CBO Fires Another Torpedo At Obamacare

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yup those worthless shit-heads also don't like being overworked. They want just enough doctors, not too few and not too many, so they can get rich in a 30 hour week.

I've never met a Dr. that was worthless. Shits heads yes. Of course I've never read a Beamer post that wasn't dripping of sarcasm.

That one was dripping with hyperbole. We have all these market freaks that tell us about supply and demand and that tells me there aren't more doctors because their numbers are artificially limited. It really matters little how hard they work or how long, the important point is that more doctors means more competition and yes, bringing millions of them from India will bring health care costs down. Kaiser has lots of Indian doctors and they are great.

Silly me for believing your words that competition is the bane of humanity and the force driving us to our self-hatred........but now its all good.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't care about the money. I care about people NOT being denied healthcare or given pre-existing conditions clauses. I care about people not being dropped from coverage when they need it the most, such as cancer.

Let the right wing jerk offs about money commence... you didn't seem to care about 2 endless occupations costing a trillion...

If you really don't care about money, then the IRS takes cash, money order, check and credit.

Do you think you are clever?

We already pay obscene amounts with NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT! 13k family average in this country and they could cancel you or exempt you, leaving you with no other option. All this while they rake in the profits. Paying the same amount so everyone could get covered and no risk of being dropped is a freakin deal.

nvm

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't care about the money. I care about people NOT being denied healthcare or given pre-existing conditions clauses. I care about people not being dropped from coverage when they need it the most, such as cancer.

Let the right wing jerk offs about money commence... you didn't seem to care about 2 endless occupations costing a trillion or the bailouts for corporations last september... Helping our own people? Nah!

You want to save money? You need the complete "socialist" single payer system and the elimination of private insurance. You willing to do that? If not, stfu about the money already.

How about we try to do both, bring down costs to the consumer while giving the consumer much easier, non-employment tied insurance. While we are at it, lets throw in getting rid of insurance companies refusing to sell coverage due to pre-existing conditions as well as preventing them from denying necessary non-elective procedures.

I love this guys plan but it probably has to much common sense to ever be considered. I have heard very few arguments as to why it wouldn't work and frankly, some of his ideas should have been made law years ago.

Look folks, you want to know why we have the health cost problems we have? I'll lay it out for you - in a way you can't refute or argue with:

1. There are no published prices. In no other line of work is it legal to do this. Nowhere. You can't sell someone a hot dog and tell them after they eat it what it just cost them. You can't hire a lawyer and have him tell you "I'll tell you what this will cost when we're done." You can't hire an electrician and have him tell you "I'll make up a bill when I'm done." In every line of work except health care, this is illegal. There are even laws for "major" consumer work (e.g. contracting, auto repair, etc) where they must give you a binding written estimate before beginning work!
2. Robinson-Patman makes it illegal to discriminate against like kind purchasers of goods in pricing decisions when the effect of doing so is to lessen competition. While it does not apply to services, it darn well should. Whether you are paying privately, you have private insurance or you're a Medicare patient if you need to have a breast reconstructed due to cancer the complexity of the procedure does not change. Yet it is a fact that the privately-billed amounts for uninsured ("rack rate") patients are often ten times or more that billed to insurers or Medicare. Try charging a cash purchaser 10x more for a TV than someone who finances that TV on your in-house credit facility and you would be shut down and thrown in jail.

#1 and #2 exist because of explicit efforts by the "health care" industry to exempt themselves from the laws that every other merchant of every other good and service in the United States must adhere to.

To put this bluntly the medical industry has intentionally put forward a system by which it can screw you with impunity, obtaining exemptions from the laws that cover every other area of commerce, thereby effectively forcing you to buy overpriced services you do not want to purchase lest an unexpected life event literally wipe you out.

This is an extortion racket and absolutely none of the proposals being put forward have done a thing to address any of it.

If we want to fix the health care pricing problem we can do so. It isn't very difficult. Here's the prescription:

1. All health care providers must publish a price list for the procedures and services they offer and the patient must be presented, when possible, with that information before services are performed or goods (e.g. medication) supplied, consenting to the charge in each case. All normal anti-trust provisions with regards to collusion between providers apply. If a physician doesn't like "flat-rate" billing they're free to publish a per-hour fee much like an attorney.
2. No physician or group may discriminate based on the form of any external payment. If they want to internally finance procedure(s), that's fine - they can charge interest or discount for that, or whatever. But for anyone who pays via any other means (including the government) money is money - the price may not change based on the source of payment.
3. No event caused by your presence in a medical facility or the actions of an employee there can come with cost to you. It is absolutely common for people to be billed for treatment of MRSA infections acquired in the hospital! That is equivalent to a mechanic that through incompetence or even malice cuts a wiring harness in your car while it is on the rack having the oil changed and then tries to charge you to fix what he broke!

Now clearly #1 doesn't work so well when you're unconscious due to a heart attack or just wrecking your car. But setting your broken leg or performing a cardiac procedure is something that's done for people who aren't incapacitated too, so guess what - the price is already published and thus the charge known.

This prevents the common practice of hospitals gouging private payers, it exposes prices and brings competition to pricing, and allows the free market to work. It ends the preference for "insurance" on routine procedures.

Next up, if you want to sell "insurance" in a market you must sell it to all persons in that market, defined as an area of at least one US State. You may discriminate in your pricing only based on age and gender - nothing else. If you sell that "insurance" product to any person you must sell to all persons within that state at the same price, and you must publish all your plans and offering prices.

"Insurance" products that are not true insurance products may not discriminate on reimbursement dependent on where the service is performed. The practice of requiring "in network" doctors or even hospitals lest you get "rejected" must end. In addition pre-qualification for any bona-fide non-elective procedure must be absolutely barred as a matter of law.

Finally, all providers of "insurance" must sell a true insurance product. Common HMO/PPO plans are not insurance - they are pre-paid medical care. Insurance is the purchase of a contract to cover damage caused by an unexpected event. Everyone needs health care of some form. Those who want to sell "pre-paid health plans" may do so, but they must also offer true insurance (e.g. covering ONLY hospitalization and related events, etc.)

These changes instantly destroy the connection between health "insurance" and employment. If you leave your job you have the absolute right to keep your health plan by continuing to pay for it. If you don't like your health plan or move out of the state you can buy any plan offered to anyone in your state, at your choice, for the same price they pay.

All mandates to provide specific services and products under "insurance" are federally preempted. Women should be able to choose a health plan that does not include abortion (and/or pre-natal!) services, for example, if they would never use either. Some women (e.g. those who have chosen to have a tubal ligation!) can't use these services, yet they often wind up paying for them in their premiums. Men should be able to choose a plan that does not cover things like Viagra - or, if they choose, perhaps they do want "ED" coverage.

Source

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't care about the money. I care about people NOT being denied healthcare or given pre-existing conditions clauses. I care about people not being dropped from coverage when they need it the most, such as cancer.

Let the right wing jerk offs about money commence... you didn't seem to care about 2 endless occupations costing a trillion or the bailouts for corporations last september... Helping our own people? Nah!

You want to save money? You need the complete "socialist" single payer system and the elimination of private insurance. You willing to do that? If not, stfu about the money already.

How about we try to do both, bring down costs to the consumer while giving the consumer much easier, non-employment tied insurance. While we are at it, lets throw in getting rid of insurance companies refusing to sell coverage due to pre-existing conditions as well as preventing them from denying necessary non-elective procedures.

I love this guys plan but it probably has to much common sense to ever be considered. I have heard very few arguments as to why it wouldn't work and frankly, some of his ideas should have been made law years ago.

I commented on this article and its problems in the thread this was originally posted in.

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't care about the money. I care about people NOT being denied healthcare or given pre-existing conditions clauses. I care about people not being dropped from coverage when they need it the most, such as cancer.

Let the right wing jerk offs about money commence... you didn't seem to care about 2 endless occupations costing a trillion or the bailouts for corporations last september... Helping our own people? Nah!

You want to save money? You need the complete "socialist" single payer system and the elimination of private insurance. You willing to do that? If not, stfu about the money already.

How about we try to do both, bring down costs to the consumer while giving the consumer much easier, non-employment tied insurance. While we are at it, lets throw in getting rid of insurance companies refusing to sell coverage due to pre-existing conditions as well as preventing them from denying necessary non-elective procedures.

I love this guys plan but it probably has to much common sense to ever be considered. I have heard very few arguments as to why it wouldn't work and frankly, some of his ideas should have been made law years ago.

Look folks, you want to know why we have the health cost problems we have? I'll lay it out for you - in a way you can't refute or argue with:

1. There are no published prices. In no other line of work is it legal to do this. Nowhere. You can't sell someone a hot dog and tell them after they eat it what it just cost them. You can't hire a lawyer and have him tell you "I'll tell you what this will cost when we're done." You can't hire an electrician and have him tell you "I'll make up a bill when I'm done." In every line of work except health care, this is illegal. There are even laws for "major" consumer work (e.g. contracting, auto repair, etc) where they must give you a binding written estimate before beginning work!
2. Robinson-Patman makes it illegal to discriminate against like kind purchasers of goods in pricing decisions when the effect of doing so is to lessen competition. While it does not apply to services, it darn well should. Whether you are paying privately, you have private insurance or you're a Medicare patient if you need to have a breast reconstructed due to cancer the complexity of the procedure does not change. Yet it is a fact that the privately-billed amounts for uninsured ("rack rate") patients are often ten times or more that billed to insurers or Medicare. Try charging a cash purchaser 10x more for a TV than someone who finances that TV on your in-house credit facility and you would be shut down and thrown in jail.

#1 and #2 exist because of explicit efforts by the "health care" industry to exempt themselves from the laws that every other merchant of every other good and service in the United States must adhere to.

To put this bluntly the medical industry has intentionally put forward a system by which it can screw you with impunity, obtaining exemptions from the laws that cover every other area of commerce, thereby effectively forcing you to buy overpriced services you do not want to purchase lest an unexpected life event literally wipe you out.

This is an extortion racket and absolutely none of the proposals being put forward have done a thing to address any of it.

If we want to fix the health care pricing problem we can do so. It isn't very difficult. Here's the prescription:

1. All health care providers must publish a price list for the procedures and services they offer and the patient must be presented, when possible, with that information before services are performed or goods (e.g. medication) supplied, consenting to the charge in each case. All normal anti-trust provisions with regards to collusion between providers apply. If a physician doesn't like "flat-rate" billing they're free to publish a per-hour fee much like an attorney.
2. No physician or group may discriminate based on the form of any external payment. If they want to internally finance procedure(s), that's fine - they can charge interest or discount for that, or whatever. But for anyone who pays via any other means (including the government) money is money - the price may not change based on the source of payment.
3. No event caused by your presence in a medical facility or the actions of an employee there can come with cost to you. It is absolutely common for people to be billed for treatment of MRSA infections acquired in the hospital! That is equivalent to a mechanic that through incompetence or even malice cuts a wiring harness in your car while it is on the rack having the oil changed and then tries to charge you to fix what he broke!

Now clearly #1 doesn't work so well when you're unconscious due to a heart attack or just wrecking your car. But setting your broken leg or performing a cardiac procedure is something that's done for people who aren't incapacitated too, so guess what - the price is already published and thus the charge known.

This prevents the common practice of hospitals gouging private payers, it exposes prices and brings competition to pricing, and allows the free market to work. It ends the preference for "insurance" on routine procedures.

Next up, if you want to sell "insurance" in a market you must sell it to all persons in that market, defined as an area of at least one US State. You may discriminate in your pricing only based on age and gender - nothing else. If you sell that "insurance" product to any person you must sell to all persons within that state at the same price, and you must publish all your plans and offering prices.

"Insurance" products that are not true insurance products may not discriminate on reimbursement dependent on where the service is performed. The practice of requiring "in network" doctors or even hospitals lest you get "rejected" must end. In addition pre-qualification for any bona-fide non-elective procedure must be absolutely barred as a matter of law.

Finally, all providers of "insurance" must sell a true insurance product. Common HMO/PPO plans are not insurance - they are pre-paid medical care. Insurance is the purchase of a contract to cover damage caused by an unexpected event. Everyone needs health care of some form. Those who want to sell "pre-paid health plans" may do so, but they must also offer true insurance (e.g. covering ONLY hospitalization and related events, etc.)

These changes instantly destroy the connection between health "insurance" and employment. If you leave your job you have the absolute right to keep your health plan by continuing to pay for it. If you don't like your health plan or move out of the state you can buy any plan offered to anyone in your state, at your choice, for the same price they pay.

All mandates to provide specific services and products under "insurance" are federally preempted. Women should be able to choose a health plan that does not include abortion (and/or pre-natal!) services, for example, if they would never use either. Some women (e.g. those who have chosen to have a tubal ligation!) can't use these services, yet they often wind up paying for them in their premiums. Men should be able to choose a plan that does not cover things like Viagra - or, if they choose, perhaps they do want "ED" coverage.

Source

I think this guy has it right, except for the last part. Introduce too many choices to the uneducated and they'll get screwed over.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Hacp


I think this guy has it right, except for the last part. Introduce too many choices to the uneducated and they'll get screwed over.

copypasta from other thread with this article in it

Pretty good read. I dont agree with point #2, but whatever. The only problem I see is...lets say hospitals have a list of expenses. Do you, as the patient, sign off on this before accepting treatment? Who the hell is going to read it? No one will. Secondly, the "list" will simply be too long. Costs for procedures are not static. Two people going in for the exact same thing will have different costs associated with their care, based on two individual treatments. Sure, some things are static. For example, every doc Ive ever seen in the last 20 years has a standard flat rate for "checkups". And being a diabetic, Ive seen alot of docs. They all have it if you ask. But for hospital costs...its an unreasonable request IMHO.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Hacp


I think this guy has it right, except for the last part. Introduce too many choices to the uneducated and they'll get screwed over.

copypasta from other thread with this article in it

Pretty good read. I dont agree with point #2, but whatever. The only problem I see is...lets say hospitals have a list of expenses. Do you, as the patient, sign off on this before accepting treatment? Who the hell is going to read it? No one will.

Do you read the estimate when you bring your car to a mechanic? Should you have to sign off on it before they perform the work? Also, if you are allowed to choose true health insurance plans which cost much less per month but you pay more upfront for non-emergency stuff I guarantee people will be reading it. If they don't then sometimes stupid hurts.

Secondly, the "list" will simply be too long. Costs for procedures are not static. Two people going in for the exact same thing will have different costs associated with their care, based on two individual treatments.

Doesn't the Gov. pay set prices for certain procedures? Don't insurance companies negotiate prices for procedures? From what I understand the "lists" already exist except as it is now, they use multiple lists depending on who is paying. I agree that costs aren't static but since they already negotiate costs of procedures before they take place with insurance companies/.gov I can't imagine it would be that hard for them to come up with a pretty darn close estimate. If a doctor/hospital doesn't want to set a specific price for a procedure they are free to bill hourly like attorneys do.

Sure, some things are static. For example, every doc Ive ever seen in the last 20 years has a standard flat rate for "checkups". And being a diabetic, Ive seen alot of docs. They all have it if you ask. But for hospital costs...its an unreasonable request IMHO.

How so? For the most part they are already doing it except as it is now they have a ton of different "lists" they use to charge depending on who is paying the bill. BTW, why do you think it is ok to charge people more based solely on who is writing the check? The hospitals/doctors cost of performing the procedure doesn't change based on who signs the check so why should the consumers price change? Wouldn't this cut a lot of the doctors/hospitals overhead as billing becomes much simpler?

I am in construction and our costs are rarely static either but we still have to give an upfront estimate (and people do read it, believe it or not). Costs can often change during the course of the project but 90% of the time the final close is relatively close to the initial estimate.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Hacp

I think this guy has it right, except for the last part. Introduce too many choices to the uneducated and they'll get screwed over.

I partially agree. Look at all the dumbasses in NOLA who didn't have flood insurance because someone told them that they didn't need it on their homes that where below sea level and surrounded by water.

OTOH, he makes a good point. I don't NEED my medical insurance to cover boner pills. If I want to pay for that coverage, fine, but should I be forced to?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Hacp


I think this guy has it right, except for the last part. Introduce too many choices to the uneducated and they'll get screwed over.

copypasta from other thread with this article in it

Pretty good read. I dont agree with point #2, but whatever. The only problem I see is...lets say hospitals have a list of expenses. Do you, as the patient, sign off on this before accepting treatment? Who the hell is going to read it? No one will.

Do you read the estimate when you bring your car to a mechanic? Should you have to sign off on it before they perform the work? Also, if you are allowed to choose true health insurance plans which cost much less per month but you pay more upfront for non-emergency stuff I guarantee people will be reading it. If they don't then sometimes stupid hurts.

You dont? lol @ you then.

Secondly, the "list" will simply be too long. Costs for procedures are not static. Two people going in for the exact same thing will have different costs associated with their care, based on two individual treatments.

Doesn't the Gov. pay set prices for certain procedures? Don't insurance companies negotiate prices for procedures? From what I understand the "lists" already exist except as it is now, they use multiple lists depending on who is paying. I agree that costs aren't static but since they already negotiate costs of procedures before they take place with insurance companies/.gov I can't imagine it would be that hard for them to come up with a pretty darn close estimate. If a doctor/hospital doesn't want to set a specific price for a procedure they are free to bill hourly like attorneys do.

No. And not always.

Sure, some things are static. For example, every doc Ive ever seen in the last 20 years has a standard flat rate for "checkups". And being a diabetic, Ive seen alot of docs. They all have it if you ask. But for hospital costs...its an unreasonable request IMHO.

How so? For the most part they are already doing it except as it is now they have a ton of different "lists" they use to charge depending on who is paying the bill. BTW, why do you think it is ok to charge people more based solely on who is writing the check? The hospitals/doctors cost of performing the procedure doesn't change based on who signs the check so why should the consumers price change? Wouldn't this cut a lot of the doctors/hospitals overhead as billing becomes much simpler?

I am in construction and our costs are rarely static either but we still have to give an upfront estimate (and people do read it, believe it or not). Costs can often change during the course of the project but 90% of the time the final close is relatively close to the initial estimate.

Youre incredibly naive. If I come to you with a proposal for say, a house. And another guy comes to you with a proposal for say, the same house, with different interior (read: track home). Both estimates are going to be pretty close. Why? Because almost everything is predictable. As you said, things come up. But youre dealing with static issues. With medicine, its not that simple. Two thirty five year olds come in to the ER with a tummy ache. Where do we begin? Different medical backgrounds. Different lifestyles. You get where Im going here? What could at first appear to be indigestion could turn out to be a complicated appendicitis, on a hemophiliac who is allergic to heparin. The other guy might just have an upset tummy. Before admitting them both into ER, you gonna give them a list of "possibilities" first? You dont know ahead of time whether or not that visit will be $1000 or $30,000.

Get it? Its unrealistic.

 

[SigArms08]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't care about the money. I care about people NOT being denied healthcare or given pre-existing conditions clauses. I care about people not being dropped from coverage when they need it the most, such as cancer.

Let the right wing jerk offs about money commence... you didn't seem to care about 2 endless occupations costing a trillion or the bailouts for corporations last september... Helping our own people? Nah!

You want to save money? You need the complete "socialist" single payer system and the elimination of private insurance. You willing to do that? If not, stfu about the money already.

How about we try to do both, bring down costs to the consumer while giving the consumer much easier, non-employment tied insurance. While we are at it, lets throw in getting rid of insurance companies refusing to sell coverage due to pre-existing conditions as well as preventing them from denying necessary non-elective procedures.

I love this guys plan but it probably has to much common sense to ever be considered. I have heard very few arguments as to why it wouldn't work and frankly, some of his ideas should have been made law years ago.

Look folks, you want to know why we have the health cost problems we have? I'll lay it out for you - in a way you can't refute or argue with:

1. There are no published prices. In no other line of work is it legal to do this. Nowhere. You can't sell someone a hot dog and tell them after they eat it what it just cost them. You can't hire a lawyer and have him tell you "I'll tell you what this will cost when we're done." You can't hire an electrician and have him tell you "I'll make up a bill when I'm done." In every line of work except health care, this is illegal. There are even laws for "major" consumer work (e.g. contracting, auto repair, etc) where they must give you a binding written estimate before beginning work!
2. Robinson-Patman makes it illegal to discriminate against like kind purchasers of goods in pricing decisions when the effect of doing so is to lessen competition. While it does not apply to services, it darn well should. Whether you are paying privately, you have private insurance or you're a Medicare patient if you need to have a breast reconstructed due to cancer the complexity of the procedure does not change. Yet it is a fact that the privately-billed amounts for uninsured ("rack rate") patients are often ten times or more that billed to insurers or Medicare. Try charging a cash purchaser 10x more for a TV than someone who finances that TV on your in-house credit facility and you would be shut down and thrown in jail.

#1 and #2 exist because of explicit efforts by the "health care" industry to exempt themselves from the laws that every other merchant of every other good and service in the United States must adhere to.

To put this bluntly the medical industry has intentionally put forward a system by which it can screw you with impunity, obtaining exemptions from the laws that cover every other area of commerce, thereby effectively forcing you to buy overpriced services you do not want to purchase lest an unexpected life event literally wipe you out.

This is an extortion racket and absolutely none of the proposals being put forward have done a thing to address any of it.

If we want to fix the health care pricing problem we can do so. It isn't very difficult. Here's the prescription:

1. All health care providers must publish a price list for the procedures and services they offer and the patient must be presented, when possible, with that information before services are performed or goods (e.g. medication) supplied, consenting to the charge in each case. All normal anti-trust provisions with regards to collusion between providers apply. If a physician doesn't like "flat-rate" billing they're free to publish a per-hour fee much like an attorney.
2. No physician or group may discriminate based on the form of any external payment. If they want to internally finance procedure(s), that's fine - they can charge interest or discount for that, or whatever. But for anyone who pays via any other means (including the government) money is money - the price may not change based on the source of payment.
3. No event caused by your presence in a medical facility or the actions of an employee there can come with cost to you. It is absolutely common for people to be billed for treatment of MRSA infections acquired in the hospital! That is equivalent to a mechanic that through incompetence or even malice cuts a wiring harness in your car while it is on the rack having the oil changed and then tries to charge you to fix what he broke!

Now clearly #1 doesn't work so well when you're unconscious due to a heart attack or just wrecking your car. But setting your broken leg or performing a cardiac procedure is something that's done for people who aren't incapacitated too, so guess what - the price is already published and thus the charge known.

This prevents the common practice of hospitals gouging private payers, it exposes prices and brings competition to pricing, and allows the free market to work. It ends the preference for "insurance" on routine procedures.

Next up, if you want to sell "insurance" in a market you must sell it to all persons in that market, defined as an area of at least one US State. You may discriminate in your pricing only based on age and gender - nothing else. If you sell that "insurance" product to any person you must sell to all persons within that state at the same price, and you must publish all your plans and offering prices.

"Insurance" products that are not true insurance products may not discriminate on reimbursement dependent on where the service is performed. The practice of requiring "in network" doctors or even hospitals lest you get "rejected" must end. In addition pre-qualification for any bona-fide non-elective procedure must be absolutely barred as a matter of law.

Finally, all providers of "insurance" must sell a true insurance product. Common HMO/PPO plans are not insurance - they are pre-paid medical care. Insurance is the purchase of a contract to cover damage caused by an unexpected event. Everyone needs health care of some form. Those who want to sell "pre-paid health plans" may do so, but they must also offer true insurance (e.g. covering ONLY hospitalization and related events, etc.)

These changes instantly destroy the connection between health "insurance" and employment. If you leave your job you have the absolute right to keep your health plan by continuing to pay for it. If you don't like your health plan or move out of the state you can buy any plan offered to anyone in your state, at your choice, for the same price they pay.

All mandates to provide specific services and products under "insurance" are federally preempted. Women should be able to choose a health plan that does not include abortion (and/or pre-natal!) services, for example, if they would never use either. Some women (e.g. those who have chosen to have a tubal ligation!) can't use these services, yet they often wind up paying for them in their premiums. Men should be able to choose a plan that does not cover things like Viagra - or, if they choose, perhaps they do want "ED" coverage.

Source

Nice post, Darwin! Those are all excellent points that should be addressed when drafting legislation to overhaul our healthcare system. That ties into post-surgery patients who have those ultra-quick visits by other doctors and find said visits on the final bill, despite very little being done by that particular doctor (not talking about the main group of doctors that are involved). Feels like an uncontrollable money grab.

Another thing that I'd like to see is that available health care be the only plan, everybody equal with respect to the coverage that they have. That would include politicians, federal/state employees....all citizens. That might be a little more motivating for them to take some more much needed time in order to get it right instead of just rushing things through.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
--snip--

Save yourself time next time, copy/paste the following:

I was just trolling.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't care about the money. I care about people NOT being denied healthcare or given pre-existing conditions clauses. I care about people not being dropped from coverage when they need it the most, such as cancer.

Some of us care about both. You just do not get it and that is the biggest problem. You want to pass ANYTHING for the sake of passing SOMETHING. This is not a wise course of action and you have yet to refute the CBO's claims with anything other than your "insurance companies are evil, here are examples" chant. We get it -- you don't like them.

Let the right wing jerk offs about money commence... you didn't seem to care about 2 endless occupations costing a trillion or the bailouts for corporations last september... Helping our own people? Nah!

I don't want to derail the thread talking about the aforementioned occupations, but suffice it to say, many conservatives (me included, though I am NOT a Republican) were against the Iraq war/occupation. Furthermore, even Obama supported the bailouts so quit using that as an argument.

You want to save money? You need the complete "socialist" single payer system and the elimination of private insurance. You willing to do that? If not, stfu about the money already.

My insurance is just fine and I don't think that I (or the 80% of insured people who are happy with their insurance) should be forced to accept something else to insure the 20% of the population that is not insured, especially when I've seen numbers indicating that as many as 1/3 of those can afford their own insurance. I think there is a better solution.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I don't care about the money. I care about people NOT being denied healthcare or given pre-existing conditions clauses. I care about people not being dropped from coverage when they need it the most, such as cancer.

Let the right wing jerk offs about money commence... you didn't seem to care about 2 endless occupations costing a trillion or the bailouts for corporations last september... Helping our own people? Nah!

You want to save money? You need the complete "socialist" single payer system and the elimination of private insurance. You willing to do that? If not, stfu about the money already.

Oh kinda like the oft praised Taiwanese system? Like that?

Check out what that did to their deficit and get back to us will ya?

 

[Genx87]

Why cant we try a high deductible public option? Why do we need to provide top care for 15 dollar copays?

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why cant we try a high deductible public option? Why do we need to provide top care for 15 dollar copays?

Because the whole reason this is an issue is the "uninsured" are the new soft spot for America. Now, I have read reports that show of our uninsured, about 55% are actually low income/unemployed. The rest are uninsured by choice (but thats another thread). So, the real target for this healthcare deal is the poor. They cant afford high premiums. Sorry for the long answer. And people think the poor should have the same level of care the rich do.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why cant we try a high deductible public option? Why do we need to provide top care for 15 dollar copays?

Because the whole reason this is an issue is the "uninsured" are the new soft spot for America. Now, I have read reports that show of our uninsured, about 55% are actually low income/unemployed. The rest are uninsured by choice (but thats another thread). So, the real target for this healthcare deal is the poor. They cant afford high premiums. Sorry for the long answer. And people think the poor should have the same level of care the rich do.

I am not looking for high premiums, but high deductibles. 1500-3000 depending on income range.

I'd expect even the working poor can or should afford 1500\year. That is about 130 a month in health costs. I dont know of a hospital that wont work with them on that.

Bottom line if we are treating a risk tool like an entitlement and wondering why we cant control costs.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Genx87
Why cant we try a high deductible public option? Why do we need to provide top care for 15 dollar copays?

Because the whole reason this is an issue is the "uninsured" are the new soft spot for America. Now, I have read reports that show of our uninsured, about 55% are actually low income/unemployed. The rest are uninsured by choice (but thats another thread). So, the real target for this healthcare deal is the poor. They cant afford high premiums. Sorry for the long answer. And people think the poor should have the same level of care the rich do.

I am not looking for high premiums, but high deductibles. 1500-3000 depending on income range.

I'd expect even the working poor can or should afford 1500\year. That is about 130 a month in health costs. I dont know of a hospital that wont work with them on that.

Bottom line if we are treating a risk tool like an entitlement and wondering why we cant control costs.

My bad. Misunderstood :beer:

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

$1 trillion to save $2 billion over 10 years...sweet! Who the hell came up with this deal? Looks like it's time to go back to the drawing board.

 

[JayhaVVKU]

Burn it down, hit the reset button, start from scratch, and insert any similar cliche here.

The problems with health care will not be fixed by slapping a band-aid on it. The problem is with health care is a social problem. People still see it as a commodity to be paid for like electricity, gas, and rent.

Health care should be a right. Eliminate the profit aspects. Give doctor's quality wages and great incentives to be doctors. Fund it with taxpayer money at a fraction of what individuals pay for current health premiums. Get rid of the pharma stranglehold on pricing. Regulate it.

Presto!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU
Burn it down, hit the reset button, start from scratch, and insert any similar cliche here.

The problems with health care will not be fixed by slapping a band-aid on it. The problem is with health care is a social problem. People still see it as a commodity to be paid for like electricity, gas, and rent.

Health care should be a right. Eliminate the profit aspects. Give doctor's quality wages and great incentives to be doctors. Fund it with taxpayer money at a fraction of what individuals pay for current health premiums. Get rid of the pharma stranglehold on pricing. Regulate it.

Presto!

Sounds great! Where do I sign? /s

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU
Burn it down, hit the reset button, start from scratch, and insert any similar cliche here.

The problems with health care will not be fixed by slapping a band-aid on it. The problem is with health care is a social problem. People still see it as a commodity to be paid for like electricity, gas, and rent.

Health care should be a right. Eliminate the profit aspects. Give doctor's quality wages and great incentives to be doctors. Fund it with taxpayer money at a fraction of what individuals pay for current health premiums. Get rid of the pharma stranglehold on pricing. Regulate it.

Presto!

Sounds great! Where do I sign? /s

Probably will have to wait for current system to collapse for this type of single payer plan to happen. The healthcare industry is not going to take a 40% pay cut without a fight. These are people accustomed to taking 18% cut of GDP, eager to expand it to 20%, they won't settle for 10% like other countries.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: JayhaVVKU
Burn it down, hit the reset button, start from scratch, and insert any similar cliche here.

The problems with health care will not be fixed by slapping a band-aid on it. The problem is with health care is a social problem. People still see it as a commodity to be paid for like electricity, gas, and rent.

Health care should be a right. Eliminate the profit aspects. Give doctor's quality wages and great incentives to be doctors. Fund it with taxpayer money at a fraction of what individuals pay for current health premiums. Get rid of the pharma stranglehold on pricing. Regulate it.

Presto!

Sounds great! Where do I sign? /s

Probably will have to wait for current system to collapse for this type of single payer plan to happen. The healthcare industry is not going to take a 40% pay cut without a fight. These are people accustomed to taking 18% cut of GDP, eager to expand it to 20%, they won't settle for 10% like other countries.

I hope we can get something constructive done in the next year or two. Maybe we should start with reform and see how far that takes us before doing something stupid and spending trillions on a half-baked plan that won't stand the light of day.

 

[StageLeft]

I hope he doesn't bend. If he doesn't, I wonder if he'll need a new job soon.

 

[owensdj]

I wouldn't mind seeing Congress wait a year or more if that's what it takes to get health care reform right. Passing something that doesn't work would be worse than doing nothing. It would be more fuel for the "UHC doesn't work" people.

Taiwan did a ton of research on what works and what doesn't in other nations' health care when they implemented UHC back in 1995. They extended coverage to every citizen while only spending 6.3% of GNP on health care compared to 17% in the USA. Congress should take Taiwan's system and tweak it to get it working even better.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: owensdj
I wouldn't mind seeing Congress wait a year or more if that's what it takes to get health care reform right. Passing something that doesn't work would be worse than doing nothing. It would be more fuel for the "UHC doesn't work" people.

Taiwan did a ton of research on what works and what doesn't in other nations' health care when they implemented UHC back in 1995. They extended coverage to every citizen while only spending 6.3% of GNP on health care compared to 17% in the USA. Congress should take Taiwan's system and tweak it to get it working even better.

i just read in the newspaper that pelosi said "it WILL be passed."

ugh, dear christ we're going to get ruined if it does.