ObamaCare, cutting through the politics.....

reply to post by Tardacus


That's not my understanding of it. They will be covered even though they only pay via the "fine" via the IRS.

I may be wrong, but that's the way I've heard this will come down.

Anyone know for sure??

reply to post by nwtrucker


Actually, it WAS Kaiser behind it and it was the specific practice by insurance companies that was outlawed because it was endangering lives. To cut down on the number of c-sections, Kaiser Permanente basically changed the pay scale for their doctors as being "incentive based". If you went over X number of C-sections in the month, you'd lose a portion of your pay and your practice would come under review. Believe it or not, I actually held a great deal of sympathy for many of the doctors under the Kaiser banner because they were honest with me. They'd want to run tests, request them from Kaiser, only to have them denied and their ability to properly care for me diminished. Happened over and over again. This happened to me. As the victim in this affair who pursued the matter, I know pretty darn well who was ultimately behind it. It didn't happen to you.

reply to post by WhiteAlice



From the doctors to the call centers:
www.sfgate.com...
usatoday30.usatoday.com...
www.consumerwatchdog.org...

reply to post by WhiteAlice


Now, at best, you confuse me and at worst, I begin to doubt your story.

Your first post states, the doctors were paid a "bonus".

Your second states 8 doctors refused to do a "C-section" and every one of them "lost their licenses".

In your third, your sympathetic to the doctors after stating in your second post, that you made sure that every one of them was taken to task.

They wouldn't have lost their licenses if they hadn't done anything wrong. Kaiser, whatever their culpability, would have taken the hit, not them if it was their decision rather than the doctors.

The probable reason Kaiser even set up that kind of incentive was, at a guess, far easier and faster to C-section a delivery than wait and tie up an O.R. and staff for hours of natural labor. Not to mention they could charge the Insurance company more for the C-section.

Questionable ethics exist everywhere, not just the medical industry. If you think who runs it will change human nature, you are mistaken.

It is one good reason to have a choice...freedom to select who and what is done, by YOU, not a gov't panel sitting at a desk looking at the numbers.

Yes, that's what Kaiser did as well. BUT, Kaiser has to modify their decision process with the fact that people can opt out of their program and go elsewhere.

Not so with ACA. At least much less so.

Again, the constraints will be worse with gov't dictating the restrictions, not better.