House Democrat Health Plan

[Jackytar]

I am not opposed to "insurance reform" in principle. I am opposed to what you are calling "insurance reform", which does not deliver improved "health care reform".

Copernicus - I'm not a big fan of unsupported statements.

The Finance Committee version of the bill seems likely to be another gift to industry in the guise of health care reform. It is the insurance industry bill.

How is this so? The last time I asked you said it's because they will sign up more policy holders with the individual mandate, many supported by taxpayer dollars. When I pointed out that this has to be the case for gauranteed issue to work - you agreed. If it's their opposition to the public option - I pointed out that Germany and other countries (France, Japan, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands) operate just fine with highly regulated insurance companies and no public option - you also agreed. You have said repeatedly that the insurance companies are chiefly responsible for high costs - but you have not, to date, offered supporting argument for this when asked, repeatedly, by me. So what's your beef, exactly?

I do not know anything about Morningstar and have no opinion as to the objectivity or accuracy of their reports. From their web site, it does not appear that they are an independent source of information on the insurance industry.

How did you reach this non-opinion? Morningstar is, as I've said, an investment research firm. There are many others - all coming up with the same numbers.

The issue here is not just profitability but the tremendous OVERHEAD that goes into propping up a broken system. And, oh yes, overhead does include high executive salaries, often at tremendous expense to ordinary stockholders. Please do not shove that fact under the rug as you try to make a case for this dysfunctional system.

The overhead of claims processing, both on the insurance and provider side, is a place were we can realize significant and relatively painless savings. High executive salaries... not so much. But I'm not opposed to limits on salaries and profit. If not now, then later. Not a front-burner issue. Seems kinda knee-jerk to me, and distracts from the larger issues at hand.

Did you forget the overhead invested in employing all of those people to help deny claims, cancel policies, and, oh yes, pay high executive salaries?

More unsupported statements. How much money do you think we can save by limiting executive salaries anyhow? And automatic claims denial are on the chopping block. So is rescission as part of gauranteed issue. As less than 0.5% of policies are cancelled, not a lot of savings there. And individuals in group plans are never cancelled.

Have they been cutting executive salaries to be able to afford those payments? I hadn't realized that. :sarcastic Look, you are making a gallent effort to defend the insurance companies by shifting blame to providers, ...

Are you finally going to make your case that insurance companies are to blame for the high cost?

... but nobody is entirely free of guilt in the marketplace mess we've created. Drug companies manipulate health care professionals and patients (through TV ads for prescription drugs--a practice that ought to be illegal). Providers try to gouge consumers and insurers. And all of the big orgnanizations are able to mount propaganda and disinformation campaigns to protect and grow their piece of the pie.

Darn!

Oh, let's not forget to blame the public. A lot of them deserve to get sick and die until they put pressure on themselves to just voluntarily stop abusing the system. Some day, Americans will be as well-behaved as Europeans and Canadians. Then we can implement a single-payer system.

Not sure I get this part...

Poor little self-sacrificing insurance companies. Everyone else's fault, is it? :thud:

Okay, NOW are you going to make your case that insurance companies are to blame for high costs?

Employers will still pay some of the cost in a single-payer system. That is the way it works in other countries. And insurance companies will still exist, as will health care providers and drug companies. They just won't be getting as much money for screwing up health care delivery so badly.

Darn!

First of all, beware of that blank check mentality. We really cannot afford to pay that much more for our health care than countries that have a comparable or better standard of living. Secondly, "good insurance" is in decline now. Even those of us with good employee benefits are watching it diminish, and we are no longer at the forefront of scientific and medical advances. Some of the real innovation is going on in countries like India, not here.

Agreed. Except for that last part.

How could that work without universal employement? I don't think that you really mean this the way it comes off.

The unemployed will get assistance with premiums as needed. Yeah, I know - hand out to the evil insurance companies!

I'm not saying that. I have been arguing against the way it is shaping up to be--a giveaway to insurance companies without any substantial reduction in the amount paid for it. Indeed, it looks like we are getting ready to shovel even more money out of our pockets for a system that fails to deliver adequate health care.

Fails to deliver adequate health care? That's a little harsh. You seem to be very ****** off about all this. You do realize we are playing on the same team, right? May I suggest you take two tylenol and go to bed with this book. Call me in the morning.

Jackytar

Seriously - It's a good book. You'll like it.

Is somebody forcing you to reply to posts?

You're right. I'm done. Peace, brother.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So, back to the OP. Does anyone even know what the Democrats are proposing now? The info that I have heard recently is conflicting.

 

[Jackytar]

So, back to the OP. Does anyone even know what the Democrats are proposing now? The info that I have heard recently is conflicting.

As I see it, there are only two roads to universal health care. One is by highly regulated private insurance, the second is single payer. The "public option" and expansion of existing single payer programs like medicare and medicaid is a step toward the latter. All the other stuff are steps towards the former. We don't need both to achieve the goal of UHC, but both are being floated. So the Democratic plan is to advance towards UHC in whatever political means possible, perhaps to seek a uniquely American solution if need be.

Cost control will come by government setting fee schedules and what is, and is not, covered, and by improving efficiency. This can be applied to either method of UHC. There is less emphasis on these things at this time. They are making the correct calculation (IMO) that UHC must come first.

Jackytar

 

[Copernicus]

So, back to the OP. Does anyone even know what the Democrats are proposing now? The info that I have heard recently is conflicting.

Democrats are divided between using a public option to control health care costs and the use of so-called "health care co-operatives" to do so. The latter is really considered a bipartisan plan by some Democrats, because Republicans helped to craft it, even though they will not vote for it. President Obama will present his vision for the plan soon, but it is probably too late for him to gain control of the process.

I think it likely that we will get some minor insurance reforms that will do nothing to control health care inflation but which centrist Democrats will tout as fulfilling Obama's pledge to reform health care. Republicans are interested in changing health care to meet their vision of providing the best health care possible to those who can afford it. Oh, wait. That's what we have now, isn't it?

 

[LittlePinky82]

First of all it's DEMOCRATIC. Second of all there are multiple resolutions out there.

 

[twinmama]

About disbelief - those who read my post about family who are forced to live under in poverty in order to get help for their seriously sick child. They have been quite private about it until now but with all this talk now has made them step forward. They wrote their story and now media has contacted them. If and when their story gets out I will let you know.

PBS Special Report: Health Care Reform . NOW on PBS

Check your local listing

 

[LittlePinky82]

1) It's Democratic.

2) Your point? The GOP has no place to talk about corporations involved in their politics.

3) I thought GOPers liked capitalism?

 

[LittlePinky82]

More evidence we need a single-payer plan.

Single payer is still not going far enough. We need a nationalized health care plan. Nothing short of it. And to get rid of insurance companies period.

 

[LittlePinky82]

If people were rational and looked at the issues, instead of getting angry for no reason and at the wrong thing, then this would have been passed years ago.

I can't remember who, he wasn't as famous as Thomas Jefferson, but one of the founding fathers I heard a while back wanted a national health care plan. We would have been the first people to do it if it wasn't for gopers who opposed everything from Social Security to Medicare.

 

[T-Dawg]

Hi, uh, this might be a bit off topic (it's about healthcare at least ), but can anyone help me out here? When I pointed out to a friend that Canada gave their citizens much more access to healthcare, I got this response:

Not true. In Canada you cannot get an MRI to save your life, healthcare may be cheaper, but the quality is lower. And not only that, all the cost of it ends up in the hands of the consumer anyway. Our system is much better. And what's more, if Obama removed regulations from the legislature, or improved it (ie Tort Reform) then healthcare would be so much cheaper. For instance, my mother works at the hospital and they can't write off a patient who doesn't pay as a business expense, thus everyone else has to pay more. Not only that, illegal immigrants come in and get free healthcare anyway.

Can anyone tell me what to say here? It's pretty obvious that he's misinformed, but how do I go about explaining it to him (keep in mind that his IQ is about the same as mine, he just doesn't have good sources of information. He's not stupid.)?

 

[Mister_T]

Can anyone tell me what to say here?

I can tell you what to say to this:

Not true. In Canada you cannot get an MRI to save your life, healthcare may be cheaper, but the quality is lower. And not only that, all the cost of it ends up in the hands of the consumer anyway. Our system is much better.

Our system is better? BS plain and simple. Here in America you can't get one to save your life either...unless you're Dick Cheney who's government healthcare plan got him a life saving MRI that found a bloodclot found in his left leg.

My cousin (who happened to be my best friend) on the other hand, was not as fortunate with his bloodclot that formed in his leg after a bad knee sprain. After 2 weeks (post knee injury) of being turned down repeatedly by hospitals for an MRI due to having no insurance because he was starting his own small business and could not afford it, he finally did get one scheduled.....too bad it was 5 days after he was already dead from the bloodclot in his leg. If my cousin was a government official with government issued healthcare like good ol' "Dick", it wouldn't have been an issue.

Next time my cousin's 7 year old daughter comes up to me and asks me why her daddy isn't here anymore, I'll be sure to tell her it's because America's healthcare system is "much better" than the rest of the world.....but only if you're a politician (and even that's debatable).

 

[Zephyr]

A quote from somebody who does not understand healthcare very well.

Funny, I'm still waiting for the opportunity to get a pretty important CT scan of my brain. Of course I'm uninsured and broke and the free school plan is far too skimpy to cover something like that, so I have a feeling under a single payer system, even with a long wait line, I'd be getting the scan much more quickly.

 

[T-Dawg]

No, the reason what we have now is so expensive is because hospitals can't turn down those who cannot pay, and even if people don't pay, they can't write off the cost as a business cost on their taxes. Not to mention the fact that thousands of illegal immigrants are crossing the border every day to get free healthcare, costing us all money. And the reason insurance companies are turning people down is because there's no Tort Reform, which would allow them to give people coverage nationwide instead of on a state-by-state basis. Insurance does NOT control healthcare, the lawyers that sue on behalf of the patients controls what the doctors can do. They have to test for EVERYTHING because, if on the off chance they miss something and their patient dies, they could get sued for millions of dollars. That's where Malpractice comes in, which costs nearly $8,000 a month to the average doctor, making healthcare much more expensive. That means the waiting lists for tests are horribly long and that it's much harder to get the treatment needed. Dick Chaney used a VIP hospital for VIP clients, where he spent a LOT more money to get that MRI ASAP unlike your cousin, (sorry by the way, it's always hard losing a family member)!That's why your cousin couldn't get his MRI. When they transfer patients to the hospital, their assuming liability for them. That means, if your cousin had died in the hospital, they would've got sued and another doctor or group of doctors would've lost their jobs. Not to mention, that'd drive up costs for everyone else.

He obviously didn't freakin' read what I said (he mentions "my" cousin and fakes sympathy for him, even though I gave the quote from Mister_T as a quote).

What do I say now? He seems to be contradicting himself. Earlier he said that the American healthcare system was great, now he's backtracking an explaining what's wrong with it.

 

[Mister_T]

He obviously didn't freakin' read what I said (he mentions "my" cousin and fakes sympathy for him, even though I gave the quote from Mister_T as a quote).

What do I say now? He seems to be contradicting himself. Earlier he said that the American healthcare system was great, now he's backtracking an explaining what's wrong with it.

Well, he's backpedaling from his earlier statement of "America's system is much better." Cheney's "VIP system" as he calls it is (wait for it.....) government issued healthcare! The same thing all the rest of the politicians have. If it's good enough for them, why isn't it good enough for the rest of us? Our tax dollars are paying for it after all, why not benefit from something we're paying for? Every man is equal, remember? Also, he defeats his own argument of our "better system" with comments like this:

Dick Chaney used a VIP hospital for VIP clients, where he spent a LOT more money to get that MRI ASAP unlike your cousin, (sorry by the way, it's always hard losing a family member)!

So in order to have a life saving exam, you need to spend a lot of money (Something which I'm sure good ol' "Dick" didn't spend a dime on to begin with. Remember...gov't issued healthcare), but in somewhere like Canada, it's offered free to it's citizens? Yeah, that sounds tons better. While I appreciate the condolences, it doesn't fix the problem that shouldn't have been there to begin with and is still affecting our citizens as we speak.

And patients can, and will be turned downed in the form of severe delay and or neglect due to lack of coverage, as I and others know personally. It is a more common phenomenon than people would like to think, unfortunately.

Honestly, I don't think people will realize the full scope of of how detrimental our healthcare system is until they are personally affected by it. I'm not sure what else you could say to him that would make him think otherwise; If people dying due to neglect and lack of coverage doesn't convince someone, I don't know what will.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Honestly, I don't think people will realize the full scope of of how detrimental our health care system is until they are personally affected by it.

Think about it T,

There is not a surplus of medical care. There is a finite amount of hospital beds or slots in the appointment books to get a test or to see a doctor.

On any given day, some folks are served while others wait. Even when everyone has a medical insurance card in their hand, this fact will not change.

EVERY SINGLE DAY, PEOPLE WILL BE TURNED AWAY AND HAVE TO WAIT FOR MEDICAL CARE! EVERY NEED CAN NOT BE MET ON ANY SINGLE DAY NO MATTER WHAT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WE HAVE.

What we are really talking about here is people that are currently being served will be denied care and some one less fortunate will take their place in line.

No matter what system we have, someone is going to get the smelly end of the stick.

 

[Kathryn]

I am not opposed to healthcare reform - we need it. The costs continue to spiral upward and the number of medical professionals continues to spiral DOWNWARD. Why is this so? There are numerous, numerous reasons.

I think one of the main reasons is because of the litigous nature of the industry. I know several doctors who pay HALF THEIR SALARY for malpractice insurance. That is ridiculous. It's not because of past claims - it's simply because of their particular specialty (obstetrics). In addition to that they are forced to perform test after test after test, even on apparently healthy, low risk pregnant women, simply in order to avoid a lawsuit later if the baby has a learning disability.

You know, I had my kids 20 something years ago. I only had a sonogram if there was a serious question regarding a possible problem - now women get two or three sonograms regulary, even in the most low risk pregnancies. These tests are expensive - and sure, it's cool to see your baby before it's born, but is all that really necessary? I don't think so.

I'm not here to argue about sonograms though - my point is that the endless tests on ANY medical issue are largely to avoid legal action - not simply to diagnose and treat.

Now - let's continue to talk about insurance. I've had medical insurance for most of my life. I've seen the coverage actually expand, but the costs go up considerably. THAT I don't have a problem with - more coverage will naturally cost more. But here's what I have a problem with - it seems that the industry itself is so vast and so poorly run in general - it's so confusing to both the doctors AND their patients - it feels as if the insurance companies do their level best to confuse any situation and delay payment. And this definitely includes Medicare and Medicaid - in fact, they're the worst! It seems that insurance companies, both private and publically run, use the tactic of red tape and lingo to frustrate and confuse the very people who pay their meal ticket.

I just can't believe that things can't be run better - and I assure you I don't think the government can do a better job at it. Their stellar examples (Medicare, Medicaid, and VA) don't give me a lot of confidence.

But I do think that we need to allow TRUE capitalism to work, instead of all this bureaucratic mess that limits interstate commerce and creates these monopolies of just a few major health insurance providers. I am all for any reform that provides more private options, and I personally love the idea of co-ops for the self employed so that they can better afford coverage.

If you don't have coverage through an employer, the cost is outrageous.

Finally - why do we have to completely overhaul the entire industry? I don't like government messing too much with private industry - most bureaucrats have never owned a company - most of them are lifelong "public servants," which is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

We already have Medicaid - why not clean that up first, overhaul it and expand THAT coverage to more of those who truly cannot afford private insurance? Why not start with that and tort reform?

I would definitely support a healthcare reform act that focused on those two issues, regardless of party sponsorship. But I don't see that one anywhere on the horizon.

 

[themadhair]

I don't know how anyone can write the above and still be against a public option. It baffles me.

 

[Autodidact]

Hi, uh, this might be a bit off topic (it's about healthcare at least ), but can anyone help me out here? When I pointed out to a friend that Canada gave their citizens much more access to healthcare, I got this response:Can anyone tell me what to say here? It's pretty obvious that he's misinformed, but how do I go about explaining it to him (keep in mind that his IQ is about the same as mine, he just doesn't have good sources of information. He's not stupid.)?

He doesn't know what he's talking about.

The Harris/Decima survey found that 70 percent of the 1,000 Canadians that it interviewed thought their health care system was working well and that 82 percent believed it was superior to the system used in the United States.

here.
Here's one person's first hand account. How about this report from FOX news? Here's another good comparison. Candians are much more satisfied with availability, and about equally satisfied with quality. Oh, and they're paying half as much as a nation. I always like to emphasize that.

That's assuming your friend has any interest in facts. My experience is that people on his side of the debate rarely are.

 

[Autodidact]

He obviously didn't freakin' read what I said (he mentions "my" cousin and fakes sympathy for him, even though I gave the quote from Mister_T as a quote).

What do I say now? He seems to be contradicting himself. Earlier he said that the American healthcare system was great, now he's backtracking an explaining what's wrong with it.

I'd say all of that is irrelevant.
The main point is this: Every other modernized industrial nation spends half as much per capita as we do and covers everyone. It costs more to deny people coverage than to treat them. There is only one country on earth that spends more IN TAXES than we do, and they don't pay all over again with insurance premiums.
We are going broke trying to deny coverage to people. Is it really important enough to him that more children die for lack of care to justify spending at least twice as much per capita. Killing those babies is expensive. Let's be fiscally responsible and keep them around to pay taxes later; it's cheaper.

 

[Autodidact]

Think about it T,

There is not a surplus of medical care. There is a finite amount of hospital beds or slots in the appointment books to get a test or to see a doctor.

On any given day, some folks are served while others wait. Even when everyone has a medical insurance card in their hand, this fact will not change.

EVERY SINGLE DAY, PEOPLE WILL BE TURNED AWAY AND HAVE TO WAIT FOR MEDICAL CARE! EVERY NEED CAN NOT BE MET ON ANY SINGLE DAY NO MATTER WHAT HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WE HAVE.

What we are really talking about here is people that are currently being served will be denied care and some one less fortunate will take their place in line.

No matter what system we have, someone is going to get the smelly end of the stick.

Let me get what you're saying here. There are not enough doctors to go around, so it's better that we save them for a few than make them available to the many? Is that really your position? Let me guess; you're one of the few who gets a doctor, and you're worried that if everyone has what you have, it will somehow impact you negatively, is that right?