, said the union is open to shifting some workers to the exchange. But Chisa didn't feel that the current proposal — an inducement valued at perhaps $200 a month for someone working 25 hours a week — provided an adequate incentive, especially if it may be taxed as compensation.
He said the change might eventually make sense for cafeteria workers and teacher's ****istants who are on the low end of the pay spectrum. But union leaders also want to see what the insurance product will end up looking like in the exchange before making that move.
"We want to make sure that we're not selling workers short and being mesmerized by a shiny $2 bill," Chisa said. He said it was "very unlikely" for such a shift to happen this year.
The shift could be a problem particularly for part-time workers who have larger family incomes.
Steve Hodes, who works 24 hours a week doing policy work for the Washington state Employment Security Department, said he would not qualify for insurance subsidies because his wife makes a decent salary working as an attorney.
He suspects he and his family might be on the hook for thousands of dollars in new expenses if he was moved to the exchange, although solid numbers are elusive because the exchange has not started operating.
"They don't have a clue how much it is," said Hodes, 63.
Under the federal law, large employers who fail to provide coverage to full-time workers will face penalties, but they will not face penalties for not covering employees who work less than 30 hours a week. Thousands of part-time government employees in Washington state work between 20 and 30 hours a week and currently qualify for state medical coverage.
While few states are following Washington's path at the moment, there has been concern about how private employers will handle the new health care law and the possibility that some may shed insurance coverage. The owner of Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurants, for example, began experimenting last year with putting more workers on part-time status.
Virginia is doing something similar, with Republican Gov. Bob McDonnell directing that all part-time state employees work less than 29 hours weekly. That is creating a financially crippling problem for many of Virginia's 9,100 adjunct faculty members at the state's 23 community colleges on 40 campuses statewide.
"I've never anticipated getting rich off being a teacher," said J. Gabriel Scala, an adjunct English professor at J. Sargeant Reynolds Community College in Richmond.
"But the rent has to be paid. And I have to eat. And gas has to be put in the car — and $17,000 a year isn't going to do it," she added.
Obamacare, so good for everybody, except Congress and their aides.
Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption
Wasn't the rhetoric that Obamacare was the same thing Congress was getting?
That was one of the many lies. I'm thinking Harry Reid doesn't get his MRIs DMV style.
No liberals even defending this terrible bill anymore...just nothing but quiet...
A growing portion is trying to do just that. Next year will tell us if enough want to.
Problem is they all ran on that in 2010 and immediately forgot about it.
They haven't forgotten. It simply cannot be done right now.
They have the House. They could defund it. Boehner would never allow it. They needed to vote his **** out of the leadership role. Hopefully come 2014 there will be more conservatives and they can do something.
There seems to not be enough money to pay for this black hole. I, for one, am stunned.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/2...-a-train-wreck
This train wreck is picking up speed its going to be a giant democrat made **** sandwich the whole nation will have to eat. Minus the rich and contributors to o.
Say goodbye to access. 10 doctors in the area just told me they are about to force their patients to pay a yearly fee just to have them as their doctor because regulations are so tight. Not to mention that OSU Medical Center is closer to collapse than ever before because Fallin isn't accepting the Obamacare bribe.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...der-obamacare/
Just more bad news on odumacare
Laugh or cry?
Labor Union: We Were Wrong, Please REPEAL Obamacare
http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/a...amacare-union/
Head Start. Not exactly a bunch of bitter clingers.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/06/he...ggest-problem/
The following users like this post: oucub23
So more than 25% of people expected to gain coverage will not? Hmmmmmm
CBO Cuts Estimate Of Americans Expected To Gain Coverage Under ACA
The Congressional Budget Office released a report on the Affordable Care Act Tuesday, which picked up a few national mentions for its reducing a previous estimate of how many Americans will gain insurance coverage under the law. The beltway publications which cover the report, however, note other key figures in the analysis. For its part, Bloomberg News(5/15, Wayne) reports that about 25 million uninsured Americans are expected to gain coverage under the Affordable Care Act, about 2 million less than the last estimate, according to the new CBO report
You guys worry too much. Everything will run smoothly once O-Care is in place, and the IRS is doing its usual non-partisan job to enforce it...
The following users like this post: ImTheDude
Another letter from a business owner to his employees regarding the reasons for the company's situation regarding providing health insurance and future options.
NOT another "I hate the president and his healthcare bill, so I'm canning your butts" letter. Long but worth taking the time to read:
http://reason.com/blog/2013/05/14/a-...lains-the-hard
This union must be racists. I mean now they are... Not before.
More rats jumping ship...
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/...ons-obamacare/
"It makes an untruth out of what the president said, that if you like your insurance, you could keep it," said Joe Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union. "That is not going to be true for millions of workers now."
"It's not favoritism. We want to be treated fairly," said Hansen, whose union has about 800,000 of its 1.3 million members covered under Taft-Hartley policies. "We would expect more help from this administration."
Kinsey Robinson, president of the United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers and Allied Workers, complained that labor's concerns over the health-care law "have not been addressed, or in some instances, totally ignored."
"In the rush to achieve its passage, many of the act's provisions weren't fully conceived, resulting in unintended consequences that are inconsistent with the promise that those who were satisfied with their employer-sponsored coverage could keep it," Robinson said.
Harold Schaitberger, president of the International ****ociation of Firefighters, said unions have been forceful in seeking solutions from the Obama administration, but none have been forthcoming.
I was just about to post this, Seems the gr**** might not be greener on the big government side of the fence
If only there had been someone pointing this out prior to the passage of this bill. I think we can all agree that this bill is another example of republican failure.
I'm sure that happened sometime during the full and bi partisan debate on it or maybe when it was transparently posted on the WH website. Oh, wait...
Someone? You mean the party of no? Remember that stupid **** rallying cry by the left when pubs wanted to work through the bill and not just p**** some stupid pos bill?
Where are all these defenders of the bill now?
Sent from my SCH-R530U using Tapatalk 2
But but.... Republican war on women?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
