Eradication of Obamacare

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The vast majority of preventative care that it provides is incredibly cheap and doesn't need to be free to the patient.
Which services and how much.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Well let's see...

Pap Smear $23
Yearly colon cancer DNA fecal card $26
PSA $11
Lipid Panel $7

What others should I price for you?

Is it weird that I read this like a Mastercard commercial?

Lipid Panel - $7
PSA - $11
Pap Smear - $23
Yearly colon cancer DNA fecal card - $26
Your health - Priceless.

There's somethings money can't buy. For everything else, there's Obamacare.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
Well let's see...

Pap Smear $23
Yearly colon cancer DNA fecal card $26
PSA $11
Lipid Panel $7

What others should I price for you?
These prices, which seem affordable to you, are not affordable to all Americans. Also, I am pretty sure that these are the costs of services with private insurance, and not without private insurance. Affording private insurance in this country is not reasonable for the majority of those living in poverty, so of course it makes sense for ObamaCare to offer these preventable services to poorer Americans.

Furthermore, there are other services involved such as counseling for HIV, mental health, etc. Those services are not at all cheap.
 
Last edited:
These prices, which seem affordable to you, are not affordable to all Americans. Also, I am pretty sure that these are the costs of services with private insurance, and not without private insurance. Affording private insurance in this country is not reasonable for the majority of those living in poverty, so of course it makes sense for ObamaCare to offer these preventable services to poorer Americans.

Furthermore, there are other services involved such as counseling for HIV, mental health, etc. Those services are not at all cheap.
Incorrect, those are the prices at my insurance-free practice.

And I'm sorry, if you can't afford a $23 pap smear every 3 years or a $26 colon cancer screening once/year then I don't know what to say. I mean, the colon test, PSA, and lipid panel together are $44. That's less than $4/month to pay for that.
 
Incorrect, those are the prices at my insurance-free practice.

And I'm sorry, if you can't afford a $23 pap smear every 3 years or a $26 colon cancer screening once/year then I don't know what to say. I mean, the colon test, PSA, and lipid panel together are $44. That's less than $4/month to pay for that.

Lol idk if they said that they couldn't afford it personally... but I agree, there is a subset of the population more willing to spend 23 dollars on cigz, beer, lottery tickets, etc... rather on a Pap smear.


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Incorrect, those are the prices at my insurance-free practice.

And I'm sorry, if you can't afford a $23 pap smear every 3 years or a $26 colon cancer screening once/year then I don't know what to say. I mean, the colon test, PSA, and lipid panel together are $44. That's less than $4/month to pay for that.
That's exactly right. This is at your practice, not all practices. According to my research, a pap smear can cost between 50-200 dollars without insurance. Also, I don't know how your practice goes about this, but you also have to consider the costs associated with being admitted to the clinic or practice. It's not solely the cost of the pap smear test, or any preventable service for that matter, that people without insurance have to deal with.

You also seem to lack insight into the financial burdens of poor people. A 23 dollar pap smear (which is a rare occurance according to my research) is not regarded as an important financial incentive for someone who is living paycheck to paycheck. They have other incentives, such as keeping their lights on, paying for rent, feeding their children, etc. Lower costs do not eliminate barriers to healthcare treatment, let alone preventable services.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Maybe it's time we consider switching to a single-payer system where the government provides basic healthcare coverage and people can purchase advanced insurance or pay for elective procedures

This is often talked about. But defining "basic coverage" is difficult. Does that include the newest chemo agents? Or insulin pumps? Or what about breast reconstructions after a mastectomy? Or drug rehab? And does it matter if you have tried drug rehab 10 times beforehand and it hasn't succeeded? Or liver transplants? Or what about single rooms in hospitals vs 8 people to a ward/room?

No matter where you draw the line, there's someone on the other side of that line who thinks that their issue is part of basic health care.
 
That's exactly right. This is at your practice, not all practices. According to my research, a pap smear can cost between 50-200 dollars without insurance. Also, I don't know how your practice goes about this, but you also have to consider the costs associated with being admitted to the clinic or practice. It's not solely the cost of the pap smear test, or any preventable service for that matter, that people without insurance have to deal with.

You also seem to lack insight into the financial burdens of poor people. A 23 dollar pap smear (which is a rare occurance according to my research) is not regarded as an important financial incentive for someone who is living paycheck to paycheck. They have other incentives, such as keeping their lights on, paying for rent, feeding their children, etc. Lower costs do not eliminate barriers to healthcare treatment, let alone preventable services.
So your research is obviously wrong since I offer it for less than $50 and I know of several practices that even have my prices beat.

You're correct, preventative services are not the only expense the poor have to deal with. But that's the part that got brought up in this thread about good things that the ACA did.

If you can't afford a $23 test once every 3 years, then you qualify for Medicaid. I know very few people, even in free market medicine, that advocate getting rid of Medicaid because there are folks who can't afford even incredible discounted prices.

But, if you can afford even a subsidized ACA plan then you can afford 99% of preventative care and even most primary care if you shop around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So your research is obviously wrong since I offer it for less than $50 and I know of several practices that even have my prices beat.

You're correct, preventative services are not the only expense the poor have to deal with. But that's the part that got brought up in this thread about good things that the ACA did.

If you can't afford a $23 test once every 3 years, then you qualify for Medicaid. I know very few people, even in free market medicine, that advocate getting rid of Medicaid because there are folks who can't afford even incredible discounted prices.

But, if you can afford even a subsidized ACA plan then you can afford 99% of preventative care and even most primary care if you shop around.
I don't see how my research could be wrong, especially compared to one who is posting anecdotal evidence, at best. Here is my source that suggests the prices of pap smears without insurance is between 50 and 200 dollars:

How Much Does a Pap Smear Cost Without Insurance?

Also, please be wary of the Federal Poverty Level guidelines that determine ones eligibility for Medicaid. The FPL was based on the amount of money that the average household spent on food, which was 1/3 of their budget. This was a random and arbitrary assignment that took place over 40 years ago. Today, the FPL does not accurately represent the distribution of expenditures in American households, with more than 1/3 of the budget going to housing, and about 1/6 of the budget going to food. Basing individuals off of food spending is a big flaw in the current FPL system. Therefore, assuming that individuals who qualify for subsidies can afford a preventative service is misleading.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't see how my research could be wrong, especially compared to one who is posting anecdotal evidence, at best. Here is my source that suggests the prices of pap smears without insurance is between 50 and 200 dollars:

How Much Does a Pap Smear Cost Without Insurance?

Also, please be wary of the Federal Poverty Level guidelines that determine ones eligibility for Medicaid. The FPL was based on the amount of money that the average household spent on food, which was 1/3 of their budget. This was a random and arbitrary assignment that took place over 40 years ago. Today, the FPL does not accurately represent the distribution of expenditures in American households, with more than 1/3 of the budget going to housing, and about 1/6 of the budget going to food. Basing individuals off of food spending is a big flaw in the current FPL system. Therefore, assuming that individuals who qualify for subsidies can afford a preventative service is misleading.
It's very simple, your research is wrong because I know of 23 offices across 8 states (as of earlier today) that offer them cheaper than the $50 your article claims. It is anecdotal evidence but that doesn't make it untrue. Is your article true for most offices? Probably. Can paps be found for much less with fairly minimal effort? Easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm gonna toss a question here:

I realise that not every Dr agrees on whether every person has a right to [free] healthcare. Would it be fair to say that majority of Drs across the US support equal access to care? (Meaning that patients have a right to have access to a doctor within reasonable traveling distance/time and within reasonable affordability - I'm not quibbling about the legalese of what constitutes "reasonable". It also means that Drs and Govt have a responsibility to provide care to all parts of the country, but there is no mandate to provide free care.)

If we can agree on access to care, would that be a satisfactory compromise? I know, coming from South Africa, that SA (which is a much smaller country, bear that in mind) has a system of gov't and private hospitals, which could be a possible solution in that vein. The gov't hospitals are cheaper and are staffed largely by students and residents, while the private hospitals cost more and pay more, but usually have slightly better care/budgets.
 
I'm gonna toss a question here:

I realise that not every Dr agrees on whether every person has a right to [free] healthcare. Would it be fair to say that majority of Drs across the US support equal access to care? (Meaning that patients have a right to have access to a doctor within reasonable traveling distance/time and within reasonable affordability - I'm not quibbling about the legalese of what constitutes "reasonable". It also means that Drs and Govt have a responsibility to provide care to all parts of the country, but there is no mandate to provide free care.)

If we can agree on access to care, would that be a satisfactory compromise? I know, coming from South Africa, that SA (which is a much smaller country, bear that in mind) has a system of gov't and private hospitals, which could be a possible solution in that vein. The gov't hospitals are cheaper and are staffed largely by students and residents, while the private hospitals cost more and pay more, but usually have slightly better care/budgets.
Nope.

I mean, we all agree that it would be nice if that happened but no one has yet come up with a way that doesn't involve some combination of higher taxes, lower pay, and forcing people to live where they don't want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
No comment
 
Last edited:
Nope.

I mean, we all agree that it would be nice if that happened but no one has yet come up with a way that doesn't involve some combination of higher taxes, lower pay, and forcing people to live where they don't want to.
I am sorry, but I don't believe anyone here has said your anecdotal evidence were not true, but it sure does lower your credibility when you have no sources to back up your claims.

Just wanted to throw that out there.
 
I am sorry, but I don't believe anyone here has said your anecdotal evidence were not true, but it sure does lower your credibility when you have no sources to back up your claims.

Just wanted to throw that out there.
Because this hasn't been published in a journal because why would it be. But, I can give you a list of now 30+ clinics around the country that offer prices similar to mine. Heck, I'm from SC and there are 6 of us across 4 cities with similar prices.
 
The GOP should abandon this folly of repeal and replace. Americans are sick and tired of the Republican hypocrisy on Health care.

If they so desperately need a win - just to show their worth, then they should draft legislation that Americans really want. To be honest, no one really cares about the ideology of either Party ... we simply want to live a good life.

Now that it is clear that Americans do NOT want to repeal the ACA, Congress should write REAL legislation.

Health care is expensive, we have to pay for it one way or another (taxes, lower wages, or premiums). Let's join the rest of the civilized world and eliminate all but one way of paying ... which one?

The examples of bulk purchased good and services saving money are plentiful - just look at the buyer warehouse stores for one.

The power of one buyer purchasing all insurance is huge ... the insurers must negotiate with their only customer ... the US Gov't. If one provider won't budge, there's always another provider ... competition at it's foundation.

The same holds true for the other part of the high cost of health in America - Medications. Pharmacies in Mexico and Canada sell the same medicine as pharmacies in America, yet the price is drastically lower. Same meds, different prices! The buying power of the US Gov't can demand a better price ... or it can re-import the same meds from other countries. Pharmaceutical companies would have to offer lower prices.

Some might argue that this would reduce their ability to find new drugs ... that is probably true. Still, based on my experience in researching into healthcare with dissertationwriter, I'd be willing to provide those companies with R&D grants IF and only IF they used the grants to create drugs that fight disease. The grants could not be used for recreational drugs, such as Erectile Dysfunction or any other symptom made up to fit the medicine. This would be difficult, yes .. but I think it's worth the time.
 
They pissed and moaned for 7 years and couldn't come up with anything better. An out right repeal would result in 20 million people losing coverage, so that's also DOA.

My goodness the GOP is a fail.

Who's looking forward to the inevitable government shut down? The tweets are gonna be epic. :laugh:
 
Top