http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news...tune/index.htm
This definitely takes away all our individual choices and eventually, we would all be on the government plan as I have been saying for awhile now.:depressed
Printable View
http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news...tune/index.htm
This definitely takes away all our individual choices and eventually, we would all be on the government plan as I have been saying for awhile now.:depressed
"The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer."
Why can't the plans compete on something above the floor set by the govt? The plans can only compete on the minimum offer? GMAFB
"the reason" that this "writer" is a writer? :lol
"gouging the young"
but those young will be thrilled, when they are older and sicker, to
"gouge" the young. The whole point of insurance is to spread actual costs over a wide population of potential claimants. And the fat, lazy, thrill-seeking, helmet-non-wearing, drug-taking, binge-drinking, pre-diabetic "jackass" young aren't exactly non-claimants or "healthy livers".
More scare tactics from a Fortune/anti-consumer/pro-business "writer"
This is an insult to our intelligence. Why isn't the President and Congress upfront with the American people?
That's why we have to research and dig up this information to figure out what the hell it is they are trying to pass. Obama keeps saying, "if you like your plan, you can keep it!" Which is not true. It's a blatant lie because if you have any common sense you will see that once your plan changes a little and you don't like it, the only alternative is the public plan. And, you have to be on a private plan prior to the law taking effect or you will automatically be pushed to the public plan.
How can they say with a straight face that this is good for all of America. Where is our choice, our freedom? Why should we all be forced to be on a government plan? I've known this for awhile, but it isn't right that Congress and the President are not up front with the America people. This is so wrong on so many levels.
:bang
We can all have free health care, with lower costs, higher quality, and more individual choice.
We can also have limitless green energy.
We can also all have pet unicorns.
-Liberal mind
Choice? Tell your employer that you'd rather have his cost of your insurance as taxed salary rather than as a tax-free benefit, and see what his says.
Why would you do that? Because as hard-core free marketer, you want the choice of buying your own health insurance that than being FORCED to take the employer's plan (which is where ALL of your raises go).
Have you read any bill before congress completely, Darrin?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Name one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I've probably read as much as they have and I'm not a congressman.
That wasn't the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
In other words, close to nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
:toast
I've read enough to know that I'm worried about it being rushed through.
How many pages of this actual bill have you read, Darrin?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Fewer than your post count and greater than 50.
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
You read more than 50 pages of this bill?
One would think you could actually comment on that part of the bill instead of posting someone's lame Youtube.
Let me know the section and we can discuss it.
what if one doesnt have insurance what freedoms will they lose?
The freedom to walk into any emergency room in the country and receive free medical care. They'll have to go on a government plan and use a government doctor...maybe one that isn't as conveniently located or competent as most Emergency Room doctors.Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie2001
status quo...Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Further degrading an already poor system isn't the status quo.Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
They will lose the freedom of choosing not to have insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by mookie2001
About 16 million people between the ages 0f 18-34 choose not to pay for insurance because they are pretty healthy at that age. As the article reads, the young will be paying much higher premiums, i.e. 2,500 on insurance because they will be essentially helping to defray the higher cost of premiums the elderly usually pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
chances are some of these folks will suffer catostraphic injuries or illnesses..what then? who pays for them?
What is your measure of the relative competency of most ER doctors?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Relative to what?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Relative to other doctors as you just mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Every American-it's called life. No one should be responsible for everyone else's problems. We make our own way in life. I don't expect handouts from anybody. I'm not quite sure why people are expecting free healthcare.
People in this country work for what they want in life.
Besides, you are still treated for a catastrophic illness now even if you don't have insurance, but you will not get cutting edge treatment. I don't think under the rationed plan, you'd be getting cutting edge treatment anyway.
Well, relative to doctors working in a single-payer system, I rate Emergency Room doctors (on a scale of 1-10) at a 9 to a government doctor's 3 or 4.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Relative to other doctors, it would depend on their speciality. Emergency Room doctors have to be versed in a multitude of medical disciplines to the point they can quickly diagnose and treat whatever comes through the door. I give them high marks. Other doctors have the luxury of choosing their patients and, in fact, the illnesses or specialties they decide to treat.
Even family practitioners don't get much beyond general physicals and routine ailments anymore.
What's your point? In a clutch, I'd put my health in the hands of an Emergency Room doctor over the leading cardiologist -- unless, of course, I was having a heart problem...etc...
People walking into the typical emergency room get better care than veterans walking into the typical V. A. Hospital (And, before we start talking about wounded soldiers, I think their is a distinct difference between the care received by active soldiers injured in combat and retired military members getting standard care.)
"government doctor"
WTF? That's a scare-mongering lie like "govt taking over health care".
Based on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
My experiences with both; 10 years of emergency medical experience where I routinely witnessed miracles performed in the emergency room and watching the V.A. system kill two of my relatives through misdiagnosis, delay, and neglect.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
How do emergency room doctors measure up in your matrix of health care experiences?
When my spouse was doing his internship, he had to intern at government run VA hospitals. The level of care there as compared to other hospitals was substandard. We will probably shift to more substandard care if the bill passes given the US have limited resources, limited physicians, etc... so it's inevitable that our care will have to be rationed.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
By the way, some VA hospitals are scary. You don't want to get sick there. It's sad. I mean they fought for our country.:depressed
If that's anything like your knowledge of the law when you were playing Barney Fife, it's safe to say your experiences mean shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Have you read the bill? I know President Obama hasn't, he so much as said so...therefore, all his rhetoric is meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
The fact is, the bill is written to force commercial insurers out of business and force the insured on the a "PUBLIC PLAN" which is nothing more than government, single-payer insurance where they control the doctors. That makes them government doctors...in the same mold as doctors working at the VA.
good old Yoni, off on a side track.
We're not talking about the quality of healthcare (100K iatrogenic deaths year is a good measure of quality), but cost and access.
That's your opinion and you're entitled. Again, whatever makes you comfortable.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Chump asked, I answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
But, as far as cost and access. 100% of the population has access to health care. Actually, more than 100% because, we even treat illegal immigrants too.
Cost is irrelevant when health care providers are prohibited from refusing treatment based on the economic situation of the patients which, by the way, they are.
Exactly, and it was as useless a standard as could be expected.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
There is another complete fail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Treatments in the ER cost much more than treatments not done in the ER.
Costs who, though? Like I said, patients who can't pay don't worry about paying...cost is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Costs everyone who does pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
You like paying more than you have to for someone else's care.
"100% of the population has access to health care."
wow, you really are fucking stupid.
About the only humanitarian aspect of US health care is public hospitals being committed to caring for those who can't pay (which includes a large numbe of employed people who are under insured), and Yoni against even that.
Let them suffer and die if they can't pay, is that it, Yoni?
And you think the Trillion Dollar Democrat plan is going to make everyone pay proportionately?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I'm already doing that. I don't want the government telling me where to get my medical care or which procedures they'll cover.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
lmao sure we will Mr. 20 Questions :wakeupQuote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
100% of the U.S. Population has immediate access to health care. Indisputable.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
100% of illegal immigrants have immediate access to health care. Also indisputable.
If the government wants to find savings in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to pay for the care, so I don't have to, I'm all for it. It doesn't require an overhaul of the entire industry. Blue Dog Democrats, moderates, and most common-sense Americans realize this.
Fortunately, the President's unprecedented act of calling the head of the CBO on the carpet has had the opposite intended effect:
CBO deals new blow to health plan
Thank God they work on Saturdays.
You think you pay proportionately now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
No shit, I just told you you were.Quote:
I'm already doing that.
No, I think I pay a disproportionate amount for healthcare. This bill will not make my situation better, it will make it worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
Yeah, but you don't say how the Trillion Dollar Healthcare Bill will change that for the better. Why? Because it won't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I know an employer who did just that after employees kept griping about their insurance. He gave them all a raise equal to the cost he was spending on the plan and told them to buy their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
So how much more will you personally pay?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
I don't know...they're not letting us see all the funding mechanisms yet. But, from what we do know; they're going to start taxing me on what my employer pays toward my insurance premium; they're going to start a "public option," to compete with the private insurance companies -- except, of course, it doesn't have to operate at a profit so, that'll drive commercial companies to raise premiums or close shop.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
I'm sure I'll see my share of the Trillion Dollar cost. I'm equally sure those who aren't paying anything now, won't be paying anything under this plan.
Transparency, my ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
This administration is less transparent that obsidian.
Yeah I've had horrible VA stories with my Dad. Even though my Dad is still pretty young he took a horrible fall and broke his hip. They never operated on him until 4 or 5 days later. At the time the surgeons never had the right type of screw to put into his hip when it came time to do the surgery that they went ahead and put any kind of screw that was around they could put into the hip socket. After the surgery he never got better at all and instead the screw was tearing his hip up more and even into the femur bone of his leg. It took them months for them to admit their mistakes even though they were forced to admit it . It took them at least a year to redo the surgery and it's still not right and now he's never going to be the same again. He's going to be crippled for the rest of his life. I hope this is not what it's going to come down to.Quote:
My experiences with both; 10 years of emergency medical experience where I routinely witnessed miracles performed in the emergency room and watching the V.A. system kill two of my relatives through misdiagnosis, delay, and neglect.
It is nice to see Obama put in his place but more importantly the non Obama dems take some steps back and not fuck this country up giving away more free shit. On a side note please write ur local politicians about kicking out illegals. It will help our country a great deal.
Pretty much socialized medicine in a nutshell; rationed, inferior care.Quote:
Originally Posted by TMTTRIO
I find it interesting that someone is touting ER docs when many of them get paid a salary- as opposed to being paid by insurance reimbursement or by the work they actually do.
I am really sorry about you Dad.Quote:
Originally Posted by TMTTRIO
Why? The Emergency Room Doctors voluntarily seek employment at the hospital. Many of them cut their teeth there before entering private practice. Under the government plan, there would be no option to go into private practice.Quote:
Originally Posted by ploto
It seems to be the way of the conservatives around here to post an article without quoting it and then making blanket statements that really have nothing to do with the article.
its wonderful bait and switch but its worthless fearmongering at its core.
It seems this lady doesn't understand how insurance works. The entire principle of insurance is that you pool risk and spread the cost around. All insurance companies do it. If someone pays $2000 a year for full coverage on their BMW M5 and you wreck it costing $40k to replace it then is that person going to be ever paying for the benefits he received?Quote:
5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
Of course he is not but that is how insurance works. The only issue that the author has is when its government that supposedly does this and not some profit motivated private insurer.
Let'sQuote:
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:
This is fearmongering at its finest. Of course there needs to be a limit on what is actually covered. While I like women with large breasts that does not mean that that augmentation should be covered. Instead of pointing to any place in the bill where these supposed ills are she throws out fear of what can happen. Its bullshit. She can point to oregan all she wants but I can point you to every other wesern nation wheres it not an issue.Quote:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
This is funny she first lists things that we know will be covered and then says we won't know whats covered until after its done. Its bullshit. Whats going on here is that they have a list of things that they will initially require like prescription drug coverage and then they will allow a committee to cover other things in the future.Quote:
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.
I mean really WTF do you expect? Obviously new treatments will come down the pipe and some will be more beneficial and/or inexpensive. Of course new treatments will have to be approved.
Oh and again its not as if private insurers do not do this already. They have a list of items that they insure that they have a board review and adjust ahs time goes by. If any plan passes of course it has to have long term adjustibility but this idea that our current insurance has this great wealth of options as to what they will cover and what they wont is bullshit.
Now this is hilarious. She talks about gouging the young where just before she is talking about how coverage for existing policies would extend to age 26 instead of 18. Now she is saying that young people get fucked. Can't have it both ways bitch.Quote:
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
And lets get one thing clear the one age demographic that has the highest rate of insured is 18-28. Half of all adults under the age of 28 do not have insurance. If we can get coverage I for one would be a happy motherfucker. As it stands now I cannot afford good coverage that doesn't have a large deductible and if I were to get sick the deductible would just kill me. Its pointless for me to get the coverage that I could afford. This idea that I am going to get gouged from a percentage of my paycheck is laughable.
Do not use me and my contemporaries to pimp your cause bitch. Call it what it is which is the wealthier americans who are worried about their pocketbooks. The status quo fucks me as it is.
You know that HC industry can suck my dick. I know that capitalists have nightmares about price controls but this is about the American people not some rich AETNA exec.Quote:
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.
1) HC is a vertical demand slope market. What I mean by that is that consumers will pay whatever price put in front of them. Think of it this way. If youre dying on a gurney or better yet you infant child is dying on a gurney what price will you not pay to save their life? I myself would pay whatever I had to. Any market like that where to suppliers can dictate price at whim cannot self regulate. Price controls are necessary.
Its pretty apparent with the way prices have escalated that the industry is taking full advantage of the way this market operates.
2) All other insurance has price controls anyway as it is. In Texas, all auto and home insurance rates have to be approved by the DoI and if they come back with dramatic increases its sent right back. All states have this.
Furthermore, and this goes to a previous point. All the coverages available like a 50/100 bodily injury limit or a $1m renters liability policy are all mandated by the state. The coverage options that you can get on all other insurance are mandated by the state.
The way this bitch would have us believe, USAA or AllState cannot make money on car insurance.
Its necessary becasue if you don't do this then you are going to have people that are excluded. There is one thing I would like to point out on this.Quote:
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.
One of the huge myth is all of this good behavior rewardance. Its bullshit. Auto insurers for example will forgive an accident after 8 years of not having one. The thing is though your record clears at least in terms of insurance every 3 years so you have gone over twice that period and supposedly they are doing you a favor.
What they are doing is saying, aren't we great were giving back when thye arent giving as much back on the back end as they are fucking you on the front end. All of the other perks like car alarm or whatnot have no actuarial significance. Its window dressing.
So basically what they are doing here is getting rid of shit that does no real benefit to overall costs yet masks them and forcing the issue.
I love this. High deductible coverages are like toxic variable rate loans. Sure they cost very little up front but they end oup fucking you in the end. High deductible coverages target those with lower incomes. The only issue is that 20% still leaves you in the cold when you are poor and rack up a $50k hospital bill. Thats about 3 days in the hospital BTW.Quote:
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."
But no that 20% deductible not only gets a you a $10k bill but it drives costs across the board. The medical industry wants you to pay as an individual and the more via deductibles copays etc that they can push out to individual negotiators the higher overall costs.
The reason for this is simple. The insurance company is liable for $40k of the bill but the thing is they have the backing of the other millions upon millions of dollars they have and will be paying the hospital to negotiate the price down at the end of the day. Make no mistake they do that.
You OTOH are stuck with your bill and no leverage so you eat the proverbial dick. The hospital likes this because they get full price and the insurer loves this because they can justify higher premiums the next year without having to pay the tab.
Fuck those companies and their shitty policies.
See again with the fearmongering. I will put it this way: I would rather have medicare through SSID than what most of these companies offer. I love this assumption that government coverage will suck when quite frankly the current government coverages from the civil service version through the SSI stuff are pretty damn good. Oh and they pay out less reducing costs for everyone.Quote:
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.
But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.
So in other words keep it as it is because its just so wonderful. :rolleyesQuote:
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.
The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms.
What kind of shill is this bitch? First of all she said it was LIKE an HMO. The issue with HMO's is that the primary care doctors are beholden to profit motivated insurance execs. Doctors in HMO's are encouraged to NOT refer and try to keep costs to an arbitrary bottom line. That is not the case here and as such it is NOT like an HMO in the most fundamental way: the decision calculus of how care is administered.
Now even after all of the further fearmongering she kind of glossed over the fact that other types of plans will be available that you are not locked into them. Since its not a product that the public option will offer then it will have no direct competition. From the way it would seem after all her bull shit you wouldnt have a chance.
Thats a baldfaced fucking lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Cosmetic surgery will be covered under no health insurer. Are you going to say that fake tits are a thing of the past?
You pose an interesting question. I'm not sure what the legislation says about elective cosmetic procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
But, seriously, I think we're talking about the treatment of illnesses and injuries; non-elective medical care.
No, the VA is definitely fucked up. Thats because they set up an infrastructure about 30 years ago and instead of scaling funding for inflation to maintain and keep up care standards the DoD systemcially slashed funding so that vets were left ouyt to dry. After all we need funding for F-22's and to prepare for a European land war that will never happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
No, were talking about medical procedures. Plastic surgery has to be approved by the FDA and is beholden to the same oversight as plastic splints for broken arms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
Basically what you're saying is that boob jobs will be available but not noncovered chemotherapies that are also approved by the FDA. Its bullshit.
So, I say prove you can run a single-payer system by fixing the VA first before you fuck up health care for the rest of us.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Okay, maybe your talking about elective procedures, I'm not. I have no idea what the legislation will mean for Dr. 90210.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Understanding the Kennedy Healthcare bill
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/06/08...y-health-bill/
I believe the health care reform bill is house bill 320, but I will try to find what I can of the bill and the most updated version, so we can read it ourselves.
http://www.financialsense.com/fsn/pr...2009/0724.html
I can't seem to find the actual draft of the bill. Maybe it's not posted yet. I'm trying to find just the bill itself, so we can decide for ourselves how good or bad it is. Sorry, I can't find it yet.
Sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about. There is this entity its called the department of defense. Perhaps you've heard of them? Yeah, well the DoD has been slashing VA funding for years. The senate appropriates the DoD less money and they in turn cut VA benefits in favor of F-22's and B-1's. See its not the people that fought for this country that matter its the defense contractors.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
They are tow seperate issues.
This is not accurate at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
It's government health care. The only difference will be that Robert Byrd will funnel money to a Robert Byrd Memorial Bridge when he funnels money away.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
All medical procedures are elected. Dear god your obtuse. In the eyes of the FDA there are no 'covered' or 'noncovered.' There are just medical treatments and procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
You said noncovered care would not existoutside of what was covered by the public plan. All I have to show is one medical procedure that would be and it shows you to be wrong. I did that.
Whatever if you want to be one of the 'everything the government does is bad crowd' and be intentionally obtuse go right ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
There's breast augmentation and then, there's triple, coronary bypass. With or without one, and you continue living. Without the other, you die. That's the difference between elective and non-elective surgery.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
I never said that. I admit to not know what will become of "Plastic" Surgeons, under this plan. I was merely talking about physicians that offer curative, life-extending, medical care. Things we need to live...not look better.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumkins
The fight wars real good and they now how to build a road, although, they've farmed much of that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Name an industry, other than the two above, where the government out performs and is more efficient than the private sector.
Lol I can show you reams and reams of doctors that offer noncovered care in every other western nation. What you are purporting is the bald faced lie that is being thrown out which is just not true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
What youa re saying is for example the board approves to cover one type of chemo therapy but not another for cost considerations and that means the more expensive option would not be available. They would both be available. Its just that the national plan wouldn't cover it. That doesn't mean you cannot get it.
I use the breast augmentation as an extreme to prove a point. Look up 'breast augmentation london' and you will see reams and reams of them. I find it absurd that youw ould give any credibility to the idea that they would not allow an alternative FDA approved chemo but they will allow you to get a tit job. Prima facia its stupid.
In fact if you look at other countries like England they have all kinds of insurances and facilities that cover treatments and procedures that handle things that the NHS does not cover.
medical bills etc are tax deductible arent they in america? if not then it really sucks
As AETNA is fond of pointing out, Medicare and Medicaid provide treatments, procedures and medications for less than what the private insurers do. There is a whole slew of water and power companies that are owned form the municipal level up that are successful. The US postal service is self sufficient. They offer quite a few delivery options that are cheaper than UPS, FedEx, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yonivore
About the only thing you can point to is that AMTrack doesn't fare well compared to the airlines and thats about it.
But really the one that is most important is that Medicare and Medicaid are more efficient than AETNA and the big 7.
For-profit health industry is SO EFFICIENT that dubya had to subsidize it with locked-in $50B/year so it could compete with Medicare/Medicaid, in addition to making it illegal for the govt to negotiate drug prices with BigPharma.
The inefficiencies of for-profit health-insurance suck $200B-$300B out of Americans' pockets every year.
($200B + $50B) x 10 years = $2.5T
Why did Americans decisively reject dubya's snake oil of privatizing Social Security which would have subsidized the criminal, rigged fraudulent, wealth-destroying financial sector?
"Under the government plan, there would be no option to go into private practice."
which page of the reform bill is that on?
Medicare will be bankrupt in ten years! I hardly call that efficient or a model for this health care reform.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...5/ai_n6145432/
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1294
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1791298
How so?Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Yoni where are your partners now to back you up? Darrin, Jack? Fuzzy is tea-bagging the shit out of you and your pathetic partners in crime!
well, they aren't "really" deductible anymore, since the IRS raised the deductible level to only what is over 7.5% of your Adjusted Gross Income.Quote:
medical bills etc are tax deductible arent they in america? if not then it really sucks
So for someone who makes, say, $50,000 AGI, and has $4,000 of medical expenses, can only deduct $250 on his tax return.
$50,000 x 7.5% = $3,750, so he can only deduct medical expenses above $3750.
The IRS is saying that they consider spending 7.5% of your gross income on medical expenses to be "normal".
Bravo for finding reports based on projections from the Bush budget cuts of 2004. If you cut funding to something its not going to remain soluble.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
That doe snot mitigate the fact that medicare and medicaid are more efficient at getting people medical treatment and procedures over private insurers.
I spent 28 hours in the hospital and it was $13k. Those $6k MRI's are a bitch that I am still fighting today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bender
Medical costs are so high that $4k isnt shit especially if you have to spend ANY time in the hospital.
You can blame whomever you want-it's irrelevant. Different parties take control of the white house and blame can go back and forth forever. I voted for Obama, so any party blaming is just unproductive to me and a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Also, medicare had financial problems long before the year 2002. If you read up on it, you would clearly see the medicare mess started quite awhile back.
Some people would prefer to trust the government to run healthcare at all costs despite contrary findings. Most people do not believe the government is an efficient machine. I won't bother finding statistical and imperical data to refute your "efficiency" assertion. You clearly prefer the government health care plan thereby incurring more government control in your medical decisions. I would like to make my own choices regarding medical care.
And, I do not believe the government is an efficient machine that will decrease my medical costs, retain the quality of care I receive now while allowing me free choice to make my own medical decisions.
But I have no intention of attempting to change your mind. You are entitiled to your opinion. As I am of mine.
I really don't give a shit for what you 'believe.' The numbers speak for themselves. The government pays less for a doctor's visit or hospital stay etc over AETNA etc. They get more out of a dollar then your precious AETNA and BlueCross. Thats more efficient no matter how much you put your hands over your ears and try to ignore it. Sorry if the truth doesn't jive with your bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
You don't know how federal budgeting works. Its not like a business where a customer comes in and makes a payment and that is budgeted over time. A program is given large annual allotment and that serves as payment. Well when Bush in essence cut that payment in half it fucked everything up. In essence it was the same as an exec taking half of the premiums coming in and then diverting it to building a new office or something. The fact that it was still expected to last for 11 more years is a testament to just how efficient it is. You do that to AETNA and I guarantee they wont last 11 years.
Thats what I love about conservatives. The GOP and Reagan started doing this shit back in the 80s. They would make sweeping tax cuts and then try and make up for the shortfall by cutting funding to social security and medical care and selling bonds. Yay lower taxes!!!
The sweetest part is they would then turn to the programs that their fucking asses underfunded and then try to point to it as a failure. They fucking sabotaged it.
Here's a hint: the money that you pay on your taxes thats supposedly earmarked for SS doesn't go to SS.
Your medicare crisis is a direct result of Reagan and then Bush cutting funding to it. Its not because they aren't run well. Its because they were sabotaged.
You can keep your plan until it is no longer available, which will wither away under Obamacare.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Look at a tax form sometime and see just how little you can deduct.Quote:
Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY
Did you ask for the MRI's or did they do it without your permission? They might have performed unnecessary procedures just so you couldn't sue them on the off chance it would discover something cheaper methods wouldn't discover. It would help to know what was wrong. Also consider how expensive those are, and technicians like me probably make $45 + per hour to calibrate them. They have to charge big money for the procedure to pay for the equipment. If it costs $250,000, then they have to do more than 41,000 of them just to pay for the equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Did you really need a MRI?
The supposed exchange will offer both the public option and as many private options as the private companies want to offer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spursmania
Right now, your plan changes annually or bi-annually, so you're never really 'keeping the same plan'. What are you keeping is a plan somewhat similar that gives you certain coverage and deductibles that's important to you.
You can still pick up that program from an exchange. It will be different in that it will be mandated to cover certain baseline procedures. But any of these private plans will have to differentiate themselves enough from the public plan as to providing added value so people are willing to pay more for them.
You can still go with a private plan afterwards. It's really your choice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I was unconscious from a head injury. The X-rays were negative and they took MRI's on my arms and legs anyway. I can understand the head, neck and back but its the extremities that I absolutely refuse to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
A 3 tesla machine costs $3 million. How many scans do you do a day?
Are you sure? I heard the way the legislation is in the current form, you cannot change plans. You must buy the government version if you leave the plan you have.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
What he is talking about is how the plans for major businesses that do not meet the new minimum coverage requirements will no longer be available. Why anyone thinks its a good idea to pay a 20% deductible is beyond me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
But what I really think is funny is do people really think that say Blue Cross/Blue Shield is not going to offer a package that does meet the minimum requirements that will be available on the exchange? As it is right now, private insurers will change the plans that are available to your company and you're old plan won't be available. Its not like they dont have a new one. I don't see how this would be any different.
If your current policy meets those minimum requirements you will be able to keep your coverage. If it has one of those stupid deductibles or doesn't cover prescriptions and the like then its out.
The high deductible policies ABSOLUTELY have to go.
You don't. You drop into the exchanges. Now, programs offered through there have to have the baseline coverage that the public option has. But that's the floor. You're free to purchase insurance from a private insurer that offer added value (probably for more money) if you so desire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Well, no, most people here claim you have to fall into the public option and you have no choice. That's simply not accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
They automatically assume that companies cannot provide anything of added value, and they will die away. I don't think that's accurate at all either.
I think most insurance companies will probably move to a system like AARP, where they offer additional value to complement the public option.
That nad companies have to pay additional tax if they don't offer their employees an insurance plans. Its in their best interest to provide coverage and you bet your ass that the previous proveder is going to do everything within their power to keep that contract.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Yeah I was just saying that that is the phenomenon that he is attributing the 'have to go to the state plan' to.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Depends on the tax amount. If they're taxed 8%, and they're currently paying 15-18% to provide coverage, then it might be more economical for them to simply pay the tax. I think the government is actually counting on some of this happening in order to fund part of the program.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Yeah thats true. I also think though that private insurers are actually going to legitimately attempt to negotiate prices down to what medicare and medicaid pay to try and bring those premiums down to compete.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I have no sympathy for them. For years they have negotiated in bad faith to spiral costs up and thus garner larger profits. People will pay whatever they have to when they or their loved ones are sick or hurt and they have preyed upon it the entire time.
These are excepts from the article "5 freedoms you'll lose in health care reform" they are in quotations or bold:Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
"The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer. "
"Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have."
We don't want full maximum coverage. What if we want what we already have? Why should the government choose what we need and don't need. Most people want choice and to be able to fit a plan according to their needs. Do they know our health more than we do? Mandating full coverage, makes it more expensive to keep my private insurance because the insurer is competing with the highly subsidized government mandated plan. Government Subsidies make it impossible to compete.
"The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs,mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services."
"The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses."
I would not have a choice to decline substance and mental health coverage. Yet, it's requiring all of us to pay for that. Also, young healthy people shouldn't be forced to have maximum insurance.
"Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care."
We use HSA together with our insurance, and it's a good combination. It certainly makes us more cost conscious. It seems this plan may be eliminated.
"The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months."
It's just as I thought. If I don't like my current private plan, and want to change it, I would be forced into the exchange which only has the mandated maximized health care coverage plans to pick from. So, this exchange will not allow us to pick a similar private plan.
Rather, we would be forced into the exchange where the minimum coverage is mandated by the government and is different from my original private plan.
Sine the government will mandate the minimum coverage allowed, like substance abuse or mental disorder coverages, all insurers in the exchange would have to carry that minimum policy. So, yes, everybody will have at least the government version policy -they have too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
So, if you don't carry any of the coverages that are mandated by the government, and you leave your private plan for whatever reason, you will be forced into the exchange. So, whether you like it or not, you will have to carry the minimum mandated government coverage plus whatever else you would like to add.
The bill in its current stage is mandating the mental and substance abuse coverage. No one knows yet how much more or less will be mandated until the final version is adopted.
LOL I am a young healthy American and I say you're full of shit. The only coverage I can afford right now is that bullshit with the 20% deductible and those policies are complete bullshit and even they won't give me those anyway.
Regardless medicaid/care already covers that shit and is cheaper than those plans anyway without any deductible.
Health Reforms hidden victims
Young people and seniors would pay a high price for ObamaCare.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...720472842.html