Health care reform is now dead

[riddler 0]

Quote

I really wonder whether you balance your own budget the same way?

When my children get sick, I pay out of pocket to take them to doctors. When my annoying neighbors are a pain in the butt, I do not spend three years salary going to war with them. Seems like a good way to manage my money, but maybe you manage your money differently.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

When my children get sick, I pay out of pocket to take them to doctors. When my annoying neighbors are a pain in the butt, I do not spend three years salary going to war with them.

The question was different - if your finances are already in a bad shape because someone in your family spends money on something you do not consider worthy, what do you do to balance the budget? Spend more money on something YOU consider worthy, or try to cut the spending?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

The question was different - if your finances are already in a bad shape because someone in your family spends money on runs up the credit cards to buy something you do not consider worthy, what do you do to balance the budget? Spend more money on something YOU consider worthy get a whole new credit card to max out on yourself, or try to cut the spending?

More accurately.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Ron 10]

Quote

Healthcare reform is definitely needed.

Of some type, yes.

Quote

A government take over of medicine, on the other hand, is definitely going to make things worse, not better.

Yep, I can think of VERY few things that the Govt does well... And those things normally are more expensive than they should be.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Healthcare reform is definitely needed.

Of some type, yes.

Absolutely - Start with Litigation caps to reduce liability and malpractice suits

Quote

A government take over of medicine, on the other hand, is definitely going to make things worse, not better.

Yep, I can think of VERY few things that the Govt does well... And those things normally are more expensive than they should be.

Think - Please - Everything that govenment does is done by and contracted out to the lowest bidder . . . Think - are you comfortable with trusting "The Lowest Bidder" to do surgery on you?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Ron 10]

Quote

Think - Please - Everything that govenment does is done by and contracted out to the lowest bidder . . . Think - are you comfortable with trusting "The Lowest Bidder" to do surgery on you?

I was thinking more about almost every experience I have had in the Military..... And thinking about every experience I have had dealing with the VA medical centers (I have to go 2-3 times a year).

Having been to a Govt hospital, I can say that it is not the type of care I really want. And while I could have "free" healthcare from the VA, I pay for my own policy.

So, I have no faith that the Govt can run a healthcare system. All I see if that does happen is a level of care that is not even close to the cost.

So while you may have all these Canadians saying how the heathcare in Canada is nice.... I have experienced US GOVT run healthcare and was not impressed.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[warpedskydiver 0]

I can say that I have been treated well by the VA.

I am glad you can afford better care (if it is any better)

I know one thing for sure,the VA won't be doing anything that you don't really need just because they want some more cash.

I know of two people who got new knees and they were not as bad off as mine.

I think someone paid for their kids Ivy league educations off of that.


People are always condescending about the VA and that pisses me off.

It is not like we don't get some of the best doctors there are to be had.

One of my doctors is chief of clinic and educator at Loyola, I guess everyone else has a better doctor.

Some of the doctors are so good they would be multimillionaires if they worked outside the VA system.

I guess they must be stupid for wanting to help the people who did something for them.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Were you perhaps not in Priority Group 1?

[kbordson 8]

Unfortunately, my experience with the VA has been more in line with what Ron is saying. While I was a medical student, I did rotations at the VA in Leavenworth. I was saddened by some of the lack of respect that the prior service men and women received. Many of the residents and students took a rather dismissive attitude toward their patients. The attendings seemed to show a bit more compassion, but I was personally insulted by their lack of ability to control some of the comments of those underneath them. It was one of the more challenging rotations.


Randy, I'm REALLY glad that you are getting GREAT care and feel confident with the system.

[tr027 0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt0tKl0J-S4&feature=channel_page

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. " -John Galt from Atlas Shrugged, 1957

[billvon 3,118]

>Having been to a Govt hospital, I can say that it is not the type of care I
>really want. And while I could have "free" healthcare from the VA, I pay
>for my own policy.

That is a great position to be in. You have a guaranteed level of care that you can fall back on when all else fails, but it isn't fast/desirable/very good, so you instead use private care at a level you can afford. Not a bad model for a healthcare system.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

That is a great position to be in.

It's also a position he "paid" to be in, by rendering services to an employer who offered him those benefits as part of his compensation package.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[Ron 10]

Quote

Were you perhaps not in Priority Group 1?

I am in PG1

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

I am glad you can afford better care (if it is any better)

It is MUCH better. Less wait time, I can get the exact drugs that the Dr. thinks I need (The VA has lists of approved drugs; If the Dr. thinks I need something other than one of those, too bad.)

Quote

People are always condescending about the VA and that pisses me off.

It is not like we don't get some of the best doctors there are to be had.

Being truthful is not condescending. I have had some of the WORST doctors in my life. One kept running the SAME test 12 times... Each time it came up with the exact SAME answer. That's 24 visits, one to have the blood work drawn, the other to get the results. It was not until I went to my civilian Dr. that he went to run the same test and I told him that I had done it 12 times that he ran the next level test.

I have to wait weeks to see a Dr if I get sick through the VA... My civilian Dr, I can see him today if I want. Hell, I have his cell number and can call him.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[Ron 10]

Quote

That is a great position to be in.

1800-USA-Army. You too can have the same thing.

Quote

Not a bad model for a healthcare system.

Sure it is, the system does not work very well and costs more than a civilian system. And that's just with Vets being in it.... Imagine the cost if EVERYONE was in it?

I take it you have never actually been to a VA hospital?

And everyone can have this system, just enlist in the military (work for someone that provides healthcare as part of your employment).

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[rushmc 23]

And why is should stay that way.

From CNN Money

http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm

Quote

5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.

By Shawn Tully, editor at large
July 24, 2009: 10:17 AM ET

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:

1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan

The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

0:00 /2:07Health reform and you
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs

As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.

Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage

The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.

Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan

This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.

But read on.

The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors

The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Butters 0]

Dozens arrested in health care fraud scheme

Quote

The first task force started in 2007 in Miami, a city authorities say alone is responsible for more than $3 billion a year in Medicare fraud.

Myabe we should focus our efforts on reducing fraud before reforming health care ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Dozens arrested in health care fraud scheme

Quote

The first task force started in 2007 in Miami, a city authorities say alone is responsible for more than $3 billion a year in Medicare fraud.

Myabe we should focus our efforts on reducing fraud before reforming health care ...

What you said plus malpractice award reform along with eliminating state mandates to insurance companies telling them what they will cover

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

The Queen bitch is loosing it!

From Reuters.

Quote

Pelosi lashes out against insurance companies
Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:47am EDT
Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full SizeWASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan.
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

The Queen bitch is loosing it!

From Reuters.

Quote

Pelosi lashes out against insurance companies
Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:47am EDT
Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full SizeWASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan.
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

Maybe she'll stress herself out of existance - we can only pray . . .

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

The Queen bitch is loosing it!

From Reuters.

Quote

Pelosi lashes out against insurance companies
Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:47am EDT
Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full SizeWASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan.
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

What is wrong with that woman?

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The Queen bitch is loosing it!

From Reuters.

Quote

Pelosi lashes out against insurance companies
Thu Jul 30, 2009 11:47am EDT
Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page[-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full SizeWASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan.
"It's almost immoral what they are doing," Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. "Of course they've been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure," she said, adding, "They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening."

What is wrong with that woman?

Is it this woman or just the mentality of libs in general?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[riddler 0]

Quote

Is it this woman or just the mentality of libs in general?

It's probably the mentality of people that feel that they've been victimized by insurance companies.

As an example, one estimate that 10% of denied claims are unjust. $$$ for the insurance companies, and illness or death for people that rightly paid for that coverage. If you're really sick, how much time and effort can you spend fighting the insurance companies?

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Is it this woman or just the mentality of libs in general?

It's probably the mentality of people that feel that they've been victimized by insurance companies.

As an example, one estimate that 10% of denied claims are unjust. $$$ for the insurance companies, and illness or death for people that rightly paid for that coverage. If you're really sick, how much time and effort can you spend fighting the insurance companies?

For this reply I will give up your fact for truth.

So, for 10% we will give up more to the Gov?

Liability claims caps, eliminate mandated coverages by the states and open up state borders so these evil insurance companies can compete. This allows them to make custom policies asked for by the people and forces them to have GREAT customer service to stay in businesss.

Customer service is the first casualty of protected teritories and business. And the only looser are us, the "consumers".

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,118]

>The Queen bitch is loosing it!

Classy!

Such insults say far more about the person doing the smearing than the person being attacked.