The Cellar
Page 7 of 51 123456 7 89101112131417 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)
-   -   Impeding changes to our Health Care system (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=16747)

TheMercenary 07-26-2009 06:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 584219)
I made my point.

Any dwellers who care to follow the crazy ass threads with your multiple snips and pastes, with little or no thoughts of your own (I can hardly call them discussions in most instances), can decide for themselves.
So you refuse to defend his practices or those of the Demoncrats? that speaks volumes as to your intentions and confirms you to me nothing more than a political hack, as I mentioned earlier. What are you Demoncrats afraid of?

TheMercenary 07-26-2009 06:17 PM
Looks like Obamy and the Dems maybe playing an end around on the deals they made behind closed doors in the White House.

Quote:
All these actions -- the White House meetings, the strung-out negotiations, the muzzling -- have been taken with one aim: To buy silence. President Barack Obama is committed to a public option. Liberal Democrats intend to make the private sector fund their plans. They figure by the time they drop a bill that contains odious elements, it'll be too late for any industry player -- big or small -- to cut a Harry & Louise ad.

Industry players this week got a glimpse of how they will be treated. House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman dismissed the $80 billion drug deal, claiming it did not have House support, and moreover that the White House "told us they're not bound to that agreement."

Mr. Waxman detailed his own demands, which, needless to say, made $80 billion look piddling. The Obama administration is already backing off the pharma and hospital deals. An anonymous White House official claimed this week that neither were set in stone, and, for the record, had been inked solely with Mr. Baucus. That's the same Mr. Baucus who has been losing clout with each day this process goes on.

The question is just how long it is going to take for America's health-care CEOs to realize they are being taken for a ride, both by Congress and their own lobbyists. Americans are wary enough about ObamaCare to maybe appreciate some straight talk from corporate America. If only corporate America can find the smarts to give it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718217595120225.html

Redux 07-26-2009 06:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 584220)
So you refuse to defend his practices or those of the Demoncrats? that speaks volumes as to your intentions and confirms you to me nothing more than a political hack, as I mentioned earlier. What are you Demoncrats afraid of?
I said on more than one occasion....any time you to cease with the partisan snips and pastes and actually offer your own thoughts and opinions, I'll be ready. ;)

And every time, you turned me down. I understand, its just not your style to "discuss" on a discussion board. You would rather troll (by most forum standards, snipping and pasting w/o commentary is trolling).

TheMercenary 07-26-2009 06:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 584225)
I said on more than one occasion....any time you to cease with the partisan snips and pastes and actually offer your own thoughts and opinions, I'll be ready. ;)

And every time, you turned me down. I understand, its just not your style to "discuss" on a discussion board.
Sure, go ahead and defend their positions and then we can "discuss". To date you have failed to do anything of the such. You wear rose colored glasses. Why don't you start with how your guys are going to pay for it and how it will be self sustaining in 10 years.

TheMercenary 07-26-2009 06:26 PM
Talk about a power move by the Demoncrats, this is amazing. How can this be defended?

Quote:
Russell Sullivan, the top staffer on Finance, and Jon Selib, Baucus’ chief of staff, met with a bloc of more than 20 contract lobbyists, including several former Baucus aides.

“They said, ‘Republicans are having this meeting and you need to let all of your clients know if they have someone there, that will be viewed as a hostile act,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who attended the meeting.
http://www.rollcall.com/issues/54_144/news/35773-1.html

TheMercenary 07-26-2009 08:32 PM
I certainly support health insurance reform. It is how this reform is coming about that I have a problem with.

This was a good editorial in the NYT today which gives us a snapshot of some of the plans in the works.

Quote:
Editorial
Health Care Reform and You
The health care reform bills moving through Congress look as though they would do a good job of providing coverage for millions of uninsured Americans. But what would they do for the far greater number of people who already have insurance? As President Obama noted in his news conference last week, many of them are wondering: “What’s in this for me? How does my family stand to benefit from health insurance reform?”

Many crucial decisions on coverage and financing have yet to be made, but the general direction of the legislation is clear enough to make some educated guesses about the likely winners and losers.

WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF REFORM? The House bill and a similar bill in the Senate would require virtually all Americans to carry health insurance with specified minimum benefits or pay a penalty. They would require all but the smallest businesses to provide and subsidize insurance that meets minimum standards for their workers or pay a fee for failing to do so.

The reforms would help the poorest of the uninsured by expanding Medicaid. Some middle-class Americans — earning up to three or four times the poverty level, or $66,000 to $88,000 for a family of four — would get subsidies to help them buy coverage through new health insurance exchanges, national or state, which would offer a menu of policies from different companies.

IS THERE HELP FOR THE INSURED? Many insured people need help almost as much as the uninsured. Premiums and out-of-pocket spending for health care have been rising far faster than wages. Millions of people are “underinsured” — their policies don’t come close to covering their medical bills. Many postpone medical care or don’t fill prescriptions because they can’t afford to pay their share of the costs. And many declare personal bankruptcy because they are unable to pay big medical debts.

The reform effort should help ease the burdens of many of them, some more quickly than others. The legislation seems almost certain to include a new marketplace, the so-called health insurance exchange. Since there will be tens of millions of new subscribers, virtually all major insurers are expected to offer policies through an exchange. To participate, these companies would have to agree to provide a specified level of benefits, and they would set premiums at rates more comparable to group rates for big employers than to the exorbitant rates typically charged for individual coverage.

Under the House bill, the exchanges would start operating in 2013. They would be open initially to people who lack any insurance; to the 13 million people who have bought individual policies from insurance companies, which often charge them high rates for relatively skimpy coverage; and to employees of small businesses, who often pay high rates for their group policies, especially if a few of their co-workers have run up high medical bills. By the third year, larger businesses might be allowed to shift their workers to an exchange. All told, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 36 million people would be covered by policies purchased on an exchange by 2019.

IS THERE MORE SECURITY FOR ALL? As part of health reform, all insurance companies would be more tightly regulated. For Americans who are never quite certain that their policies will come through for them when needed, that is very good news.

The House bill, for example, would require that all new policies sold on or off the exchanges must offer yet-to-be-determined “essential benefits.” It would prohibit those policies from excluding or charging higher rates to people with pre-existing conditions and would bar the companies from rescinding policies after people come down with a serious illness. It would also prohibit insurers from setting annual or lifetime limits on what a policy would pay. All this would kick in immediately for all new policies. These rules would start in 2013 for policies purchased on the exchange, and, after a grace period, would apply to employer-provided plans as well.

WHO PAYS? Current estimates suggest that it would cost in the neighborhood of $1 trillion over 10 years to extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans. Under current plans, half or more of that would be covered by reducing payments to providers within the giant Medicare program, but the rest would require new taxes or revenue sources.

If President Obama and House Democratic leaders have their way, the entire tax burden would be dropped on families earning more than $250,000 or $350,000 or $1 million a year, depending on who’s talking. There is strong opposition in the Senate, and it seems likely that at least some burden would fall on the less wealthy.

Many Americans reflexively reject the idea of any new taxes — especially to pay for others’ health insurance. They should remember that if this reform effort fails, there is little hope of reining in the relentless rise of health care costs. That means their own premiums and out-of-pocket medical expenses will continue to soar faster than their wages. And they will end up paying higher taxes anyway, to cover a swelling federal deficit driven by escalating Medicare and Medicaid costs.

WHO WON’T BE HAPPY? Healthy young people who might prefer not to buy insurance at all will probably be forced to by a federal mandate. That is all to the good. When such people get into a bad accident or contract a serious illness, they often can’t pay the cost of their care, and the rest of us bear their burden. Moreover, conscripting healthy people into the insured pool would help reduce the premiums for sicker people.

Less clear is what financial burden middle-income Americans would bear when forced to buy coverage. There are concerns that the subsidies ultimately approved by Congress might not be generous enough.

TheMercenary 07-26-2009 08:33 PM
Quote:
WHAT IF I HAVE GOOD GROUP COVERAGE? The main gain for these people is greater security. If they got laid off or chose to leave their jobs, they would no longer be faced with the exorbitant costs of individually bought insurance but could buy new policies through the insurance exchanges at affordable rates.

President Obama has also pledged that if you like your current insurance you can keep it.

Right now employers are free to change or even drop your coverage at any time. Under likely reforms, they would remain free to do so, provided they paid a penalty to help offset the cost for their workers who would then buy coverage through an exchange. Under the House reform bill, all employers would eventually be allowed to enroll their workers in insurance exchanges that would offer an array of policies to choose from, including a public plan whose premiums would almost certainly be lower than those of competing private plans.

Some employers might well conclude that it is a better deal — for them or for you — to subsidize your coverage on the exchange rather than in your current plan. If so, you might end up with better or cheaper coverage. You would probably also have a wider choice of plans, since most employers offer only one or two options.

WILL I PAY LESS? Two factors could help drive down the premiums for those who are insured. In the short-term, if reform manages to cover most of the uninsured, that should greatly reduce the amount of charity care delivered by hospitals and eliminate the need for the hospitals to shift such costs to patients who have private insurance. One oft-cited study estimates that cost-shifting to cover care for the uninsured adds about $1,000 to a family’s annual insurance premiums; other experts think it may be a few hundred dollars. In theory, eliminating most charity care should help hold down or even reduce the premiums charged for private insurance. When, if ever, that might happen is unclear.

In the long run, if reform efforts slow the growth of health care costs, then the increase in insurance costs should ease as well. And if the new health insurance exchanges — and possibly a new public plan — inject more competition into markets that are often dominated by one or two big private insurance companies, that, too, could help bring down premiums. But these are big question marks, and the effects seem distant.

WILL MY CARE SUFFER? Critics have raised the specter that health care will be “rationed” to save money. The truth is that health care is already rationed. No insurance, public or private, covers everything at any cost. That will not change any time soon.

It is true that the long-term goal of health reform is to get rid of the fee-for-service system in which patients often get very expensive care but not necessarily the best care. Virtually all experts blame the system for runaway health care costs because it pays doctors and hospitals for each service they perform, thus providing a financial incentive to order excessive tests or treatments, some of which harm the patients.

An earlier wave of managed care plans concentrated on reining in costs and aroused a backlash among angry beneficiaries who were denied the care they wanted. The most expensive treatment is not always the best treatment. The reform bills call for research and pilot programs to find ways to both control costs and improve patients’ care.

The bills would alter payment incentives in Medicare to reduce needless readmissions to hospitals. They would promote comparative effectiveness research to determine which treatments are best but would not force doctors to use them. And they call for pilot programs in Medicare to test the best ways for doctors to manage and coordinate a patient’s total care.

Any changes in the organization of care would take time to percolate from Medicare throughout the health care system. They are unlikely to affect most people in the immediate future.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR OLDER AMERICANS? People over 65 are already covered by Medicare and would seem to have little to gain. But many of the chronically ill elderly who use lots of drugs could save significant money. The drug industry has already agreed to provide 50 percent discounts on brand-name drugs to Medicare beneficiaries who have reached the so-called “doughnut hole” where they must pay the full cost of their medicines. The House reform bill would gradually phase out the doughnut hole entirely, thus making it less likely that beneficiaries will stop taking their drugs once they have to pay the whole cost.

Not everyone in Medicare will be happy. The prospective losers are likely to include many people enrolled in the private plans that participate in Medicare, known as Medicare Advantage plans. They are heavily subsidized, and to pay for reform, Congress is likely to reduce or do away with those subsidies. If so, many of these plans are apt to charge their clients more for their current policies or offer them fewer benefits. The subsidies are hard to justify when the care could be delivered more cheaply in traditional Medicare, and the subsidies force up the premiums for the beneficiaries in traditional Medicare to cover their cost.

Reformers are planning to finance universal coverage in large part by saving money in the traditional Medicare program, raising the question of whether all beneficiaries will face a reduction in benefits. President Obama insisted that benefits won’t be reduced, they’ll simply be delivered in more efficient ways, like better coordination of care, elimination of duplicate tests and reliance on treatments known to work best.

The AARP, the main lobby for older Americans, has praised the emerging bills and thrown its weight behind the cause. All of this suggests to us that the great majority of Americans — those with insurance and those without — would benefit from health care reform.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/op...sun1.html?_r=1

DanaC 07-27-2009 04:55 AM
It sounds pretty good to me.

Beest 07-27-2009 11:54 AM
Sounds all puppies and roses, counterpoint?

In the UK where everyone (citizens, resdients?) gets free Health care, you can also have private insurance or pay for private treatment, you may get the same treatment from the same specialist, but queue jump by paying privately, or stay in a nicer facility.

I like this 'system', everyone gets care, if you can afford it you can pay for convienence/speed/ not mixing with the hoi polloi, the actual standard of treatment is equally good.

TheMercenary 07-27-2009 07:41 PM
The bit they are leaving out is that all young working people will be required to buy health insurance. It will be mandated by law. The most recent estimates are it will be between 7% and 10% of their income. I personally think that is great. If you want health care you should pay some percent into the system whether you make a $100 a week a $100,000 a week. You want it, you pay for it.

Beest 07-27-2009 09:51 PM
Is that common , when you're young and think you're invulnerable and immortal to skip insurance as taking up valuable drinking funds.

Shawnee123 07-27-2009 09:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beest (Post 584547)
Is that common , when you're young and think you're invulnerable and immortal to skip insurance as taking up valuable drinking funds.
I would say that's common.

Stop trying to insure young people! :D

Clodfobble 07-27-2009 09:53 PM
Yes, especially when you consider that young people are more likely to have only part-time jobs, thus not qualifying for employer-provided health insurance.

Happy Monkey 07-27-2009 10:29 PM
Mandatory health insurance is also what will make possible one of the best parts of the bill- the elimination of "pre-existing conditions" as a factor.

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 06:56 AM
I agree, the elimination of "pre-existing conditions" is one of the good things. The other problems with the current House Bill are huge. In the end, if passed as written and signed by the president, it will end health care as we know it in the US. Some say hey that is great! But there are huge unintended consequences that are looming out there associated with this bill. Those issues are not being addressed by this.

Among them:
Long term payments for catastrophic care.
Reimbursement for health care providers.
Payment of educational loans for physicians and other specialty providers.
Costs of medical malpractice.
Control of frivolous lawsuits.
Overhead costs associated with giving care at lower rates.
Younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people will pay for insurance and it will be mandatory that all people care for it.
Payment for specialty services and care.
Incentives for providing care for less cost and competition by monopolies of large health care organizations.
Long term payments for the elderly in nursing facilities.
Long term care of patients in physical rehab for catastrophic injury.
Care of patients with significant chronic disease, i.e. dialysis, mental health, pediatric disease, research.
Transplant costs.
Long term costs associated with 10 years of this plan to the taxpayer.
Access to care for all these new patients.
Destruction of the private insurance industry.
Lack of incentives for expensive research into rare and fatal disease.
Who decides what costs are standard procedures and what they will pay?
Who prioritizes the lists for care as the waiting list grows?
In the end you are basically going to give up your freedom of choice in your care.

The list goes on and on.

It all comes down to cost. It all is addressed by how this potentially bankrupting bill is going to be paid for.

They have put the cart before the horse.

As I have stated repeatedly, be careful what you wish for.

Happy Monkey 07-28-2009 08:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 584598)
Younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people will pay for insurance and it will be mandatory that all people care for it.
Why would younger people pay more?

Clodfobble 07-28-2009 08:17 AM
Merc is just thinking of himself as "young." :lol:

Shawnee123 07-28-2009 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 584598)
As I have stated repeatedly, be careful what you wish for.
Every time you say this, I hear the ominous background music:

duh duh DUHHHHHH

And I get all scared and stuff. :unsure:

Happy Monkey 07-28-2009 09:25 AM
Also, most of those aren't "consequences" "associated with this bill"; they're the present system.

Redux 07-28-2009 09:35 AM
The notion that "younger (healthy) people will most likely pay twice what older people pay" seems a bit far fetched to me.

As I understand the proposals, they include some form of community rating to spread the cost more equitably, probably lowering the cost of some older workers (and women) who have historically been overcharged. I dont see any scenario where younger workers will pay twice as much.....particularly since many older workers are more likey to have family coverage as opposed to individual..

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 11:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 584618)
Also, most of those aren't "consequences" "associated with this bill"; they're the present system.
They are among the large gorillas in the room. These costs do not go away. The problem is in the system costs. Very little of that has been proposed, other than a plan to reduce payments. How do you run an expensive business on less?

jinx 07-28-2009 11:57 AM
Ron Paul doesn't want his tax money to pay for abortions.

The Immorality of Taxpayer Funded Abortion*
By Ron Paul
Published 07/28/09
Quote:
Healthcare continues to dominate the agenda on Capitol Hill as House
leadership and the administration try to ram through their big government
healthcare plan. Fortunately, they have been unsuccessful so far, as there
are many horrifying provisions tucked into this massive piece of
legislation. One major issue is the public funding of elective abortions.
The administration has already removed many longstanding restrictions on
abortion, and is unwilling to provide straight answers to questions
regarding the public funding of abortion in their plan. This is deeply
troubling for those of us who do not want taxpayer dollars funding
abortions.

Forcing pro-life taxpayers to subsidize abortion is evil and tyrannical. I
have introduced the Taxpayer's Freedom of Conscience Act (HR 1233) which
forbids the use of any taxpayer funds for abortion, both here and overseas.

The most basic function of government is to protect life. It is
unconscionable that government would enable the taking of it. However this
is to be expected when government oversteps its constitutional bounds
instead of protecting rights. When government supercedes this very limited
role, it cannot help but advance the moral agenda of whoever is in power at
the time, at the expense of the rights of others.

Free people should be left alone to follow their conscience and determine
their own lifestyle as long as they do not interfere with other people doing
the same. If morality is dictated by government, morality will change with
every election. Even if you agree with the morality of the current
politicians and think their ideas should be advanced, someday different
people will inherit that power and use it for their own agendas. The wisdom
of the constitution is that it keeps government out of these issues
altogether.

Many say we must reform healthcare and treat it as a right, because that is
the moral thing to do. Poor people should not go without healthcare in a
just society. But too many forget the immorality of stealing from others in
order to make this so. They also forget the morality and compassion that
naturally exists in communities when government is not fomenting class
warfare with wealth redistribution programs.

Many doctors willingly volunteer, accept barter or reduced payment from
patients who can't pay, or give away services for free. Many charities help
the poor with food, housing and healthcare. These charities are much more
responsive and accountable for helping people in need than government ever
could be. This is the moral way that private individuals voluntarily deal
with access to healthcare, but government intervention threatens to pull the
rug out from this sort of volunteerism and replace it with mandates, taxes,
red tape, wealth redistribution, and force.

The fact that the national healthcare overhaul could force taxpayers to
subsidize abortions and may even force private insurers to cover abortions
is more reason that this bill and the ideas behind it, are neither
constitutional, moral, nor in the American people's best interest.

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 584611)
Merc is just thinking of himself as "young." :lol:
Nawwww. I am an old guy. :D

Happy Monkey 07-28-2009 12:16 PM
More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.

Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.

Happy Monkey 07-28-2009 12:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jinx (Post 584664)
Ron Paul doesn't want his tax money to pay for abortions.
Or anything else, really. What's new?

Money is fungible, and far more people support access to abortions than actually have them, so people can feel free to decide that any money going to abortions wasn't "theirs".

Redux 07-28-2009 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 584679)
More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.

Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.
And as in most industries, wth greater competition comes a likelihood of lowering costs and often greater innovation.

Happy Monkey 07-28-2009 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 584694)
And as in most industries, wth greater competition comes a likelihood of lowering costs and often greater innovation.
If a private insurance company can compete with the public option, then it will be more efficient. If not, it was draining money from the system without providing added value, and we're the better for losing it.

If there are gaps in the public option, private insurance will be happy to fill them, as in England.

Redux 07-28-2009 12:52 PM
Under the current patchwork of state regulations, insurance companies profits are based, in part, on a flat rate percentage of premiums. If they get 15 percent return on premiums, there is no incentive to lower those premiums, in fact, the reversal is true....increase profits by raising premiums.
Quote:
Because of the way health insurance works, insurers haven't been paying much of a penalty for failing to contain costs. Insurers typically keep around 15 to 25 percent of the premiums they collect to cover administrative and marketing costs, plus profit (the exact percentage varies according to state regulations, if any). The rest goes to pay for health care for customers.

http://www.consumerreports.org/healt...h_profit_1.htm

spudcon 07-28-2009 12:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by so people can feel free to decide that any money going to [I
death camps for Jews[/i] wasn't "theirs".
I think Nazis used that argument, and the world agreed for years.

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 01:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 584679)
More people will be paying in, plus the taxes, for a start.

Of course the costs don't go away (unless access to health care earlier in life helps with preventive care). And to the extent that they increase under the new system, it would be instead of the current industry's preference for letting them die, and as such is a major part of the purpose of reform.
Do you really think it is going to change? All you are doing is exchanging one insurance provider for another under different rules. Rationing care is a part of every program of insurance, whether it is privately run or publically run.

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 01:08 PM
The elimination of a graduated premium, as contained in the House version, means that you cannot be charged more if you have a preexisting condition. Most say, GREAT! But in reality the costs will have to be the same across the board for everyone's premiums. Eventually even private insurance will have to do this. So what happens is they guy who is unhealthy gets to have his premium reduced, the guy who is healthy has his premium go up. Numerous organizations are attempting to figure out what that number is but no one knows for sure. One thing is for sure and that is that it will go up every year. Remember you will be mandated to buy insurance, so if you actually are lucky enough to make money were you get little to no help from the government, where does that money come from? Your pay. Current estimates are between 4 and 10% of your income. Most employer sponsored plans pay between 50-80% of your health insurance and you pay the rest. No one knows what is going to really happen with private insurance, but one thing is sure that in the House version they will pretty much have to offer what the public plan is offering 5 years out.

The bill as fashioned is to cover the under and uninsured. The problem is that it is not fashioned to cover all the people from businesses that may eventually dump their private insurance and tell people to get it on the public plan with employers paying the estimated 8% penalty as a cheaper option. Then costs for the public plan may soar out of control. There is no language in the bill which adresses reimbursement. So if the costs for the new plan goes up, and they cut all reimbursement to a Medicare/Medicaid rate many health care providers will go out of business. Malpractice rates continue to climb every year. Malpractice for an OB doc is between 80 and 120,000 dollars a year. If you run an office there is a lot of overhead. No one could survive the market if all rates were reduced to M/M standards. There are a lot of unanswered questions and left unanswered will lead to unintended consequences.

glatt 07-28-2009 02:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 584707)
So what happens is they guy who is unhealthy gets to have his premium reduced, the guy who is healthy has his premium go up.
Isn't that the whole point of insurance? You spread the costs of the sick people around to everyone. The advantage for the healthy person is that they know that if they get sick, there will be someone there to catch them when they fall.

I know I've paid a hell of a lot more into the system than I've gotten out of it. The only reason I have insurance is so that if I get sick, I don't lose my house.

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by glatt (Post 584767)
Isn't that the whole point of insurance? You spread the costs of the sick people around to everyone. The advantage for the healthy person is that they know that if they get sick, there will be someone there to catch them when they fall.

I know I've paid a hell of a lot more into the system than I've gotten out of it. The only reason I have insurance is so that if I get sick, I don't lose my house.
It is and I agree. But when the system does not allow for those with unhealthy habits or preexisting disease your heathly person/family premium will rise to cover the decrease in the other persons. It is the only way it will work. Right or wrong.

Happy Monkey 07-28-2009 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 584706)
Do you really think it is going to change? All you are doing is exchanging one insurance provider for another under different rules. Rationing care is a part of every program of insurance, whether it is privately run or publically run.
I want it to be a rule that denying care doesn't profit anyone, and any rationing is based on necessity and triage. A public plan is closer to that ideal than the current system.

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 584780)
I want it to be a rule that denying care doesn't profit anyone, and any rationing is based on necessity and triage. A public plan is closer to that ideal than the current system.
A public plan is still going to be administered by an insurance company. Your care will still be rationed.

Happy Monkey 07-28-2009 03:51 PM
Administered. They'll be paid to run it; they won't get to keep any health budget they don't spend.

Closer to the ideal. Not ideal.

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 584784)
Administered. They'll be paid to run it; they won't get to keep any health budget they don't spend.

Closer to the ideal. Not ideal.
Think about it. You think that a private insurance company is going to do this for little to no income and reimbursement? They are going to make millions.

But people who will not have to pay for it really could care less, as long as they get their care it matters not to most who or how much the government pays them.

Happy Monkey 07-28-2009 04:20 PM
Whatever their income is, I don't want it to be increased if they deny coverage.

TheMercenary 07-28-2009 04:55 PM
Quote:
With their health care plans in a holding pattern — and no George W. Bush to kick around anymore — Democrats are casting about for somebody to blame.


House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn says that Republicans have “perfected ‘just say no.’” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said insurance companies are chalking up “immoral profits.”


But even if they won’t acknowledge it publicly, most Democrats in Congress know the truth: It’s their own colleagues who are slowing down progress in both the House and the Senate
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25494.html

Happy Monkey 07-30-2009 05:30 PM
This is good.

TheMercenary 07-30-2009 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 585214)
Those are nothing more than general goals of the Obama Admin. The Dems are wheeling and dealing with the lobbyists and there is no promise that any of that will actually come to fruition.

TheMercenary 07-30-2009 06:17 PM
Opinion bit from The WSJ.

GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors

Quote:
By BY BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.

The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.

The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

When comparative effectiveness research appeared in the stimulus bill, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R., La.) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” He and Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) proposed amendments to no avail that would have barred the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.

In a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.
Continues:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...050552730.html

TheMercenary 07-31-2009 10:22 AM
Folks, you are going to be hoodwinked by backdoor deals the Dems are making with lobbyists...

snip:
Quote:
The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.

At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.
Quote:
Records of political fundraisers since 2008 compiled by the Sunlight Foundation, a Washington-based watchdog group, show a steady schedule of events for Ross sponsored by the health industry or lobbying firms that represent health-care companies. They include two "health-care lunches" at Capitol Hill restaurants in May 2008 and March 2009, as well as receptions sponsored by Patton Boggs and other major lobbying firms.

Overall, the typical Blue Dog has received $63,000 more in campaign contributions from the health-care sector than other House Democrats over the past two decades, according to the CRP analysis. The top three recipients were Rep. Earl Pomeroy (N.D.), with $1.5 million, and Tennessee Reps. Bart Gordon and John Tanner, both of whom collected over $1.2 million from the industry and its employees, according to the data.

David Donnelly, national campaigns director for the Public Campaign Action Fund, which favors public financing of political races, said the heavy industry contributions cast doubt on the Blue Dogs' motives.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

TheMercenary 07-31-2009 10:30 AM
How influence is directed to get what the industry wants in health care reform.

Sorry this is so big.

http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com...fc_health.html

TheMercenary 07-31-2009 10:35 AM
This is great. From the link above. How all the parties, dems, repubs, etc are in on making deals. It is in a Google Map format but with peoples names and their key positions, and the companies with a finger in the pie.

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/pr...lex/#democrats


Quote:
The map shows only ten of the thirteen committee Democrats, as OpenSecrets.org does not report any staffers turned health care lobbyists for Sens. Jay Rockefeller, Jeff Bingaman or Bill Nelson. These ten Democrats are connected to a total of 20 former staffers turned health care lobbyists. Sen. Baucus leads all of the committee Democrats with five health care lobbyist connections and Sen. Chuck Schumer and Tom Carper both have three connections.

These 20 staffers represent approximately 91 different organizations, often overlapping in the clients they handle. The overlap usually occurs when the health care lobbyists are employed at the same firm. This can be seen clearly with David Castagnetti, Sen. Baucus’ former chief of staff, and Kelly Bingel, Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s former chief of staff. Both Castagnetti and Bingel work for Mehlmen Vogel Castagnetti Inc. and handle nearly all the same clients.

The organizations represented by these 20 health care lobbyists include some of the biggest opponents to center piece of President Obama’s health care plan: the public option. These include the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, PhRMA, and various pharmaceutical, medical device and insurance companies. The Senate Finance Committee is seen as the biggest obstacle to the public option.

When it comes to money from the health care and insurance industries, [Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic nominee for president, leads the pack. For senators who have not run for the presidency, which requires raising exhorbitant amounts of money, Sen. Baucus is ahead of other committee Democrats with Sens. Schumer and Kent Conrad following close behind. See the table below:

In the interest of fairness:

Quote:
The money from the health and insurance industries into Republican committee member campaigns is relatively high. The insurance industry is the top contributor to Sen. Grassley’s campaigns over his career. Pharmaceutical companies are the top contributors to Sen. Hatch’s campaigns. In fact, every Republican committee member has a health or insurance industry as their one or more of their top five career contributors.
Keep in mind that the Republickins control no committees, neither majority in Congress, nor any other area where they can control the outcome of legislation.

TheMercenary 07-31-2009 11:41 AM
An interesting perspective from a patient.

snip
Quote:
Patient-as-person will be a lost concept under the new health-care plan, where treatments will be based not upon individual patient needs, but upon what’s best for everyone. So cancer drugs for seniors might take second place to jungle gyms and farmers’ markets—so-called preventive care—which are covered under both the House and Senate versions of the health bill.

The stimulus package passed earlier this year allocated $1.1 billion for hundreds of “Comparative Effectiveness Research” studies. This project will compare all treatment options for a host of diseases in order to develop a database to guide doctors’ decisions. Research of this sort typically takes years. But the data will likely be hastily drawn conclusions that reflect the view of the government agencies that fund the studies: Cheap therapies are just as good as expensive ones.

In order to finance health-care reform, Democrats in Congress have proposed cutting $500 billion from Medicare over the next 10 years. Yet in his press conference last Wednesday, President Barack Obama denied that Medicare benefits would be cut. He has surrounded himself with advisers who believe otherwise.

Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama’s original pick to head Health and Human Services, argues in his book “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis,” that we should accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments.” Mr. Daschle blames the “use and overuse of new technologies and treatments” for runaway health-care costs. He suggests a Federal Health Board modeled after the British “NICE” board to make decisions on health-care rationing.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...989102298.html

TheMercenary 07-31-2009 12:29 PM
Follow the money on Open Secrets:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009...ance-sect.html

Redux 07-31-2009 03:30 PM
The AARP debunks the lies and distortions in the Merc's WSJ OpEd by the political hack Betsy McCaughey, who first spread the lies about "Obama's suicide program" on Fred Thompson's radio show last week and continued in this most recent op ed.

It debunks the Merc's patient's op ed as well, re: comparative effectiveness research.

The patient who wrote the op ed could be well-intention just not well informed...the same cant be said about McCaughey who has a blatant partisan political motivation.

Quote:
AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics

Commentary by Betsy McCaughey “rife with gross, cruel distortions.”

WASHINGTON—AARP Executive Vice President John Rother issued the following statement in response to recent commentary by Betsy McCaughey in various media outlets on health care reform measures passed or currently being considered by Congress.

“Betsy McCaughey’s recent commentary on health care reform in various media outlets is rife with gross—and even cruel—distortions.

“Ms. McCaughey has again launched her customary broadside attack against comparative effectiveness research. She describes this term as ‘code’ for ‘limiting care based on a patient’s age.’ In fact the term for that is ‘age rating,’ a practice used by insurance companies to discriminate against older Americans against which AARP is vigorously fighting, and we look forward to her next column to help the cause.

“‘Comparative effectiveness research,’ on the other hand, is a technical term that just means giving doctors and patients the ability to compare different kinds of treatments to find out which one works best for which patient.

“Some estimates say that only about half of all therapies that patients receive have been backed up by head-to-head comparisons with alternatives. While our country spends more than $2 trillion a year on health care, we spend less than 0.1 percent on evaluating how that care works compared to other options.

“This research has been around (although sadly not enough) for decades, enjoying support from political leaders of both parties, doctors, patients, and consumer advocacy groups.

“The main opponents of this research are those groups with a vested interest in a health care system that wastes billions of dollars each year on ineffective or unnecessary drugs, treatments or tests. Given Ms. McCaughey’s position as a Director of a medical device producer, I would hope that any potential conflict of interest has not influenced her commentary.

“More concerning, Ms. McCaughey’s criticism misinterprets legislation that would actually help empower individuals and doctors to make their own choices on end-of-life care.

“This measure would allow Medicare to pay doctors for taking the time to talk with individuals about difficult end-of-life care decisions. It would help provide people with better information on the positives and negatives—both physical and financial—that different treatments can mean for them and their families.

“Facing a terminal disease or debilitating accident, some people will choose to take every possible life-saving measure in the hopes that treatment or even a cure will allow them more time with their families. Others will decide that additional treatment would impose too great a burden—emotional, physical and otherwise—on themselves and their families, declining extraordinary measures and instead choosing care to manage their discomfort. Either way, it should be their choice.

“This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves, but also better ensure that their wishes are followed.

“To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion—especially for any family that has been forced to make the difficult decisions on care for loved ones approaching the end of their lives.

AARP Responds to Health Reform Scare Tactics
http://www.aarp.org/aarp/presscenter...statement.html

TheMercenary 07-31-2009 08:58 PM
But of course the AARP is now in the back pocket of the Demoncrats. I wonder who they are giving their money to?

Quote:
New AARP chief gave big to Obama
By Jeffrey Young
Posted: 03/12/09 12:47 PM [ET]
Incoming AARP CEO A. Barry Rand contributed $8,900 to President Obama's campaign committees, federal records show.

Rand, a retired senior executive at Xerox Corp., Avis Group and Equitant Inc. and the current chairman of Howard University's board of trustees, gave the maximum $4,600 to Obama's election campaign and an additional $4,300 to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising entity of Obama and the Democratic National Committee.
No way they don't have a blatant partisan political motivation in this one, right? :rolleyes:

The AARP has it's own insurance program so they figure to gain greatly in any deals they make with the Demoncrats on this Bill. Of course they are going to support it.

TheMercenary 07-31-2009 09:49 PM
AARP is deeply imbedded in the Insurance Compaines back or in reality front pockets. They are essentially married to what ever the insurance companies can do to make a max profit.

More about the AARP and their partisan Insurance interests:

Quote:
Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Arthur Laupus joined AARP because he thought the nonprofit senior-citizen-advocacy group would make his retirement years easier. He signed up for an auto insurance policy endorsed by AARP, believing the advertising that said he would save money.

He didn’t. When Laupus, 71, compared his car insurance rate with a dozen other companies, he found he was paying twice the average. Why? One reason, he learned, was because AARP was taking a cut out of his premium before sending the money to Hartford Financial Services Group, the provider of the coverage.

Laupus stumbled onto something that many members of the world’s largest seniors’ organization don’t know: The group, formerly called American Association of Retired Persons, collects hundreds of millions of dollars annually from insurers who pay for AARP’s endorsement of their policies.

The insurance companies build the cost of these so-called royalties and fees, which amounted to $497.6 million in 2007, into the premiums they charge AARP members, according to AARP’s consolidated financial statement for that year.

AARP uses the royalties and fees to fund about half the expenses that pay for activities such as publishing brochures about health care and consumer fraud -- as well as for paying down the $200 million bond debt that funded the association’s marble and brass-studded Washington headquarters.

In addition, AARP holds clients’ insurance premiums for as long as a month and invests the money, which added $40.4 million to its revenue in 2007.
continues:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=a4OkPQIPF6Kg

Redux 07-31-2009 11:09 PM
The AARP advocates for seniors.

Betsy McCaughey advocates for the Hoover Institute....a conservative think thank that wants no government role in health care or any segment of the economy.

So you dont like the AARP?

I wouldnt expect you to.

That doesnt change the fact that McCaughey is spreading "gross distortions" about the health reform proposals, and particularly the impact on seniors.
McCaughey claims end-of-life counseling will be required for Medicare patients
The truth-o-meter says..... http://www.tampabay.com/universal/po...antsonfire.gif LIAR


The health care bill current before Congress mandates that seniors be given euthanasia counseling every fives years
Snopes says.....http://www.snopes.com/images/red.gif FALSE


McCaughey's Euthanasia Claims
FactCheck says..... :bs: FALSE
They must be "agents" of the Democratic party as well, huh?

You want to spread McCaughey's distortions and lies...that's your right.

Just as it is my right to call it the bullshit that it is.

And as i have said on more that occasion, debunking your partisan op eds (and as griff noted recently elsewhere, your O'Reilly tactics of ignoring context) is hardly a challenge.

Your obsession with Democrats is something I think you have to deal with on a personal level and I wish you well.

TheMercenary 08-01-2009 03:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redux (Post 585399)
The AARP advocates for seniors.
Oh, that and thier insurance largesse that keep that 8 story building on K Street running and those multi-million dollar salaries going.

Quote:
Betsy McCaughey advocates for the Hoover Institute....a conservative think thank that wants no government role in health care or any segment of the economy.
I can't say I don't disagree with her. But she is correct on many levels.

Quote:
That doesnt change the fact that McCaughey is spreading "gross distortions" about the health reform proposals, and particularly the impact on seniors.
I doubt there are that many "gross distortions". She may have stretched the truth a little, sort of like AARP and how they overcharge seniors to keep the coffers padded. But I can see how you would not care for her opinion pieces.

Quote:
They must be "agents" of the Democratic party as well, huh?
No, but you most certainly are one.

Quote:
And as i have said on more that occasion, debunking your partisan op eds (and as griff noted recently elsewhere, your O'Reilly tactics of ignoring context) is hardly a challenge.
But yet you can't defend the actions of the Demoncrats in Congress and how they are spending away our future and thowing money at problems that have no sure fix. Tax and spend, tax and spend.

Quote:
Your obsession with Democrats is something I think you have to deal with on a personal level and I wish you well.
I am more concerned with my future, and as the Demoncrats have shown us I need to be concerned with the future of my great great grandkids as well. Becasuse they sure as hell don't care. The Dems are in power, they get the blame.

TheMercenary 08-01-2009 05:03 AM
Well there you have it. The Demoncrats sold out to the big Pharmacy lobbyists. But they held the line on some other issues that were needed.

Quote:
In the run-up to final approval, the panel handed the drug industry a victory, voting 47-11 to grant 12 years of market protection to high-tech drugs used to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. The decision was a setback for the White House, which had hoped to give patients faster access to generic versions of costly biotech medicines like the blockbuster cancer drug Avastin.
Quote:
The provision giving the federal government the right to negotiate for better drug prices under Medicare has long been a goal of Democrats who say it could lower costs for seniors. Critics argue that is unlikely unless Congress also limits the drugs than can be sold, thereby giving the government the ability to play one company off against another.

That has long been viewed as politically unfeasible under Medicare, because it would limit the choice that seniors now enjoy.

But including restrictions in the government health insurance option would place it in line with Medicaid, the government program for the poor, as well as the Department of Veterans Affairs and many private plans that limit drug choice.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

TheMercenary 08-01-2009 05:12 AM
Quote:
WASHINGTON (AP) - A bipartisan group of senators agreed tentatively Tuesday on a plan to squeeze an additional $35 billion out of Medicare over the next decade and larger sums in the years beyond, according to congressional officials, a step toward fulfilling President Barack Obama's goal of curbing the growth of health care spending.
Under the plan, an independent commission would be empowered to recommend changes in Medicare annually, to take effect automatically unless Congress enacted an alternative. In addition to saving money, the proposal is aimed at turning the program for those age 65 and over into one that more clearly rewards quality, officials said
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

I wonder what they will do as more doctors choose not to care for these patients because reimbursement rates are already less than required to run a practice. No one can run a practice today on Medicare alone or even with it being a majority of the patients. Could be pretty gloom for a few years for those seniors on medicare.

Clodfobble 08-01-2009 09:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
No one can run a practice today on Medicare alone
We have a family friend who is a dentist, and he runs not one but three quite profitable practices on nothing but Medicare patients. In two of his three areas he is in fact the only dentist in the county who will take Medicare, and he laughs at the business opportunity being squandered by the other dentists. It's all about keeping overhead costs low and being willing to do the paperwork.

xoxoxoBruce 08-01-2009 02:05 PM
But wouldn't a dental practice be easier to predict and control costs? There are only so many options in dentistry and if it gets complicated, like a bone infection or something, they'd pass the patient on to an MD or surgeon.

I can see a huge savings potential in streamlining paperwork, although that may make fraud easier. They should put UT in charge of designing a fraud-proof electronic tracking and payment system.

TheMercenary 08-02-2009 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 585440)
We have a family friend who is a dentist, and he runs not one but three quite profitable practices on nothing but Medicare patients. In two of his three areas he is in fact the only dentist in the county who will take Medicare, and he laughs at the business opportunity being squandered by the other dentists. It's all about keeping overhead costs low and being willing to do the paperwork.
He is definately not in the majority as you point out. Most people in the Medical profession, not Dental, could not survive on that.

Clodfobble 08-03-2009 10:16 AM
According to him, it's not that they couldn't, it's that they don't want to. Average salary for a dentist is $250K per year, but a huge percentage of them, especially the younger ones, would rather just work 2 days a week and live on $100K instead. And if they're only working 2 days a week, it's not hard to find enough patients to fill the appointment slots without accepting Medicare.

The hard truth is that people on Medicare are a hassle, not just from a claims perspective but on an individual perspective as well. Poorer people tend to be less educated, less likely to show up for their scheduled appointments, less interested in working to maintain their own health, more likely to have badly-behaved children in the waiting room, etc. That is why doctors don't want to deal with them.

TheMercenary 08-03-2009 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clodfobble (Post 585711)
The hard truth is that people on Medicare are a hassle, not just from a claims perspective but on an individual perspective as well. Poorer people tend to be less educated, less likely to show up for their scheduled appointments, less interested in working to maintain their own health, more likely to have badly-behaved children in the waiting room, etc. That is why doctors don't want to deal with them.
That may be part of the reason but the biggest reason is because of ever decreasing reimbursements, and that is the biggest reason.

Shawnee123 08-03-2009 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 585723)
That may be part of the reason but the biggest reason is because of ever decreasing reimbursements, and that is the biggest reason.
How do you know? Clod just told you that she talked with family friend who is a dentist, and who illustrated the "biggest reason (times 2, even)" many don't want to deal with medicare. :eyebrow:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 PM.
Page 7 of 51 123456 7 89101112131417 Last »
Show 60 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.