Health Care Debate Thread

[jmg2303]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_budget

Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants a significant "down payment" for overhauling the health care system: $634 billion over 10 years. A senior administration official says Obama's budget calls for financing the overhaul by trimming Medicare spending and limiting tax deductions for upper-income earners. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget won't be released until Thursday.

About 48 million Americans are uninsured, according to recent estimates. The cost of guaranteeing coverage for all could easily exceed $1 trillion over 10 years.

Obama has asked Congress for health reform this year, but senior members of both political parties say they are concerned about the cost.

Do we honestly want to leave a huge deficit for generations to come because people have to live off of the system? Aren't there other alternatives? Put a cap on American citizens? There are so many other things we can do instead of turning into the Soviet Union...more and more everyday the government becomes bigger and bigger and eventually will just take over......I see my paycheck getting smaller every week....

[wikipost]

Summary of some of the downsides to the proposed health care legislation:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10515

Summary of how government intervention and not free-market policies created the health care problem:
http://mises.org/story/3727







This post can be edited by most users to provide up-to-date information about developments of this thread based on user responses, and user findings. Feel free to add, change or remove information shown here as it becomes available. This includes new coupons, rebates, ideas, thread summary, and similar items.

Once a Thread Wiki is added to a thread, "Create Wiki" button will disappear. If you would like to learn more about Thread Wiki feature, click here (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=530283).

[Hawk2007]

$1 trillion here, $410 billion over here, on top of $634 billion.

Bush wasn't much for teh math and teh economiks, but Obama is trying to set the bar even lower...I guess.

[Dancancook]

I completely agree with my liberal friends that the health care system desperately needs to be revised. When over half (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1) of all personal bankruptcy filings are because of medical bills, something needs to be done.

However, where we disagree is that I don't think government sponsored health care is the answer.

[Putz1103]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_budget

Obama seeks $634B over 10 years for health care

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama wants a significant "down payment" for overhauling the health care system: $634 billion over 10 years. A senior administration official says Obama's budget calls for financing the overhaul by trimming Medicare spending and limiting tax deductions for upper-income earners. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the budget won't be released until Thursday.

[/B]

Man that's a nice way of saying tax increase... What happened to "No new taxes?"

[catluver]

Man that's a nice way of saying tax increase... What happened to "No new taxes?"

You are thinking of the first Bush. "Read my lips, no new taxes!"

Obama hasn't promised that. He has only promised that the top 5% will get new taxes.

[Neo Tocqueville]

$634B over the next 10 years.

That is roughly the cost of the Iraq war ON TOP OF our annual military budget of roughly $500B.

Say, he gets his way. And, the result of that is that the next time a terrorist attacks our nation we cannot invade another country. We have to 'suck it up'. Is that a price we as a nation are willing to pay to provide health care to every American?

[adams135]

$634B over the next 10 years.

That is roughly the cost of the Iraq war ON TOP OF our annual military budget of roughly $500B.

Say, he gets his way. And, the result of that is that the next time a terrorist attacks our nation we cannot invade another country. We have to 'suck it up'. Is that a price we as a nation are willing to pay to provide health care to every American?

But at least we can offer any occupying force free medical.

[catluver]

$634B over the next 10 years.

That is roughly the cost of the Iraq war ON TOP OF our annual military budget of roughly $500B.

Say, he gets his way. And, the result of that is that the next time a terrorist attacks our nation we cannot invade another country. We have to 'suck it up'. Is that a price we as a nation are willing to pay to provide health care to every American?

I'll bet they will find a way to print more money just they are now.

Personally, I think health care for our own country is a bigger priority than attacking countries that didn't attack us.

[Neo Tocqueville]

But at least we can offer any occupying force free medical.

If you had to make the choice, adams, what would you do: (a) provide health care to every American, (b) 500 Americans die every 5 years in terrorist attacks in the US ... which one would you choose?

[catluver]

If you had to make the choice, adams, what would you do: (a) provide health care to every American, (b) 500 Americans die every 5 years in terrorist attacks in the US ... which one would you choose?

I would pick (a)
How did you arrive at that calculation?

[Rebound]

I completely agree with my liberal friends that the health care system desperately needs to be revised. When over half (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1) of all personal bankruptcy filings are because of medical bills, something needs to be done.

However, where we disagree is that I don't think government sponsored health care is the answer.Ok, then what is the answer?

[jamegumb]

$634B over the next 10 years.

That is roughly the cost of the Iraq war ON TOP OF our annual military budget of roughly $500B.

Say, he gets his way. And, the result of that is that the next time a terrorist attacks our nation we cannot invade another country. We have to 'suck it up'. Is that a price we as a nation are willing to pay to provide health care to every American?

I don't read that the $634B actually does that. Actually, I can't tell from the OP what the money actually does (it says 'overhauling the health care system', whatever that means).

The note that "guaranteeing coverage for all could easily exceed $1 trillion over 10 years" seems likely to be a grand understatement, if memory serves.

It would seem fair to wait and see what the proposal entails before making a judgment of whether or not it's worthwhile.

[Dancancook]

Ok, then what is the answer?

You know, I'm gonna go ahead and admit I really don't know. But instead of discounting my position regarding government interference, or 'help', in this sector, let's talk about it.

I'm sure there are some more knowledgeable members of this forum who can speak out on this issue beyond the usual "free market" line.

I'm quite aware of the 'pro-government healthcare' argument having heard it over and over again in and out of school and could probably could diabolically explain all the advantages. But since that seems to be a common position, let's hear educated alternatives....

[thedarksunlight]

i got a idea. why not take all the money from those bastard rich people and give it to the poor.

seriouly, who the hell are those people to be working hard to make what they make. give it to the people laying in their beds getting those welfare checks from tax payers.

hell, why not take the money from the middle class too. who the hell needs a middle class. also lets have the govt get really powerful. like powerful enought to control when we breath. fun times starting off with obama. wee

[DJPlayer]

I know a guy who lives in another country. I completely forget which, but it's basically a socialist country. If he takes a taxi to the doctors, they cut him a check at the doctor's office to reimburse him for the ride there. The health care is free and he mentioned that hospitals and doctor's offices are somewhat subpar vs what the U.S. has. When we spoke about the election he said he would vote Republican if he lived in the U.S. only b/c they have no chance at becoming wealthy. He said there's really no poverty, unemployment and there are no real economic classes, everyone makes w/in a certain range, no matter what job. I told him how much I pay and taxes thinking it was a high percent and he laughed at me. I believe around 65% or so. After thinking about, I'm pretty sure he lives in Belgium.

Every time I hear talk about big government and socialism, spreading the wealth etc.. I think of this situation and wonder if this is what people really want? I especially think about a statement he made: "if he wanted to start a business or be a doctor he would definitely move to a place like the U.S., where you at least have the opportunity to work hard and exceed the average income". Personally not my idea of a perfect society, maybe I was brought up on different values.

[kilacam19]

Didnt Obama want to cut spending? Crap I should just quit my job and become an leech off the taxpayers if the government is going to provide everything.

[Neo Tocqueville]

I would pick (a)
How did you arrive at that calculation?

Completely out of thin air. He basically set up a strawman on top of my post so I thought I'd take it and try to understand adams's views.

[PaulG78]

Didnt Obama want to cut spending? Crap I should just quit my job and become an leech off the taxpayers if the government is going to provide everything.

Do government benefits kick in if you quit your job? How does this welfare system actually work? Do you have to provide any sort of proof that you're trying to get a job? Fortunately I have been working since I was 15, so I really have no idea how to take advantage of these benefits. It is due to me right? Trying harder to advance ones self does seem like a lost cause at this point in time. Setting back and waiting for the O check to arrive is starting to sound like a viable option.

[kilacam19]

Do government benefits kick in if you quit your job? How does this welfare system actually work? Do you have to provide any sort of proof that you're trying to get a job? Fortunately I have been working since I was 15, so I really have no idea how to take advantage of these benefits. It is due to me right? Trying harder to advance ones self does seem like a lost cause at this point in time. Setting back and waiting for the O check to arrive is starting to sound like a viable option.

This is the new American way my friend. Why should I bust my ass working for the man. Crap Obama can take care of my for the next 4 years. Screw it my children and grandchildren can foot the bill.

[Neo Tocqueville]

I don't read that the $634B actually does that. Actually, I can't tell from the OP what the money actually does (it says 'overhauling the health care system', whatever that means).

The note that "guaranteeing coverage for all could easily exceed $1 trillion over 10 years" seems likely to be a grand understatement, if memory serves.

It would seem fair to wait and see what the proposal entails before making a judgment of whether or not it's worthwhile.

I agree. I was just trying to give a perspective ... frankly, how we prioritize things as a nation has been something that's bothering me these days. So, it's possible that I picked a bad example.

[kilacam19]

Does this plan also provide coverage to undocumented immigrants?

[Doctor_Wu]

I completely agree with my liberal friends that the health care system desperately needs to be revised. When over half (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1) of all personal bankruptcy filings are because of medical bills, something needs to be done.

However, where we disagree is that I don't think government sponsored health care is the answer.

I agree on both points. Though I also think it's important to remember that at least you can file bankruptcy on med bills. If you have med bills and student loans... and file bankruptcy... guess what... you don't get to be bankrupt on your education. Oh boy if they allowed that... you'd have MASSIVE filings.

Back to health care. It's such a complex problem with so many layers. Are drug companies good or bad? Is the patent protection for blockbuster drugs good or bad? The high prices for drugs pay for the expensive process of drug development and the search for new cures. People complain b/c certain drugs are "expensive"... some are annoyingly expensive... might cost you a couple of grand a year. Then there are those that are really expensive, drugs for rare diseases can run well into the six figures annually. Is the expense related to the cost to manufacture a drug for such a small group?

Economics teaches that the price mechanism helps... the fact that you can pay a price for it... means that it can be had. Like gas... if you set a price too low, you'll end up with shortages. Does a drug for a really rare disease come into being w/o the prospect of profit? I don't know that it does. If we remove certain market incentives will drug companies focus their efforts on more common ailments instead?

The book written by Tom Daschle allegedly says that the elderly in America are too interested in feeling better, or having a good quality of life, and this is costing us more than Europeans... who have a less adversarial opinion of aging and the ailments that come with old age. There's been some accounts of this book that paint the picture as though he's suggesting that resources, money, time, etc should (in general) be devoted to people who can hope to have a more worthwhile quality of life... ie the young... or perhaps "the productive". (I'm somewhat tempted to read this book, although it may be a horror novel.)

What of doctor's time? It's finite. If we drop the cost associated with visiting the doctor, do we find that he has even less time? If we lower the expectations for career income for doctors, and surgeons... do we find that we suddenly have fewer of those around? Do the best and the brightest become doctors in part b/c of the money? Probably so. They have to go to school for a LONG time... and then be residents for 4 years and during that time work some real crappy hours (including 27 hour days) for not that much money. That's a lot to ask of someone who's income is going to be pre-determined and/or heavily regulated.

What about when new treatments are developed? Will the government be interested in innovation, or is it easier for a bureaucracy to simply support the existing "established practices"? Can we tolerate a plan where people can pay out of pocket for a better procedure... or is that unfair?


There's much to debate. And I'm not optimistic that that debate will happen. Maybe it will. I get the feeling that the nation is in a mood for things to be "fixed"... the unfunny Keenan Thompson character on SNL's "Weekend Update" captures a thought that exists in the population when faced with the prospect of a complex problem... they say "FIX IT!". W/o any real sense of what the fix might be, or entail, or cost, or how the new paradigm might be worse in some ways.

There's all these questions to consider... and then there are those who have this faith in the government to get it right. That the injustice of this situation is so profound that the potential to slow "progress" in the area of access, or drug development, or even innovation in care, just doesn't matter... or at least it doesn't matter to them.

It's like there's a black curtain... and on it are the words "Universal Healthcare". And behind the curtain are all the benefits and consequences of universal coverage. We don't really know what's back there. I think people project their hopes and fears onto the curtain, but we don't really know what's going to happen, in part b/c of the complexity, in part b/c we're not really having the debate (yet).

Universal Health Care, for some is a moral crusade. People think of our situation as an injustice, but does this alleged Daschle approach represent simply a shifting of the injustice? And even if it's some other plan, or approach... what do people think is going to happen to scarcity? I don't see where it's been overcome. Scarcity will still mean someone gets screwed... injustice will remain.

And these many small injustices in the system become yet another political battle... and we may see interest groups form around different maladies.

[luckylu]

How other countries provide full coverage for all their population.
Frontline Sick Around the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)

Puts the US to shame :(

[RightPatriot]

How other countries provide full coverage for all their population.
Frontline Sick Around the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)

Puts the US to shame :(

It doesn't put anyone to shame. We've been subsidizing the Europeans through our higher drug prices for years.

[chazjr]

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It

Each has a health care system that delivers health care for everyone -- but with remarkable differences.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/

[SigX]

How other countries provide full coverage for all their population.
Frontline Sick Around the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)

Puts the US to shame :(

be very careful of what you call "full coverage". Many of these country dictate what drugs can and can not be prescribed as well as limiting services for the elderly. (both very effective at cutting costs but its still a form of rationing)

[dayv]

It doesn't put anyone to shame. We've been subsidizing the Europeans through our higher drug prices for years.
how???

[SlickEnW]

Eh. I try my hardest to do preventative care before something bad happens. I went in to see my doc for a checkup (makes me sound like a kid when I say that) and I had to see someone else since he was out of the office. The doctor was surprised that I felt perfectly fine and just wanted to review weight/eating habits/general health instead of being on the tail end of an issue.

Don't the other countries have 'so-so' universal health care at the cost of high taxes on everything important? I'd rather that not happen. Too many people don't take care of themselves and aren't proactive in their own health care; who expect that their doctors will be able to help them in the five to ten diagnostics they provide without giving them some real input or being dedicated to finding a solution. I bet half the people don't read the information given to them on prescription pharmaceuticals much less being able to even spell the name of the drug. Heck, isn't it 'cute' nowadays to be overweight? Ain't no shame in proclaiming to be a BBW, but some let that self esteem get in the way of what should be their priority.

[aggs23]

How other countries provide full coverage for all their population.
Frontline Sick Around the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)

Puts the US to shame :(

Other countries charge a lot more income taxes than our country. If we raised income tax to 50% then we could have our health care "paid for by the government" too.

[Radeck]

It doesn't put anyone to shame. We've been subsidizing the Europeans through our higher drug prices for years.

not only that...but people forget the military protection umbrella...

Thomas Freidman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Friedman) had a very similar documentary on the the Discovery Times channel a few months back, where he studied and compared healther care in several devloped economies.

Keep in mind, he is a lib. But even he, admitted that due to the military protection umbrella that the USA has provided Europe since WW2, that freed up TRILLIONS of dollars over the last 60 years that they would have had to spend on their military and defence against the Soviets and Eastern Europe.

These trillions, they were able to divert to fund their social welfare and health care programs...while the US Taxpayer subsidized and paid for their defence, with explicit guarantees of defending them (via NATO).

Had it not been for US protection, they would NOT have had the money to pay for all their socialist utopias, because they would have had to build up and maintain their own military to a much larger degree than they do now.

again, remember, this is a lib, making this admission.

[vivahate]

Other countries charge a lot more income taxes than our country. If we raised income tax to 50% then we could have our health care "paid for by the government" too.

I paid 3% of my salary for NHS coverage in the UK (called "National Insurance" not income tax.) That's less than I'm paying for insurance in the US with more coverage (under the NHS). I would have to wait for non-emergency treatments, but emergency coverage is fantastic

[Grinner]

That's weird, so did I.

Hmmm.

[SGTSlick]

how???I suppose he means through price caps, made up elsewhere where none exist.

[124nic8]

they would have had to build up and maintain their own military to a much larger degree than they do now.

Only if they truly believed there was a threat of invasion.

Edit: Repost (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=404243&t=802532&highlight=frontline+sick)

[kazmandu]

Only if they truly believed there was a threat of invasion.

Edit: Repost (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=404243&t=802532&highlight=frontline+sick)

True, True, we all know the world is chock full of nice people and daffodills.

[124nic8]

True, True, we all know the world is chock full of nice people and daffodills.

And people who make great profit off of fear mongering.

[aggs23]

I paid 3% of my salary for NHS coverage in the UK (called "National Insurance" not income tax.) That's less than I'm paying for insurance in the US with more coverage (under the NHS). I would have to wait for non-emergency treatments, but emergency coverage is fantastic

How much did you pay in income taxes?

[vivahate]

How much did you pay in income taxes?

edited - I thought I could remember but I'm really not sure... I think my total taxes were about 30% of gross

[SigX]

I paid 3% of my salary for NHS coverage in the UK (called "National Insurance" not income tax.) That's less than I'm paying for insurance in the US with more coverage (under the NHS). I would have to wait for non-emergency treatments, but emergency coverage is fantastic

not sure if you are estimating the tax cost dorrectly or not... but anyway, the UK does a good job with its healthcare system. there are some negatives such as drugs they can and can not prescribe and I also beleive that in the UK there are committes that dictate care in elderly and futile situations which would just simply not work in the USA. Try telling a family to take gma off the ventilator!!! good luck with that.

[vivahate]

not sure if you are estimating the tax cost dorrectly or not... but anyway, the UK does a good job with its healthcare system. there are some negatives such as drugs they can and can not prescribe and I also beleive that in the UK there are committes that dictate care in elderly and futile situations which would just simply not work in the USA. Try telling a family to take gma off the ventilator!!! good luck with that.

yeah, they're not going to approve a new liver for a 70 year old alcoholic but I'm not aware of any drugs they're not allowed to prescribe without justification.

If you search for "UK PAYE" or "UK tax calculator" you'll find many estimates online of net pay wrt gross

[passthecrablegs]

Get a debilitating disease and see how "great" America's heathcare system is. My husband is 53 years old, worked since he was 15 years old, paid into the system and he was diagnosed with colon cancer on my birthday last year. Lost have his insides, been on chemo for 8 months, ended up with diabetes from all the meds he has been on and he has been too sick to work. He doesn't qualify for disability "yet" because they don't think he is disabled enough , he can't get Medicaid because he isn't a pregnant woman or a woman with kids, we do qualify for food stamps. So he has a hospital bill over $100,000 that I don't see how we will ever be able to pay, he had to beg for free chemo meds from the drug company, he goes to the free clinic to have the chemo drugs injected and you can just imagine the type of care he gets there. He has no income coming in so I have to bring in what I can and at the same time take care of an adult handicap child from my first marriage and our handicapped little boy and if we aren't homeless next month it will be a miracle. I would never have imagined myself in such a position in my life. All I can say is you can die in America without insurance.

[aggs23]

Get a debilitating disease and see how "great" America's heathcare system is. My husband is 53 years old, worked since he was 15 years old, paid into the system and he was diagnosed with colon cancer on my birthday last year. Lost have his insides, been on chemo for 8 months, ended up with diabetes from all the meds he has been on and he has been too sick to work. He doesn't qualify for disability "yet" because they don't think he is disabled enough , he can't get Medicaid because he isn't a pregnant woman or a woman with kids, we do qualify for food stamps. So he has a hospital bill over $100,000 that I don't see how we will ever be able to pay, he had to beg for free chemo meds from the drug company, he goes to the free clinic to have the chemo drugs injected and you can just imagine the type of care he gets there. He has no income coming in so I have to bring in what I can and at the same time take care of an adult handicap child from my first marriage and our handicapped little boy and if we aren't homeless next month it will be a miracle. I would never have imagined myself in such a position in my life. All I can say is you can die in America without insurance.

I'm sorry to hear this. I wish I was in a position to be able to help you and your family. I hope that things turn out okay.

[124nic8]

I'm sorry to hear this. I wish I was in a position to be able to help you and your family. I hope that things turn out okay.

In reality, everyone here is in a position to help.

Write or call your Congress person and tell them to support UHC.

[Grinner]

How much did you pay in income taxes?

I and most people I knew paid less than 25%.

Never had to pay a co-pay either and the prescription charge was a flat fee of about five pounds.

[horskj]

How other countries provide full coverage for all their population.
Frontline Sick Around the World (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/)

Puts the US to shame :(

Done right my ass…

What you fail to include in the equation is that there are 305 million people in this country representing about 4.5% of the world’s population.

Compared to the five listed:

Japan 127.7 Million 1.9%
Germany 82 Million 1.22%
UK 61.6 Million 0.92%
Taiwan 23 Million 0.34%
And Switzerland a mere 1.1 Million or 0.017% of the world’s population

All five do not equal the size of the United States. The article never mentioned anything about the size (agenda driven… probably). The mere size of the system need for the US is mind-boggling.
I have worked for the last 10 years with people on Medicare (a single payer system) which consist of about 43 million right now, about twice the size of Taiwan. I can tell you the problems people go through with this system, now multiply that by almost 100 and you get huge problems…

Done right… riiiiight

[124nic8]

Done right my ass…

What you fail to include in the equation is that there are 305 million people in this country representing about 4.5% of the world’s population.

Compared to the five listed:

Japan 127.7 Million 1.9%
Germany 82 Million 1.22%
UK 61.6 Million 0.92%
Taiwan 23 Million 0.34%
And Switzerland a mere 1.1 Million or 0.017% of the world’s population

All five do not equal the size of the United States. The article never mentioned anything about the size (agenda driven… probably). The mere size of the system need for the US is mind-boggling.
I have worked for the last 10 years with people on Medicare (a single payer system) which consist of about 43 million right now, about twice the size of Taiwan. I can tell you the problems people go through with this system, now multiply that by almost 100 and you get huge problems…

Done right… riiiiight

Please explain how scaling up those systems causes more problems per capita.

[horskj]

Please explain how scaling up those systems causes more problems per capita.



Just try calling Medicare and getting someone on the phone…

Service and Administration issues… don’t have time to get into it tonight (getting dark) but I will go into it Sunday.

[kazmandu]

In reality, everyone here is in a position to help.

Write or call your Congress person and tell them to support UHC.

What? We need more lobbyists? How could you possible get laws passed, establish the bureaucratic infrastructure, identify the targets of this theoretical new program,establish what medical conditions we can afford to treat, make certain her particular condition is included, mandate doctor salaries, mandate nurses' salaries, allocate funds, etc. in a useful timeframe for anyone who is currently suffering a serious illness.

Short of helping this lady with her specific problem you are just using her situation to push your political agenda--and attempting to caste those opposed to your views as 'unsympathetic conservatives'. Argue your socialist expansion on its own merits and if you want to help this lady send her some of your own money and/or donate your time to help her personally.

[passthecrablegs]

I'm sorry to hear this. I wish I was in a position to be able to help you and your family. I hope that things turn out okay.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

[passthecrablegs]

What? We need more lobbyists? How could you possible get laws passed, establish the bureaucratic infrastructure, identify the targets of this theoretical new program,establish what medical conditions we can afford to treat, make certain her particular condition is included, mandate doctor salaries, mandate nurses' salaries, allocate funds, etc. in a useful timeframe for anyone who is currently suffering a serious illness.

Short of helping this lady with her specific problem you are just using her situation to push your political agenda--and attempting to caste those opposed to your views as 'unsympathetic conservatives'. Argue your socialist expansion on its own merits and if you want to help this lady send her some of your own money and/or donate your time to help her personally.

I don't want anyone's money, just bringing the awareness to the fact that my husband can't get "what he paid into" and he sits here with little to no help and other people should be aware that this could happen to you. I have sat here myself trying to figure out how to make it better for all of us, and the closest I have come to is suggesting we make it manditory that at least preventative healthcare be available to everyone because I know 7 years ago when I couldn't get even a doctor appointment scheduled because I had no insurance and trust me this is very common, they don't want a self paying patient, and all I needed was a routine visit, to get an RX for blood pressure meds and be followed routinely. I ended up so sick, was in the ICU heart wing for a week and guess who ended up paying that bill? The taxpayers. It is cheaper to treat the poor or now middle class who have no insurance with preventative medicine than to pay a huge bill when they get sick. Now with my husband, I pray that he gets better but the odds he was given are 40% "if" he is followed and treated correctly and frankly he is being treated at the free clinic, so he will probably die. I will end up getting SS for the kids so where does the government come ahead by not giving him the help now to save his life? Or give him the disabilty he worked all his life for? Why not make insurance affordable, doctor visits more affordable, make it so the uninsured don't have to rely on the ER as their family doctor? All I can add is don't get sick.

[kilacam19]

I don't want anyone's money, just bringing the awareness to the fact that my husband can't get "what he paid into" and he sits here with little to no help and other people should be aware that this could happen to you. I have sat here myself trying to figure out how to make it better for all of us, and the closest I have come to is suggesting we make it manditory that at least preventative healthcare be available to everyone because I know 7 years ago when I couldn't get even a doctor appointment scheduled because I had no insurance and trust me this is very common, they don't want a self paying patient, and all I needed was a routine visit, to get an RX for blood pressure meds and be followed routinely. I ended up so sick, was in the ICU heart wing for a week and guess who ended up paying that bill? The taxpayers. It is cheaper to treat the poor or now middle class who have no insurance with preventative medicine than to pay a huge bill when they get sick. Now with my husband, I pray that he gets better but the odds he was given are 40% "if" he is followed and treated correctly and frankly he is being treated at the free clinic, so he will probably die. I will end up getting SS for the kids so where does the government come ahead by not giving him the help now to save his life? Or give him the disabilty he worked all his life for? Why not make insurance affordable, doctor visits more affordable, make it so the uninsured don't have to rely on the ER as their family doctor? All I can add is don't get sick.

What do you consider affordable? If Obama want to provide poor people with health insurance then its all good. But what good is the insurance if Dr. wont see or treat those patient with government provide healthcare insurance. A lot of Dr's I work with now wont take or see patient the have medicaid, medicare, champus or tricare insurance. Why, because the reimbursement is extremely low and its not worth their time.

[passthecrablegs]

What do you consider affordable? If Obama want to provide poor people with health insurance then its all good. But what good is the insurance if Dr. wont see or treat those patient with government provide healthcare insurance. A lot of Dr's I work with now wont take or see patient the have medicaid, medicare, champus or tricare insurance. Why, because the reimbursement is extremely low and its not worth their time.

That is true, you can't find many doctors especially specialists who will take Medicaid because of what they get reimbursed. Not sure what to do but I would think with universal healthcare that all doctors would get paid the same.

[Hawk2007]

That is true, you can't find many doctors especially specialists who will take Medicaid because of what they get reimbursed. Not sure what to do but I would think with universal healthcare that all doctors would get paid the same.

But, would private docs or any doc be required to participate and take on universal healthcare patients?

IIRC, there are indeed private hospitals and clinics in Canada that you can go to.

[catluver]

Police, firemen, teachers, postal workers, libraries... all socialized. Why not healthcare?

Oh, yeah, and banks now

[rrc06]

not sure if you are estimating the tax cost dorrectly or not... but anyway, the UK does a good job with its healthcare system. there are some negatives such as drugs they can and can not prescribe and I also beleive that in the UK there are committes that dictate care in elderly and futile situations which would just simply not work in the USA. Try telling a family to take gma off the ventilator!!! good luck with that.

Yep --- I've heard they pick who gets dialysis and who doesn't. I doubt people here are going to go for that.

yeah, they're not going to approve a new liver for a 70 year old alcoholic but I'm not aware of any drugs they're not allowed to prescribe without justification.

If you search for "UK PAYE" or "UK tax calculator" you'll find many estimates online of net pay wrt gross

I've heard that certain novel chemotherapy agents may not be approved by the NHS until there is long-term data to show that they actually provide a meaningful benefit, one that gives a good bang for the buck.

[rrc06]

Police, firemen, teachers, postal workers, libraries... all socialized. Why not healthcare?

Oh, yeah, and banks now

Are teachers socialized, cat? What does that even mean??

You haven't proven your argument by saying a list of things. I could say something to the tune of: Cherry, Grape, Watermelon.... all flavors of gum. Why not poop? Poop-flavored gum!!




Seriously though, The NHS in the UK is not a bad model. It basically allows physicians to participate in 2 systems AFAIK. The VA hospital system in this country is also good in terms of efficiency and reducing pharma costs through negotiation.

We could have a 2-tiered system in the US, one which provides basic preventative and emergency care, and a higher-level system where you get access to the latest and greatest treatments if you have insurance. If not, you get the standard, cost-effective treatment.

[bigboy44]

I don't want anyone's money, just bringing the awareness to the fact that my husband can't get "what he paid into" and he sits here with little to no help and other people should be aware that this could happen to you. I have sat here myself trying to figure out how to make it better for all of us, and the closest I have come to is suggesting we make it manditory that at least preventative healthcare be available to everyone because I know 7 years ago when I couldn't get even a doctor appointment scheduled because I had no insurance and trust me this is very common, they don't want a self paying patient, and all I needed was a routine visit, to get an RX for blood pressure meds and be followed routinely. I ended up so sick, was in the ICU heart wing for a week and guess who ended up paying that bill? The taxpayers. It is cheaper to treat the poor or now middle class who have no insurance with preventative medicine than to pay a huge bill when they get sick. Now with my husband, I pray that he gets better but the odds he was given are 40% "if" he is followed and treated correctly and frankly he is being treated at the free clinic, so he will probably die. I will end up getting SS for the kids so where does the government come ahead by not giving him the help now to save his life? Or give him the disabilty he worked all his life for? Why not make insurance affordable, doctor visits more affordable, make it so the uninsured don't have to rely on the ER as their family doctor? All I can add is don't get sick.
I so sorry to hear about your situation. You mentioned that your husband has been working since he was 15 and "paying into the system" -- I assume had health insurance covering you and your family. Do you no longer have health insurance because neither of you are employed? If so, shouldn't you have been given COBRA?

[bigboy44]

Advantages of Tax Supported Single Payer Universal Health care:
Health care for everyone.

Promise of efficiency of scale and simplicity.

Health care continuity not affected by employment status changes.


Disadvantages of Tax Supported Single Payer Universal Health care:

The government is more inefficient than the private sector.

Higher taxes are guaranteed and may be levied unfairly (i.e. taxing the rich people more).
Socialism.

Universal health care almost always lead to financial problems for hospitals and clinic, which are underpaid in a universal health care system. Many hospitals and clinics will close their doors, as seen in Japan and UK. In the US, many doctors do not accept Medicare or Medicaid because the doctors and clinics take a LOSS taking care of these patients. http://works.bepress.com/rachel_rose/5/

If doctors are not compensated appropriately, there will be shortages in health care availability, like in Canada, UK, Japan, and Germany. Recently in Germany, all the doctors went on strike for 1 day due to long working hours and poor wages. Do you really want your doctors and nurse to be broke -- how do you think this will effect your care? http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/355/15/1520

Long wait times for all patients.Wait times in Canada are also excessively long, causing folks to pay for their own care out of pocket at "private" hospitals. http://www.ooa.ca/files/economic%20costs%20of%20wait%20time.pdf

Even longer wait times for the sickest patients. In 2008, wait times in UK were increasing for the truly sick with cancer, but slightly decreasing for folks with minor problems like eczema. "What concerns me is that patients with serious conditions may be waiting longer than they used to be. That is wrong." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7271772.stm

[smegalicious]

I so sorry to hear about your situation. You mentioned that your husband has been working since he was 15 and "paying into the system" -- I assume had health insurance covering you and your family. Do you no longer have health insurance because neither of you are employed? If so, shouldn't you have been given COBRA?
No one's *given* COBRA.... you have to pay for it... and you have to pay a lot for it. :sadwalk:

[luvtoargue]

I completely agree with my liberal friends that the health care system desperately needs to be revised. When over half (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1) of all personal bankruptcy filings are because of medical bills, something needs to be done.

However, where we disagree is that I don't think government sponsored health care is the answer.

I know...I'm late...

Yes, healthcare needs to be fixed... Lower the costs. That it. Cap charges. No more million dollars to perform an operation. Enact tort reform and then cap pay. Oh, and forget about $100 for a bandaid too. Hospitals will charge a reasonable price for its services.

[luvtoargue]

I know a guy who lives in another country. I completely forget which, but it's basically a socialist country. If he takes a taxi to the doctors, they cut him a check at the doctor's office to reimburse him for the ride there. The health care is free and he mentioned that hospitals and doctor's offices are somewhat subpar vs what the U.S. has. When we spoke about the election he said he would vote Republican if he lived in the U.S. only b/c they have no chance at becoming wealthy. He said there's really no poverty, unemployment and there are no real economic classes, everyone makes w/in a certain range, no matter what job. I told him how much I pay and taxes thinking it was a high percent and he laughed at me. I believe around 65% or so. After thinking about, I'm pretty sure he lives in Belgium.

Every time I hear talk about big government and socialism, spreading the wealth etc.. I think of this situation and wonder if this is what people really want? I especially think about a statement he made: "if he wanted to start a business or be a doctor he would definitely move to a place like the U.S., where you at least have the opportunity to work hard and exceed the average income". Personally not my idea of a perfect society, maybe I was brought up on different values.

Look at the makeup of Belgium...no minorities...that's why it's so nice there. Harsh but true time and time again. Places where everyone is white...are just plain better places to live. Take away the minorities here in the US and we jump right to the top too. Over there, everyone works together to make the country a wonderful place to live. Over here, we have this wretched underclass putting a huge drag on the rest of us.

Didnt Obama want to cut spending? Crap I should just quit my job and become an leech off the taxpayers if the government is going to provide everything.

Are you the right color? No? Forget it...you won't "qualify".

Do government benefits kick in if you quit your job? How does this welfare system actually work? Do you have to provide any sort of proof that you're trying to get a job? Fortunately I have been working since I was 15, so I really have no idea how to take advantage of these benefits. It is due to me right? Trying harder to advance ones self does seem like a lost cause at this point in time. Setting back and waiting for the O check to arrive is starting to sound like a viable option.

Are you the right color? No? Forget it...you won't "qualify".

It doesn't put anyone to shame. We've been subsidizing the Europeans through our higher drug prices for years.

Not just there...we pay for defense to... We've been footing the bill to protect Europe for 60 years...

[ripcurl]

Look at the makeup of Belgium...no minorities...that's why it's so nice there. Harsh but true time and time again. Places where everyone is white...are just plain better places to live. Take away the minorities here in the US and we jump right to the top too. Over there, everyone works together to make the country a wonderful place to live. Over here, we have this wretched underclass putting a huge drag on the rest of us.



Are you the right color? No? Forget it...you won't "qualify".



Are you the right color? No? Forget it...you won't "qualify".



Not just there...we pay for defense to... We've been footing the bill to protect Europe for 60 years...

I have to agree with the bolded part. As for the rest...you sound like a bizarro-kharvel.

[luvtoargue]

I have to agree with the bolded part. As for the rest...you sound like a bizarro-kharvel.

Please enlighten me then... Why are the "white" countries such pleasant places to live? Until they begin to be overrun by minorities...

[bigboy44]

No one's *given* COBRA.... you have to pay for it... and you have to pay a lot for it. :sadwalk:
Yes, of course COBRA is not free. But if you are ill and you lose your jobs, wouldn't you prefer to continue your health insurance rather than pay for all of your health care out of pocket? COBRA is expensive, but its expensive because your now paying for the whole cost of your health insurance without your employer defraying most of the cost. For example, if your premium was around $150 for your family, under COBRA it would probably increase to $400. That's a lot more than before, but sure less than the amount you would have to pay $100,000 out of pocket incurred by your care.

There are two ways of implementing universal health care:

1. Mandatory participation by all citizens with health care costs paid by your taxes.

2. Mandatory participation by all citizens with health care costs somehow divided between your employer (eg, corporate taxes), you (eg, out of pocket costs), and you (eg, taxes).

Universal health doesn't make health care free -- as you can see the money's got to come from somewhere. Yes there a millions of folks below 65 without health insurance, but in general they receive care for free, whether its emergency care or treatment for chronic problems like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer. They may get a big bill in the mail, but if you can't afford to pay for it, you don't and the care is covered by the taxpayers assuming you seek care at a public hospital. Private hospitals are a different story. Now, its true that those folks without health insurance are not going to get all the care they want -- for example, theyr're not gonna get a knee replacement or a new hip. In universal health care, all these folks would be able to obtain such elective procedures, again, at the cost of the taxpayers. This is great, but this clearly will increase the overall costs of healthcare for everyone.

So, if you think COBRA is expensive now, just wait until universal health care gets implemented. You'll find that your premiums or the equivalent of which (most likely your taxes) will increase to at least the cost of COBRA payment now (eg, from $150/month to $400/month), if not more. So, in the end everyone who can afford to pay for health care, will need to pay more than before in order to cover those who cannot.

[Doctor_Wu]

I watched that Frontline documentary on the subject... interesting as usual... I always enjoy Frontline. But it left me with a few questions.

First of all... none of the discussion was devoted to anyone who had something rare, or how rare diseases are treated. I am curious to see what treatment options these people have... what access do they have to innovative treatments and/or new drugs? One of the rumors about the stimulus package was that it included a provision to attempt to standardize treatments. This is billed as a measure to reduce medical errors (i'm sure that it would help with that) and streamline treatments... probably would help with that too. But it's hard to know what that would mean for people with rare cases.

Frontline briefly touched on the fact that some of these cultures are healthier than we are, just in their general approach to living and eating. We are probably one of the more indulgent cultures when it comes to food and other vices. Who knows what percentage of our medical costs are related to our lifestyles.

They didn't really touch on the issue of drug availability. I've read where some drug companies will ration the amount of drugs they offer a country at the 'negotiated price'... therefore there are shortages. Though they did mention that the Swiss drug manufactures make 1/3 (IIRC) of their profits in the US. Someone else mentioned how we are subsidizing the rest of the world with our paying full price for drugs... and i see we've also done it via our defense spending.

One doctor in the UK or Japan talked about people who visit the doctor too much... b/c it's free and they are lonely. He mentioned he had several patients who visit more than once a week. Taiwan has an agency that will discourage you from going too much... but you've got to go 20 times in 3 months (IIRC) to get their attention. That's a lot of doctor visits that the taxpayers have to pay for, and take up the doctor's time needlessly. I've heard accounts that Canadian doctors have the same problem.

More than one of the nations visited in the show had an issue with the system underpaying doctors. That seemed almost a common theme. In Germany they showed Doctors taking to the streets in protest over their compensation. Also mentioned in Taiwan was the fact that the politicians were unwilling to raise prices to fund the hospitals b/c they were afraid of not being re-elected.

Scarcity means that someone is going to get screwed. Each system had problems it couldn't overcome. I think one of the overall lessons of this program was that once you go down this path, it's somewhat difficult to correct your mistakes b/c of entrenched interests, bureaucratic inertia, and the overall political consequences for change. Changing the system in a democracy typically requires upsetting some group, or the taxpayers themselves.

[smegalicious]

Yes, of course COBRA is not free. But if you are ill and you lose your jobs, wouldn't you prefer to continue your health insurance rather than pay for all of your health care out of pocket? COBRA is expensive, but its expensive because your now paying for the whole cost of your health insurance without your employer defraying most of the cost. For example, if your premium was around $150 for your family, under COBRA it would probably increase to $400. That's a lot more than before, but sure less than the amount you would have to pay $100,000 out of pocket incurred by your care.
The point is that most people who just lost their jobs cannot afford to pay $400/month COBRA premiums... no matter how much they might need them. :sadwalk:

Universal health doesn't make health care free -- as you can see the money's got to come from somewhere. Yes there a millions of folks below 65 without health insurance, but in general they receive care for free, whether its emergency care or treatment for chronic problems like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer.
Where can uninsured patients receive free health care for diabetes, heart disease and/or cancer? :look:

They may get a big bill in the mail, but if you can't afford to pay for it, you don't and the care is covered by the taxpayers assuming you seek care at a public hospital.
And the bill just magically disappears forever? :lmao:

Hardly. If you can't pay, you still get billed. And you still owe that money to the hospital.

[bigboy44]

The point is that most people who just lost their jobs cannot afford to pay $400/month COBRA premiums... no matter how much they might need them. :sadwalk:


If you can't afford to pay COBRA, then you're probably also struggling with lots of other issues like your mortgage, rent or car payment. Listen, if you are poor or of low income, then you've got lots of problems, not just health insurance. Most people would agree that food, shelter and clothing are basic human needs. Proponents of universal healthcare would include healthcare. However, I would argue that food as a basic necessity is just as important, if not more so than health care. Before we start funding free health care for everyone including the indigent, shouldn't we first deal with hunger and homelessness? For all of those folks demanding "free universal health care", why not also ask for "free universal food plan" or "free universal housing"? Oh, wait a second, that sounds a lot like creeping socialism, if not communism.


Where can uninsured patients receive free health care for diabetes, heart disease and/or cancer? :look:


Have you heard of your local public hospital? :look: It like your public library, funded by your taxes.


And the bill just magically disappears forever? :lmao:
Hardly. If you can't pay, you still get billed. And you still owe that money to the hospital.

If you're homeless, you won't receive a bill. If you have an address, you'll receive bills there and yes, they will keep sending them to you. If you don't respond, they might try to collect, but if you have no income and can demonstrate this to them, eventually they will write off as a loss which gets covered by the taxpayers. Like I said before, private hospitals will be a slightly different story. Now, I don't want you all to try to skip out on your next doctor's bill, because if you have the means to do so but refuse to pay for whatever reason, your credit will eventually take a bad hit.

As it stands now, for the folks who are poor or low income we have the public health system caring for them. A certain percentage of the poor are also already covered by Medicaid, a national health care program for the poor. If you're employed, you have insurance funded by your employer. If you are older than 65, you're again covered by the goverment by Medicare, yet another national health care plan. The system isn't perfect, but it works.

[catluver]

COBRA has just changed. You only have to pay 35% of premium now if you were laid off after 9/1/08.

[sah0724]

With medical bills being "not so affordable" these days something has to be done. I agree with this "leechers" comment but to really think people must "tighten up" the boots and handle business is laughable.... we live in a capitalistic society, the rich will take advantage of the poor for financial gain.

To the poor people and those barely making ends meat, the idea of cheaper healthcare is a breath of fresh air.

[kilacam19]

Have you heard of your local public hospital? :look: It like your public library, funded by your taxes.

This is why you are having a lot of theses hospital close down. I work for a non-profit hospital and we are breaking even which is great compared to other hospitals. These hospital do not treat cancer patient, diabetic patients or heart patient unless they are admitted. When they are released from the hospital they are told to follow up. Good luck trying to get an appointment with a Cardiologist, oncologist without insurance. And if you can get an appointment it could be weeks to months before you are seen. A lot of the patients we get in the local ER are diabetic and just cant afford proper medication. A lot of the time it too late and they end up having toes, feet and legs amputated.

[H00t]

Advantages of Tax Supported Single Payer Universal Health care:
Health care for everyone.

Promise of efficiency of scale and simplicity.

Health care continuity not affected by employment status changes.


Disadvantages of Tax Supported Single Payer Universal Health care:

The government is more inefficient than the private sector.

Higher taxes are guaranteed and may be levied unfairly (i.e. taxing the rich people more).
Socialism.

Universal health care almost always lead to financial problems for hospitals and clinic, which are underpaid in a universal health care system. Many hospitals and clinics will close their doors, as seen in Japan and UK. In the US, many doctors do not accept Medicare or Medicaid because the doctors and clinics take a LOSS taking care of these patients. http://works.bepress.com/rachel_rose/5/

If doctors are not compensated appropriately, there will be shortages in health care availability, like in Canada, UK, Japan, and Germany. Recently in Germany, all the doctors went on strike for 1 day due to long working hours and poor wages. Do you really want your doctors and nurse to be broke -- how do you think this will effect your care? http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/355/15/1520

Long wait times for all patients.Wait times in Canada are also excessively long, causing folks to pay for their own care out of pocket at "private" hospitals. http://www.ooa.ca/files/economic%20costs%20of%20wait%20time.pdf

Even longer wait times for the sickest patients. In 2008, wait times in UK were increasing for the truly sick with cancer, but slightly decreasing for folks with minor problems like eczema. "What concerns me is that patients with serious conditions may be waiting longer than they used to be. That is wrong." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7271772.stm


8. Healthy living Americans pay for the bad habits and health problems of those who don't take care of themselves. Alcoholics, chain smokers, druggies, all those who engage in high risk behaviors...their treatments will be paid for by you, even if you are someone who religiously watches what he/she eats, exercises every day, engage in proper hygiene, etc.

9. Which brings up the question...should the government tell you what you can or cannot eat, what you can or cannot do? Consider the ultimatum given to bailout banks. Because they accept public bailout money, it was decided that the government gets to dictate aspects of their business. Well, with universal health care, everyone is accepting public funds. Shouldn't the government be allowed to dictate certain aspects of our lives to minimize its risks and costs? It's the next logical step (prevention).

10. Population growth is shrinking, not growing. That has been one of the problems with social security, medicare, all those sorts of government ponzi schemes. The largest population segment ever in our history, baby boomers, is heading towards retirement ages and towards increasing medical needs from age (and from having engaged in risky behaviors especially in the '70s and '80s). Smaller and smaller population segments will be asked to not only pay for the increasing medical requirements of a much larger group but to keep them alive in retirement (i.e., paying very little in their share of taxes/costs) for longer than ever before. Does this make sense?

Sure, universal health care really tugs at the heart strings, but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[Dancancook]

Sure, universal health care really tugs at the heart strings, but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The road to health is paved with taxpayer money.

And unfortunately, once work begins on this brittle road, shoddy construction and poor management will result in a constant funding shortage which will require increased funding which requires more and more taxes... And around we go... :whee:

[foxxtrot]

http://www.smartmoney.com/Investing/Economy/What-the-Post-Office-Says-About-Universal-Health-Care/

[paperboy05]

If Obama is writing his own speeches, he should consider stopping. I'm not saying he's flat out lying, but, geez, you would think he would do some research.

Remarks by President Obama, HHS Secretary-designate Kathleen Sebelius, and White House Office of Health Reform Director Nancy Ann DeParle (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-President-Obama-HHS-Secretary-designate-Kathleen-Sebelius-and-White-House-Office-of-Health-Reform-Director-Nancy-Ann-DeParle/)

But she's forged a reputation for bipartisan problem-solving in her own right. As governor of Kansas, she inherited a billion-dollar deficit, but by eliminating waste and inefficiency while making smart choices, she balanced the state budget without raising taxes. And time and again, on energy and education, jobs and health care, she's bridged the partisan divide and worked with a Republican legislature to get things done for the people of Kansas.

Kan. Suspends Income Tax Refunds, May Miss Payroll (http://wbztv.com/business/Kansas.budget.broke.2.936346.html)

Kansas has suspended income tax refunds and may not be able to pay employees on time, state officials said Monday.

The state doesn't have enough money in its main budget account to pay its bills, prompting Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to suggest borrowing $225 million from other accounts throughout state government. But the move required approval from legislative leaders, and Republican leaders refused Monday.

Budget Director Duane Goossen said that without the money, he's not sure the state can meet its payroll. About 42,000 state employees are scheduled to be paid again Friday.

He added that the state might also have to delay payments to public schools and to doctors who provide care to needy Kansas residents under the Medicaid program.

Goossen said the state stopped processing income tax refunds last week.
Sebelius accused Republicans, who hold majorities in both chambers of the state legislature, of blocking the accounting maneuver to "play political games."

Republican leaders said it's illegal under Kansas law to shift the funds around as long as the state continues to face a projected deficit in the budget for the fiscal year that ends June 30.

GOP leaders are hoping to pressure Sebelius into signing a bill making $326 million in adjustments to the budget for the fiscal year that ends June 30. Almost half of the adjustments are spending cuts.

Legislators approved that bill last week, but it has not reached the governor's desk. Sebelius hasn't said whether she will sign it.

[horskj]

Please explain how scaling up those systems causes more problems per capita.


Here is the broad-brush answer to your question.

Using Medicare as a guide we do have over a 40-year history from this one payer system. While we do know that 1.8 million currently work for the federal government I have been unable to find the exact number that work for CMS.
Obviously if you increased the number of “covered” members almost 100 times it is going to require an enormous amount of cost to administer such plan; new employees, buildings, furnishing, lights, water, supplying facilities. This all costs money that would have to be built into operating costs.

Medicare gets its money through 2 sources,

1.Payroll taxes, this covers Part A of Medicare. It is paid by all ages that are still working and drawing a check.

2. Part B premiums, they are currently $96.40 per month. They are paid be those on Medicare and have elected to receive Part B.

All monies are deposited into the Medicare Trust fund, for which cost of administration and claims are paid. By simply increasing the number of people will not provide the same income proportion into the fund. With the increase in administrative cost and more members in the system potentially utilizing services, we are going to be forced to contribute more money than most can afford in order to be forced into a healthcare plan.

[passthecrablegs]

I so sorry to hear about your situation. You mentioned that your husband has been working since he was 15 and "paying into the system" -- I assume had health insurance covering you and your family. Do you no longer have health insurance because neither of you are employed? If so, shouldn't you have been given COBRA?

Thank you. Yes, no coverage. I don't even remember being offered COBRA but with no income it wouldn't have mattered since we would not have been able to keep up the payments. I can barely cover the basics here alone and behind in two mortgage payments. It happened overnight for us. Husband had a pain in his side for a week, thought he pulled a muscle at work, and then left work on a friday to go to the ER to see what happened. He was admitted. Monday morning is when they took half his insides out and tested the tumor for cancer and it was. Since that day he hasn't worked.

[124nic8]

Here is the broad-brush answer to your question.

Using Medicare as a guide we do have over a 40-year history from this one payer system. While we do know that 1.8 million currently work for the federal government I have been unable to find the exact number that work for CMS.
Obviously if you increased the number of “covered” members almost 100 times it is going to require an enormous amount of cost to administer such plan; new employees, buildings, furnishing, lights, water, supplying facilities. This all costs money that would have to be built into operating costs.

Medicare gets its money through 2 sources,

1.Payroll taxes, this covers Part A of Medicare. It is paid by all ages that are still working and drawing a check.

2. Part B premiums, they are currently $96.40 per month. They are paid be those on Medicare and have elected to receive Part B.

All monies are deposited into the Medicare Trust fund, for which cost of administration and claims are paid. By simply increasing the number of people will not provide the same income proportion into the fund. With the increase in administrative cost and more members in the system potentially utilizing services, we are going to be forced to contribute more money than most can afford in order to be forced into a healthcare plan.


Sorry I am not understanding your answer.

I know more people in the system will cost that system more.

What I don't understand is why it will cost more or be more problematic per capita in the system.

In addition, many of the uninsured are already getting un-reimbursed HC which is driving up the cost to those who pay (subsidize the uninsured). If all services are reimbursed, it should lower the rate.

[passthecrablegs]

Have you heard of your local public hospital? :look: It like your public library, funded by your taxes.

This is why you are having a lot of theses hospital close down. I work for a non-profit hospital and we are breaking even which is great compared to other hospitals. These hospital do not treat cancer patient, diabetic patients or heart patient unless they are admitted. When they are released from the hospital they are told to follow up. Good luck trying to get an appointment with a Cardiologist, oncologist without insurance. And if you can get an appointment it could be weeks to months before you are seen. A lot of the patients we get in the local ER are diabetic and just cant afford proper medication. A lot of the time it too late and they end up having toes, feet and legs amputated.

You are right. They don't treat cancer patients. They admitted my husband, he had the operation, was in ICU for 13 days and released. They said to follow up with a cancer doctor. Without insurance you are on your own after that. I was able to pay for one visit to see the cancer doctor where he told us he would need chemo, radiation and tests like blood tests and CT Scans to fight the cancer. That is when he applied for Medicaid and was turned down and the worker said he would not get it because he was not pregnant or wasn't a mother with small kids. She was right. The hospital only gets you stable but without treatment that operation only buys some time.

[larrymoencurly]

Have you heard of your local public hospital? :look: It like your public library, funded by your taxes.In the case of Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix area), it was the public hospital that funded the county government because the county's board of supervisors took its profits to fund all the shortfalls. The county hospital was a cash cow, despite being the cheapest hospital in the are.

[larrymoencurly]

Sure, universal health care really tugs at the heart strings, but, as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.The same can be said of the 100% free-market health plans that some on the right advocate. Why do we have the most privatized health care delivery system in the world but don't have the lowest mortality rates or costs? And why is it that every time some part of Medicare is privatized, it's cost more than when the federal government handled it directly?

[rrc06]

why is it that every time some part of Medicare is privatized, it's cost more than when the federal government handled it directly?

links?

[passthecrablegs]

If you can't afford to pay COBRA, then you're probably also struggling with lots of other issues like your mortgage, rent or car payment. Listen, if you are poor or of low income, then you've got lots of problems, not just health insurance. Most people would agree that food, shelter and clothing are basic human needs. Proponents of universal healthcare would include healthcare. However, I would argue that food as a basic necessity is just as important, if not more so than health care. Before we start funding free health care for everyone including the indigent, shouldn't we first deal with hunger and homelessness? For all of those folks demanding "free universal health care", why not also ask for "free universal food plan" or "free universal housing"? Oh, wait a second, that sounds a lot like creeping socialism, if not communism.



Have you heard of your local public hospital? :look: It like your public library, funded by your taxes.



If you're homeless, you won't receive a bill. If you have an address, you'll receive bills there and yes, they will keep sending them to you. If you don't respond, they might try to collect, but if you have no income and can demonstrate this to them, eventually they will write off as a loss which gets covered by the taxpayers. Like I said before, private hospitals will be a slightly different story. Now, I don't want you all to try to skip out on your next doctor's bill, because if you have the means to do so but refuse to pay for whatever reason, your credit will eventually take a bad hit.

As it stands now, for the folks who are poor or low income we have the public health system caring for them. A certain percentage of the poor are also already covered by Medicaid, a national health care program for the poor. If you're employed, you have insurance funded by your employer. If you are older than 65, you're again covered by the goverment by Medicare, yet another national health care plan. The system isn't perfect, but it works.

My husband can't qualify for Medicaid, he was told he wasn't pregnant and was not a woman with small kids. He doesn't qualify for unemployment because he wasn't fired or even quit but had to leave on medical leave. He doesn't qualify for workmans' comp because his cancer isn't work related. He applied and was turned down for Social Security because they said the cancer alone isn't enough to be counted as a disability. Then he ended up getting diabetes and they said MAYBE the combination might qualify him but then he went to a hearing and they turned him down again. Most days he can't get out of bed much less hold down a job and some of that is because of the chemo but he also had a lot taken out of his body and has this bag he deals with. I really don't see him living too long but in the mean time he is being treated like he isn't worth dealing with. So I don't get how "it works". How does a man who has a family, goes to work everyday and then one day goes to the ER with a pain and then doesn't qualify for any help?

[H00t]

The same can be said of the 100% free-market health plans that some on the right advocate. Why do we have the most privatized health care delivery system in the world but don't have the lowest mortality rates or costs? And why is it that every time some part of Medicare is privatized, it's cost more than when the federal government handled it directly?

Before you continue, you forget to mention that we also happen to have the most litigious society in the world. You want lower healthcare costs, figure that one out first. Until then, you're comparing apples to oranges.

[Neo Tocqueville]

...
They didn't really touch on the issue of drug availability. I've read where some drug companies will ration the amount of drugs they offer a country at the 'negotiated price'... therefore there are shortages. Though they did mention that the Swiss drug manufactures make 1/3 (IIRC) of their profits in the US. Someone else mentioned how we are subsidizing the rest of the world with our paying full price for drugs... and i see we've also done it via our defense spending. ...

This really goes the heart of many of our problems (as I mentioned to jamesgumb). There was a time when we could afford to do all of this -- subsidizing medicine for the rest of the world, subsidizing defense for our allies, and subsidizing life style choices in many, many different ways for all of our citizens. We subsidized our suburban homes by propping up dictatorships in oil rich area to ensure cheap gas, we subsidized our food and construction prices by letting illegals work at below-par wages, we subsidized the blue color jobs, our agricultural economies by propping up whole industrial sectors like ethanol, subsidizing outrageous growth in collage tuition by a "credit-is-good culture", and so on.

Now, almost every statistic tells us "No, We Can't". And, this is hard for American to come to grips with. We run out of chickens to sacrifice and now its turn to milk some of those holy cows that we've raised on this farm for years.

I found an illustrative example of this in a completely different area. It was about the F-22 Raptors. Over the past 30 years, during air combat our air force has taken out 100+ enemy planes and lost none. That's an astonishing number -- 0. So overwhelming was our air dominance that no one really dared to take it on. Now, we face the dilemma. Do we spend money (that we're constantly reminded, we do not have) to continue such overwhelming air power or accept the fact that our planes will be taken out by the enemy forces in the future if we were to go to war with a sophisticated military? The air force is furious that we are thinking of making this sacrifice. But, their fury is only symptomatic of the frustration that people are feeling in almost every sector and will almost certainly continue to face in the years and decades ahead.

Some time back my cousin's family visited us from the UK. Both husband and wife are doctors and husband is a specialist with a very top-notch job. They were so keen to shop that almost anywhere we went they would ask to stop for a little shopping spree. And, it was not at brand name stores or a tourists attractions. It was at dollar store and Kohls. Practically the same places where I used to shop when I was making around the poverty level in the US. This is life outside of our little bubble and the bubble is bursting.

Once the economic playing field is leveled for millions and millions of people around the world, there is just no way to turn it back. Try, as we must, we cannot change the fundamental truth that our lifestyles will no longer be better than those in the rest of the world by leaps and bounds. We simply are not that great a people.

I am not smart enough to know what the right way to solve the health care crisis in this country is ... just like I'm not smart enough to know what the right solution to the financial meltdown is. But, I do see a common thread ... which is, an attempt to re-brand what are really painful trade-offs as something else ... it may be "efficiency", "fiscal responsibility", "cutting spending" or "investing into the future".

[bigboy44]

My husband can't qualify for Medicaid, he was told he wasn't pregnant and was not a woman with small kids.


Medicare not Medicaid will cover some, but not all, individuals under the age of 65 for 2 years of care.


He doesn't qualify for unemployment because he wasn't fired or even quit but had to leave on medical leave.


Hold on. This last statement if very confusing. Your husband was working and had health insurance provided by his employer, correct? But he's now on medical leave and was not fired? If this is the case, you should still have health insurance. It doesn't make sense why you no longer have health insurance. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 requires employers by law to continue to provide health insurance to employees on medical leave with medical leave defined as any "serious condition" that prevents the employee from performing their job. Basically, if you're husband is still an employee, he should still have health insurance. In addition, if he is on "medical leave" he should receive some level of disability which is included in many benefit packages. So please explain your situation more clearly because now it makes no sense at all.

Lastly, are you currently working? If not, why not?

[adams135]

Universal Health Care .. yeah right.. that’s the way to go .. provided you don’t really need health care on a timely basis. …


Sweden's Government Health Care
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, March 04, 2009


Government health care advocates used to sing the praises of Britain's National Health Service (NHS). That's until its poor delivery of health care services became known. A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world. The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care. Twelve percent of specialists surveyed admitted refusing kidney dialysis to patients suffering from kidney failure because of limits on cash. Waiting lists for medical treatment have become so long that there are now "waiting lists" for the waiting list.


Government health care advocates sing the praises of Canada's single-payer system. Canada's government system isn't that different from Britain's. For example, after a Canadian has been referred to a specialist, the waiting list for gynecological surgery is four to 12 weeks, cataract removal 12 to 18 weeks, tonsillectomy three to 36 weeks and neurosurgery five to 30 weeks. Toronto-area hospitals, concerned about lawsuits, ask patients to sign a legal release accepting that while delays in treatment may jeopardize their health, they nevertheless hold the hospital blameless. Canadians have an option Britainers don't: close proximity of American hospitals. In fact, the Canadian government spends over $1 billion each year for Canadians to receive medical treatment in our country. I wonder how much money the U.S. government spends for Americans to be treated in Canada.

"OK, Williams," you say, "Sweden is the world's socialist wonder." Sven R. Larson tells about some of Sweden's problems in "Lesson from Sweden's Universal Health System: Tales from the Health-care Crypt," published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (Spring 2008). Mr. D., a Gothenburg multiple sclerosis patient, was prescribed a new drug. His doctor's request was denied because the drug was 33 percent more expensive than the older medicine. Mr. D. offered to pay for the medicine himself but was prevented from doing so. The bureaucrats said it would set a bad precedent and lead to unequal access to medicine.

Malmo, with its 280,000 residents, is Sweden's third-largest city. To see a physician, a patient must go to one of two local clinics before they can see a specialist. The clinics have security guards to keep patients from getting unruly as they wait hours to see a doctor. The guards also prevent new patients from entering the clinic when the waiting room is considered full. Uppsala, a city with 200,000 people, has only one specialist in mammography. Sweden's National Cancer Foundation reports that in a few years most Swedish women will not have access to mammography.

Dr. Olle Stendahl, a professor of medicine at Linkoping University, pointed out a side effect of government-run medicine: its impact on innovation. He said, "In our budget-government health care there is no room for curious, young physicians and other professionals to challenge established views. New knowledge is not attractive but typically considered a problem (that brings) increased costs and disturbances in today's slimmed-down health care."

These are just a few of the problems of Sweden's single-payer government-run health care system. I wonder how many Americans would like a system that would, as in the case of Mr. D. of Gothenburg, prohibit private purchase of your own medicine if the government refused paying. We have problems in our health care system but most of them are a result of too much government. Over 50 percent of health care expenditures in our country are made by government. Government health care advocates might say that they will avoid the horrors of other government-run systems. Don't believe them.

The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, who published Sven Larson's paper, is a group of liberty-oriented doctors and health care practitioners who haven't sold their members down the socialist river as have other medical associations. They deserve our thanks for being a major player in the '90s defeat of "Hillary care."

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/03/04/swedens_government_health_care

[H00t]

That's the thing. Has anyone ever seen the following quote before?

"You can have it done well, done fast, done cheap. But you can only pick two."

The idealist thinks it's possible to have all three. The realist understands that there are tradeoffs.

At least one and at most all three of these items have to give:

1. To have the best quality healthcare.
2. To have the lowest cost healthcare.
3. To have the most accessible and available healthcare.

[Hawk2007]

Universal Health Care .. yeah right.. that’s the way to go .. provided you don’t really need health care on a timely basis. …



I need to dig that article up from Dr. Quebec (his nickname) who introduced the socialized health plan in Quebec in the 60's which the Canadian government modeled the entire country's system off of.

Basically, it ran great for 10-15 years and turned into pandora's box. He would not do the whole thing over again.

[smegalicious]

At least one and at most all three of these items have to give:

1. To have the best quality healthcare.
2. To have the lowest cost healthcare.
3. To have the most accessible and available healthcare.
Are you suggesting that we have all three under the current circumstances?

[H00t]

I don't recall saying that tradeoff list was specifically for universal health care. It should be obvious that you can never have all three at the same time, except in a dream, but the more you choose of any one or two, the more you must sacrifice elsewhere. I don't think that needs any futher explanation.

[passthecrablegs]

Medicare not Medicaid will cover some, but not all, individuals under the age of 65 for 2 years of care.



Hold on. This last statement if very confusing. Your husband was working and had health insurance provided by his employer, correct? But he's now on medical leave and was not fired? If this is the case, you should still have health insurance. It doesn't make sense why you no longer have health insurance. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 requires employers by law to continue to provide health insurance to employees on medical leave with medical leave defined as any "serious condition" that prevents the employee from performing their job. Basically, if you're husband is still an employee, he should still have health insurance. In addition, if he is on "medical leave" he should receive some level of disability which is included in many benefit packages. So please explain your situation more clearly because now it makes no sense at all.

Lastly, are you currently working? If not, why not?


Sorry I didn't mean to confuse you. No, my husband had no insurance with his work. He is on medical leave but since his cancer is not work related, his work doesn't have to cover anything or give him any monetary benefits. All they are doing is holding his job until he can come back. I work in the home but also have no coverage. I don't make a whole lot but I had to stay home because the day care for my adult daughter was too expensive.

[adams135]

Just remember ... "“The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds".

[rrc06]

Cramer put it best:

Raising taxes on the eve of what could be a second Great Depression, destroying the profits in healthcare companies (one of the few areas still robust in the economy), tinkering with the mortgage deduction at a time when U.S. house price depreciation is behind much of the world's morass and certainly the devastation affecting our banks, and pushing an aggressive cap and trade program that could raise the price of energy for millions of people.

The market's the effect; much of what the president is fighting for is the cause. The market's signal can't be ignored. It's too palpable, too predictive to be ignored, despite the prattle that the market's predicted far more recessions than we have.

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/moneyinvesting/news/cramer-my-response-white-house?page=2

[horskj]

Just remember ... "“The cost of health care now causes a bankruptcy in America every thirty seconds".




Yes adams that is a fact… of course no one can find any evidence of such and when asked directly about it an Obama advisors replied “we are not going to go into specific details”


So… of course this must be true it was said by Obama

[Rebound]

Yes adams that is a fact… of course no one can find any evidence of such and when asked directly about it an Obama advisors replied “we are not going to go into specific details”


So… of course this must be true it was said by ObamaIt's based on a Harvard study and also cited by the National Coalition on Healthcare. www.nchc.org/facts/costs.shtml

Healthcare costs are currently 17% of our nation's GDP, and will increase to 20% by 2012. Good to see you're on the "ignore the problem and it will go away" side.

[paperboy05]

Good to see you're on the "ignore the problem and it will go away" side.

Are you on the "Let's throw money at it 'til it hurts" side?

[Rebound]

Are you on the "Let's throw money at it 'til it hurts" side?No, I'm on the "I hope you don't die from cancer because you can't get healthcare" side.

One of my kids needed open-heart surgery at age 2. Would have died without it. Cost over $500,000. I paid the $50 deductible. Insurance paid the rest. She was out of the hospital 4 days later and she's been fit as a fiddle ever since.

Take your ideology and shove it, my ideology is that no parent should watch their kid die because they have no insurance.

Are you prepared if a family member needs a half million dollar operation? Are you prepared if you wake up and feel a lump on your pelvis tomorrow?

[bikes4u]

I'm tryin to figure out where you live that people don't have insurance? Here in Indiana we have all kinds of insurance for the poor and lower middle class for very little, free. They have better insurance than middle class and above. No deduct, low or zero premiums. choice of doctors, all tests approved no problem. Got a sprained ankle? prefer an MRI--no problem. In fact the state is loaded with people that dropped their employers insurance because state/ or govt. provided insurance was much cheaper.

[EISD]

I personally don't have medical insurance and probably wouldn't want a raise in taxes like Obama's suggesting here. He's not very meticulous with the budget, it's almost like stealing from the taxpayers in this sense.

[Rebound]

I'm tryin to figure out where you live that people don't have insurance? Here in Indiana we have all kinds of insurance for the poor and lower middle class for very little, free. They have better insurance than middle class and above. No deduct, low or zero premiums. choice of doctors, all tests approved no problem. Got a sprained ankle? prefer an MRI--no problem. In fact the state is loaded with people that dropped their employers insurance because state/ or govt. provided insurance was much cheaper.If that's true, them there is no health insurance problem, so the added cost will be zero.

[bikes4u]

If that's true, them there is no health insurance problem, so the added cost will be zero.

you didn't read my post.

When the govt makes cheap or zero $ insurance available the public will simply cancel private insurance. The costs will go up astronomically as they have here in Indiana.

[larrymoencurly]

Are you on the "Let's throw money at it 'til it hurts" side?We now throw 16% of our GDP toward health care, the highest percentage in the world, yet our mortality rates aren't the best. Canada throws only 10-12% and provides equally good care, overall (delays are longer, but the US is also slower than average) yet covers 100% of its population.

What's your solution? Mine is universal Medicare because we already have extensive experience running. It would also relieve doctors of the one hour+ they spend every day dealing with the numerous coverage companies and their different sets of rules. American doctors average one extra employee per practice because they need somebody to deal with our complex rules.

[rrc06]

What's your solution? Mine is universal Medicare because we already have extensive experience running. It would also relieve doctors of the one hour+ they spend every day dealing with the numerous coverage companies and their different sets of rules. American doctors average one extra employee per practice because they need somebody to deal with our complex rules.

How about a 2-tiered system similar to the NHS in england? Basic bare-bones UHC for everyone (to prevent financial catastrophe), and the gold-plated plan for those who can afford it.

[alimoni]

Medicare not Medicaid will cover some, but not all, individuals under the age of 65 for 2 years of care.



Hold on. This last statement if very confusing. Your husband was working and had health insurance provided by his employer, correct? But he's now on medical leave and was not fired? If this is the case, you should still have health insurance. It doesn't make sense why you no longer have health insurance. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 requires employers by law to continue to provide health insurance to employees on medical leave with medical leave defined as any "serious condition" that prevents the employee from performing their job. Basically, if you're husband is still an employee, he should still have health insurance. In addition, if he is on "medical leave" he should receive some level of disability which is included in many benefit packages. So please explain your situation more clearly because now it makes no sense at all.

Lastly, are you currently working? If not, why not?
FMLA provides job protection, and not all employers are mandated by it. Also, while the health insurance coverage would continue, that doesn't make it free. Plus, some companies don't offer short- or long-term disability, and when they do, all employees don't opt in for it. You've made many assumptions.

Sorry I didn't mean to confuse you. No, my husband had no insurance with his work. He is on medical leave but since his cancer is not work related, his work doesn't have to cover anything or give him any monetary benefits. All they are doing is holding his job until he can come back. I work in the home but also have no coverage. I don't make a whole lot but I had to stay home because the day care for my adult daughter was too expensive.
If neither of you work, your family should be eligible for benefits. Have you truly exhausted all of your resources?

[bean]

No, I'm on the "I hope you don't die from cancer because you can't get healthcare" side.
ORLY?
The head of the World Health Organization calculated that Britain has as many as 25,000 unnecessary cancer deaths a year because of under-provision of care.
http://www.theunionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Walter+Williams%3a+All+hail+Sweden%27s+health+care+(unless+you+get+sick+there)&articleId=893ace4c-8d84-4448-9fa3-3d4251206e0a
Take your ideology and shove it, my ideology is that no parent should watch their kid die because they have no insurance.
Are you prepared if a family member needs a half million dollar operation? Are you prepared if you wake up and feel a lump on your pelvis tomorrow?
Not if you are in Britain...
A recent study by David Green and Laura Casper, "Delay, Denial and Dilution," written for the London-based Institute of Economic Affairs, concludes that the NHS health care services are just about the worst in the developed world.

[passthecrablegs]

FMLA provides job protection, and not all employers are mandated by it. Also, while the health insurance coverage would continue, that doesn't make it free. Plus, some companies don't offer short- or long-term disability, and when they do, all employees don't opt in for it. You've made many assumptions.


If neither of you work, your family should be eligible for benefits. Have you truly exhausted all of your resources?

I get SS and Medicaid for my adult daughter because she is mentally handicapped and she gets food stamps for herself because she is an adult. But we as a family have also been getting food stamps since my husband went on medical leave last July. Other than that no other help or income. Other than my husband going to the drug company for the chemo meds and the free clinic which is not free but the $15 visit is still helpful. Just since last friday my husband's work said he is no longer on medical leave and his job is no longer available. I am a bit shocked at how Sam's Club treats their employees but it doesn't look like my husband will ever be able to work again anyway. We hired a SS attorney for my husband but that could take forever but that is our only hope right now.

[alimoni]

I get SS and Medicaid for my adult daughter because she is mentally handicapped and she gets food stamps for herself because she is an adult. But we as a family have also been getting food stamps since my husband went on medical leave last July. Other than that no other help or income. Other than my husband going to the drug company for the chemo meds and the free clinic which is not free but the $15 visit is still helpful. Just since last friday my husband's work said he is no longer on medical leave and his job is no longer available. I am a bit shocked at how Sam's Club treats their employees but it doesn't look like my husband will ever be able to work again anyway. We hired a SS attorney for my husband but that could take forever but that is our only hope right now.

It definitely sounds as if you're going through all of the channels. It does take awhile for SS to approve benefits, even when 100% legit. Unfortunately, the law only requires 12 weeks of FMLA, which Sam's Club would definitely be subject to. Your situation is very sad. :hug:

[junbug178]

I have to agree with the bolded part. As for the rest...you sound like a bizarro-kharvel.

I would suggest using the ignore feature for this :crazy:

[PrettyKitty427]

Get a debilitating disease and see how "great" America's heathcare system is. My husband is 53 years old, worked since he was 15 years old, paid into the system and he was diagnosed with colon cancer on my birthday last year. Lost have his insides, been on chemo for 8 months, ended up with diabetes from all the meds he has been on and he has been too sick to work. He doesn't qualify for disability "yet" because they don't think he is disabled enough , he can't get Medicaid because he isn't a pregnant woman or a woman with kids, we do qualify for food stamps. So he has a hospital bill over $100,000 that I don't see how we will ever be able to pay, he had to beg for free chemo meds from the drug company, he goes to the free clinic to have the chemo drugs injected and you can just imagine the type of care he gets there. He has no income coming in so I have to bring in what I can and at the same time take care of an adult handicap child from my first marriage and our handicapped little boy and if we aren't homeless next month it will be a miracle. I would never have imagined myself in such a position in my life. All I can say is you can die in America without insurance.

Move to NYC. Everything is already socialized here.

[rrc06]

Move to NYC. Everything is already socialized here.

:lol: so true

[smegalicious]

I'm tryin to figure out where you live that people don't have insurance? Here in Indiana we have all kinds of insurance for the poor and lower middle class for very little, free.
Leaving aside Medicaid and CHIP (as they are federal programs available in all states), I could find no Indiana state program providing *free* health insurance to adults.

There is a "Healthy Indiana Plan" that offers some very basic coverage (http://www.in.gov/rde/xchg/in_core/hs.xsl/faqs.htm?faq_id=211), but you still have to pay for it.

Here in Pennsylvania, there is a similar program. A year or so ago when I checked into it for a relative, there was 1-2 year wait list to join the program..... or else you had to be able to pay the entire year's worth of premiums in advance. :eek:

They have better insurance than middle class and above. No deduct, low or zero premiums. choice of doctors, all tests approved no problem. Got a sprained ankle? prefer an MRI--no problem. In fact the state is loaded with people that dropped their employers insurance because state/ or govt. provided insurance was much cheaper.
Got anything to back up these claims? :rolleyes:

[passthecrablegs]

Move to NYC. Everything is already socialized here.

You know we had a doctor tell us that if we lived in New York this would not have happened. He just moved from there. So I believe you.

[rrc06]

Interesting op-ed from a British physician....

I've attached a poll to the thread. EDIT: I forgot to check the box. I'm hoping a mod can help :D

Is There a ‘Right’ to Health Care? (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203517304574306170677645070.html)

In Britain, its recognition has led to substandard care.

By THEODORE DALRYMPLE

If there is a right to health care, someone has the duty to provide it. Inevitably, that “someone” is the government. Concrete benefits in pursuance of abstract rights, however, can be provided by the government only by constant coercion.

People sometimes argue in favor of a universal human right to health care by saying that health care is different from all other human goods or products. It is supposedly an important precondition of life itself. This is wrong: There are several other, much more important preconditions of human existence, such as food, shelter and clothing.

Everyone agrees that hunger is a bad thing (as is overeating), but few suppose there is a right to a healthy, balanced diet, or that if there was, the federal government would be the best at providing and distributing it to each and every American.

Where does the right to health care come from? Did it exist in, say, 250 B.C., or in A.D. 1750? If it did, how was it that our ancestors, who were no less intelligent than we, failed completely to notice it?

If, on the other hand, the right to health care did not exist in those benighted days, how did it come into existence, and how did we come to recognize it once it did?

When the supposed right to health care is widely recognized, as in the United Kingdom, it tends to reduce moral imagination. Whenever I deny the existence of a right to health care to a Briton who asserts it, he replies, “So you think it is all right for people to be left to die in the street?”

When I then ask my interlocutor whether he can think of any reason why people should not be left to die in the street, other than that they have a right to health care, he is generally reduced to silence. He cannot think of one.

Moreover, the right to grant is also the right to deny. And in times of economic stringency, when the first call on public expenditure is the payment of the salaries and pensions of health-care staff, we can rely with absolute confidence on the capacity of government sophists to find good reasons for doing bad things.

The question of health care is not one of rights but of how best in practice to organize it. America is certainly not a perfect model in this regard. But neither is Britain, where a universal right to health care has been recognized longest in the Western world.

Not coincidentally, the U.K. is by far the most unpleasant country in which to be ill in the Western world. Even Greeks living in Britain return home for medical treatment if they are physically able to do so.

The government-run health-care system—which in the U.K. is believed to be the necessary institutional corollary to an inalienable right to health care—has pauperized the entire population. This is not to say that in every last case the treatment is bad: A pauper may be well or badly treated, according to the inclination, temperament and abilities of those providing the treatment. But a pauper must accept what he is given.

Universality is closely allied as an ideal, ideologically, to that of equality. But equality is not desirable in itself. To provide everyone with the same bad quality of care would satisfy the demand for equality. (Not coincidentally, British survival rates for cancer and heart disease are much below those of other European countries, where patients need to make at least some payment for their care.)

In any case, the universality of government health care in pursuance of the abstract right to it in Britain has not ensured equality. After 60 years of universal health care, free at the point of usage and funded by taxation, inequalities between the richest and poorest sections of the population have not been reduced. But Britain does have the dirtiest, most broken-down hospitals in Europe.

There is no right to health care—any more than there is a right to chicken Kiev every second Thursday of the month.

Theodore Dalrymple is the pen name of Anthony Daniels, a British physician. He is a contributing editor to the City Journal.

I am sure most in TP know my opinion on this matter.

September 12, 2009, 3:10 am: System Notice: This thread has been automatically renewed after reaching a post limit. Most of its content has been moved to this thread (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?t=1554091) for reference purposes.

[lerlerler]

a RIGHT?

probably not.

HOWEVER, in the long run, I think that EVERYONE would be healthier and the economy would prosper IF everyone WAS healthy.

I wouldn't pass a law requiring that everyone should get at least minimum preventative care because it was a Right...
I wouldn't even pass it because it was RIGHT, or a moral or social obligation. (OK, this MAY have something to do with it in my mind)

But I would ensure access to docs and vaxes for everyone because then no TB-ridden child would be sneezing on MY kid at the park... the ER wouldn't be filled with people with the flu when my son cracks his head opened and I have to wait, my insurance premium wouldn't be astronomical (self-insured) due to hospitals dealing with non-paying patients with chronic problems that could have been cured by diet and exercise... iftey had seen a doc early on

Who the heck cares if it's a RIGHT?

Do it because a minimum standard of universal healthcare really IS a slickdeal!

[redmaxx]

Did I end up at news.slickdeals.net by some mistake? :confused:

It was nice when there wasn't thread after thread of op eds...

[Pascal90]

I believe everyone who is a legal citizen of the US has a "right" to healthcare in the sense that it is available. I don't think it should be a forced requirement to have healthcare.

[lordoffire]

I believe everyone who is a legal citizen of the US has a "right" to healthcare in the sense that it is available. I don't think it should be a forced requirement to have healthcare.
...:nod:....

[jamegumb]

One way ticket to their home country, or bill the consulate.

If this were actually part of the proposal, it would generate much more support.

[Hawk2007]

If this were actually part of the proposal, it would generate much more support.


If I were in Washington, I'd be willing to sit down with libs and work something out.

However, what I see, is a whole lot of partisan bs from the blue side a strong interest in them securing a new voting block that will solidify their power for the next 100 years. That's the reason why they're so soft on illegal immigration and paying for these healthcare costs.

I do want to help Americans who can't afford health insurance, establish a plan or some system for them. However, Americans is the keyword.

[catluver]

Medicaid is not supposed to be used for illegal immigrants, but we spend tens of billions of dollars we'll never recoup every year treating illegals. Google this stuff Cat, it's not that hard to find.

If he says the public option will not be available to illegals, I believe him.

[rrc06]

If he says the public option will not be available to illegals, I believe him.

Would you believe him if he said he was a moderate who wasn't interested in a single-payer system like he did tonight?

I sure as hell wouldn't. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE)

[Hawk2007]

If he says the public option will not be available to illegals, I believe him.

I would like to believe him. Unfortunately, five minutes and Google can teach you a lot about the illegal immigrant double speak of Democrats.

It's amazing that in 1000+ pages, they cannot and will not add a paragraph or two that uses the strongest language possible about using federal healthcare dollars for illegal immigrants and the ramifications and jailtime of those who violate that policy. (Illegals are still 100% free to consume as much healthcare in America as they can afford). When it comes to defrauding Medicare, politicians are able to throw in that kind of language. However, it's nowhere to be found in HR3200.

[jamegumb]

If he says the public option will not be available to illegals, I believe him.

Not sure I see the reform unless illegals are explicitly denied all care.

[catluver]

I would like to believe him. Unfortunately, five minutes and Google can teach you a lot about the illegal immigrant double speak of Democrats.

It's amazing that in 1000+ pages, they cannot and will not add a paragraph or two that uses the strongest language possible about using federal healthcare dollars for illegal immigrants and the ramifications and jailtime of those who violate that policy. (Illegals are still 100% free to consume as much healthcare in America as they can afford). When it comes to defrauding Medicare, politicians are able to throw in that kind of language. However, it's nowhere to be found in HR3200.

I know, they always leave a tiny doorway to get out if they need it.

The other thing that I wonder about... Obama says no one will be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Did he also say that your premium will not be rated up because of pre-existing conditions?

[redmaxx]

Because we actually have enough CT scanners, per capita.

That doesn't mean that she would have gotten care. You need to look at similar areas to the one she was visiting and you need to also consider the potential that they may become overloaded anyway. Finally, you fail every time to acknowledge that the patient has a role in the situation when they refuse treatment.

[karkaputto]

(Illegals are still 100% free to consume as much healthcare in America as they can afford
wait, if they pay for it, what's the problem? i mean, i am not particularly fond of giving illegal immigrants free treatment, but if they pay for it, well, i mean, i'm a free market sort of person, so i'd be okay with that for the most part.

[kharvel]

Because we actually have enough CT scanners, per capita.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/chart-of-day-canada-vs-us-med-equipment.html

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/SkYU7Xar_-I/AAAAAAAAKgQ/0x5Meb07nXM/s1600-h/mrict.jpg

You misunderstood my question. I was asking what makes you think the American hospital would even give her at least the same care that she was getting in the Canadian hospital for FREE, if she could not pay for that care on her own?

[kharvel]

Question no. 2: assuming it is true that the bill does not provide for care for illegal immigrants, then what happens the next time an illegal immigrant without coverage shows up at the ER in need for treatment?

What would you like the ER to do with regards to the unauthorized alien?

Would you like the ER to deny care to that person?

[rrc06]

You misunderstood my question. I was asking what makes you think the American hospital would even give her at least the same care that she was getting in the Canadian hospital for FREE, if she could not pay for that care on her own?

Because they would do it under fear of punishment under EMTALA. Have you worked in a healthcare setting? i have, and I've seen many ERs. It happens all of the time.

[redmaxx]

Because they would do it under fear of punishment under EMTALA. Have you worked in a healthcare setting? i have, and I've seen many ERs. It happens all of the time.

:lol: I've been to the hospital with my grandmother while she was having a heart attack. They refused to do basic testing and simply told her that it was just regular pain. Her cardiologist had to lean hard on the hospital over the phone to get them to realize that they needed to do tests and, well, what do you know, she needs surgery! She had really good insurance too.

She may not be in the majority of cases, but even with EMTALA there's no guarantee. Plus, it's hard for the hospital to do anything when the patient refuses treatment.

[farnan]

Yeah he did touch on some of the things Republicans have been bringing up all along that will help a lot but he still seems to be avoiding one of the biggest ones which is opening up state lines so that people can purchase private insurance from other states. This allows the better insurance companies that offer better coverage to compete nationwide. This works in every other market in our economy and there is no reason why it cannot work for health insurance as well. The whole issue is that right now there are state regulations that are imposed on insurance companies to keep them from doing this but a federal passed bill would superceed these state regulations and open up the market.

Here are a couple of the problems with allowing insurance companies to sell products in states they're not registered with:

1) over 200 BILLION dollars per year is wasted by doctors trying to chase down reimbursements, filling out forms, hiring coding employees, etc. for the many insurance coverages they accept. This will only make the problem WORSE. It is bad enough dealing with the in-state insurance companies--just wait until you're chasing $$ down in some random state that (a) has forum selection clauses in their contracts that require the use of out of state counsel to litigate issues; (b) as i'll discuss below, the race to the bottom will cause insurance companies to pinch pennies and deny claims to save their bottom line.

2) this will cause a "race to the bottom" where shady insurance companies will organize in the states with the easiest regulatory framework, friendly courts, etc. that will allow them provide shitty coverages and deny claims as a matter of course.

Also Obama mentioned it in a small form tonight outside of the health reform bill just to sort of throw the Republicans a bone but Obama and the Democrats are still against a solid tort reform legislation that would cut away a ton of these frivilous million dollar lawsuits making it a lot harder for people to sue doctors and hospitals. This would eliminate the doctors from having to purchase such extremely high malpractice
insurance and doctor's wouldn't have to do as many unnecessary tests and procedures just to protect themselves from being open to a lawsuit. George Bush tried to get tort reform going during his administration and the Democrats blocked it. They did this because these lawyers that get huge chunks of money from the malpractice suits are one of the Democracts largest campaign contributors.

The problem is, in the republicans' mind, tort reform = caps. That does absolutely NOTHING to curb the major problem--> small BS nusance claims that cost more to litigate than settle. All caps would do is hurt those who actually ARE injured and maybe reduce a few overkill awards. But the overkill awards are not the norm--they are the exception to the rule. The key is all of the bs claims that lack substance but cost so much money to litigate, will save the insurance company more money to settle. This only leads more attorneys and fraudster patients to file more BS claims.

I did like that Obama said that he was going to make it illegal for private insurance companies to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions or to cancel your coverage once you get sick. These are very good policies that need to be done and this will help eliminate what people have been complaining about the private insurance companies denying coverage.

Agreed.

NOW, lets get to the public option plan. What purpose is the public option plan even going to serve now that Obama has just said tonight it will only be for the 5% of Americans that can't afford health insurance? If opening up the market which increases competition among the health care providers brings down the cost of private insureres then how many of these people would no longer be able to afford insurance? And if many of these uninsured are on a low fixed income how many of them already qualify for Medicare? The biggest problem is how he thinks he's going to pay for it simply by cutting unnecessary Medicare spending. Simply put I don't see how that's possible even if he doesn't go over this quoted figure of 900 billion for the 10 year cost which seems like best case scenario estimate. If it was that easy to cut over 500 billion dollars in spending from Medicare WITHOUT affecting the quality of care that seniors over 65 receive you would think they would of already done that. And has Obama forgot that over 70 million baby boomers are getting ready to qualify for Medicare in 2010?

You're assuming the cuts will decrease Medicare payments overall---no, the planned increases in Medicare will not go up as much as the savings will kick in to help. To assume they would have already cut the excess waste isn't a valid assumption. Any politican looking to cut Medicare/Medicaid will face the irrational fears and certain rage of the elderly--a reliable voting group of citizens.

Look, while it may seem stupid to help only 5% of americans, helping these people will lower ALL of our healthcare costs. They'll use less emergency room care (thus allocating resources to other, less expensive, parts of our healthcare system). They'll be more healthy with preventative care. Hospitals will actually collect from mostly everyone, so they don't need to hike rates to make up for the cost of uncollectable debts. We already pay for the uninsured--in the form of higher costs and higher premium costs.

[adams135]

Not sure I see the reform unless illegals are explicitly denied all care.
I actually needs to go farther than just stating illegals are denied health care or the “public option” The question is HOW can a Medical provider or Public Option provider know if someone is illegal.

Recognizing this “loophole” so to speak Rep. Nathan Deal (Repub) offered an amendment which would have required health care providers use the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program which would have closed this “loophole” … guess what .. The House committee voted against this amendment in late July of this year … right before the August recess.

So much for Dems being serious about NOT providing Health Care to Illegals … typical play on words when they say it doesn’t provide service to Illegals.

One thing I noticed .. The Networks as well as Obama keeps referring to HIS Health Care Plan yet it is the Congress that is creating the plan based on what they want … NOT what the President supposedly wants.

[horskj]

I am not sure where the hell any one here is getting the idea that an insurance company can just arbitrarily drop someone’s coverage… weather it is by just dropping or by rescinding here are a couple of facts.

1 Health plans… individual plans like the examples used by the president last night are by and large a guarantee renewable plan. Meaning that on the anniversary of the plan it will automatically renew for another year with no additional underwriting requirements, that is not to say that a policy could or would not have a limit on benefits i.e. 2 mill or 5 mill, over the life of the contract, this means that there is the maximum amount that a plan will pay.

2 Health plans are also a contract. They require two parts to become valid; an offer and consideration.
The insurance company is offering to pay your health care claims… under certain conditions i.e. you meet underwriting requirements, meaning that you are truthful in the application and that the truthfulness of the application is verified by medical records and pharmaceutical records.

Now here is where I am going to have a big issue with some insures. There are 2 way that underwriting can be done; post claim and pre claim, and there is a big difference

Pre-claim is when you submit the application and all verification and obtaining of medical records is done before a plan is issued. If you do not meet underwriting guidelines no plan is then offered. Now this is not to say that if you submit a claim right away… inside the contestability period, (unless it is an accident) that said claim is not going to be scrutinized.

Post claim is when an insurance company will issue the policy and then wait for you to submit your first claim. If that claim is within the incontestability period (generally 24 months) then they go out and get the medical records to determine if you were truthful on the application.
I and my company do not agree with this practice and we would never do business with a vendor that would underwrite in this manner. Post underwriting is a lazy way to underwrite. The reason that a company would do post underwriting is that it can be very expensive to get medical records… it is not uncommon to have $300 to $500 invested in a case before you make a decision to accept the risk. If the company turns down an application that money is lost. So in an effort to save money a company will wait and do underwriting post claim…that practice needs to be stopped

The consideration part of the contract is the timely payment of premiums on the part of the insured. Yes if you do not pay your premiums… you will loose your coverage. Additionally if you were fraudulent on the application and a contract was issued that had the company known all the information you would have not been issued a plan… yes they are going to rescind the contract and return all premiums paid.

So I am sorry if I have bored anyone with the technical details but the long and the short of it is… there are only 2 ways that an insurance company can drop you, if you lied on the application and they found out about it or you did not pay your premiums… not because you had a claim

[redmaxx]

Additionally if you were fraudulent on the application and a contract was issued that had the company known all the information you would have not been issued a plan… yes they are going to rescind the contract and return all premiums paid.

It doesn't even require that you be fraudulent. You could miss something in your history and that can become grounds later for the insurance company to rescind your coverage. They may claim that they "never would have issued the policy", but there's no way to know that after the fact. There's a strong incentive for them to only do the digging after they've collected premiums and only when they're being asked to pay a large claim. I don't think it's honest on their part to issue a policy and then later expect to be able to cancel the entire policy even if they find the slightest thing wrong later on.

Virtually every contract I've seen with a company deems that if any part of the contract is held unenforceable, then that portion of the contract, and only that bit deemed unenforceable, is severed from the contract. But like businesses with their merchant agreements, here we see a double standard. When they see something they don't like, they want to discharge all of their responsibility. In other words, I can't tell my cell phone provider I would never have accepted their contract if I had known that "x" term in the contract is illegal. Yet reverse it, and the insurance company ensures that they can sever the entire contract if it is to their advantage.

So I am sorry if I have bored anyone with the technical details but the long and the short of it is… there are only 2 ways that an insurance company can drop you, if you lied on the application and they found out about it or you did not pay your premiums… not because you had a claim

:shake: Lying is intentional. It's entirely possible to forget or miss something, or have the doctor's office miss a portion of your records when faxing them (just happened to me). Actually, going over my records recently, there's something missing in a couple of doctor's notes about how they were testing me. What if I were applying for insurance and later on those missing pages were found and reintegrated with the doctor's notes? Guess what, the insurance would then have grounds to terminate my coverage.

[horskj]

It doesn't even require that you be fraudulent. You could miss something in your history and that can become grounds later for the insurance company to rescind your coverage. They may claim that they "never would have issued the policy", but there's no way to know that after the fact. There's a strong incentive for them to only do the digging after they've collected premiums and only when they're being asked to pay a large claim. I don't think it's honest on their part to issue a policy and then later expect to be able to cancel the entire policy even if they find the slightest thing wrong later on.

Virtually every contract I've seen with a company deems that if any part of the contract is held unenforceable, then that portion of the contract, and only that bit deemed unenforceable, is severed from the contract. But like businesses with their merchant agreements, here we see a double standard. When they see something they don't like, they want to discharge all of their responsibility. In other words, I can't tell my cell phone provider I would never have accepted their contract if I had known that "x" term in the contract is illegal. Yet reverse it, and the insurance company ensures that they can sever the entire contract if it is to their advantage.



:shake: Lying is intentional. It's entirely possible to forget or miss something, or have the doctor's office miss a portion of your records when faxing them (just happened to me). Actually, going over my records recently, there's something missing in a couple of doctor's notes about how they were testing me. What if I were applying for insurance and later on those missing pages were found and reintegrated with the doctor's notes? Guess what, the insurance would then have grounds to terminate my coverage.



That is why I am in favor of not allowing post claim underwriting. I understand that people can forget something that they might have had years ago, however if it something resent or ongoing… that is another story.


Believe it or not insurance companies are in the business of issuing coverage. It is very expensive to put a plan on the books (individual coverage) the company dose not want to issue something and later rescind it… they return all premiums when that happens and they are out the cost of underwriting as well.

[bryan]

whats more expensive? cost of underwriting and a couple of years of premiums or a 100K + operation?

[xillix]

People do not understand the concept of "rights" anymore.

A "right" to health care only goes so far as to say that one cannot be denied (by the government) access to health care.

Providing health care to individuals is a moral issue. The government should never dabble in morality. Morality is bullshit. It is meaningless. Only complete assholes who are too farking stupid to understand how wrong they are want the government to make moral choices. Most Americans now feel that the government should enforce their own specific morality, which is the opposite of how things should be. And the reason I hate Americans.
I dont know about a 'right' to healthcare but I do think there should be rights to have cheap drugs if you need them to live.
I'm a type 1 diabetic (genetically inherited) and I take 5 vials of insulin per month. Each vial is $100. That's $500 I -have- to have in order to keep myself alive. Not including the cost of syringes, testing supplies, etc. I constantly worry that I will lose my job and not be able to afford my insulin any longer.
What right do drug companies have to raise costs on drugs that one needs to just survive?

So, do I think we have a right to healthcare? No. But I do feel that there should be rights to cheap drugs if needed.
Drug companies are producing a good and want to maximize profits. As the producer the company has the right to determine a price it wants in exchange for the good. Drugs are a luxury good. While they may be "needed" to survive, there is still a cost involved. No one can be obligated to provide anything that has a cost to another.

And more important is that this is a matter of the individual. The government does not work on the level of the individual. The federal government works behalf of the union of states. Even state governments are working on behalf of counties and cities and districts and so on. The individual is not a government matter.

[DarthSaver]

Why stop at healthcare. Why not provide Life Insurance for every American. That should be a right. How about Dental Insurance. We all have a right to good teeth, no matter how much candy we eat. How about Government mandated fitness programs. That will drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. Make everyone work out 5 hours a week and if they don't they get taxed, um er, charged a fee! How about we force everybody to stop eating meat like PETA wants? Surely some lives and money will be saved if we are weened off of meat. This whole Socialist way of life can be achieved. If only we hope and believe and, gratuitously, invoke the spirit of Ted Kennedy.

[horskj]

whats more expensive? cost of underwriting and a couple of years of premiums or a 100K + operation?

You want to have a $100 coin toss...

Here are the rules heads I win tales you loose... don't like those odds

Same thing with the insurance company. If they would have never issued a plan in the first place dose not matter what the amount of the operation is.

btw... all of these kinds of claims take place in the incontestability period... generally the first 2 years after that time you could have lied out your ass and if the company did not find it they are still bound to the contract...did you know that.

[Waxed]

Why stop at healthcare. Why not provide Life Insurance for every American. That should be a right. How about Dental Insurance. We all have a right to good teeth, no matter how much candy we eat. How about Government mandated fitness programs. That will drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. Make everyone work out 5 hours a week and if they don't they get taxed, um er, charged a fee! How about we force everybody to stop eating meat like PETA wants? Surely some lives and money will be saved if we are weened off of meat. This whole Socialist way of life can be achieved. If only we hope and believe and, gratuitously, invoke the spirit of Ted Kennedy.

Medicaid is government run health care that already covers dental plans. :rolleye2:

[xillix]

Why stop at healthcare. Why not provide Life Insurance for every American. That should be a right. How about Dental Insurance. We all have a right to good teeth, no matter how much candy we eat. How about Government mandated fitness programs.
This is of course the problem with the government--which is actually society, not assholes with personality disorders seeking to immortalize themselves while taking advantage of the stupid--providing anything. If society is footing the bill then society should have a say in the way people live.

I could never support allowing people to smoke while being supported by tax money. Nor drink. Abortions would have to be covered and encouraged for the poor.

There would also need to be some type of rationing. Old people need more care, but provide less benefit to society. Why the fark is society wasting its resources on those who are basically the walking dead? I think that Republican dream of "death panels" is actually a good idea. Let the old people pay for their own treatment. fark 'em. They are not providing any benefit to society and should not be leeching off of society. Selfish farking bastards (and just wait until those farking "gimme gimme gimme" baby boomer assholes are older).

As a libertarian who is both a utilitarian and hedonist I cannot see any of this happening though. We will never have what we should have. People are too farking greedy and only think about what benefits them. And then they follow farking moron politicians who hold their marionette strings.

I do not understand how anyone could not hate Americans.

[horskj]

People do not understand the concept of "rights" anymore.

A "right" to health care only goes so far as to say that one cannot be denied (by the government) access to health care.

Providing health care to individuals is a moral issue. The government should never dabble in morality. Morality is bullshit. It is meaningless. Only complete assholes who are too farking stupid to understand how wrong they are want the government to make moral choices. Most Americans now feel that the government should enforce their own specific morality, which is the opposite of how things should be. And the reason I hate Americans.

Drug companies are producing a good and want to maximize profits. As the producer the company has the right to determine a price it wants in exchange for the good. Drugs are a luxury good. While they may be "needed" to survive, there is still a cost involved. No one can be obligated to provide anything that has a cost to another.

And more important is that this is a matter of the individual. The government does not work on the level of the individual. The federal government works behalf of the union of states. Even state governments are working on behalf of counties and cities and districts and so on. The individual is not a government matter.

This is of course the problem with the government--which is actually society, not assholes with personality disorders seeking to immortalize themselves while taking advantage of the stupid--providing anything. If society is footing the bill then society should have a say in the way people live.

I could never support allowing people to smoke while being supported by tax money. Nor drink. Abortions would have to be covered and encouraged for the poor.

There would also need to be some type of rationing. Old people need more care, but provide less benefit to society. Why the fark is society wasting its resources on those who are basically the walking dead? I think that Republican dream of "death panels" is actually a good idea. Let the old people pay for their own treatment. fark 'em. They are not providing any benefit to society and should not be leeching off of society. Selfish farking bastards (and just wait until those farking "gimme gimme gimme" baby boomer assholes are older).

As a libertarian who is both a utilitarian and hedonist I cannot see any of this happening though. We will never have what we should have. People are too farking greedy and only think about what benefits them. And then they follow farking moron politicians who hold their marionette strings.

I do not understand how anyone could not hate Americans.

Ok that is the second time that you have said that… just what the hell are you trying to bait us into?

Americans that is…

[Waxed]

Here's the explanation into how you can spend 1 trillion dollars and not add a dime to the deficit.


Obama is talking about future liabilities. If there is no health care reform, the federal government will be liable to pay 4.9 trillion dollars in the next ten years because of Medicare. There is an estimated 70 million baby boomers in the country that will be retiring in the next ten years. Ages 65 and over are the most expensive group to insure. Obama doesn't have many options. He could cut Medicare all together, do nothing, or he can reform the system so that seniors will still be covered.


CUMULATIVE SPENDING ON MEDICAID BENEFITS PROJECTED TO REACH $4.9 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3311

[horskj]

Here's the explanation into how you can spend 1 trillion dollars and not add a dime to the deficit.


Obama is talking about future liabilities. If there is no health care reform, the federal government will be liable to pay 4.9 trillion dollars in the next ten years because of Medicaid. There is an estimated 70 million baby boomers in the country that will be retiring in the next ten years. Ages 65 and over are the most expensive group to insure. Obama doesn't have many options. He could cut medicaid all together, do nothing, or he can reform the system so that seniors will still be covered.


CUMULATIVE SPENDING ON MEDICAID BENEFITS PROJECTED TO REACH $4.9 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS
http://www.cms.hhs.gov/apps/media/press/release.asp?Counter=3311

except Medicaid is a state run low income plan and Medicare is the Fed program for those 65 and older or those on disability... were you thinking Medicare and typed Medicaid

[Waxed]

except Medicaid is a state run low income plan and Medicare is the Fed program for those 65 and older or those on disability... were you thinking Medicare and typed Medicaid

Thanks. FIX on the way. :D

[Rebuild8]

Why stop at healthcare. Why not provide Life Insurance for every American. That should be a right. How about Dental Insurance. We all have a right to good teeth, no matter how much candy we eat. How about Government mandated fitness programs. That will drastically reduce the cost of healthcare. Make everyone work out 5 hours a week and if they don't they get taxed, um er, charged a fee! How about we force everybody to stop eating meat like PETA wants? Surely some lives and money will be saved if we are weened off of meat. This whole Socialist way of life can be achieved. If only we hope and believe and, gratuitously, invoke the spirit of Ted Kennedy.

Why stop there? The government should provide us with housing, too! We could start out with it being an "option" to live in government-supplied housing, and then in a few years we could make it mandatory. I've always wanted to live in a complex like the ones in Moscow! They are soooo nice. :shake:

[bryan]

One alternative under serious consideration, strongly promoted by Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, would hold the public plan in reserve, activating it only if affordable insurance wasn't made available to most Americans by the time the legislation is fully implemented in 2013

I think this is the best way to handle the public option and may be the only way this health care reform gets passed

[kharvel]

Because they would do it under fear of punishment under EMTALA. Have you worked in a healthcare setting? i have, and I've seen many ERs. It happens all of the time.

So you are in favor of the government FORCING private hospitals and doctors in giving MEDICAL CARE TO ANYONE, even if they are unable to afford such care.

Why do you support such SOCIALIST AND FASCIST POLICIES?

[rrc06]

Medicaid is government run health care that already covers dental plans. :rolleye2:

Medicaid is mainly run by the states and its variable as to its dental coverage.

Maybe you are thinking of medicare? AFAIK, medicare does not have a standard dental benefit.

So you are in favor of the government FORCING private hospitals and doctors in giving MEDICAL CARE TO ANYONE, even if they are unable to afford such care.

Why do you support such SOCIALIST AND FASCIST POLICIES?

I don't support it. But the fact is, the law is there. And if that is in place, I see nothing wrong with mandating at least a minimum level of health insurance (i.e. one to cover catastrophic illnesses and trauma) so that people don't end up leeching off the system for free.

[kharvel]

I don't support it. But the fact is, the law is there. And if that is in place, I see nothing wrong with mandating at least a minimum level of health insurance (i.e. one to cover catastrophic illnesses and trauma) so that people don't end up leeching off the system for free.

Well this is something we can both agree on. If we are going to mandate minimum health insurance coverage for everybody then we should repeal the EMTALA as part of the bill.

That will ensure that unauthorized aliens who are dying or injured will be denied medical care.

[Hawk2007]

That will ensure that unauthorized aliens who are dying or injured will be denied medical care.


They're still free to consume as much healthcare as they want as long as they can pay for it.

We don't expect McDonalds or Burger King to serve people for free just because they are hungry and/or poor.

[DJPlayer]

If he says the public option will not be available to illegals, I believe him.

because politicians always tell the truth, right?? :lol:

[Waxed]

The public option is going to be available to illegals and I see nothing wrong with this. The public option isn't subsidized by our taxes so it's fine with me.

[rrc06]

The public option isn't subsidized by our taxes so it's fine with me.

Just like Fannie and Freddie were private organizations?

The federal government will back the "public" option if it starts to run into financial hardship, just like any government-sponsored enterprise.

Seriously, I hope people don't actually believe the BS coming from obama, particularly with lines like "I will not sign a budget that is not deficit neutral"

[Hawk2007]

The federal government will back the "public" option if it starts to run into financial hardship, just like any government-sponsored enterprise.

Doesn't the post office fall in this category as well? Something about it being private, but federally backed.

Granted every time they have a deficit, Congress bails them out.

[kharvel]

They're still free to consume as much healthcare as they want as long as they can pay for it.


I'm sure we can agree that most unauthorized aliens don't earn much above the poverty level so they would find it difficult, if not impossible, to pay the extremely high costs associated with medical care.

Like I said, we should make sure to deny medical care to dying or injured persons who cannot show they are legal residents or citizens (covered under mandatory catastrophic insurance) and who cannot show they have the ability to pay.

[kharvel]

The public option is going to be available to illegals and I see nothing wrong with this.

Actually, we should see something very wrong with this. The free market demands that we leave some people dying on the gurneys because they are either not covered by mandatory catastrophic insurance or they do not have the ability to pay.

The ER wing of every hospital should have a hospice-cum-morgue next to it to keep patients who are denied medical care so that they have a private place to die with dignity.

[Waxed]

Current bill
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf

Here's the current bill. Now that I've actually looked over it, it's not really that big. It's double space typed in 30 size font with 2 or 3 paragraphs per page. This is about the size of a 100 page college text book or less.

[TidalWaveOne]

Why stop at healthcare. Why not provide Life Insurance for every American. That should be a right. How about Dental Insurance. We all have a right to good teeth, no matter how much candy we eat. How about Government mandated fitness programs.

How about stop the silliness? First, basic health care for all then we can talk about this other stuff. Hint: This other stuff is not the same as health care (dental care is pretty similar though).

[TidalWaveOne]

The public option is going to be available to illegals and I see nothing wrong with this. The public option isn't subsidized by our taxes so it's fine with me.
Why should the US gov't offer it's services and benefits to people who don't respect the law? Illegals seeking care should be given needed care (as a matter of human dignity) and then deported (as a matter of law and order).

[DarthSaver]

How about stop the silliness? First, basic health care for all then we can talk about this other stuff. Hint: This other stuff is not the same as health care (dental care is pretty similar though).


So opposing views to you are "silliness"? Let's talk silliness for a moment. If you are told by a physician that you have only 3 months left to live, should you have a RIGHT to get Life Insurance in any amount you want and the company insuring you CANNOT BY LAW deny you that coverage? To say it isn't similar is ludicrous because they want exactly that for pre existing conditions in health care. Why bother buying coverage at all until you know for sure you are sick or are going to have surgery or whatever? You can't be denied, so the health insurance will be retroactive. Pretty sweet deal if you like sponging off of others for your existence. Like I said before, where does the insanity stop?

[rrc06]

The rest of the world needs to start paying more for drugs (particularly in places like Canada and Western Europe where they can afford it), so we can pay less...

Don't Like High Drug Costs? Blame Canada. (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/09/09/dont-like-high-drug-costs-blame-canada.aspx?source=ihpsitmpa0000001)

Brian Orelli
September 9, 2009

It's fun to bash the high cost of health care these days. Whether you take aim at doctors or health insurers or drug companies, they're all easy targets.

But I'm not sure lower costs are what patients really want. Sure, the rising cost of health care is unsustainable, but people's first priority is to live longer. In the long run, reducing the cost of drugs may hamper that priority.

Yes, drugs have very high gross margins: As little as $0.15 of every dollar spent by retailers or drug distributors like McKesson (NYSE: MCK) or Cardinal Health go toward the production of the tablet or vial.

Company
Gross Margin (Trailing 12 Months)

Pfizer (NYSE: PFE)
86%

Amgen (Nasdaq: AMGN)
85%

Eli Lilly (NYSE: LLY)
82%


Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.

But drugs are also very expensive to develop. Clinical trials are costly to run, and consumers have to pay for the development of all the failures in addition to the ones that make it to the clinic. About 16% of every dollar that Pfizer brought in over the past 12 months went toward developing next-generation drugs.

After paying for everything else -- marketing, administrative costs, taxes, and so on -- drug companies have healthy but not overbearing net margins, especially considering that patents on many blockbusters are expiring soon, and the resulting reduced revenue will cut into margins. The companies have also offered to reduce prices of drugs for seniors in the Medicare doughnut.

Company
Net Income Margin Over Trailing 12 Months

Pfizer
16%

Amgen
31%

Eli Lilly
15%*


Source: Capital IQ, a division of Standard & Poor's.
*Adjusted for non-tax-deductible acquired in process R&D.

If customers expect drug companies to continue to innovate, they can't have their government forcing drug companies to charge less.

But Canada does it!
Through a combination of price controls instituted by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB), and through government negotiations at the provincial level, Canada is able to keep its drug costs down for its citizens. But that doesn't make it right.

In fact, I'd argue that I'm supplementing Canadians' health-care costs. If drug companies were able to charge more in Canada, they could charge less in the U.S. and still make the same net profit.

As much as I'd love to blame Canada's altering of the free market as the sole cause of the difference in drug costs, there are a couple of things Canada does that probably keeps its costs lower than ours.

First, direct-to-consumer advertisements aren't allowed in Canada. It seems reasonable to assume that U.S. consumers are paying for the advertisements through higher drug costs. There's a reason Costco's (Nasdaq: COST) Kirkland store brand coffee is cheaper than the name brand, even though it's actually roasted by Starbucks (Nasdaq: SBUX). Of course, such advertising also drives up demand, which increases total dollars spent on health care.

There's also some evidence that lower legal liability limits in Canada may contribute to the lower cost of drugs. It's reasonable that companies should want to be paid more for taking on the risk of having to pay $4.85 billion settlements, as Merck (NYSE: MRK) did to settle Vioxx lawsuits. I know it's controversial, but tort reform could take care of that issue.

Because Congress seems as though it might be approaching a stalemate, the simple solution could be to export drugs from Canada and elsewhere. However, while that idea sounds good in practice, the reality is that drug companies would never let it happen in large numbers. They've attempted in the past to stop shipments to Canadian pharmacies that then import to the U.S., and I'm fairly certain drug companies would do so again if they thought they were going to lose large profits.

As with everything else in this debate, setting a cheaper price for drugs is not as simple as it seems on the surface. And as investors, we require the pharma companies to continue developing and selling new drugs.

[rrc06]

Good read...

Grading Obama's new health care plan (http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/10/news/economy/grading_obama_speech.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009091014)

The president's speech may have had a more partisan tone, but when it comes to content, he's moving toward the more moderate Baucus proposal.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- This is the eighth and final installment in a series of health-care columns by Fortune's Shawn Tully.

In his address last night, President Barack Obama struck a strident, partisan tone at times, as when he lauded the "public option" as essential to fostering competition in health care. A careful reading of the speech, however, reveals that Obama is distancing himself from the most extreme provisions of the most prominent House bill, "H.R. 3200," and embracing the more moderate proposal unveiled on Tuesday by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

The president is now backing four features of the Baucus platform that are far different from the provisions of H.R. 3200. First, he's now endorsing legislation that would cost much less than the House bill -- an estimated $900 billion versus as much as $1.5 trillion. Second, he now rejects raising taxes on wealthy Americans to pay for reform; instead, he wants to impose levies on insurance, pharmaceutical, and medical device companies. Third, he now recommends exempting small companies from paying penalties if they don't provide insurance; under the House bill, those penalties reached 8% of payroll.

And fourth, in a crucial shift considering the heated debates of recent weeks, Obama hinted that he would accept nonprofit co-ops in place of a Medicare-like system as a public option.

Overall, the speech was a mixture of pluses and minuses for Americans who don't believe that the House bill is the best way to lower costs or put consumers first. On the plus side, Obama shunned provisions that would have made health-care coverage incredibly expensive for young people, and been crippling to small businesses. On the negative side, the president still champions a system where the government -- not patients -- mandates what's included in individuals' health-care plans, and what they pay for it. The biggest danger: employers drop their plans and subsidies that now go to the middle class get channeled to low earners, imposing what amounts to a huge new tax on America's professionals.

Let's examine the speech's content more closely, grading the president on this most recent proposal, which seems to be moving toward the more centrist Baucus plan.

1. Lack of supply-side reforms
Although the president promised to enhance competition in health care, he didn't even address the supply-side restrictions that make health care the most anti-competitive industry in America. Those include state "certificate of need" laws that limit the number of hospital beds, MRI centers, and medical helicopters; a shortage of doctors perpetuated by Medicare rules that restrict the number of residency positions; and a Medicaid law that effectively blocks hospitals and HMOs from getting steep discounts on drugs.

Most of all, the president presented a weak response to a real problem: the dearth of competition among insurance providers. In two dozen states, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield giants control over 40% of the market. But instead of attacking the monopolistic laws that allow the Blues and other big insurers to maintain dominant market shares, the president swears that the only solution is a government-supported competitor.

Let's assume that Obama settles for co-ops instead of a Medicare-like system, as Sen. Baucus recommends. The Baucus proposal states that the federal government would give those co-ops "grants" for capital reserves. Unlike private insurers that need to issue bonds to raise money, the co-ops would pay no interest, and wouldn't have to repay the billions they receive. As nonprofits, they'd also be exempt from the stiff taxes private insurers pay on their premiums. As a result of government backing, the co-ops would have a big edge over their rivals in the private sector.

The Baucus proposal does contain one feature that would enhance competition: It would allow Americans who buy their own coverage to purchase insurance across state lines, beginning in 2015. That's a good start, but it begs the big question: Why not allow employers to shop for the best deals nationwide as well?

Grade: F

2. Young workers can pay their real costs
In his address, Obama argued strongly that insurers be banned from rejecting patients with pre-existing conditions. A potential problem with that policy -- known as "guaranteed issue" -- is that the young, healthy Americans may drop their insurance, then sign up years later when they become seriously ill with heart conditions or diabetes. This "adverse selection" is especially severe in states like New York and Colorado that require that everyone pay the same, or close to the same, premiums -- regardless of their actual cost. Hence, a strapping 25-year-old in New York might pay $5,500, versus just $1,500 in neighboring Pennsylvania.

The House bill would have severely limited variations in premiums, forcing young people to pay far more than their actual medical expenses. Fortunately, the Baucus bill does allow for insurers to charge the young and healthy premiums that reflect their true costs. Under this proposal, carriers would be able to charge a wide range of premiums depending on the consumer's age.

That's an extremely healthy change. Since young Americans will still benefit from low premiums in most states, they're far less likely to dump their coverage -- a big risk under the House bill.

Another positive: The Baucus bill would allow far more room for both young and middle-aged workers to buy catastrophic care insurance with high deductibles. Those policies make consumers far more price conscious than gold-plated plans do. That's another improvement over the House bill, which effectively outlawed catastrophic care policies.

Grade: B

3. A standard benefits package
Many states require rich minimum packages of benefits that can include everything from hair transplants to spinal manipulations. Medical lobbies are experts at making these lists far longer to include coverage that isn't part of basic care, but immensely swells costs. These packages prevent insurers from offering the full gamut of plans consumers want.

The Baucus proposal, like the House bill, would impose a long list of required benefits on plans that qualify to be offered through Health Insurance Exchanges. The roster (on page 3 of the Baucus plan) mandates a number of items not included in most private plans, such as vision and dental care, and coverage for prescription drugs (an extra in most policies). While it's great to have these things covered, they drive costs up significantly, and consumers would not be able to opt out of plans that offer them.

The problem is that Congress would establish minimum benefits at the federal level, so that states with few mandates would be forced to offer more coverage, inflating the cost of insurance. It would also undermine the advantage of buying insurance across state lines that the Baucus bill endorses, at least in part.

Once again, the Baucus proposal is not nearly as bad as the House bill, which would establish an independent board practically certain to add more rich benefits to the required list each year.

Grade: C

4. Pay or play
As he stated last night, the president would grant employers the choice of paying for their workers' healthcare or contributing a tax or penalty that would help fund an elaborate system of subsidies, chiefly for low-earners.

The biggest threat to all of Obamacare is that companies pick the "pay" instead of "play" option. In that scenario, under the House bill, workers earning up to around $70,000 in large companies would either get the equivalent of a raise, or break even. But professional employees earning over $80,000 would get hammered -- for the exact numbers, see my last piece, "Obamacare's winners and losers."

The Baucus platform also contains a "pay or play" provision that would impose a stiff payroll tax on employers who drop their care. The difference is that it stops paying subsidies at a lower income level than under the House plan. So it might impose an even bigger burden on middle-class earners.

So here's the real problem with Obamacare: It opens the gate to a potentially cataclysmic shift in the tax system. If employers eliminate their plans en masse, the government will essentially take back the tax break companies give employees by providing insurance -- and channel that money to low-earners and the uninsured via the payroll tax.

But the money from the payroll tax won't be nearly enough to cover these costs, for two reasons. First, the average policy will be far more costly than before because of all the new mandates, though not as costly as under the House bill. And second, the middle class will suffer the equivalent of a big tax hike. Their sticker shock could cause a strong push for a heavily subsidized public option, whether or not one is included in the new reform bill.

Hence, America will be paying two kinds of subsidies: one for the uninsured and low earners, and another for the middle class that looks a lot like Medicare. The cost will be far higher than the numbers now parading before the public. Of course, employers could keep providing care -- indeed that's what Obama is counting on. He has to. Otherwise, Obamacare is destined for major trouble.

Grade: If companies play, D; if they pay, F

We definitely should allow a variety of plans to exist, not just inflated ones that are mandated by the current proposal. Moreover, why hasn't obama addressed the issue of improving competition in the private sector, without jumping to the public option?

[TidalWaveOne]

So opposing views to you are "silliness"? Let's talk silliness for a moment. If you are told by a physician that you have only 3 months left to live, should you have a RIGHT to get Life Insurance in any amount you want and the company insuring you CANNOT BY LAW deny you that coverage? To say it isn't similar is ludicrous because they want exactly that for pre existing conditions in health care. Why bother buying coverage at all until you know for sure you are sick or are going to have surgery or whatever? You can't be denied, so the health insurance will be retroactive. Pretty sweet deal if you like sponging off of others for your existence. Like I said before, where does the insanity stop?
Life insurance is not health insurance... it's not a basic need so it's not appropriate to say life insurance is a need like health care.

This is why we need universal health care. Everyone needs insurance... then you don't have the issues with only getting insurance when you need it.

Barring universal health care, people should be required to have insurance or pay a penalty.

[DarthSaver]

Life insurance is not health insurance.



No response to my point though except to post the argument you are all for universal healthcare and fines for people who don't comply. :shake: Congratulations you have been indoctrinated into the Obama Socialist Party.

[TidalWaveOne]

No response to my point though except to post the argument you are all for universal healthcare and fines for people who don't comply. :shake: Congratulations you have been indoctrinated into the Obama Socialist Party.
Glad to be a so-called "socialist" when it comes to health care. Sure beats the private system!

[bikes4u]

Folks the big layoffs are starting in response to Ob's Healthcare.

Eli Lilly is laying off 5500! This is a big blow to Indianapolis and all of Indiana. Please remember the employees, families, and community in your thoughts and prayers.

http://www.ibj.com/lilly-to-cut-5500-positions-over-2-years-in-reorganization/PARAMS/article/7071

Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said the changes would help Lilly get through lean years and respond to the increasing pressures it faces from health care reform and pricing demands from governments and insurers across the globe.

Indianapolis would not be on the map if not for Eli Lilly, this is a big big blow.

[rrc06]

Obama needs to stop BSing and tell us how he really feels (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE)...

No Bickering or Thinking: Just Do It (http://reason.com/news/show/136032.html)

Understanding Obama's new health care agenda

Those who claim that President Barack Obama's speech on health care this week wasn't a glorious success are fooling themselves. A Washington takeover of health care never sounded so enticing or fun.

Just ignore the specifics, because when the president says he welcomes substantive new ideas, he means that if you have the nerve to offer any ideas—as Whole Foods' CEO, John Mackey, did in The Wall Street Journal last month—his allies will attempt to destroy your business and reputation.

And when the president says he welcomes bipartisanship, what he means is that he hasn't met with a single Republican on the issue since April—despite numerous requests and two separate House bills chock-full of ideas.

When this president says he is a deal-making centrist and will stand up to his own party, he means he will rebuff progressives on a complete straw man, such as a "single-payer" plan (a plan he supported at one time), which has been a non-starter in any iteration of health care reform this year. I only wish there were a stronger word for "courage."

When the president says everyone must chip in and sacrifice, he means more than 95 percent of small businesses won't have to chip in and sacrifice. That's good. But consider his plan a small-business generator, because larger businesses are sure to be small in no time (and many small businesses have a new incentive to stay that way).

President Obama says government will mandate that every American purchase insurance (despite his campaign promise not to do so) rather than allow us to indulge in "irresponsible behavior"—or, in other words, "choice."

Insurance companies, on the other hand, will be mandated to provide coverage, with no extra charge, to everyone, no matter how irresponsibly they behave. Also, feel free to ask for checkups and "preventive" care, such as mammograms and colonoscopies, on demand, no matter how needless your visit may be, no questions asked, no extra cost.

That should bend the cost curve in the right direction.

When the president says there is no possibility that a government-run public option could crowd out private markets, as such options have in nearly every other arena they operate in, he, as the tactful Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina might say, is trading in hogwash.

The president says that the public option is small potatoes because it would cover only 5 percent of Americans, pay for itself, and run like a private nonprofit. If such an option can change the dynamics of competition in health insurance, why not open a new private nonprofit organization that pays for itself?

Silly question, I suppose. As we all know, if any organization has demonstrated an uncanny ability to control costs, drive innovation and foster competition, it's been government.

The best part? Like that exotic mortgage taxpayers are paying for you, all this wonderment can be yours, according to the president, for absolutely nothing! Better yet, it would not add a single dime to the deficit in the next 10 years. Ignore the Congressional Budget Office's $900 billion estimate (and The Lewin Group's $1 trillion estimate).

Nope, we can pay for this by extracting $1 trillion in savings from insurance companies and Medicare (start cutting down on gratuitous use of paper clips, pronto). And if you even allude to the prospect of cuts (meaning government rationing for seniors), you are trafficking in a ghastly fabrication that might hasten your being "called out" by the president. No one wants that.

You may wonder how President Obama logically can sell a public option while claiming that reform would be paid for by waste found in another "public" option. You also may be wondering how mandates, price controls, regulations, and added costs would save us any money and preserve level of care. Don't. Just bask in the radiance of barren rhetoric.

Because when the president tells us that this is "the season for action" and that we no longer can waste time debating, he means that legislation won't be initiated until 2013, that this is all about politics and his very own entrenched ideology—not yours.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Denver Post and the author of Nanny State. Visit his Web site at www.DavidHarsanyi.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 THE DENVER POST
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

[rhoerus]

Folks the big layoffs are starting in response to Ob's Healthcare.

Eli Lilly is laying off 5500! This is a big blow to Indianapolis and all of Indiana. Please remember the employees, families, and community in your thoughts and prayers.

http://www.ibj.com/lilly-to-cut-5500-positions-over-2-years-in-reorganization/PARAMS/article/7071



Indianapolis would not be on the map if not for Eli Lilly, this is a big big blow.

Perhaps you missed the first line of the article:

Eli Lilly and Co. will cut 5,500 jobs by the end of 2011 as it tries to cut $1 billion in expenses before it loses the revenue from its bestselling drug, Zyprexa.

How does a patent expiring have anything to do with Obama? Frankly this seem inevitable for them, they're planning ahead for changes in their profits given that they know this patent will expire in a few years. It sucks, but I'm sure it's an expected part of doing business in the pharmaceutical industry that big moneymakers expiring can tend to cause vast shifts in how they do business.

[bikes4u]

Perhaps you missed the first line of the article:



How does a patent expiring have anything to do with Obama? Frankly this seem inevitable for them, they're planning ahead for changes in their profits given that they know this patent will expire in a few years. It sucks, but I'm sure it's an expected part of doing business in the pharmaceutical industry that big moneymakers expiring can tend to cause vast shifts in how they do business.

I beg to differ. I can only go by what the CEO said, not your speculation.

When a drug patent is expiring in the past Lilly has ramped up research for new drugs in the pipeline. Looks like they are taking a different approach this time.

[redmaxx]

I beg to differ. I can only go by what the CEO said, not your speculation.

When a drug patent is expiring in the past Lilly has ramped up research for new drugs in the pipeline. Looks like they are taking a different approach this time.

So you're taking the CEO's speculation (because there's nothing final right now) over hard business fact. Fact: It takes many years and lots of money to bring new drugs to market. Fact: They're losing their patent on their star drug in only two years.

CEO: :whee: :omg: Layoff time! Due to... to... uh, no products in the pipeline. :eek: Can't say that, what would the shareholders think? Uh... um... oh yeah, due to "healthcare reform"! That's it!

Really, you can smell the BS a mile away. They're clearly looking for a scapegoat.

[rhoerus]

I beg to differ. I can only go by what the CEO said, not your speculation.

When a drug patent is expiring in the past Lilly has ramped up research for new drugs in the pipeline. Looks like they are taking a different approach this time.

I disagree strongly with your ability to only rely on what the CEO said, but I will go along with that line of thought anyway, as you still aren't substantiated by that. Quote from the article, again:

Lilly CEO John Lechleiter said the changes would help Lilly get through lean years and respond to the increasing pressures it faces from health care reform and pricing demands from governments and insurers across the globe.

The CEO himself cites 3 distinct factors:

1) Health care reform
2) Pricing demands from governments across the globe
3) Pricing demands from insurers across the globe

Obama is a part of 1, though Congress is surely at least partly responsible for that. He may be at least somewhat a part of 2, though I doubt in 6 months anything he has done has radically affected pricing of drugs in the US government, though certainly nothing to do with global demands. He has nothing to do with 3, either in the US or across the globe.

Quit pushing your BS interpretation of the article. Neither the first line nor the line explaining the CEOs position in any way allow a conclusion that Obama is wholly or even mostly to blame for this.

[bikes4u]

the firings are continuing by America's biggest companies. We are a long ways from digging out of this recession. Blah!

I disagree strongly with your ability to only rely on what the CEO said, but I will go along with that line of thought anyway, as you still aren't substantiated by that. Quote from the article, again:



The CEO himself cites 3 distinct factors:

1) Health care reform
2) Pricing demands from governments across the globe
3) Pricing demands from insurers across the globe

Obama is a part of 1, though Congress is surely at least partly responsible for that. He may be at least somewhat a part of 2, though I doubt in 6 months anything he has done has radically affected pricing of drugs in the US government, though certainly nothing to do with global demands. He has nothing to do with 3, either in the US or across the globe.

Quit pushing your BS interpretation of the article. Neither the first line nor the line explaining the CEOs position in any way allow a conclusion that Obama is wholly or even mostly to blame for this.

Partner--you said Ob is "part 1". If anyone's BS its you.

[rhoerus]

the firings are continuing by America's biggest companies. We are a long ways from digging out of this recession. Blah!



Partner--you said Ob is "part 1". If anyone's BS its you.

I said he is a "part OF 1", as in, he comprises a portion of a third of the factors cited by the CEO. Don't put words in his, or my mouth please.

And why don't you substantiate your statement instead of picking apart my picking apart of yours? What evidence do you bring that these firings 'are starting in response to Ob's Healthcare.'? Where is your evidence of that? Neither of the quotes I've provided, nor anything in the article attribute it directly to that. The only thing that has done so so far is your own flawed reading of the article and attribution of bad healthcare news directly to Obama, for pretty much no reason.

Heck, the article even states, in the first line, as I said, that this is a result of the drug patent expiring. You have an issue not only with me, but with the IBJ interpretation of the facts.

[lobo411]

Clearly, doctors know nothing about health care...

Most U.S. doctors want public-private mix: poll
Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:10pm EDT

By Gene Emery

BOSTON (Reuters) - Most U.S. doctors favor having both public and private options in a reformed healthcare system, a survey published on Monday said.

The possible inclusion of a public option -- a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers -- is one of the most divisive parts of the reform that is President Barack Obama's top domestic legislative priority.

When given a three-way choice among private plans that use tax credits or subsidies to help the poor buy private insurance; a new public health insurance plan such as Medicare; or a mix of the two; 63 percent of doctors supported a mix, 27 percent said they only wanted private options, and just 10 percent said they exclusively wanted public options.

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE58D67120090914

[rrc06]

Clearly, doctors know nothing about health care...



http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-HealthcareReform/idUSTRE58D67120090914

They obviously dont know much about the finances of it with statements like this:

The survey of 2,130 U.S. doctors, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, also found that more 55 percent, regardless of their medical specialty, would favor expanding Medicare so it covered people aged 55 and older.

Most experts have advocated increasing medicare's eligibility to 70 over a period of time to save the program from a financial catastrophe.

[Waxed]

I don't think heath care reform is going to pass this year. Hopefully, the 4.9 trillion dollar liability to senior citizens won't impact the economy too much.

[rrc06]

I don't think heath care reform is going to pass this year. Hopefully, the 4.9 trillion dollar liability to senior citizens won't impact the economy too much.

and covering everyone under the sun would have improved it?

Seriously, wake up and smell the CBO projections (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/17/health-care-reform-said-to-increase-federal-cost/).

[Waxed]

and covering everyone under the sun would have improved it?

Seriously, wake up and smell the CBO projections.

Depends on the age group of the 40 million Americans. Assuming they are 35 and under, they are pretty low risk.

[DarthSaver]

How many trillions in unfunded mandates were there again? Why on earth are Obama and the Dems holding Medicare and Medicaid up as examples of how to fiscally manage a healthcare program?

[Maleficent]

How many trillions in unfunded mandates were there again? Why on earth are Obama and the Dems holding Medicare and Medicaid up as examples of how to fiscally manage a healthcare program?

Maybe because they're grasping for straws and desperately hoping no one will notice how poor of an example they are? :lol:

[TidalWaveOne]

Folks the big layoffs are starting in response to Ob's Healthcare.

Eli Lilly is laying off 5500! This is a big blow to Indianapolis and all of Indiana. Please remember the employees, families, and community in your thoughts and prayers.

http://www.ibj.com/lilly-to-cut-5500-positions-over-2-years-in-reorganization/PARAMS/article/7071

Indianapolis would not be on the map if not for Eli Lilly, this is a big big blow.

Great demonstration of the misinformation and ignorance out there. Blaming Obama for this... and probably everything else negative that happens. I'll stick with the facts, thanks.

[lobo411]

Maybe because they're grasping for straws and desperately hoping no one will notice how poor of an example they are? :lol:

Wendell Potter is a former Cigna executive:

BILL MOYERS: People are going to say, "How can Wendell Potter sit here and say he was just finding out that there were a lot of Americans who didn't have adequate insurance and needed health care? He'd been in the industry for over 15 years."

WENDELL POTTER: And that was my problem. I had been in the industry and I'd risen up in the ranks. And I had a great job. And I had a terrific office in a high-rise building in Philadelphia. I was insulated. I didn't really see what was going on. I saw the data. I knew that 47 million people were uninsured, but I didn't put faces with that number.

Just a few weeks later though, I was back in Philadelphia and I would often fly on a corporate aircraft to go to meetings.

And I just thought that was a great way to travel. It is a great way to travel. You're sitting in a luxurious corporate jet, leather seats, very spacious. And I was served my lunch by a flight attendant who brought my lunch on a gold-rimmed plate. And she handed me gold-plated silverware to eat it with. And then I remembered the people that I had seen in Wise County. Undoubtedly, they had no idea that this went on, at the corporate levels of health insurance companies.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html

[Maleficent]

Wendell Potter is a former Cigna executive:



http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html

And that's relevant to my post... how?

[rrc06]

Wendell Potter is a former Cigna executive:



http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/transcript2.html

Yes lobo,

profit and innovation = BAD. Equality and stability = GOOD :D

[redmaxx]

Yes lobo,

profit and innovation = BAD. Equality and stability = GOOD :D

:rolleyes: You have no problem with insurers flying their executives on luxury jets, being served food on gold platters all while their company seeks to deny as much as treatment as they can?

It's disgusting. :vomit:

[rrc06]

:rolleyes: You have no problem with insurers flying their executives on luxury jets, being served food on gold platters all while their company seeks to deny as much as treatment as they can?

You have no problem with Lobo pulling a single example out of thin air and implying it to be the norm?

[DarthSaver]

:rolleyes: You have no problem with insurers flying their executives on luxury jets, being served food on gold platters all while their company seeks to deny as much as treatment as they can?



Only if they force poor starving orphans to sit there and watch them. At that I draw the line. :D

[Demosthenes9]

:rolleyes: You have no problem with insurers flying their executives on luxury jets, being served food on gold platters all while their company seeks to deny as much as treatment as they can?

It's disgusting. :vomit:


No, what is disgusting is that you have the gall to make such a statement as the one I highlighted above in red without being able to offer ANY proof to support your claim.

Tell us redmaxx, what percentage of policies are affected by recission ?

[redmaxx]

No, what is disgusting is that you have the gall to make such a statement as the one I highlighted above in red without being able to offer ANY proof to support your claim.

OMG. You're telling me you've never heard of insurers denying claims wrongfully? I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

But let me know, I do know how to use Google, so if you want, I can do a basic query for you.

Tell us redmaxx, what percentage of policies are affected by recission ?

That's irrelevant to my statement.

[Demosthenes9]

OMG. You're telling me you've never heard of insurers denying claims wrongfully? I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

But let me know, I do know how to use Google, so if you want, I can do a basic query for you.



That's irrelevant to my statement.

Damn, this soon and I already need to remind you of what you said ? Here:

all while their company seeks to deny as much as treatment as they can?


Prove that statement.

[DarthSaver]

OMG. You're telling me you've never heard of insurers denying claims wrongfully?

I would like proof that the ones that do all have eaten off of gold plates while flying on their corporate jets which is your claim. I will wait. :rolleyes:

[redmaxx]

Damn, this soon and I already need to remind you of what you said ? Here:




Prove that statement.

:coverlaf: You make this too easy. From lobo's link:

WENDELL POTTER: Exactly. And they think that this company has not done a good job of managing medical expenses. It has not denied enough claims. It has not kicked enough people off the rolls. And that's what-- that is what happens, what these companies do, to make sure that they satisfy Wall Street's expectations with the medical loss ratio.

WENDELL POTTER: Rescission is one thing. Denying claims is another. Being, you know, really careful as they review claims, particularly for things like liver transplants, to make sure, from their point of view, that it really is medically necessary and not experimental. That's one thing. And that was that issue in the Nataline Sarkisyan case.

But another way is to purge employer accounts, that-- if a small business has an employee, for example, who suddenly has have a lot of treatment, or is in an accident. And medical bills are piling up, and this employee is filing claims with the insurance company. That'll be noticed by the insurance company.

And when that business is up for renewal, and it typically is up, once a year, up for renewal, the underwriters will look at that. And they'll say, "We need to jack up the rates here, because the experience was," when I say experience, the claim experience, the number of claims filed was more than we anticipated. So we need to jack up the price. Jack up the premiums. Often they'll do this, knowing that the employer will have no alternative but to leave. And that happens all the time.

They'll resort to things like the rescissions that we saw earlier. Or dumping, actually dumping employer groups from the rolls. So the more of my premium that goes to my health claims, pays for my medical coverage, the less money the company makes.

You're either trying to waste my time or you really don't have a clue how hard the industry works to deny claims.

[catluver]

Wendell Potter may be the ideal whistle-blower. The former head of corporate communications for health-insurance giant Cigna, Potter turned against his old colleagues in June to testify before a congressional committee about what he viewed as the health-insurance industry's "duplicitous" behavior in the current health-reform debate. In his testimony, Potter outlined specific techniques insurers employ to "dump the sick" and protect stock price at all costs. His testimony was logical, specific and convincing, but that's only part of what makes Wendell Potter a perfect turncoat in the eyes of the pro-reform movement....

Link to full article (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1920893,00.html)

[Demosthenes9]

:coverlaf: You make this too easy. From lobo's link:





You're either trying to waste my time or you really don't have a clue how hard the industry works to deny claims.

Your statement was "deny as much as treatment as they can"

That means, when someone with a valid policy needs treatment, the insurance company tries to find a way to deny that treatment.

That is not the same as what you just posted which discusses insurance companies seeing that the claims for a company have gone up and adjusting the premiums based on that.

Wow, farking imagine that. An insurance company raising rates because claims have risen.

Tell you what Red, go out and get in your car and drive it into the first passing car that you come across.

Then, next week, after your car has been fixed, go ahead and do it again. Rinse and repeat a few more times.

Then, when your car insurance policy comes up for renewal, let us know whether your rates A) remained the same, B) went down, C) went up, or D) if your policy was farking cancelled.

Jesus, do you even understand how insurance works ?

[smegalicious]

Both health and casualty insurance SPREADS RISK. They both assess the exposure to payouts based on risk tables along with histories. They calculate how much they will have to pay out as well as the odds of having to pay that amount out.

They then develop premiums based on those calculations.

When a person or a company has claims that exceed the projections, the insurance company goes in, redoes the calculations and the score a new premium.

That's one of the reasons that I as a smoker pay higher premiums than a non-smoker. It's because the insurance company runs more of a risk of having to pay out.

So yes, when an employee in a small company has a $1 million claim against the health insurance company, you bet your ass their insurance rates are going to skyrocket or their policy might even be cancelled.
Except that health insurance companies don't need to wait for any actual claims to be filed in order to jack up your premiums.

As you said, since you smoke, you pay more, regardless of the existence of any medical history indicating any previous medical claims resulting from smoking. When your car insurance is raised, it's typically based on actual claims they had to pay, not the likelihood of how many accidents you might have or how severe they might be in the future.

[Demosthenes9]

Except that health insurance companies don't need to wait for any actual claims to be filed in order to jack up your premiums.

As you said, since you smoke, you pay more, regardless of the existence of any medical history indicating any previous medical claims resulting from smoking. When your car insurance is raised, it's typically based on actual claims they had to pay, not the likelihood of how many accidents you might have or how severe they might be in the future.

Wrong Smeg. You'll find out in a few years when your kids start driving. People are broken down into groups and that risk is pooled as well even before they have accidents.

Get a ticket or convicted of DUI and your rates will probably go up as well even though you have never filed a claim.

hell, matter of fact, your insurance rates can go up even if you were a perfect driver with no tickets. You are pooled with other drivers in your area. If many of them have a spike in claims, it can very well cause your rates to go up.

There are many different things that insurance companies take into account when calculating risk and only one of those things is prior claims.

[Doctor_Wu]

Wrong Smeg. You'll find out in a few years when your kids start driving. People are broken down into groups and that risk is pooled as well even before they have accidents.


Including by gender.

[Demosthenes9]

Including by gender.

Yep. Gender, age, make/model of car (because of value and whether or not it is a "sports car" or SUV), location, use as a work vehicle, hell, they even score you based on your credit rating.

All sorts of things go into calculating what your premiums will be.

[Maleficent]

Including by gender.

Oh absolutely. Age, gender, credit score, prior insurance history, your MVR, your claims, and the list goes on and on.

[Maleficent]

Yep. Gender, age, make/model of car (because of value and whether or not it is a "sports car" or SUV), location, use as a work vehicle, hell, they even score you based on your credit rating.

All sorts of things go into calculating what your premiums will be.

Oh yeah, the automobile has TONS of factors all on its own. The age of the car, the cost to repair the car, the cost of replacement parts for the car, how often that particular car is involved in accidents and what kind of accidents, and of course anything high performance (sports cars) you're going to pay through the nose. :)

[smegalicious]

Wrong Smeg. You'll find out in a few years when your kids start driving. People are broken down into groups and that risk is pooled as well even before they have accidents.

Get a ticket or convicted of DUI and your rates will probably go up as well even though you have never filed a claim.

hell, matter of fact, your insurance rates can go up even if you were a perfect driver with no tickets. You are pooled with other drivers in your area. If many of them have a spike in claims, it can very well cause your rates to go up.

There are many different things that insurance companies take into account when calculating risk and only one of those things is prior claims.

I never said car insurers *didn't* do any of those things. I was specifically responding to your previous post where you said that:

When a person or a company has claims that exceed the projections, the insurance company goes in, redoes the calculations and the score a new premium.

Apparently, that claim is not entirely accurate for either forms of insurance. ;)

Yep. Gender, age, make/model of car (because of value and whether or not it is a "sports car" or SUV), location, use as a work vehicle, hell, they even score you based on your credit rating.

All sorts of things go into calculating what your premiums will be.

Oh absolutely. Age, gender, credit score, prior insurance history, your MVR, your claims, and the list goes on and on.

*Some* companies use credit scores.... definitely not *all*. :shake:

[Demosthenes9]

I never said car insurers *didn't* do any of those things. I was specifically responding to your previous post where you said that:

When a person or a company has claims that exceed the projections, the insurance company goes in, redoes the calculations and the score a new premium.

Apparently, that claim is not entirely accurate for either forms of insurance. ;)





*Some* companies use credit scores.... definitely not *all*. :shake:


Go back and read the my posts as well as the ones I was replying to Smeg.

Red posted some crap about insurers going in and raising rates or even cancelling policies after large claims were made against policies.

Next, note that I didn't say that those were the ONLY reasons that an insurance company might take those actions.

Seems kind of common sense that my answer would directly address the point that was being argued.

you follow ?

[smegalicious]

Go back and read the my posts as well as the ones I was replying to Smeg.
:secret: That would be rather impossible, seeing as how they're not there anymore. :dontknow:

[Demosthenes9]

:secret: That would be rather impossible, seeing as how they're not there anymore. :dontknow:

Not sure what's happening on your end. I just went back one page and found them rather easily.

(I'm using the multiquote button so some of the quoted text that Red posted doesn't show up. You might click the link arrow and go back and read his actual posts.)


:rolleyes: You have no problem with insurers flying their executives on luxury jets, being served food on gold platters all while their company seeks to deny as much as treatment as they can?

It's disgusting. :vomit:

No, what is disgusting is that you have the gall to make such a statement as the one I highlighted above in red without being able to offer ANY proof to support your claim.

Tell us redmaxx, what percentage of policies are affected by recission ?

OMG. You're telling me you've never heard of insurers denying claims wrongfully? I think you're being intellectually dishonest.

But let me know, I do know how to use Google, so if you want, I can do a basic query for you.



That's irrelevant to my statement.

Damn, this soon and I already need to remind you of what you said ? Here:




Prove that statement.

:coverlaf: You make this too easy. From lobo's link:





You're either trying to waste my time or you really don't have a clue how hard the industry works to deny claims.

[redmaxx]

Your statement was "deny as much as treatment as they can"

That means, when someone with a valid policy needs treatment, the insurance company tries to find a way to deny that treatment.

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/september/california-s-real-death-panels-insurers-deny-21-of-claims.html

Tell you what Red, go out and get in your car and drive it into the first passing car that you come across.

Then, next week, after your car has been fixed, go ahead and do it again. Rinse and repeat a few more times.

Then, when your car insurance policy comes up for renewal, let us know whether your rates A) remained the same, B) went down, C) went up, or D) if your policy was farking cancelled.

Jesus, do you even understand how insurance works ?

Again, people aren't cars. While the principles of insurance remain the same (shared risk), the duration of claims are far longer on health insurance. Does your car ever develop a debilitating disease?

It appears you don't understand how health insurance works.

How many products would you be happy purchasing if they stopped working 20+% of the time you tried to use them?

As far as spreading "crap", well, you're the only one I see fertilizing the forum. I've posted this information in this thread before and I believe at your request. I'm not going to keep doing it over and over.

[Demosthenes9]

http://www.calnurses.org/media-center/press-releases/2009/september/california-s-real-death-panels-insurers-deny-21-of-claims.html


Wow, you linked to a Union website to try and "prove" your claim? That piece threw out a bunch of numbers yet didn't provide anything to back those numbers up. It also didn't bother to describe the methodology used to extract those numbers.

Then, it included some anecdotal stories to try and support their claims.

Sorry, doesn't even come close to proving anything.





Again, people aren't cars. While the principles of insurance remain the same (shared risk), the duration of claims are far longer on health insurance. Does your car ever develop a debilitating disease?

It appears you don't understand how health insurance works.

How many products would you be happy purchasing if they stopped working 20+% of the time you tried to use them?

As far as spreading "crap", well, you're the only one I see fertilizing the forum. I've posted this information in this thread before and I believe at your request. I'm not going to keep doing it over and over.


Does my car even develop a debilitating disease ? Nope. then again, I don't insure my car against things that should be addressed through routine maintenance that I pay out of pocket.

And as I have shown, I know a lot more about how insurance works than you do my friend. :) :just saying:



Let me spell it out for you since it appears to have escaped your grasp.

You claimed that insurance companies try to deny all the claims that they can. That just simply isn't true. YES, there are SOME number of claims that are wrongly denied for one reason or the other. That's beauracracy for you, and yes, it even happens in the private sector.

But, you are trying to extrapolate these occurences into being the "norm" which just simply isn't the case.


When I called you on it, you posted a bunch of crap about insurance companies raising rates on companies AFTER AN INCREASE IN CLAIMS ON THE POLICY.

Well, no shit. As I have shown, it's perfectly understandable as to why they would do that.

I left this out before but since you apparently don't know it, I'll explain it now.

Insurance companies actually try to offer low rates. They could just PRESUME that every policy will have huge claims against it and rate their premiums accordingly. If they did so, they a companies premiums wouldn't go up due to high claims.

BUT, you and everyone else would pay much higher premiums right from the start.

The way things are done, the premiums are lower from the outset and will only go up substantially WHEN AND IF claims exceed the projections.



Let's go ahead and look at an example. You get a shiny new tricycle from Santa for Christmas. It's worth $50. You buy insurance for your little tricycle. It costs you $5 per year. You run into little Joey and cause him to wreck his nice new bike that costs $75 and you destroy your trike in the process.

So, insurance company has collected $5 from you for the year, but has had to pay out $125 because of your accident.

You get your insurance check and mommy lets you buy another trike for $50. You go back to the same company and ask them to insure you again.

Are you going to be shocked that the rate will be more than $5 this time ? Are you going to be shocked if you go to another insurance company and they too want to charge you much more than $5 ?

Again, the insurance company LOST $120 on you last time around. Why in the hell would ANYONE think that they shouldn't and wouldn't raise your rates ??

[smegalicious]

Not sure what's happening on your end. I just went back one page and found them rather easily.

(I'm using the multiquote button so some of the quoted text that Red posted doesn't show up. You might click the link arrow and go back and read his actual posts.)
I'm talking about the specific post of yours that I quoted and the post from redmaxx that proceeded it. They are no longer there. Pardon me for thinking that the best place to start would be the actual post that I quoted. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I do *usually* actually read a thread before posting in it. :bigeye: Shocking, I know!

[Demosthenes9]

I'm talking about the specific post of yours that I quoted and the post from redmaxx that proceeded it. They are no longer there. Pardon me for thinking that the best place to start would be the actual post that I quoted. :rolleyes:

FWIW, I do *usually* actually read a thread before posting in it. :bigeye: Shocking, I know!


Actually, the best place to start wouldn't be where you jumped into the middle of the conversation, but instead, to start at the beginning of it :bigeye::bigeye:Shocking, I know!

[smegalicious]

Wow, you linked to a Union website to try and "prove" your claim? That piece threw out a bunch of numbers yet didn't provide anything to back those numbers up. It also didn't bother to describe the methodology used to extract those numbers.
CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care -- 22 percent of all claims.

Do you really need someone to "describe the methodology" of taking the total number of claims and dividing it by the number of denials in order to calculate a percentage?

No, the article didn't spoon-feed you the information from the California Dept of Managed Care (http://www.dmhc.ca.gov/). But I'm sure you're smart enough to find it on your own should you feel the need.

Again, the insurance company LOST $120 on you last time around. Why in the hell would ANYONE think that they shouldn't and wouldn't raise your rates ??
Your hypothetical is conveniently set up so that the loss occurs in the first year of being insured. Your hypothetical is also conveniently set up to ignore all the other trikes that were insured that *didn't* incur a loss.

What if the loss happens in the tenth year of being insured? What about the twentieth? Granted, people usually don't insure trikes for 20 years.... but they do pretty often insure their bodies for that long.

What about all the other revenue the insurance company generated that year? Insurance is based on a *pooled* risk, correct? So why the focus on the $120 lost on one individual claim? Did the total annual profit for the company sink? Remain steady? Or increase? Which do you believe has been happening w/health insurance companies?

[smegalicious]

Actually, the best place to start wouldn't be where you jumped into the middle of the conversation, but instead, to start at the beginning of it :bigeye::bigeye:Shocking, I know!
If you'd like to have a more *private* chat w/redmaxx, there's always the PM function.

Otherwise, that's a risk you take by posting on a public internet forum. :comfort:

[redmaxx]

Wow, you linked to a Union website

Ad hominem.

to try and "prove" your claim? That piece threw out a bunch of numbers yet didn't provide anything to back those numbers up.

CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care -- 22 percent of all claims.

It also didn't bother to describe the methodology used to extract those numbers.

So basically you just proved you don't know how to read. :coverlaf:

Does my car even develop a debilitating disease ? Nope. then again, I don't insure my car against things that should be addressed through routine maintenance that I pay out of pocket.

Therefore, they are not comparable. Your car physically cannot get into the same state that a human being can, and therefore cannot be compared to a human

And as I have shown, I know a lot more about how insurance works than you do my friend. :) :just saying:

No, you've just proven that you know how to spout the same self congratulatory BS over and over again. I feel bad for you. :comfort:

You claimed that insurance companies try to deny all the claims that they can. That just simply isn't true. YES, there are SOME number of claims that are wrongly denied for one reason or the other. That's beauracracy for you, and yes, it even happens in the private sector.

And you completely missed the admission by Cigna's former CEO in lobo's link that they are on a treadmill by Wall Street to meet certain numbers. This means that they must deny all of the claims that they can so that they can deliver the best numbers that they can to Wall Street.

But, you are trying to extrapolate these occurences into being the "norm" which just simply isn't the case.

And as you've proven, you don't know how to read proof presented to you unless it matches your preconceived word-view.

Hellloooo confirmation-bias! :rolleyes:

When I called you on it, you posted a bunch of crap about insurance companies raising rates on companies AFTER AN INCREASE IN CLAIMS ON THE POLICY.

Well, you've got a quarter of what I said. Try again.

Let's go ahead and look at an example.

A completely, totally and utterly irrelevant example because you can't get it through your head that they are apples and oranges.


You really make it wayyyy too easy for me Demos. It's like shooting fish in a barrel! :rofl2:

[Demosthenes9]

CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care -- 22 percent of all claims.

Do you really need someone to "describe the methodology" of taking the total number of claims and dividing it by the number of denials in order to calculate a percentage?

Actually, yeah, it would have been nice and helpful. There are all sorts of reasons as to why claims are denied and many of them are quite legitimate.




No, the article didn't spoon-feed you the information from the California Dept of Managed Care (http://www.dmhc.ca.gov/). But I'm sure you're smart enough to find it on your own should you feel the need.


Not my job to do that. I asked for proof to support his claim. He could produce a study with verification but instead decided to link to talking points from a union website.



Your hypothetical is conveniently set up so that the loss occurs in the first year of being insured. Your hypothetical is also conveniently set up to ignore all the other trikes that were insured that *didn't* incur a loss.

What if the loss happens in the tenth year of being insured? What about the twentieth? Granted, people usually don't insure trikes for 20 years.... but they do pretty often insure their bodies for that long.

What about all the other revenue the insurance company generated that year? Insurance is based on a *pooled* risk, correct? So why the focus on the $120 lost on one individual claim? Did the total annual profit for the company sink? Remain steady? Or increase? Which do you believe has been happening w/health insurance companies?


I'm quite sure that annual profits went up overall. But, if what Red is wanting occurred with EVERY POLICY, then they would have most likely operated at a loss.

Sure, we can look and say that insurance Company X made Y many millions of dollars and therefore shouldn't have raised the rates on Company Z, but then you would have to apply that to all the other policy holders involved as well.

As for how long a policy has been in effect and how much revenue the company generated from it historically, I believe that's taken into account when they figure out the new rates.

So, you pay $200 per month or $2400 per year for 10 years for a total of $24000. You then have medical claims of $60,000 one year.

It's been a while since I took a math course so I might be a bit fuzzy on this, but doesn't $60K in payouts wipeout the $24K in paid premiums ?

So, in this instance, shouldn't the insurance company raise the rates ?

[redmaxx]

CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care -- 22 percent of all claims.

Do you really need someone to "describe the methodology" of taking the total number of claims and dividing it by the number of denials in order to calculate a percentage?

I quoted it again in my reply while you were writing yours. It's in big, bold font. Maybe he won't miss it this time. :coverlaf:

Your hypothetical is conveniently set up so that the loss occurs in the first year of being insured. Your hypothetical is also conveniently set up to ignore all the other trikes that were insured that *didn't* incur a loss.

Exactly! I love how he ignores that some peoplepay in premiums for years, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars and then make a claim for less than the premiums they've paid in and the insurer jacks up the premiums.

What about all the other revenue the insurance company generated that year? Insurance is based on a *pooled* risk, correct? So why the focus on the $120 lost on one individual claim? Did the total annual profit for the company sink? Remain steady? Or increase? Which do you believe has been happening w/health insurance companies?

:clap: He loves to trot out "pooled risk" until it doesn't benefit his argument. Oooops!

[Demosthenes9]

If you'd like to have a more *private* chat w/redmaxx, there's always the PM function.

Otherwise, that's a risk you take by posting on a public internet forum. :comfort:

You apparently misread or misunderstood what I said.

let me try again. You replied to a post of mine making some highly inaccurate assumptions. I called you on it and advised you to go back and reread the exhange.

You later followed up saying "well, I was looking for the post that I replied to and the one that immediately preceded it, isn't that the place to start" ?

To his I replied that in reality, the best place to have started would be the beginning of the exhange between Red and myself. Didn't think it would need to be explained, but starting at the beginning would have given you the context in which I was replying.

In short, had you read the exchange, you wouldn't have jumped in and made yourself look silly by making unfounded presumptions.

:P

[redmaxx]

Actually, yeah, it would have been nice and helpful. There are all sorts of reasons as to why claims are denied and many of them are quite legitimate.

Irrelevant. You disputed that they don't even look to deny as many claims as they can. The reasons are irrelevant, unless you'd like to change your dispute with me. :rolleyes:

Not my job to do that. I asked for proof to support his claim. He could produce a study with verification but instead decided to link to talking points from a union website.

Just keep sticking your head in the sand. It only shows how desperate you are. :rolleyes:

I'm quite sure that annual profits went up overall. But, if what Red is wanting occurred with EVERY POLICY, then they would have most likely operated at a loss.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound? No one would go into the insurance business if they thought like you.

You sound like restaurant managers trying to make up any reason they can to not to cover for the cold, disgusting food they just served me. "Well if we refunded everyone that complained about our crappy food, we'd be out of business!" :rofl2:

So, you pay $200 per month or $2400 per year for 10 years for a total of $24000. You then have medical claims of $60,000 one year.

It's been a while since I took a math course so I might be a bit fuzzy on this, but doesn't $60K in payouts wipeout the $24K in paid premiums ?

And yet, they jack up rates on people with less than $24,000 in claims. Imagine that. It's all about the current year/quarter's numbers.

[Demosthenes9]

I quoted it again in my reply while you were writing yours. It's in big, bold font. Maybe he won't miss it this time. :coverlaf:

I'll deal with that in a minute or two.



Exactly! I love how he ignores that some peoplepay in premiums for years, amounting to tens of thousands of dollars and then make a claim for less than the premiums they've paid in and the insurer jacks up the premiums.


You don't buy insurance by the lifetime, you buy it by the freaking year. X amount of dollars to cover your medical costs FOR THE YEAR.

If you want your "premiums" to build up, invest your money in an HSA and pay your bills out of pocket.




:clap: He loves to trot out "pooled risk" until it doesn't benefit his argument. Oooops!

Neither you nor Smeg have done anything to disprove anything I have said.

[redmaxx]

You don't buy insurance by the lifetime, you buy it by the freaking year.

I never said anything about a lifetime. Just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper...

X amount of dollars to cover your medical costs FOR THE YEAR.

Your the one who brought up profitability measured at the patient level. In order to that, you need to do some basic math. Total premiums paid versus total claims paid. You even went along with Smeg's scenario, so don't start complaining now.

Neither you nor Smeg have done anything to disprove anything I have said.

Are you BLIND? :headbang:

[Demosthenes9]

Ad hominem.


No, fact. It's a freaking union website. At least try to find something that has some credibility as being nonbiased.







So basically you just proved you don't know how to read. :coverlaf:


Well, since you quoted this and gave that response, perhaps you can read it and point it out to me.

CNA/NNOC researchers analyzed data reported by the insurers to the California Department of Managed Care. From 2002 through June 30, 2009, six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims for care -- 22 percent of all claims.

Go ahead Red, show us where the METHODOLOGY was discussed. You do know what methodology means don't you ?




And you completely missed the admission by Cigna's former CEO in lobo's link that they are on a treadmill by Wall Street to meet certain numbers. This means that they must deny all of the claims that they can so that they can deliver the best numbers that they can to Wall Street.


First of all, he wasn't the CEO of Cigna. Yet another instance of you NOT KNOWING the facts.

Secondly, there are a number of ways that insurance companies can deliver the best numbers. They could make better investments. They could update their actuarial tables and become better at assessing risk. They could even develop more/better instruments to increase their revenue flows. Etc, etc, etc.



And as you've proven, you don't know how to read proof presented to you unless it matches your preconceived word-view.


You haven't presented ANY PROOF@@@@







You really make it wayyyy too easy for me Demos. It's like shooting fish in a barrel! :rofl2:

I doubt it very seriously seeing as you have come into this little fight totally and completely unarmed.

God. I feel like I'm sitting here trying to discuss quantum physics with a farking three year old.

This is getting rather pointless.

Welcome to my ignore list Red.

[redmaxx]

I've head enough. I will not discuss this with someone who refuses to see the facts and just attacks anything he sees he doesn't like. Enough with the false analogies, made up facts and false claims about me.

Welcome to my block list Demos. Some of your posts are worth reading, but not enough to justify this level of hassle. :wave:

[smegalicious]

Actually, yeah, it would have been nice and helpful. There are all sorts of reasons as to why claims are denied and many of them are quite legitimate.
And clearly, the site didn't discuss the legitimacy of those denials. It merely stated that 22% had been denied.

If you'd like to believe that all 22% were completely legitimate, that's your call.

Not my job to do that. I asked for proof to support his claim. He could produce a study with verification but instead decided to link to talking points from a union website.
It's not his job to link to the precise statistical information gathered by the California Dept of Managed Care, either. :rolleyes:

I'm quite sure that annual profits went up overall. But, if what Red is wanting occurred with EVERY POLICY, then they would have most likely operated at a loss.
You mean if the insurance company actually paid legitimate claims w/o forcing the patient to jump through endless appeals hoops, then they would have most likely operated at a loss?

If that's the case, then there's clearly something wrong w/that business model.

Sure, we can look and say that insurance Company X made Y many millions of dollars and therefore shouldn't have raised the rates on Company Z, but then you would have to apply that to all the other policy holders involved as well.
If they're still making millions in profits, what the justification for raising the rates again? :look:

So, you pay $200 per month or $2400 per year for 10 years for a total of $24000. You then have medical claims of $60,000 one year.

It's been a while since I took a math course so I might be a bit fuzzy on this, but doesn't $60K in payouts wipeout the $24K in paid premiums ?

So, in this instance, shouldn't the insurance company raise the rates ?
Different hypothetical.... same convenient construction. :yawn:

No, the insurance company is not guaranteed to make a profit off every single customer that walks through their proverbial door. That's the kicker about *pooled* risk.... sometimes, that risk is going to bite the insurance company in the ass.

Thankfully, as you've already admitted above, the fact that they may have to pay more than they take in wrt a handful of customers is significantly outweighed by those from whom they take much more than they ever have to pay.... which is why you can be "quite sure" that annual profits rose overall. ;)

[smegalicious]

You apparently misread or misunderstood what I said.

let me try again. You replied to a post of mine making some highly inaccurate assumptions. I called you on it and advised you to go back and reread the exhange.
I challenged a statement you had made re: the insurance company using actual claims paid as the basis for increasing rates and how that was similar to car insurance claims.

You later followed up saying "well, I was looking for the post that I replied to and the one that immediately preceded it, isn't that the place to start" ?
If you're going to use quotes, at least have the intellectual honesty to actually "quote" the damn post(s).

That would be rather impossible, seeing as how they're not there anymore.

I'm talking about the specific post of yours that I quoted and the post from redmaxx that proceeded it. They are no longer there. Pardon me for thinking that the best place to start would be the actual post that I quoted.

To his I replied that in reality, the best place to have started would be the beginning of the exhange between Red and myself. Didn't think it would need to be explained, but starting at the beginning would have given you the context in which I was replying.
"Context" doesn't change the inaccuracy of your statement or your analogy wrt car insurance.

[Demosthenes9]

And clearly, the site didn't discuss the legitimacy of those denials. It merely stated that 22% had been denied.

If you'd like to believe that all 22% were completely legitimate, that's your call.


Smeg, we don't know anything at all about those denials except for the "fact" that this group claims that 22% were denied.



It's not his job to link to the precise statistical information gathered by the California Dept of Managed Care, either. :rolleyes:

Actually, I think it is. that or some study that actually provides details instead of just "well, we looked at the numbers and the denial rate was 22%"




You mean if the insurance company actually paid legitimate claims w/o forcing the patient to jump through endless appeals hoops, then they would have most likely operated at a loss?

If that's the case, then there's clearly something wrong w/that business model.


Not what I said at all. Red gave examples of where insurance rates were raised considerably on renewal after high claims had been made.

I'm saying that if the insurance companies couldn't raise their rates due to high claims, then yes, they probably would have lost money.



If they're still making millions in profits, what the justification for raising the rates again? :look:

Tried to explain before, let me try again. yes, overall, company made millions. But again, you can't look at this in isolation. If Demo's Widget company exceeds projected claims, sure, it would be great if the insurance company would just say "what the hell, we made millions last year, we'll leave the rates the same". But what do they tell Smeg's Better Widget company who also had higher claims ?

Of course, they would be obligated to leave those rates the same as well. Multiply that through by all the companies that had higher claims and you could very well wipe out those profits.

What this would also eventually lead to is higher rates for companies that DON'T have excessive claims.




Different hypothetical.... same convenient construction. :yawn:

No, the insurance company is not guaranteed to make a profit off every single customer that walks through their proverbial door. That's the kicker about *pooled* risk.... sometimes, that risk is going to bite the insurance company in the ass.

Thankfully, as you've already admitted above, the fact that they may have to pay more than they take in wrt a handful of customers is significantly outweighed by those from whom they take much more than they ever have to pay.... which is why you can be "quite sure" that annual profits rose overall. ;)

The question is how much could/would/should they lose on a "single" customer before they raise rates ?

For company plans, the pool could very well just be the employees of that company. yes, they would make money on some employees, but lose money on others. As long as they end up making money overall, rates would stay somewhat the same. If however they lose money overall on that pool, rates would indeed increase.

Now, if you want to argue that the "pools" should be changed and increased in size, I can live with that. Perhaps let all small restaurants pool to get a group rate.

[Demosthenes9]

I challenged a statement you had made re: the insurance company using actual claims paid as the basis for increasing rates and how that was similar to car insurance claims.


If you're going to use quotes, at least have the intellectual honesty to actually "quote" the damn post(s).

That would be rather impossible, seeing as how they're not there anymore.

I'm talking about the specific post of yours that I quoted and the post from redmaxx that proceeded it. They are no longer there. Pardon me for thinking that the best place to start would be the actual post that I quoted.



"Context" doesn't change the inaccuracy of your statement or your analogy wrt car insurance.

the point that you have failed to understand is that there was nothing inaccurate about my analogy wrt car insurance.

What was inaccurate was your flawed assumption that I was trying to cover all the bases in my analogy.

But again, that isn't what I was trying to do. I was adressing one specific aspect that Red's post had raised. I gave an example to address that issue and that example was dead on accurate and on point.

that you wandered into the conversation and made some flawed assumptions and made yourself look silly is your own damned fault. Stop trying to lay the blame off on me for your failure.

[smegalicious]

Smeg, we don't know anything at all about those denials except for the "fact" that this group claims that 22% were denied.
Is there an echo in here?

Coulda swore that was basically the same thing I just said. :doh:

And clearly, the site didn't discuss the legitimacy of those denials. It merely stated that 22% had been denied.

Do you have any counter-evidence to show that the denial rate is, in fact, not 22% (cumulative) for the six largest insurance companies in CA? Or are you merely attempting to reject the evidence presented to you based on the source of that evidence?

Actually, I think it is. that or some study that actually provides details instead of just "well, we looked at the numbers and the denial rate was 22%"
While that link in and of itself doesn't prove the entirely of redmaxx's claim, it most certainly lends credence to the contention that insurance companies rather routinely deny claims.

Not what I said at all. Red gave examples of where insurance rates were raised considerably on renewal after high claims had been made.
Actually, he did no such thing. :rolleyes:

He posted a excerpt from an article discussing insurance companies raising the rates on sick patients so high that, not only the sick patient, but the entire group of employees w/which s/he is pooled, would be forced to abandon such coverage.

In other words, an example of insurance only being good until you actually need it. :vomit:

I'm saying that if the insurance companies couldn't raise their rates due to high claims, then yes, they probably would have lost money.
If every single customer had such high claims, then your point might have more merit.

Shouldn't the insurance companies *already* be factoring in the risk of *some* patients filing higher-than-usual claims? Don't we -- or at least they -- have ample statistics about risk of accidents and the like?

Tried to explain before, let me try again. yes, overall, company made millions. But again, you can't look at this in isolation.
Oh, the irony! We can't look at the fact that the company made millions in profits in isolation.... but we can -- and apparently should -- look to the amount of loss incurred by a single customer in complete isolation.

:crazy:

If Demo's Widget company exceeds projected claims, sure, it would be great if the insurance company would just say "what the hell, we made millions last year, we'll leave the rates the same". But what do they tell Smeg's Better Widget company who also had higher claims ?

Of course, they would be obligated to leave those rates the same as well. Multiply that through by all the companies that had higher claims and you could very well wipe out those profits.
If that many of the companies had that much higher than expected claims, then, as I previously stated, there is something clearly wrong w/that insurance company's business model... or at least their underwriting department.

What this would also eventually lead to is higher rates for companies that DON'T have excessive claims.
Quite a jump there from "high" to "excessive", dontcha think? :rolleyes:

The question is how much could/would/should they lose on a "single" customer before they raise rates ?
No, the question is why you selectively use isolation when it suits you, and abandon it when it doesn't.

But at least that's a pretty easy question to answer. ;)

For company plans, the pool could very well just be the employees of that company. yes, they would make money on some employees, but lose money on others. As long as they end up making money overall, rates would stay somewhat the same. If however they lose money overall on that pool, rates would indeed increase.
Which might be acceptable if that's what actually happened. Per redmaxx's quoted excerpt from before, it's not. :shake:

Per redmaxx's example, the existence of a single non-profitable customer would justify raising the rates on the entire group, regardless of the group's continued profitability overall. That sick bastard might cost the insurance company to lose a few dollars compared w/last year's profits.... and they can't have that.

[smegalicious]

the point that you have failed to understand is that there was nothing inaccurate about my analogy wrt car insurance.
You're sooo right. If only I agreed w/how right you are all the time, then I'm sure we wouldn't have any issues at all.

:vomit:

that you wandered into the conversation and made some flawed assumptions and made yourself look silly is your own damned fault. Stop trying to lay the blame off on me for your failure.
Whose damn fault is it that you can't properly use quotation marks? :rolleyes:

[chazjr]

Sick and Wrong
How Washington is screwing up health care reform – and why it may take a revolt to fix it.

Let's start with the obvious: America has not only the worst but the dumbest health care system in the developed world. It's become a black leprosy eating away at the American experiment — a bureaucracy so insipid and mean and illogical that even our darkest criminal minds wouldn't be equal to dreaming it up on purpose.

The system doesn't work for anyone. It cheats patients and leaves them to die, denies insurance to 47 million Americans, forces hospitals to spend billions haggling over claims, and systematically bleeds and harasses doctors with the specter of catastrophic litigation. Even as a mechanism for delivering bonuses to insurance-company fat cats, it's a miserable failure: Greedy insurance bosses who spent a generation denying preventive care to patients now see their profits sapped by millions of customers who enter the system only when they're sick with incurably expensive illnesses.

Full Story..
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong/1

[Krazen1211]

If they're still making millions in profits, what the justification for raising the rates again? :look:



To hold a cash reserve for future higher payouts beyond the rate increase.

Insurance is all about pooling risk, but Obamacare forces the insurance companies to take on more risk than they would otherwise choose to.

[smegalicious]

To hold a cash reserve for future higher payouts beyond the rate increase.
Wouldn't -- or at least shouldn't -- they have been doing that all along, during all those previous years where they raked in millions of dollars in profit?

Insurance is all about pooling risk, but Obamacare forces the insurance companies to take on more risk than they would otherwise choose to.
.... because some people have the balls to actually get sick. :eek:

[Krazen1211]

Wouldn't -- or at least shouldn't -- they have been doing that all along, during all those previous years where they raked in millions of dollars in profit?


Um, they have been?

[smegalicious]

Um, they have been?
So then how large does this "cash reserve" need to be?

[abeo]

:headbang:

Senate's 10-year health fix would cost US $856B (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul)

Senate's 10-year health fix would cost US $856B
By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer 12 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Sen. Max Baucus on Wednesday released the much-awaited Finance Committee version of an American health-system remake — a landmark $856 billion, 10-year measure that starts a rough ride through Congress without visible Republican backing.

The bill by Baucus, chairman of the Finance Committee, would make major changes to the nation's $2.5 trillion health care system, including requiring all individuals to purchase health care or pay a fine, and language prohibiting insurance company practices like charging more to people with more serious health problems.

"This is a unique moment in history where we can finally reach an objective so many of us have sought for so long," Baucus said. "The Finance Committee has carefully worked through the details of health care reform to ensure this package works for patients, for health care providers and for our economy."

Consumers would be able to shop for and compare insurance plans in a new purchasing exchange. Medicaid would be expanded, and caps would be placed on patients' yearly health care costs. The plan would be paid for with $507 billion in cuts to government health programs and $349 billion in new taxes and fees.

The bill fails to fulfill President Barack Obama's aim of creating a new government-run insurance plan — or option — to compete with the private market. It proposes instead a system of nonprofit member owned cooperatives, somewhat akin to electric co-ops that exist in many places around the country. That was one of many concessions meant to win over Republicans.

Baucus is still holding out hope for GOP support when his committee actually votes on the bill, probably as early as next week.

The measure represents the most moderate health care proposal in Congress so far, compared to legislation approved by three committees in the House and the Senate's health panel. Obama's top domestic priority is to revamp the health care system to provide coverage to nearly 50 million Americans who lack it and to rein in rising costs.

Wednesday's bill release follows months of negotiations among Baucus and five other Finance Committee senators dubbed the "Gang of Six" — Republicans Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Democrats Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico.

In the end, Democrats believe Snowe may be the only Republican to support the bill, though she wasn't ready to commit her support Tuesday night. "Hopefully at some point through the committee process we can reach an agreement," she said.

The bill drew quick criticism from Republican leaders.

"Forcing through a partisan bill gives the impression that Democratic leadership and the White House are more concerned with political victories than they are with passing lasting, bipartisan health care reform. I hope that's not the case," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, head of the committee tasked with electing Republican senators.

Baucus' plan aims to make health insurance more affordable for self-employed people and those working for small companies, who now have the biggest problems in getting and keeping coverage.

People insured through large employers would not see major changes, but some of their health care benefits would be nicked to help pay for the cost of the plan. The Baucus proposal would limit to $2,000 a year the amount people can contribute to flexible spending accounts, which are used to cover copayments and deductibles not paid by their employers. That provision would raise $16.5 billion over 10 years.

Everyone covered through an employer would learn the full costs of their health benefits, which starting next year would be reported on employees' W-2 tax forms. Although family coverage averages about $13,000 a year most workers don't know how much their employer is paying.

Not carrying insurance could result in a steep fine, as much as $3,800 per family, or $950 for an individual. People who can't afford their premiums would be exempted from the fine.

The plan proposes a $6 billion annual fee on health insurance providers, which would recoup some of the profits the companies expect to make from millions of new taxpayer-subsidized customers.

Democratic leaders are aiming for votes in the full House and Senate this fall.

[Krazen1211]

So then how large does this "cash reserve" need to be?

As large as they determine it needs to be in order to cover their higher future costs due to this legislation. Furthermore, future tax rates are bound to be higher, so it makes more sense to acquire revenue today.

You'll have to ask their finance team and actuaries.

If you want to claim that their cash reserve as it currently exists (after investments took a major hit over the past 18 months, I might add) is large enough for the next several years, and that therefore no premium increase is required, go ahead and do it.

But the burden of proof is on you.

[smegalicious]

As large as they determine it needs to be in order to cover their higher future costs due to this legislation. Furthermore, future tax rates are bound to be higher, so it makes more sense to acquire revenue today.
What are you even talking about?

You previously suggested that insurance companies have already building these "cash reserves" for some time now. Presumably, that would extend to before "this legislation" was ever considered. What was their rationale -- other than corporate greed, of course -- for continuing to raise rates and increase profits during that time?

You'll have to ask their finance team and actuaries.
No, I'm asking you because you're the one attempting to use it as some sort of justification for insurance companies putting profits ahead of health care.

If you want to claim that their cash reserve as it currently exists (after investments took a major hit over the past 18 months, I might add) is large enough for the next several years, and that therefore no premium increase is required, go ahead and do it.

But the burden of proof is on you.
Let's re-cap.

You're the one claiming that they need to raise rates in other to further increase "cash reserves" that they've already been hording for quite some time.

And yet you claim the burden of proof is on me to establish that the cash reserves are sufficient? :lmao:

How about you establish that the current level of cash reserves *isn't* sufficient, since you're the one making that claim? :nod:

[Krazen1211]

What are you even talking about?

You previously suggested that insurance companies have already building these "cash reserves" for some time now. Presumably, that would extend to before "this legislation" was ever considered. What was their rationale -- other than corporate greed, of course -- for continuing to raise rates and increase profits during that time?



The impending doom of Barack Obama's presidency?

[Libertarian]

:headbang:

Senate's 10-year health fix would cost US $856B (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090916/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul)


If recent history is any guide (the actual vs projected cost of Bush's medicare drug entitlement), you can triple that number.

[smegalicious]

The impending doom of Barack Obama's presidency?
I never knew health insurance executives could predict the future. :rolleyes:

[redmaxx]

I never knew health insurance executives could predict the future. :rolleyes:

Oh but that's their job! They need to figure out how much gold plated dinnerware, jets, lavish vacations, and other perks that they will want are going to be in the future so they know how much to raise rates. :vomit:

[lobo411]

If recent history is any guide (the actual vs projected cost of Bush's medicare drug entitlement), you can triple that number.

Or we could just do nothing, and be guaranteed that health care expenses will triple:

http://www.kff.org/pullingittogether/images/091509pitgif_2.gif

[paperboy05]

Or we could just do nothing, and be guaranteed that health care expenses will triple

Why the false dichotomy?

[SilentD]

Here's a good article that did a fairly detailed analysis of the Health Care bills prior to the Baucus bill. It does discuss portions of the Baucus bill that had been made public as of last week.

The summary:

# Contrary to the Obama administration's repeated assurances, millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it. As many as 89.5 million people may be dumped into a government-run plan.

# Some Americans may find themselves forced into a new insurance plan that no longer includes their current doctor.

# Americans will pay more than $820 billion in additional taxes over the next 10 years, and could see their insurance premiums rise as much as 95 percent.

# The current health care bills will increase the budget deficit by at least $239 billion over the next 10 years, and far more in the years beyond that. If the new health care entitlement were subject to the same 75-year actuarial standards as Social Security or Medicare, its unfunded liabilities would exceed $9.2 trillion.

# While the bills contain no direct provisions for rationing care, they nonetheless increase the likelihood of government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.

# Contrary to assertions of some opponents, the bills contain no provision for euthanasia or mandatory end-of-life counseling. The bills' provisions on abortion coverage are far murkier.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10515

[paperboy05]

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10515

Got to see him speak 2 nights ago. Good article!

[SilentD]

Got to see him speak 2 nights ago. Good article!

Where was that?

[Epiphyte]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_baucus_bill_cbo_luvs_it.html

The Congressional Budget Office has released its preliminary score (pdf) of Max Baucus's bill. According to the CBO, the bill covers 94 percent of legal residents and actually reduces the deficit. More to the point, it keeps reducing the deficit as time goes on.

The CBO score, which does include a rough sketch of the bill's second decade, clarifies Kent Conrad's desire for a 20-year score considerably: It makes the Senate Finance Committee's bill look better than the House's bill, at least from a deficit-reduction perspective. Unlike in the House bill, the Senate Finance Committee's bill sees its revenue and savings increase more quickly than its costs over time. Not only does it reduce the deficit in the first 10 years, but it reduces it by even more in the second 10 years.

[paperboy05]

Where was that?

Here in Bismarck. There was a health care "townhall" (was meant to be a townhall type meeting, but didn't end up being so) that he spoke at.

[Demosthenes9]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/the_baucus_bill_cbo_luvs_it.html

Not that hard to do when you tax the hell out of people.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/09/dem-senator-warns-of-big-big-tax-on-middle-class-in-baucus-bill.html



Dem Senator Warns of 'Big, Big Tax' on Middle Class in Baucus Bill



It's not every day that you hear a Democratic senator charge that a fellow Democrat is proposing to raise taxes on the middle class, but that is what happened on Tuesday when Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., ripped into the health-care bill developed by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mt., the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

The Baucus proposal would impose, starting in 2013, a 35 percent excise tax on insurance companies for "high-cost plans" -- defined as those above $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for family plans.

Health economists believe a tax on high-priced benefits could help slow the growth of health costs by making consumers more sensitive to prices.

The tax contemplated by Baucus is also a big revenue raiser. It is expected to raise $200 billion, money that Baucus is hoping to use to pay for subsidies for the uninsured.

Given how much money this kind of tax can raise, Rockefeller says he understands why it is "tempting."

The West Virginia Democrat worries, however, that a lot of middle class workers, like the coal miners in his state, will end up facing "a big, big tax" under the Baucus bill because they currently enjoy generous employer-provided health care benefits which they receive tax free.

Referring to Baucus, Rockefeller said, "He should understand that (his proposal) means that virtually every single coal miner is going to have a big, big tax put on them because the tax will be put on the company and the company will immediately pass it down and lower benefits because they are self insured, most of them, because they are larger. They will pass it down, lower benefits, and probably this will mean higher premiums for coal miners who are getting very good health care benefits for a very good reason. That is, like steelworkers and others, they are doing about the most dangerous job that can be done in America."

"So that’s not really a smart idea," Rockefeller continued. "In fact, it’s a very dangerous idea, and I’m not even sure the coal miners in West Virginia are aware that this is what is waiting if this bill passes."

Rockefeller made his comments on a conference call with reporters which was sponsored by the liberal Campaign for America's Future.

Rockefeller, who sits on the Finance Committee, said that he cannot support the Baucus bill unless it receives major improvements during the amendment process.

Baucus, the Finance chair, is scheduled to discuss his "chairman's mark" with reporters on Capitol Hill at 12 noon on Wednesday.

ABC News' Brittany Crockett contributed to this report.

[Epiphyte]

Not that hard to do when you tax the hell out of people.


Why do West Virginian coal miners have such expensive health care plans (Union?)?? It's much more likely that well off people in areas with really expensive health care costs will pay the brunt of the taxes, i.e., NYC and other major cities.

Edit: Do you have proof that the coal miners have $8000+ per year health care plans?

[Demosthenes9]

Why do West Virginian coal miners have such expensive health care plans (Union?)?? It's much more likely that well off people in areas with really expensive health care costs will pay the brunt of the taxes, i.e., NYC and other major cities.

You are of the opinion that only people in NYC and other major cities have good "expensive" health care plans ?

[Epiphyte]

You are of the opinion that only people in NYC and other major cities have good "expensive" health care plans ?

No, it's just that health care plans are usually much more expensive in major cities; just like housing, food, parking, etc. If anything I would expect people in rural areas to support such an excise tax as the burden will be on the city folk.