Healthcare reform

[Balta1701]

The house bill is pretty clear on these points. No, it's not immediate, but it aboslutely has that effect. They can't flip a light switch, they know that, but they certainly will make sure it happens in the next 1-4 years by the language of the bill. You're playing naive because it makes the cause sound better, and it's a flat out lie.

The only way that is true is if the insurance companies are unable to compete with the government plan, and there's no reason to think that they can't. It works just fine in other countries. The best system in the world is probably still France, and it is a hybrid system.

[Balta1701]

Bulls***.

 

And they are going to be forced to throw their hands up when employers won't offer "private" insurance anymore.

In that case...the private companies take the money they were paying for insurance, pay it as a tax, and the people go in to the healthcare exchange where they are able to choose between private plans and the public plan, either way subsidized equally by the government.

[Balta1701]

Put it another way Kap. The White House last week tried a different marketing tactic; saying that there were specific things that insurance companies were doing that they wanted to do away with. Which of these would you like to say is a bad idea:

* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

 

* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

 

* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

 

* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

 

* No Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

 

* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

 

* Extended Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

 

* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

[mr_genius]

oops

 

 

[Y2HH]

* No Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

 

This is something that needs a few rules in place.

 

For example, an aged person (I'm talking too old to still enjoy life for this particular person) or a person with a terminal illness that can be kept alive in a near comatose state via various machines that signs onto X insurance a day before they make the decision to live this way would cost the insurance company millions but would do nothing for their quality of life. This sort of situation worries me about these non "Pre-Existing" conditions clauses. Insurance companies wouldn't be able to stay in business if everyone at the end of their lives signed on to keep a person who is almost void of life alive via machines...and for what, so family members can be happy because the person is still breathing?

 

Things like this need conditional rules. For most situations, however, I do agree with this -- pre-existing conditions for a moderately healthy person should be covered.

 

* No Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

 

Again, rules need to be in place. I'll even be extreme on this and say for the first 5 regular office visits PER year, there are no co-pays, etc...but for system abusers who, for example, take 800 ambulance rides a year...hell no. And I'm not lumping people with serious conditions in this that need constant care, either. I simply mean people that go to the doctor for every sneeze or sniffle when they can stay home and eat chicken soup.

 

* No Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

 

Disagree. This shouldn't be put on the insurance companies...this should be put on the doctors/hospitals. Why do they get to charge the insurance companies for this, but the insurance companies don't get to charge anyone?! Seems a bit unfair to me. This is an expense that needs to be shared or put on the doctors/hospitals giving the care...not the insurance companies.

 

* No Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

 

Agree. So long as they didn't sign on the day before (keep in mind, these pre-existing clauses I spoke of above).

 

* No Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

 

Agree.

 

* No Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

 

Unrealistic. I know this sounds good -- but there is a finite amount of money out there. If insurance company X only has 3 billion -- then that's their limit before they're bankrupt and aren't making payments anymore. I know that one patient would never use this much money, but they have a lot more than one patient to worry about here. I do think the limits/caps should be raised much higher, but making them unlimited is just unrealistic.

 

* Extended Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

 

Meh. I think 21 should be the limit unless you are going to college (then make it until they graduate, however long that is, with a minimum per year credit hour requirement). For those unwilling to go to college, this would only help breed a society of lazy twenty-somethings still living at home who don't want to strike out and start living their own lives and they'll use the "insurance" excuse to do so.

 

* Guaranteed Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

 

Agree.

 

 

 

I know some of you may not like my opinions on this, but that's too bad.

Edited August 4, 2009 by Y2HH

[lostfan]

I like that post Y2HH. Those are the posts that I read and digest, I skim over all the stuff that looks like generic oversimplified talking points (like the CNN article I just read, and reading those comments makes me facepalm).

[StrangeSox]

This seems like an excellent idea I saw on another thread:

 

I am going to compile a list of claims about the proposed healthcare plans in Congress. They are sorted first by whether the person or source is a Democrat/liberal or a Republican/conservative, and then by the validity of each claim. Flip-flops are not included here, because while they could be considered shifting stances and/or broken campaign promises, the emphasis is on whether the claim itself is true, now how the position in question got there.

 

The list is limited only by how far back we are going: from Jan. 20, 2009 on. My sources are politifact.com and factcheck.org, two neutral sites that have analysed the truth of both sides of the aisle and found problems (and correct claims) on both sides. Politifact.com includes the validity of each claim and is used in the sorting below; factcheck does not, and so I have attempted to impartially judge where it belongs. Both liberal and conservative claims will be examined without preference to either side.

 

Onto the claims we go.

 

Democrats/Liberals

Mostly or Entirely True:

22,000 Americans die each year because they have no health insurance.

45% of Americans went without needed care due to costs.

Doctors, nurses, hospitals, even the pharmaceutical industry, (and) AARP" say that health reform "makes sense to do."

14,000 Americans lose their health care coverage every single day.

Medicare and Medicaid are the single biggest drivers of the federal deficit and the federal debt by a huge margin.

Even high estimates for an early draft of the health care plan are "less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts."

Teddy Roosevelt first called for health care reform nearly a century ago.

(Various Obama health care claims)*

 

Somewhat or Barely True:

53% of Americans cut back on health care due to costs.

Mitch McConnell opposed "legislation to create and protect Kentucky jobs, help for the unemployed, health care for Kentucky's children," and "fair pay for women."

62% of all personal bankruptcies are "caused by medical problems."

(Obama's claims during his prime-time press conference)

(Various TV ads supporting a public plan.)

 

Not At All True:

Health care reform will create a $6 billion surplus over 10 years.

Health care companies are currently making record profits.

62% support the president's plan to reform health care.

 

 

Republicans/Conservatives

Mostly or Entirely True:

All private health care plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

During a town hall meeting on health care, "ABC didn't even allow ads that opposed the president's health care plan to be aired."

Democrats haven't figured out how they're going to pay for health care reform.

 

Somewhat or Barely True:

Abortions will trump care for the elderly in the public plan.

The number of uninsured is exaggerated.

 

Not At All True:

Obama: The government can decide whether a 100-year-old woman in need of a pacemaker should get a pain pill instead.

Illegal immigrants would have access to universal health care.

The Health Choices Commissioner, not the people, will get to decide their coverage.

Health care reform will mandate that Medicare patients have end-of-life counseling every five years. (Identical claim here.)

Under a public health care option, 120 million Americans will "lose what they now get from private companies and be forced onto the government-run rolls as businesses decide it is more cost-effective for them to drop coverage." (Similar claim here. Another source here.)

A public option for health care would end private insurance "because the private insurance people will not be able to compete with a government option."

Former Senator Tom Daschle said, "Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."

Under the Obama plan, all the health care in this country is eventually going to be run by the government.

New health care rules could hike your health insurance premiums 95 percent.

Congress is pushing a Canadian-style health care bill. (Also see here.)

 

* Rated Mostly True because of this quote in the source: "While many of the statistics [Obama] cited on the state of health care in the U.S. were correct, we found problems with a few of them."

 

If I made a mistake in any of the above links or categorizations, please let me know.

[Balta1701]

For example, an aged person (I'm talking too old to still enjoy life for this particular person) or a person with a terminal illness that can be kept alive in a near comatose state via various machines that signs onto X insurance a day before they make the decision to live this way would cost the insurance company millions but would do nothing for their quality of life. This sort of situation worries me about these non "Pre-Existing" conditions clauses. Insurance companies wouldn't be able to stay in business if everyone at the end of their lives signed on to keep a person who is almost void of life alive via machines...and for what, so family members can be happy because the person is still breathing?

 

 

Unrealistic. I know this sounds good -- but there is a finite amount of money out there. If insurance company X only has 3 billion -- then that's their limit before they're bankrupt and aren't making payments anymore. I know that one patient would never use this much money, but they have a lot more than one patient to worry about here. I do think the limits/caps should be raised much higher, but making them unlimited is just unrealistic.

 

 

I know some of you may not like my opinions on this, but that's too bad.

See, now these are points we can actually discuss.

 

First point...if the Democrats proposed something with either lifetime limits or that limited people's ability to keep a patient alive on life support, wouldn't that immediately be jumped on as "Rationing!" and "Killing the elderly!". Even in this thread we've heard enough about the evils of rationing and how it happens in all those other evil countries but never here; isn't a lifetime cost limit basically the definition of rationing? You only get your ration and that's it.

 

Second point...if coverage is truly universal, then the pre-existing clause issue doesn't really matter, because insurance companies can no longer really go shopping for patients who never use their insurance like they currently do.

 

Third point...I think that if the White House got a plan that accomplished everything you just agreed with, while at the same time also provided a mechanism for insuring the 50 or so million uninsured on a regular basis, they'd have exactly what they want. It appears we've actually agreed a little bit here; the question is how do we accomplish those goals. The insurers made it 100% clear before Congress that they weren't going to take any of those steps willingly; they refused to even consider cutting the most egregious of those practices; the recission of insurance for unrelated issues (You've got breast cancer now? Sorry, you didn't tell us you had acne beforehand, we can't pay for it).

 

The reason I'm a supporter of a public plan is that it does a couple things. First; it provides an option in a highly concentrated market. Second, evidence says it is likely to have very low overhead costs compared to private insurance and thus can help hold down costs, and third, it provides an easy mechanism to prevent those type of abuses from developing. But overall, the goal is; to end the majority of those abuses, to control costs, and to find a way to insure the chunk of the country that isn't insured right now, which is also key to controlling costs.

[Y2HH]

See, now these are points we can actually discuss.

 

First point...if the Democrats proposed something with either lifetime limits or that limited people's ability to keep a patient alive on life support, wouldn't that immediately be jumped on as "Rationing!" and "Killing the elderly!". Even in this thread we've heard enough about the evils of rationing and how it happens in all those other evil countries but never here; isn't a lifetime cost limit basically the definition of rationing? You only get your ration and that's it.

 

As you mentioned, this ties hand in hand with the issue I raised of "unlimited annual/lifetime coverage" -- to sidestep the typical "Rationing!" or "Killing the elderly!" remarks, limits must be in place as a stopgap -- however, they want to remove the same limits that would otherwise protect insurance companies from this sort of thing, while not wanting to limit choice...well, reality dicates you cannot do both. There either has to be hard rules in place on limiting people's abilities to keep patients on life support (that will never recover), or there has to be a cap limit so they insurance companies can get off the hook for the payments on this sort of delusional behavior. People tend to not want to let go of loved ones, even when they know they should -- keeping a person attached to a machine when they'll never speak again, or enjoy life again is beyond inhumane, IMO. It's greedy in a way I cannot even put into words for strong enough effect.

 

Second point...if coverage is truly universal, then the pre-existing clause issue doesn't really matter, because insurance companies can no longer really go shopping for patients who never use their insurance like they currently do.

 

I dislike the term "universal" when it comes to health care, as the term itself stands for a plethora of things, such as unlimited, unending, all encompassing, etc...and the laws of reality dictate that just isn't going to happen. I'm not exactly sure what word I'd prefer they use when it comes to this, but not Universal, as it represents "too much", IMO.

 

The reason I'm a supporter of a public plan is that it does a couple things. First; it provides an option in a highly concentrated market. Second, evidence says it is likely to have very low overhead costs compared to private insurance and thus can help hold down costs, and third, it provides an easy mechanism to prevent those type of abuses from developing. But overall, the goal is; to end the majority of those abuses, to control costs, and to find a way to insure the chunk of the country that isn't insured right now, which is also key to controlling costs.

 

In addition to the things you listed, a public plan also provides a number of negatives.

 

Concentrated markets lead to lack of innovation -- it's like Apple owning the entire computer market -- who competes with them, and if nobody's competing with them whats their drive to innovate?

 

On the flip side, say there IS competition...what's the playing field looking like? Does this government plan have to be profitable (doubtful), and if not how is that fair competition? I'd sooner say a the government creating a "non profit" entity that must break even or be profitable is something I'd consider supporting before a government option with no downside guarantees.

 

What are the rules for getting on the government plan? What are the rules for companies choosing to not supply private insurance but just having employees going onto the same public plan? I'd need to know details such as this before I'd even consider it.

 

First and foremost -- I keep hearing people say things like "low overhead", but name me one MAJOR government program that has low overhead? Not buying it.

 

Secondly, since when did corruption and abuse not enter a government run entity? I can name a million things that's government sponsored and it's abused from here to kingdom come, so suddenly I'm to pretend they will run this ONE thing the right way, free of corruption, scandal and abuse?! Not buying it.

 

I'm all for seeing the uninsured get their fair chance at affordable coverage -- but doing it with a government plan isn't something I see myself agreeing with. If it's free/cheap and coming from taxes (which it will), and just as good as private insurance (which is what they're trying to sell it as), why wouldn't everyone want to get it? I mean, since I know I'll be paying taxes on it whether I'm on a private plan or not...why would I choose to continue paying for private insurance that has no added benefits?

 

Questions like this aren't being answered for me...not by anyone, and until they put it down in clear, plain English I'm not buying it.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Can someone provide me a link to a place where I can find a somewhat brief and unbiased description of the current healthcare reform plan being sent forward? I dot have the time or energy to read thousands of pages.

[HuskyCaucasian]

This seems like an excellent idea I saw on another thread:

Why am I not surprised that most of the lies come from the GOP and most are, on some level, fear mongering.

[Cknolls]

Can someone provide me a link to a place where I can find a somewhat brief and unbiased description of the current healthcare reform plan being sent forward? I dot have the time or energy to read thousands of pages.

 

 

Are you a member of Congress?

[StrangeSox]

Why am I not surprised that most of the lies come from the GOP and most are, on some level, fear mongering.

 

Full disclosure: the place I grabbed it from tends to lean pretty far left. Still, it seems sourced reasonably well.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Are you a member of Congress?

Well, here is my argument I have had when people say " i havent had time to read the bill".

 

Often, major bills are worked on for MONTHS, maybe over a year. They are in committees and talked about within party meetings. So, by the time the bill comes to vote, you've had AMPLE time to go and read it, or get a "cliff's notes" version from someone. To say " I havent had time to read this bill" is absolute lazyness. There are obvious exceptions when parts are put in at the last minute. but in general, they've had plenty of time.

[Y2HH]

Well, here is my argument I have had when people say " i havent had time to read the bill".

 

Often, major bills are worked on for MONTHS, maybe over a year. They are in committees and talked about within party meetings. So, by the time the bill comes to vote, you've had AMPLE time to go and read it, or get a "cliff's notes" version from someone. To say " I havent had time to read this bill" is absolute lazyness. There are obvious exceptions when parts are put in at the last minute. but in general, they've had plenty of time.

 

Reading a bill and understanding what you read in said bill are two different things.

 

Keep in mind that these bills are purposefully written so laymen cannot understand them, as they're filled with double talk and legal jargon that you need an advanced law degree to understand, and even then, I'm skeptical the people who write them even understand some of what's in them after the 50,000 revisions and last minute changes that occur.

[HuskyCaucasian]

Reading a bill and understanding what you read in said bill are two different things.

 

Keep in mind that these bills are purposefully written so laymen cannot understand them, as they're filled with double talk and legal jargon that you need an advanced law degree to understand, and even then, I'm skeptical the people who write them even understand some of what's in them after the 50,000 revisions and last minute changes that occur.

Right, and i get that part. but I get really honked off when people say "it was just too long and I havent been able to read it". you have had time, you just didnt and it's great political grandstanding to say it's too big to read.

[kapkomet]

Why am I not surprised that most of the lies come from the GOP and most are, on some level, fear mongering.

 

Why am I not surprised that the whole damn program is about taking over something that individuals should have a choice over? In fact, check that, the whole damn Democrat party is about that? Obviously, Americans are too stupid to know what they are doing, and the government has to take everything over for us. Oh, now I'm fear mongering. Look, FDR, LBJ, Truman, etc. have all said this isn't about people's well being, it's political, and it gains them power. If they admit it, why can't you?

 

[StrangeSox]

What do FDR, Truman or LBJ have to do with a modern bill?

[Y2HH]

What do FDR, Truman or LBJ have to do with a modern bill?

 

The modern bill isn't much more than a way more complex version of the same bill they all tried to pass.

 

A few things tweaked here or there...but the bottom line equates to a government option.

[southsider2k5]

Well, here is my argument I have had when people say " i havent had time to read the bill".

 

Often, major bills are worked on for MONTHS, maybe over a year. They are in committees and talked about within party meetings. So, by the time the bill comes to vote, you've had AMPLE time to go and read it, or get a "cliff's notes" version from someone. To say " I havent had time to read this bill" is absolute lazyness. There are obvious exceptions when parts are put in at the last minute. but in general, they've had plenty of time.

 

Why not, Congress doesn't read them either...

[Balta1701]

Can someone provide me a link to a place where I can find a somewhat brief and unbiased description of the current healthcare reform plan being sent forward? I dot have the time or energy to read thousands of pages.

Quite frankly, no, because there are at least 3-4 different health care plans being pushed forward from different committees in the House and Senate, some of which are in "official nearly complete bill form" and some of which are still behind closed doors.

[kapkomet]

Quite frankly, no, because there are at least 3-4 different health care plans being pushed forward from different committees in the House and Senate, some of which are in "official nearly complete bill form" and some of which are still behind closed doors.

/insert condom commercial here

 

TROJAN MAN!!!

 

 

[Balta1701]

Going back a page or 2, one of the defenses of our health care system SS2k5 gave in his post via the Hoover institution was the U.S.'s ability to deal with cancer. The OECD has put out a table of easy data that allows me to put that in perspective.

 

This is death rate via cancer per 100,000 in the population, figures for 2005, sorted by death rate. He's correct, the U.S. is better than Canada or Britain. That doesn't, however, make the U.S. numbers world class. It puts them as somewhat average.

 

Finland 136.2

Switzerland 139.4

Japan 142.3

Sweden 148.5

Spain 151.2

Greece 152.3

Iceland 152.9

Luxembourg 153.9

Austria 157

United States 157.9

Korea 158.3

Germany 159.3

Norway 159.4

New Zealand 164.2

France 165.6

United Kingdom 173.3

Ireland 173.8

Netherlands 180.8

Slovak Republic 196.2

Denmark 198.5

Poland 199.2

Czech Republic 206

Hungary 219.8

Canada didn't have data for 2005, but they're at 169 in 2004. Many of those countries that are better than us have either partial or total government run systems.

[Balta1701]

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein is fed up.

As a columnist who regularly dishes out sharp criticism, I try not to question the motives of people with whom I don't agree. Today, I'm going to step over that line.

 

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

 

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

 

Under any plan likely to emerge from Congress, the vast majority of Americans who are not old or poor will continue to buy health insurance from private companies, continue to get their health care from doctors in private practice and continue to be treated at privately owned hospitals.

 

...

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

 

If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.

[lostfan]

I'm not disputing with the premise but I hate it when people use the word "terrorist" like that.