by Pops » Fri 06 Aug 2010, 17:33:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('basil_hayden', 'A')s far as I understand, it's not "instead of", it will be "in addition to".
It's irrelevant as to where one goes to receive treatment.
It's just another "revenue stream" for our tax and spend government.
We don't need another hand in our wallets. It's already being covered.
The point I'm making is the same one you made, it's cheaper to go to the GP than the ER.
The uninsured now are going to the ER
($986 avg) because they don't have the $80 for a visit to the GP. Give them an insurance card to go to the GP and you save yourself $906.
Figure in 25% overhead for government dope and party-girls and 25% for our good friends in the insurance industry and you still are saving over $400 just for that one earache. Throw in some blood pressure meds to combat the heart attack diet many poor people live on and you could save some real money.
I know it's not that simple and lots of people are steamed about the law, I agree it is a stupid half-assed, muddled-up law. It's so complicated it's easy to gripe about even though it will never affect how most people get treated. As far as throwing away money and changing lives, it's not nearly as harmful as the Iraq war and the tax givaways to the rich and granting free speech rights to corporations from the last administration that the same folks doing all the yelling now sat through.
My opinion anyway...
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)