Boehner proposes leaving 52 Million Americans without insurance.

[charrison]

Does everyone with health insurance now go to doctor for headache, cold, or allergy? I don't think there is a danger of that happening. But we don't want for people to wait till it's life threatening emergency to go to ER and saddle everyone else with their enormous unpaid bill and possible future disability benefits either. It's not rocket surgery, other countries have figured it out.

One this is sure, the cheaper you make an office visit, the more it will get used.

 

[theeedude]

One this is sure, the cheaper you make an office visit, the more it will get used.

You can set deductible high enough that it's cheaper to get OTC medicine if it's simple headache or cold, but low enough that people don't wait till it's a costly emergency.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

One thing I can tell you is that if someone comes in to see a doc for a headache they sit up and take notice and they should. Of course everyone knows why, right?

 

[dingster1]

Yup sure do...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The Reps won't do it because they are equally clueless, but if they wanted to win big they could do what the Dems should have, and appoint a panel of recognized health care providers, administrators, actuaries and health care consumer advocates and ask them to evaluate health care today (not just insurance) and find out what realistic options exist, how they can best be implemented, projected costs and the good and bad points of each, then act on expert opinion.

Unfortunately they are politicians and looking at something without consideration for party advantage is simply beyond that animal. It's like trying to teach a dog to fly a plane. Not likely.

 

[hal2kilo]

The Reps won't do it because they are equally clueless, but if they wanted to win big they could do what the Dems should have, and appoint a panel of recognized health care providers, administrators, actuaries and health care consumer advocates and ask them to evaluate health care today (not just insurance) and find out what realistic options exist, how they can best be implemented, projected costs and the good and bad points of each, then act on expert opinion.

Unfortunately they are politicians and looking at something without consideration for party advantage is simply beyond that animal. It's like trying to teach a dog to fly a plane. Not likely.

Sounds like setting up "panels" and getting between the patient and the doctor's "right" to practice the "art" of medicine the way they see fit. Just saying (that's the demonizing lanquage that used to stop any reform).

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sounds like setting up "panels" and getting between the patient and the doctor's "right" to practice the "art" of medicine the way they see fit. Just saying (that's the demonizing lanquage that used to stop any reform).

Health care professionals want rational reform. There are bizarre regulations and procedures we have to go through. Some are from private insurance, most are required by government. If the goal is for the government to assist (not dictate terms) providers it will be viewed as positive. The better care we can give, the less it costs. That's how it should be approached.

As I said about the dems, if they did it right then all they had to do is get out the recommendations and go over them point by point and completely ignore the Reps. The latter would have looked like fools because better care would be the primary goal and the process be completely open. Once the infrastructure was addressed then expanding coverage could have been done in a logical and consistent way. Going beyond what's proposed we have a looming crisis. People are getting older. Heart disease, dementia, diabetes and a host of other things which cannot be cured and are inherently expensive to treat regardless of anyone's cost containment scheme.

Unfortunately, that requires seeing beyond the short term and laying the groundwork correctly. "Fixing it later" never happens.

There's little interest on the part of the public and little comprehension of the problem by the pols.

Were screwed it seems.

 

[theeedude]

Health care professionals want rational reform. There are bizarre regulations and procedures we have to go through. Some are from private insurance, most are required by government. If the goal is for the government to assist (not dictate terms) providers it will be viewed as positive. The better care we can give, the less it costs. That's how it should be approached.

As I said about the dems, if they did it right then all they had to do is get out the recommendations and go over them point by point and completely ignore the Reps. The latter would have looked like fools because better care would be the primary goal and the process be completely open. Once the infrastructure was addressed then expanding coverage could have been done in a logical and consistent way. Going beyond what's proposed we have a looming crisis. People are getting older. Heart disease, dementia, diabetes and a host of other things which cannot be cured and are inherently expensive to treat regardless of anyone's cost containment scheme.

Unfortunately, that requires seeing beyond the short term and laying the groundwork correctly. "Fixing it later" never happens.

There's little interest on the part of the public and little comprehension of the problem by the pols.

Were screwed it seems.

I'd rather try Obamacare and fix it later (if necessary) than wait another 15 years for any reform.

 

[EagleKeeper]

There are already flaws in it by design. Get those plugged ASAP and then see what happens. Stop intentionally driving up the costs to the working person.

 

[manimal]

I'd rather try Obamacare and fix it later (if necessary) than wait another Century for any reform.

Fixed that fore you sense...

 

[lothar]

Obama signaled he was open to allowing buy/selling insurance across state lines, but he wanted a minimum level of coverage so you wouldn't have a "race to the bottom" type scenario.

As for tort reform, this was discussed ad nauseam during the debate. The savings were something like 54 billion over 10 years.

So why didn't they do that then?
The current healthcare legislation signed by the president only has a "state" exchange, not a "national" exchange like what was passed in the original house bill.

So because it's "only" $54 billion in savings over 10 years, it should automatically be tossed in the garbage can as not worth it?

 

[lothar]

Clealry Lothar wants to ration care. Welcome to the neocon mind.

Only a complete idiot would think the government doesn't already ration care.
Let me guess, you're another idiot who believes every surgical operation, procedure, or medication is(or will be) automatically covered because it's the government and healthcare is now "universal" since pre-existing clause is now removed?

I'm betting you haven't dealt with Medicare/Medicaid billing before then.

 

[lothar]

Yup you get a rebate check at the end of the year..... This provision to me is the biggest reason that douchebag that just got elected in FLA for governor spent a small fortune creating the patients bill of rights scream campaign of that wonderful summer....


Can anyone tell me this provision is bad?

That's a misrepresentation.

If I spend nothing and I'm in the same pool as someone who has cancer, I will still get my rebate check? Wow...If so, this health care law is even more stupid than I thought and will lead to bankruptcy of insurance companies. Pay an 85% refund to those who don't get sick, but also pay a cancer patient's full medical costs that can easily exceed $1 million in a year?

If not then it's not a benefit, and that rebate check depends on OTHER people in the same pool not getting sick or misusing it, not me. If a moron who doesn't believe in vaccines(many Chiropractors still believe in the conspiracy theory that they cause autism) decides not to immunize himself/family from H. Influenza, Seasonal Influenza, Hepatitis, MMR, Meningitis, Pneumonia, and many others, Why should I have to share my rebate check with others?

If I'm not getting any rebate check back because it will be shared with millions of other people in the same pool(regardless of if they got sick or not) even though I used nothing, screw that, I might as well use it for everything under the sun including headaches, common cold, upset stomach and constipation.

Similarly, If you're a Republican Governor who doesn't believe in Obama stimulus, but it still passed, why the hell wouldn't you take the money when it's on the table? You get zero benefit from leaving the money on the table because tax payers in your state will still be paying for it whether you accept the stimulus or not. I don't see anything hypocritical about that. Same thing with this new health care law.

BTW...Most health insurance companies already do on average 82-84%.

 

[Zebo]

The Reps won't do it because they are equally clueless, but if they wanted to win big they could do what the Dems should have, and appoint a panel of recognized health care providers, administrators, actuaries and health care consumer advocates and ask them to evaluate health care today (not just insurance) and find out what realistic options exist, how they can best be implemented, projected costs and the good and bad points of each, then act on expert opinion.

Unfortunately they are politicians and looking at something without consideration for party advantage is simply beyond that animal. It's like trying to teach a dog to fly a plane. Not likely.

Sounds like a lot of work and open to same influences political system is. Why not use one of 33 successful blueprints around the world? I am lazy and copy success, don't try and reinvent wheel. YMMV.

 

[theeedude]

Fixed that fore you sense...

I don't think this country has a century to wait to reform healthcare. It's like an anchor on our economic competitiveness, priced into our exports and our labor costs.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sounds like a lot of work and open to same influences political system is. Why not use one of 33 successful blueprints around the world? I am lazy and copy success, don't try and reinvent wheel. YMMV.

Which of those 33 successful blueprints work for our economic system and system of medicine? Which account for the vast differences between places like inner city Philly and Appalachia? Which are suited for desert areas of very low population density? Which system deals with a two party system which calls the shots over the needs of the people?

I'm sure the Swiss have a great health care system. Small country physically, socialist, uniform culture. That isn't us. Besides which of those 33 systems has been set up with the aging population in mind?

We're not them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't think this country has a century to wait to reform healthcare. It's like an anchor on our economic competitiveness, priced into our exports and our labor costs.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare "reform" as written. Install anything like has been done and in a hundred years maybe you can reform it a little. Look at how Medicaid has been rehabilitated. Right.

It's just a matter of time before it all breaks and then each party will point to each other because it wasn't done right. Perhaps that's the intent? Gaining control seems to be the top priority.

 

[JSt0rm]

Only a complete idiot would think the government doesn't already ration care.
Let me guess, you're another idiot who believes every surgical operation, procedure, or medication is(or will be) automatically covered because it's the government and healthcare is now "universal" since pre-existing clause is now removed?

I'm betting you haven't dealt with Medicare/Medicaid billing before then.

So you do want to ration care. Thanks I thought the neocons were up in arms because obamacare was rationed care.

 

[theeedude]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with healthcare "reform" as written. Install anything like has been done and in a hundred years maybe you can reform it a little. Look at how Medicaid has been rehabilitated. Right.

It's just a matter of time before it all breaks and then each party will point to each other because it wasn't done right. Perhaps that's the intent? Gaining control seems to be the top priority.

The system it replaced was already broken. And yes, gaining control is the top priority. Ad hoc free for all has to end. Health care needs to be regulated as a public utility.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The system it replaced was already broken. And yes, gaining control is the top priority. Ad hoc free for all has to end. Health care needs to be regulated as a public utility.

Ahh, so it is an authoritarian thing after all.

 

[theeedude]

Ahh, so it is an authoritarian thing after all.

Sure, if I am sick and insurer tries to screw me, I'd rather have authorities there to grab them by the balls instead off fighting them alone.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Sure, if I am sick and insurer tries to screw me, I'd rather have authorities there to grab them by the balls instead off fighting them alone.

So what do you do if the authorities are the ones to screw you? Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does and often.

 

[theeedude]

So what do you do if the authorities are the ones to screw you? Don't say it doesn't happen, because it does and often.

Then I vote them out, put new ones in. What do I do if insurance company screws me? FOAD?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Then I vote them out, put new ones in. What do I do if insurance company screws me? FOAD?

Well you could go to another insurance company. You could sue them. You might be screwed.

If you want to wait until you can vote "them" out and hope that the new ones will give you what you want, be my guest. In the meantime you are screwed and you have no options.

That's one of the reasons that this should have been looked into well before enacting anything, but hey it's not about health care. It's about control.

 

[theeedude]

Well you could go to another insurance company. You could sue them. You might be screwed.

Yeah, It's gonna help me a lot to go sue them when they are going to appeal it until I am dead. I am sure another insurance company is going to cover me when I am sick.

If you want to wait until you can vote "them" out and hope that the new ones will give you what you want, be my guest. In the meantime you are screwed and you have no options.

So at worst I am no worse off than not having authorities on my side, and probably a lot better off than facing the insurance company alone. Sounds like a good deal to me.

That's one of the reasons that this should have been looked into well before enacting anything, but hey it's not about health care. It's about control.

It's been looked into, and control is needed to improve the health care.