Health care loophole would allow coverage limits

 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 12-12-2009, 12:56 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Health care loophole would allow coverage limits

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091211/...enate_loophole

Why am I not surprised?
  #2  
Old 12-12-2009, 09:55 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default There are NO surprises coming in the proposed health care

reform.
Your taxes will go up.
Your current services will be reduced/not covered/etc.
Your health care premiums will go up to cover what you used to have covered.
Insurance companies and medical institutions and doctors and phamaceutical companies will be raising their prices to compensate for covering the new masses of the currently uncovered.

Even the Medicare actuaries analysis presented yesterday indicate the current proposal will raise health care costs not lower them as proposed.

I cannot believe this charade for political gain is and will be allowed to continue.
The concept of keeping the train moving as fast as possible so nobody jumps off must be working.

How could any warm blooded, still lucid human support what is being proposed.
And please dispense with the party promotion in an answer....the rising costs will affect everybody except those making the proposals.

btk
  #3  
Old 12-13-2009, 11:08 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stop and think a moment. Not all of what you say can possibly happen all at once.

First, we already pay more than ANY OTHER COUNTRY for health care. It's going to be hard to pay more as a percentage of GDP. But let's take your points in order.

- Taxes going up. QUite possible. In fact, I'd call it likely. If the government is going to be paying for more health care (let's assume the 40M 'uninsured') then it's going to have to get the money from somewhere. I'll give you that point.

- Current services will be reduced. How? How will my insurance company (I'm on a BC Anthem plan) be reducing what it covers? And why? So far, premiums have gone up to cover the uninsured along with lawsuits, over-defensive medicine (ordering unecessary tests just to CYA), etc. Sorry. Not buying that one.

- Premiums will go up to cover what used to be covered. If I don't buy the previous point, I can't buy this one. Taxes and premiums can't rteally go up if the taxes are going up to cover what HAD been the reason for the premiums going up.

- providers will hike costs. I disagree. If the government starts paying for 'indigent care' more than it already does, prices won't have to be hiked for covering previously unpaid bills.

Once again, I ask... How can we defend the 'current system' when we pay more and get less than anyone else? Ok, we get less than 36 other industrialized countries. Why is it that France - which has public and private insurance - can pull it off and we can't?

[As a side note, why is it so many people say "France" like it's a 4-letter word when they have cheaper electricity, aren't as indebted to terrorist nations, make the trains run on time and 5 times faster than ours, have health care and haven't gone bankrupt?]

BTK - I can understand that you're against what's coming out of D.C. - I'm not a fan of it either.. But is that a knee-jerk reaction to everything coming out of there or do you have some other ideas to solve the problem?

And by "the problem", I'll make it more specific...

- like when an insurance company cancels a subscribers plan becuase they get sick and are no longer profitable (after all, insurance is supposed to spread the risk, not eliminate it)

- like how the supply of doctors is regulated by the government.

- and other matters of cost, such as preventative versus emergency care, etc.
  #4  
Old 12-13-2009, 02:36 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Wow

Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong View Post
Stop and think a moment. Not all of what you say can possibly happen all at once.

First, we already pay more than ANY OTHER COUNTRY for health care. It's going to be hard to pay more as a percentage of GDP. But let's take your points in order.

- Taxes going up. QUite possible. In fact, I'd call it likely. If the government is going to be paying for more health care (let's assume the 40M 'uninsured') then it's going to have to get the money from somewhere. I'll give you that point.

- Current services will be reduced. How? How will my insurance company (I'm on a BC Anthem plan) be reducing what it covers? And why? So far, premiums have gone up to cover the uninsured along with lawsuits, over-defensive medicine (ordering unecessary tests just to CYA), etc. Sorry. Not buying that one.

- Premiums will go up to cover what used to be covered. If I don't buy the previous point, I can't buy this one. Taxes and premiums can't rteally go up if the taxes are going up to cover what HAD been the reason for the premiums going up.

- providers will hike costs. I disagree. If the government starts paying for 'indigent care' more than it already does, prices won't have to be hiked for covering previously unpaid bills.

Once again, I ask... How can we defend the 'current system' when we pay more and get less than anyone else? Ok, we get less than 36 other industrialized countries. Why is it that France - which has public and private insurance - can pull it off and we can't?

[As a side note, why is it so many people say "France" like it's a 4-letter word when they have cheaper electricity, aren't as indebted to terrorist nations, make the trains run on time and 5 times faster than ours, have health care and haven't gone bankrupt?]

BTK - I can understand that you're against what's coming out of D.C. - I'm not a fan of it either.. But is that a knee-jerk reaction to everything coming out of there or do you have some other ideas to solve the problem?

And by "the problem", I'll make it more specific...

- like when an insurance company cancels a subscribers plan becuase they get sick and are no longer profitable (after all, insurance is supposed to spread the risk, not eliminate it)

- like how the supply of doctors is regulated by the government.

- and other matters of cost, such as preventative versus emergency care, etc.
All I can say is that what you said here indicates you like the Government you believe Democrats and you dislike the private sector. This kind of thinking is what our problem is in America right now.
  #5  
Old 12-13-2009, 07:01 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Far from it. I was merely addressing the points you raised. And you either didn't or won't stop to consider the 'why' before making a judgement about how I supposedly hate the private sector - considering I've spent most of my life there.

Believe me, I'm no fan of the way government works here in many ways and, to me, the first part of the problem is the implementation of civil service rules that prevent incompetent idiots from getting fired.

I've worked in the medical field (on the business side) and in the financial sector (mutual fund companies). I make a living writing software and doing the analytical thinking to design systems and workflow. Everything in there is a series of cause and effect decisions. That's why I was saying that not ALL of your points could come true at once.

You can't have the rising premiums to cover the uninsured if they're going to be covered by the rising taxes to cover the uninsured. It doesn't go both ways. If you don't cover the uninsured with taxes, then, yes, one can easily see how premiums will continue going up.

But it doesn't answer the question of WHY we pay so much, more than anyone else, and get so little, comparatively, in return. Why does France come out at the top of the pile? Conversely, if "the public option" is so good and gets forwarded all the way to "socialized medicine", how come Canada and the UK are NOT at the top of the quality charts?

We could follow France and Switzerland's example - and Switzerland only came up with their solution in 1994 - and improve upon it. But to do that I think there has to be a change in thinking for some people. In no particular order:

1) Doctors are not "Gods". They're smart. They're skilled. But everyone dies. Eventually. Sometimes it's tragic - like when a newborn has some congenital problem that keeps it from thriving. People can't always demand the most extreme or low-percentage measures out of desperation.

2) Mistakes are made. This is why the doctor sends you for 40 different tests, most of which you don't need. Because some blood-sucking lawyer is just waiting to capitalize on the *possibility* of an oversight and the doc is doing CYA maneuvers constantly.

3) Sick people should not be treated as a "growth industry". This means you can't look at patients as profit centers.

4) Stop clogging up the nurses desk with hundreds of people calling about the latest purple pill and if it's right for them. If your ad (like the one I just saw for Chanix, which is supposed to help you stop smoking) has to include disclaimers like "you may become suicidal" YOU DON'T GET TO ADVERTISE TO THE PUBLIC. It used to be that companies advertised in medical journals and the doctors - you know, the people who actually have to SEE the patients and WRITE the prescriptions - made the decisions.

5) Enforce transparency. Put the company contributions to health insurance premiums right there in the paycheck and make the subscriber write the check to the insurance company. I predict that a lot of people who are "satisfied" with their plans might have a change of heart.

6) Stop paying all the R&D freight for the rest of the world. There's something wrong when someone in Canada or Germany can get the same drug in their country for pennies on the dollar compared to what I have to pay. ...and while we're at it, stop hyping the latest drug that has the slightly modified molecule and pushing that on the dotorsa and forgetting about the cheaper stuff so that we all end up paying higher co-pays.

7) Let us know which doctors suck. The "code of silence" and "confidentiality agreements" that hide bad doctors from the rest of us are criminal, IMO.

When you hear things like how the profits (even in this economy) that health insurance companies make - JUST THE PROFITS - would pay for Medicare coverage for the uninsured...

When you hear about people paying into the system with their premiums for their entire lives and then, when disaster strikes, the company cuts them off..

When it was your job to write the systems that tried to recover the money from medical bills before writing them off to a collection agency.. Yeah, that was my job. Believe me, I heard a LOT of stories that came back from the collectors.

I have NO qualms - ZERO - ZIP - NADA - with a doctor making a decent living or any health-care provider, for that matter. What I *do* have a problem with are people that provide NO added value to the 'product' making profits. It's not like the CEO of a car company who can organize a team that designs and builds a better car. "Health" is not something that can be managed like a factory floor.
  #6  
Old 12-13-2009, 09:18 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default If you had been around or seen posts throughout the year

you would recognize what I have presented in this thread is a reminder of what I had forecast previously. And yes, we even had discussions about alternatives with real honest savings opportunities.

Your categorization of knee jerk is off base....however, as is the style of several on this forum, restate others intentions to suit a purpose.

I also am offended being accused of speaking in the style of the current administration....i.e.knee jerk.....(I am just kidding....to make a point).

btk
  #7  
Old 12-13-2009, 10:20 PM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TO: DJPLONG

BTK's point, and a valid one, is that on this board before President Obama was even the candidate, many folks predicted most, if not all, of what he is doing, and were calling him on his lies at that time !

Frankly, he has exceeded most predictions !
  #8  
Old 12-14-2009, 08:12 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default

BTK - I *asked* if it was a knee-jerk reaction. It's no insult to say "I don't trust <person> to such a degree that, if they said the sky was blue, I'd still look up" and that was the *impression* I get from the earlier post.

As far as the predictions go, you don't need to be a swami to have had a good feeling for what the new administration was going to try to do. they said as much during the campaign. Oh, sure, the bits of it might be a little different, but overall we're still looking at various "reform" measures and a public option. At least, to me, that's the 30,000 foot view of things.

I was speaking more to your predictions of what would happen if the current package becomes law. To me, it appeared that some of those predictions were self-contradictory. However, I also pointed out where I agree with you. Nobody can argue the fact that covering the uncovered is going to cost SOMETHING in the short term - it's just a question of where it's going to come from. The politicians can double-speak all they want but SOMEONE has to write the checks.

I just don't see any real progress towards cost containment - and many of the points I brought up before are geared towards that.
  #9  
Old 12-14-2009, 09:13 AM
Guest
n/a
 
Posts: n/a
Default Health Care

You guys discuss this Health Care bill like it really has something to do with our medical care.

For Obama it has to do with two things only:

One is creating more power in the hands of a Socialist idealism.

The other is to spread the wealth by taxing the doers and giving it to the takers (spread the wealth and reduce private sector non-union jobs).
 

Thread Tools

You are viewing a new design of the TOTV site. Click here to revert to the old version.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 PM.