Generally speaking ,doctors evaluate, diagnose and prescribe.
Most treatment in modern medicine comes in the form of drugs which is most often entirely separate. Free clinics can have samples of some medications sometimes. Generally the actual treatment is well below the standard of care.
When Obamacare was under active consideration, it came to light that the vast majority of Americans who had no insurance and were not already covered by medicaid were in their 20s and, statistically speaking, would get their iwn coverage within a few years.
Opponents of huge expansionist nanny-care government thus suggested that
if Obamacare really were about providing coverage for the uninsured then a simple medicaid expansion would do.
Instead, Obamacare was (and is) an overly broad too-to-bottom rewrite of what kind of coverage are allowed to have.
People against ACA will tell you being insured under ACA is not better than being uninsured. Itâs mind boggling to normal people, but that is exactly what they believe. Theyâd also rather have cheap policies which donât cover anything. To each his own I guess.
The ACA goes far far beyond providing insurance to the uninsured.
It requires that young be grouped witj old and that the young pay a surcharge so the old can get a discount.
It requires that people who are already insured, or covered by HMOs switch to insurance based plans that covet pre-existing conditions, even if they have been covered for decades and have no pre-existing conditions.
It prohibitdms people from getting insurance through their school, theur churcg, their hiking club, etc. and requires they get it through their employers.
It requires that all plans cover every sniffle and rash at 80%, cover Viagara at 80%, cover drug rehab ay 80% even if a person would rather have a cheaper an that does not cover such things.
etc. etc. etc.
If all it did were too provide insurance to the uninsured it would be just one of many items in the rifle sites of conservatives. Instead it is a massive plan making massive changes to the insurance and HMO plans people already have.
red states may choose plans similar to blue states. You donât understand. Its not that an Obamacare-like plan at the state level is inherently bad. Itâs inherently bad at the federal level though. It is an overreach of federal power.
They donât even want to pay their teachers a proper salary and you think they are going to willingly subsidize health insurance costs for those with a low income! They also donât have enough tax revenue coming in to pay for it because they donât tax their citizens enough.
My H was at a conference a few weeks back with people from Divisions of Budgets from all over the country. The red state people were telling everyone how jealous they were of states with massive revenues to work with and how frustrating it is to not have the money to do anything.
They wonât do squat - but itâs ok with me if people in red states want to live like they are in a third world country
Thereâs a theory on that. By finding the Obamacare law âshared responsibility paymentâ Unconstitutional, other mandated government programs we pay for would also be Unconstitutional as well as the government collecting taxes from us for same. Rock and a hard place, in other words.
I donât know how you got that from what I posted, but you are certainly free to believe red states will enact ACA on a state level. Nothing I know of points to those states doing anything to help people pay for insurance who donât have coverage from their employers. Care to share what they will do and how they will pay for it?
And Iâm done asking you to. Itâs obvious the blue states will do what we feel best for us for all of our citizens and red states wonât. So enjoy living where you do and Iâll enjoy living where I do.