An interesting thing you might not know about HC reform

[Carmen813]

I found this at:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/20...ngle-payer-opt-out-as-part-of-reconciliation/

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, FireDogLake is a very liberal blog.

Apparently the Senate bill contains a provision that allows a state to create its own health care reform initiative and obtain a waiver from following the federal mandates, provided it can show that it achieves the same objectives.

This is pretty neat in my opinion. Now, it's up the the federal government to decide if a program passes muster, so its not perfect, but I think this is pretty cool.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

 

[Patranus]

I found this at:
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/20...ngle-payer-opt-out-as-part-of-reconciliation/

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, FireDogLake is a very liberal blog.

Apparently the Senate bill contains a provision that allows a state to create its own health care reform initiative and obtain a waiver from following the federal mandates, provided it can show that it achieves the same objectives.

This is pretty neat in my opinion. Now, it's up the the federal government to decide if a program passes muster, so its not perfect, but I think this is pretty cool.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

I am pretty sure states can do this without the federal government or the Democrat's plan.

I have a better idea.

The states give the federal government the middle finger and implement a system that works best for that particular state...similar to what Massachusetts, Oregon, Hawaii, and several other states have done.

 

[Carmen813]

I am pretty sure states can do this without the federal government or the Democrat's plan.

Obviously they could, but this provides a way for states to create their own system even if the federal version becomes law.

 

[Jaskalas]

Obviously they could, but this provides a way for states to create their own system even if the federal version becomes law.

Then we'll just have to make sure it does not become law. Then they'll actually be free to serve the interests of their people.

 

[Acanthus]

Then we'll just have to make sure it does not become law. Then they'll actually be free to serve the interests of their people.

It is in everyone's interest to:

1. Not die.
2. Not go bankrupt.

 

[cubby1223]

Apparently the Senate bill contains a provision that allows a state to create its own health care reform initiative and obtain a waiver from following the federal mandates, provided it can show that it achieves the same objectives.

Wait, the federal government will force everyone to conform to a crap reform plan... except in the situations where the state forces everyone to conform to a crap reform plan?

The federal government will start to take over control of health care... except in the situations where state governments take over control of health care?

What was interesting about this?

 

[nonlnear]

It is in everyone's interest to:

1. Not die.

Most of the time, but even that's a stretch.

2. Not go bankrupt.

Totally false. Bankruptcy is often a very rational choice. Now if you meant not engage in behavior that leads to bankruptcy that's closer to reasonable, but even that doesn't hold water as an absolute principle. It's more a statement of your values than of any actual truth.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Most of the time, but even that's a stretch.Totally false. Bankruptcy is often a very rational choice. Now if you meant not engage in behavior that leads to bankruptcy that's closer to reasonable, but even that doesn't hold water as an absolute principle. It's more a statement of your values than of any actual truth.

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

My understanding is that around 60% of personal bankruptcies are 'medical' in nature.

That would make your contention to "...not engage in behavior that leads to bankruptcy ...", well, ignorant.


So please tell us more about your 'truths'.





--

 

[Genx87]

How is this neat? The Feds have the option of blessing a states program???? Gee what a deal.

 

[Genx87]

It is in everyone's interest to:

1. Not die.
2. Not go bankrupt.

Then I suppose you want free food + water and no bankruptcies then?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

My understanding is that around 60% of personal bankruptcies are 'medical' in nature.

That would make your contention to "...not engage in behavior that leads to bankruptcy ...", well, ignorant.


So please tell us more about your 'truths'.

--

I would assume that these bankruptcies are caused by catastrophic illnesses and hospitalization, correct?

 

[rudder]

I am pretty sure states can do this without the federal government or the Democrat's plan.

I have a better idea.

The states give the federal government the middle finger and implement a system that works best for that particular state...similar to what Massachusetts, Oregon, Hawaii, and several other states have done.

Tennessee has a State health plan that covers children, people with pre-existing conditions, and people who cannot afford insurance. It is a money pit that needs tweaking... but people get health care.

Now with obamacare all that is in jeopardy because of the increased burdens the feds will place on the states (unless you have a democratic senator and get exemptions).

Our democratic Governor has increased the states budget at twice the rate on inflation his last 8 years in office... so the state is hurting, but beside that Tennessee is a fiscally responsible state. We have a balanced budget amendment and cuts are coming due to revenue shortfalls... so no new taxes. With obamacare, this will all change.

 

[boomerang]

I would assume that these bankruptcies are caused by catastrophic illnesses and hospitalization, correct?

Who knows? It's an oft quoted "statistic" by the left. I've seen nothing to back it up. But, that doesn't mean it's not true.

Still, 60% of anything sounds really bad. But taken in the context of what percentage of people in the U.S. file for bankruptcy, it may be a minuscule number.

Our President stands up before groups and tells lie after lie. He drags out "examples" of the failures of our health care system and most of them are proven to be fabrications. He has dissenters removed by the police at his meetings.

He's the boy that cried wolf one time too many. IMO, there's no wolf.

 

[Slick5150]

Many federal laws have similar provisions that allow states to create their own programs that must at least meet the standards of the federal program, but can otherwise be tailored to fit the state's needs. (many environmental programs are done this way, for example, the clean air act is operated as a state program in many states).

So it wouldn't surprise me if this was in the bill.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Who knows? It's an oft quoted "statistic" by the left. I've seen nothing to back it up. But, that doesn't mean it's not true.

Still, 60% of anything sound really bad. But taken in the context of what percentage of people in the U.S. file for bankruptcy, it may be a minuscule number.

Our President stands up before groups and tells lie after lie. He drags out "examples" of the failures of our health care system and most of them are proven to be fabrications. He has dissenters removed by the police at his meetings.

He's the boy that cried wolf one time too many. IMO, there's no wolf.

Well, I am sure you see where I am going with this argument. If the 60% number is true (and I am not questioning his numbers, as that isn't the point I am trying to make) and it is due to catastrophic illnesses, wouldn't it make sense to create a catastrophic health care plan for all Americans rather than a healthcare plan which pays for "everything"? IIRC, the "preventative medicine saves money" argument was debunked in a recent study.

 

[boomerang]

Well, I am sure you see where I am going with this argument. If the 60% number is true (and I am not questioning his numbers, as that isn't the point I am trying to make) and it is due to catastrophic illnesses, wouldn't it make sense to create a catastrophic health care plan for all Americans rather than a healthcare plan which pays for "everything"? IIRC, the "preventative medicine saves money" argument was debunked in a recent study.

I hear what you're saying and I like it. There are a number of ways to deal with the problem of health care short of taking over 1/6th of the economy.

As far as the preventative medicine argument, I couldn't agree more. In my working days, I worked for a major corporation. They made a decision to push everyone they could into managed care health plans. They were, I'm sure, provided with a lot of data that supported the savings to be gleaned from such a plan. After ten years, they dropped those plans. They were too damned expensive. The savings never materialized.

It's difficult to determine what is real and what is not these days. So many with an agenda and the power to push same agenda.

 

[piasabird]

The federal government has no constitutional mandate to tell states how to manage health care. The federal government is overstepping its constitutional power in regards to health care. Self determination is more important than health care.

Let the federal government pass laws or rules that lower health care costs then maybe some states may be willing to give up their rights. Keep in mind that doctors still have to be trained, their malpractice insurance still must be paid, and prescription drugs still have to be purchased. This has nothing to do with how much an insurance company earns. Lowering these costs will lower health care costs. Doing nothing about these costs will only increase the cost of health care. So far Congress wants to do nothing but complicate the health care problems.

Take a look at how the government runs the VA Healthcare for veterans and then ask yourself, "Do I want that kind of health care?"

 

[Thump553]

I am pretty sure states can do this without the federal government or the Democrat's plan.

Not quite true. Under the present system exemptions are permitted but are very dificult to obtain-the variances allowed are very narrow.

There's no problem with the states designing their own systems so long as they don't pass back the blowback costs of their programs to the rest of us. But it's pretty consistent that those of us in the Northeast and California subsidize the South with our income tax-I'm afrais that a southern opt out would make this situation worse.

 

[Vette73]

I would assume that these bankruptcies are caused by catastrophic illnesses and hospitalization, correct?

Not really, or at least as many as you think.

Even small stuff is really high now. So a simple thing can be 10G or more. For many here that would hurt but not kill us. But to many, 10g is a life changing amount to owe. Let alone those that live pay check to pay check and have a 10k+ bill is bad, let alone not getting any pay check while out from illness.

 

[Carmen813]

How is this neat? The Feds have the option of blessing a states program???? Gee what a deal.

It means that those people who really believe the federal program amounts to the Apocalypse can lobby their state legislatures to develop their own plan. I think it's neat because it either forces states to adopt the federal plan, or to acknowledge the flaws the existing system has and develop their own within a specified time line.

Since I consider health care reform to be of paramount importance for the United States for many reasons, I think this is "neat." I also think that if a lot of the people on the right who posted above didn't react instantly with emotion because the word "government" appeared in my post, they would think this was "neat" too.

 

[Carmen813]

The federal government has no constitutional mandate to tell states how to manage health care. The federal government is overstepping its constitutional power in regards to health care. Self determination is more important than health care.

Let the federal government pass laws or rules that lower health care costs then maybe some states may be willing to give up their rights. Keep in mind that doctors still have to be trained, their malpractice insurance still must be paid, and prescription drugs still have to be purchased. This has nothing to do with how much an insurance company earns. Lowering these costs will lower health care costs. Doing nothing about these costs will only increase the cost of health care. So far Congress wants to do nothing but complicate the health care problems.

Take a look at how the government runs the VA Healthcare for veterans and then ask yourself, "Do I want that kind of health care?"

I've been to the VA. I've see the system the VA uses to keep track of patients and manage mental/physical illness. It's absolutely incredible, they can pull up medical records for any person who has served, instantly, EVER. This includes case notes, contact information, medications, weight changes over time, health history. A patient walks in, swipes his ID card, and it alerts the staff that they have arrived for their appointment. This in a hospital that serves thousands each week. I was so impressed by what I saw that I hope to work for the VA as a provider.

My grandfather is a veteran and gets care from the VA. He loves it because it lets him get some prescriptions cheaper. He keeps his own private doctors, but he says the one the VA provides is good too.

So yes, I do want that kind of care.

 

[cubeless]

that should be a great cost saver - a big bunch of fed b'crats chasing around a redundant bunch of state b'crats and all of them employing lots of lawyers to sue each other... sounds great...

 

[Genx87]

It means that those people who really believe the federal program amounts to the Apocalypse can lobby their state legislatures to develop their own plan. I think it's neat because it either forces states to adopt the federal plan, or to acknowledge the flaws the existing system has and develop their own within a specified time line.

Since I consider health care reform to be of paramount importance for the United States for many reasons, I think this is "neat." I also think that if a lot of the people on the right who posted above didn't react instantly with emotion because the word "government" appeared in my post, they would think this was "neat" too.

I dont consider the feds telling the states to develop a program or use ours at the end of a gun "neat".

If people in their respective states want healthcare reform. Then by all means lobby your state legislatures. There isnt anything neat about this. It is like the Feds treating the states like kids. Letting them run around the pen under their supervision.

And at best it gives the impression of being independent. While the truth is the feds will control the state programs. We have seen it before with highway funding. Feds allow states to conduct their own highway projects with fed money. Feds push an agenda on the states by witholding fed highway money. This wouldnt be any different. Feds basically control the game even if the states design their own program.

 

[boomerang]

I've been to the VA. I've see the system the VA uses to keep track of patients and manage mental/physical illness. It's absolutely incredible, they can pull up medical records for any person who has served, instantly, EVER. This includes case notes, contact information, medications, weight changes over time, health history. A patient walks in, swipes his ID card, and it alerts the staff that they have arrived for their appointment. This in a hospital that serves thousands each week. I was so impressed by what I saw that I hope to work for the VA as a provider.

My grandfather is a veteran and gets care from the VA. He loves it because it lets him get some prescriptions cheaper. He keeps his own private doctors, but he says the one the VA provides is good too.

So yes, I do want that kind of care.

Don't judge the VA based solely on your isolated experience. Here's a true story.

My oldest stepson fractured his femur in what we ultimately found to be two places. He goes to the VA hospital in Detroit and explains to them the circumstances. They give him Tylenol and send him home. A week later his thigh has swelled up and begun to turn a light purple color. He's in so much pain he can barely walk. He returns to the VA and they once again send him on his way with some more Tylenol.

A few days later in what he describes as the worst pain he has ever experienced, he goes back in and begs with them to either x-ray the leg or amputate it. He'd rather be without it than endure the pain any longer. His thigh at this point is mottled, mushy and when pressed remains depressed. They still are not very interested. He gets loud and they grudgingly x-ray it and discover the two fractures. He has a massive infection at this point that they deem to be mrsa.

They did surgery on him twice. Once to drain the infection and when that was unsuccessful, they performed a second surgery on him to insert antibiotic beads into the area of the infection. If this didn't work, he was to lose the leg at the hip. The infection was so severe at this point that he was in danger of losing his life. It was successful. He had a PICC line with a pump he wore for months feeding antibiotics into his system on a 24/7 basis.

This condition would most certainly not have required this level of effort and expense had they listened initially.

Not all VA hospitals are alike. Based on your story, I'd think they're great. Based on mine ... not so much.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm not sure where you are going with this.

My understanding is that around 60% of personal bankruptcies are 'medical' in nature.

That would make your contention to "...not engage in behavior that leads to bankruptcy ...", well, ignorant.


So please tell us more about your 'truths'.
--

i practice bankruptcy law and only one that i've done so far was due to significant illness and/or medical bills (protip: never ever ever put medical bills on a credit card, medical expenses are treated differently by the ratings agencies than regular consumer debt. one is considered somewhat irresponsible and the other isn't)

i know, it's anecdotal. so take it for what it's worth.