Healthcare reform

[Texsox]

Here we go...

 

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/ho...amp;newsLang=en

 

The important part?

 

 

 

Also that 87% would reduce coverage if costs increased because of this plan.

 

Which is already what has been happening. I was just notified that starting in January, I will be picking up a much larger percentage of my coverage and reducing benefits.

[StrangeSox]

Insurance Company Must Pay $10 Million For Revoking Policy Of Teen With HIV

 

Aren't insurance companies just swell?

[BigSqwert]

Insurance Company Must Pay $10 Million For Revoking Policy Of Teen With HIV

 

Aren't insurance companies death panels just swell?

Edited September 18, 2009 by BigSqwert

[Texsox]

During the case, evidence emerged that Health Net had paid bonuses to employees to reward them based on the number of policyholders they had rescinded.

 

 

 

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/i...a_n_289841.html

[Texsox]

 

 

A "woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne," the President asserted in his speech, "By the time she had insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more then doubled in size. This is heart breaking. It is wrong. And no one should be treated that way in the United States of America."

 

Obama wasn't exactly correct in his telling of Beaton's ordeal. Beaton's insurance was canceled because a doctor wrote that she potentially had a precancerous lesion on her face. Further investigation showed that she instead had acne. But even after her physicians pointed out the error, her insurance remained rescinded. Only with the help of her congressman, was she able to pressure her insurance company to pay for her breast cancer surgery--five months later.

 

I find it interesting that some people would rather trust a for profit insurance company instead of the government in these matters.

 

 

 

 

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/i...a_n_289841.html

[southsider2k5]

I find it interesting that some people would rather trust a for profit insurance company instead of the government in these matters.

 

 

 

 

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/17/i...a_n_289841.html

 

Here is the dirty secret, the government does this all of the time. Why do you think the rate of denials for first time filers for Social Security Disability is over 50%?

[HuskyCaucasian]

More FUD from the far right:

 

Ironically, the video labeled "honestly" continues to spread lies:

 

Honestly (via Fox News): "Baucus' plan says that federal funds will continue to be prohibited to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger." Obama was specifically addressing fears that the new health care system will give free abortions to anyone who wants them for any reason.

 

Honestly: The guy on the video softly defended ("God bless his heart") Wilson who called Obama a liar, however the part Wilson called Obama a liar about very strongly says this plan will NOT give funding to illegal immigrants... which makes Wilson the liar .

Edited September 18, 2009 by Athomeboy_2000

[bmags]

Wilson=LAIR!

[HuskyCaucasian]

Wilson=LAIR!

fixed my error. Transposed a few letters there.

[Texsox]

Here is the dirty secret, the government does this all of the time. Why do you think the rate of denials for first time filers for Social Security Disability is over 50%?

 

Great point. I need to consider that a bit more. I wonder if there will be a difference between an individual, on there own, asking for Social Security benefits, versus a Doctor wanting to offer treatment. Also, I am assuming that the government could not drop someone from their coverage.

 

Another important point is in these cases the insurance company did not dispute the necessity of the treatment. Instead when facing expensive treatment, they looked for ways to cancel the policy. I do see the need for some review before treatment as part of cost containment.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Study links 45,000 U.S. deaths to lack of insurance

 

Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year -- one every 12 minutes -- in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

 

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined," Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

 

Overall, researchers said American adults age 64 and younger who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage.

 

Now of course, with these death panels we'll see millions euthanized every year.. but hey... everyone is covered!

[Balta1701]

That's more than 2x the last estimate.

[Texsox]

That's more than 2x the last estimate.

 

And just my guess, that number is dwarfed by the number of Americans who die early (and isn't that what is really being measured) from life style choices?

[bmags]

"We're losing more Americans every day because of inaction ... than drunk driving and homicide combined,"

 

who edited this sentence for him? Awful. Ugh i was so much better at my job.

[Balta1701]

And just my guess, that number is dwarfed by the number of Americans who die early (and isn't that what is really being measured) from life style choices?

Depends on how you define lifestyle choices. Driving can be defined as a lifestyle choice.

 

It'd be worth really looking in to the methodology to understand what exactly they're counting, but I don't have the time right now. I think that at worst they're probably at the right order of magnitude even if you just count random things; like people getting cancer, or diabetes, or infections, or the flu, and then being unable to afford treatment.

[Texsox]

Depends on how you define lifestyle choices. Driving can be defined as a lifestyle choice.

 

It'd be worth really looking in to the methodology to understand what exactly they're counting, but I don't have the time right now. I think that at worst they're probably at the right order of magnitude even if you just count random things; like people getting cancer, or diabetes, or infections, or the flu, and then being unable to afford treatment.

 

Early mortality seems awfully inexact to measure. The working definition would be the key. Something as simple as "how early" would be problematic.

 

And this may be one of my top three concerns in this debate. I want decisions to be made on accurate information, not slogans and biased figures. I want both parties to rigorously debate this.

[Balta1701]

Early mortality seems awfully inexact to measure. The working definition would be the key. Something as simple as "how early" would be problematic.

 

And this may be one of my top three concerns in this debate. I want decisions to be made on accurate information, not slogans and biased figures. I want both parties to rigorously debate this.

Ok, here's a summary of how they did the statistics. They probably did it as well as can be done.

 

They filtered a group down to about 9000 people for which they had complete data, starting from a group of 33000. 17000 were from the ages that were not Medicare-eligible. They then excluded people covered by Medicaid and the VA. Then they knocked off a few thousand more because of incomplete data. That's troublesome...but it could easily be troublesome in the "things are actually worse" direction because the ones most likely to be under-reported are the ones without insurance. that left them with a large group still of 9000+ respondents with full data.

 

They calculated correlations between death rate and a number of behavioral variables to see which were strongly correlated with the death rate. Things get tricky here, because behavioral variables are going to be correlated with uninsurance. Alcohol use, unemployment, being male, being a minority, tobacco use, being poor, and failure to visit a physician regularly all correlated with uninsurance. But, if you can calculate these correlations, there are statistical methods that can allow you to isolate more specifically the effect of one variable above the others.

 

The key thing they did is try to be conservative...they tried to say that if the maximum effect was due to the correlation with say, alcohol or tobacco use, what is left over for uninsurance. Once they factored those out using multiple regression, they calculated the correlation with insurance alone, and that's where the number comes from. It's certainly possible that they are underestimating the actual number, given the way they did their data processing.

 

Here's the final paragraph, and it contains an interesting note; they also asked "why are you uninsured" to the people without insurance. Since a few here have made a big deal of the personal choice aspect I think it's instructive.

Unmeasured characteristics (i.e., that individuals who place less value on health eschew both health insurance and healthy behaviors) might offer an alternative explanation for our findings. However, our analysis controlled for tobacco and alcohol use, along with obesity and exercise habits. In addition, research has found that more than 90% of nonelderly adults without insurance cite cost or lack of employer-sponsored coverage as reasons for being uninsured, whereas only 1% percent report ‘‘not needing’’ insurance.39 In fact, the variables includedin our main survival analysis may inappropriately diminish the relationship between insurance and death. For example, poor physician-\rated health, poor self-rated health, and unemployment may result from medically preventable

conditions. Indeed, earlier analyses suggest that the true effect of uninsurance is likely larger than that measured in multivariate

models.13,40 In addition, Hadley found that accounting for endogeneity bias by using an instrumental variable increases the protective

effect of health insurance on mortality.40

[bmags]

seems pretty easy to rope balta into doing something he says he doesn't want to do,

[Balta1701]

seems pretty easy to rope balta into doing something he says he doesn't want to do,

Especially before I've finished my tea. I wrote 2.5 pages (single spaced) yesterday, what more do you want from me! ARGH!

[HuskyCaucasian]

More FUD from the far right:

 

Ironically, the video labeled "honestly" continues to spread lies:

 

Honestly (via Fox News): "Baucus' plan says that federal funds will continue to be prohibited to pay for abortions unless the pregnancy is due to to rape, incest, or if the life of the mother is in danger." Obama was specifically addressing fears that the new health care system will give free abortions to anyone who wants them for any reason.

 

Honestly: The guy on the video softly defended ("God bless his heart") Wilson who called Obama a liar, however the part Wilson called Obama a liar about very strongly says this plan will NOT give funding to illegal immigrants... which makes Wilson the liar .

Posted the above rebuttal on the person's Facebook comment who posted the video, got this nice little reply back:

You are too young to remember this, but to quote "Deep Throat" from the Nixon-Watergate scandal, "Follow the money." Planned Parenthood pumped huge $s into the Obama campaign because of his pledge for support of their agenda. Do you really think a national health care program is not going to fund abortions? They've already been named as a "provider" in the pending legislation. How can the President "honestly" say that national healthcare will not fund abortions. I'm with Congressman Wilson. Obama lied.

[EvilMonkey]

Here's the final paragraph, and it contains an interesting note; they also asked "why are you uninsured" to the people without insurance. Since a few here have made a big deal of the personal choice aspect I think it's instructive.

Simply citing cost doesn't mean that much. They might mean that they choose to have yearly vacations rather than insurance. Or, might mean they might want to eat instead of insurance. Leave a lot of room for whatever meaning you want. Just because they cite price doesnt mean they can't afford it.

 

[BigSqwert]

[HuskyCaucasian]

that cant possibly be real... ok, yea, probably is.

[mr_genius]

Iron my shirt!

[jasonxctf]

just got off a conference call/town meeting with my Congressman and Kathleen Sebelius. Pretty interesting stuff, well done.

 

Not sure how many of these that Sebelius is doing, but spending 1-2 hours with each Congressman's District's seems like some serious dedication to her work. Add that to the meet/greets and other public events and talk shows... you certainly can't say that she isnt working her as* off.