Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Public Option Health Care - Not An Option  
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2743 times:

Remember when Obama said this?

"No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people," Obama said Monday, addressing the American Medical Association. "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

He didn't let up.

"If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...UACQa5gEv1cZ-SRxXDc3XDwRwD98TPSP80

This is what he's been saying for months - giving people the idea that you will be able to choose the public option or stay in private insurance.

Not so.

Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.

When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.

...

What wasn’t known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=332548165656854

So after a few years, after people have churned out of their jobs into another one, they will be forced into the public "option". As we warned, this is nothing more than an attempt to gain control over the entire health system, and to ration health care.

Oh yeah, and the idea that this is supposed to reduce the cost of health care?

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them. Elmendorf was asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.S., if the bills Congress is considering would "bend the cost curve." The budget director responded: "The curve is being raised."

Subsidies to help uninsured people would raise federal health care spending, which is already growing at an unsustainable rate, Elmendorf explained at a hearing. The Medicare and Medicaid cuts that lawmakers have offered to pay for the coverage expansion aren't big enough to offset the cost trend, particularly in the long term, he said.

Congress is moving forward nonetheless.


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...pJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD99FJ7IG0

So tell me, Obama voters, how many of you really wanted this?


Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

Please provide a link to the actual proposed bill, as I am not willing to take a conservative editorial's word for it.


I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2710 times:

An article full of conjecture, nothing else.

Sorry, Charles, but that isn't convincing to anyone, as far as I'm concerned.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2702 times:



Quote:
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-CommentsClose CommentsPermalink

5
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text

That's the section the article is talking about. If that's what this mumble jumbo means, and I haven't read the rest of the mumble jumbo so I can't say if that's the case, it's a very Bolivarian-Hugo Chavez-like bill. And so much for civil liberties.

But, I have not read beyond the section quoted above.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2697 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
So after a few years, after people have churned out of their jobs into another one, they will be forced into the public "option". As we warned, this is nothing more than an attempt to gain control over the entire health system, and to ration health care.

You'd have done yourself a favor, Charles, to have read the text of the bill, conveniently located online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...health-care-bill-fu_n_234372.html. In context, the portion of text quoted by the editorial is part of a page-and-a-half definition of the term "grandfathered health insurance coverage." So all it says is the rather obvious point that only policies made before the law goes into effect are considered "grandfathered," though I don't have time to find how grandfathered policies are treated differently. I'd guess they're exempt from any of the law's new provisions.

And hey, PPVRA was nice enough to quote the text for me, even if he couldn't be bothered to figure out what it meant.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2688 times:

Yellowstone, Huffington isn't a legit source. Go find it on FOX and Charles will give it some thought.  Big grin

User currently offlineTransIsland From Bahamas, joined Mar 2004, 2046 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2679 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
So all it says is the rather obvious point that only policies made before the law goes into effect are considered "grandfathered," though I don't have time to find how grandfathered policies are treated differently. I'd guess they're exempt from any of the law's new provisions.

Thanks, PPVRA & Yellowstone. From my reading, I understand this to mean that:

1. You are indeed allowed to keep your old insurance.

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
"If you like what you're getting, keep it," Obama said. "Nobody is forcing you to shift."

 checkmark 

2. You can still get new private plans, but these have to comply with minimum standards set down in this bill, whereas the "grandfathered" plans need not match these standards.

Arguably, there are private plans now that exceed these standards, and you can still get those, however, there are now plans that "really suck"* - and these would no longer be offered to new customers, yet existing customers may keep them, if they so decide.


* For instance, my old plan (previous job) wouldn't pay for x-rays if your bone wasn't broken. So when a doctor suspected that my son may have broken his arm and took an x-ray to find out that fortunately it wasn't broken, I was stuck with the bill. Upon asking the insurance how else the doc could've diagnosed, they didn't know an answer.  banghead 



I'm an aviation expert. I have Sky Juice for breakfast.
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2640 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):

Don't you think that if the "public option" were in fact not optional at all, more media outlets would be covering it?


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
You'd have done yourself a favor, Charles, to have read the text of the bill, conveniently located online at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0...health-care-bill-fu_n_234372.html.

I clicked on the link but section 102 is not elaborated on.

Quoting Max550 (Reply 7):
Don't you think that if the "public option" were in fact not optional at all, more media outlets would be covering it?

It is an option. As time goes by it appears it will be increasingly the only option. I have yet to be able to get the time to read the section but it won't surprise me if that's the way it reads. There is only one way the government option can be viable and that is to crowd out the private companies. Governments never like competition.

[Edited 2009-07-16 20:16:56]

User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13120 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2630 times:

One problem I have with the Public Option, is that many employers, especially smaller businesses will ditch their offering private insurance and tell their workers to get on to the Public Option plan, saving money and not having to worry about the administration costs.

To me what seems to be developing is something I believe Australia has had for decades, that you can go choose a Public Option plan or have private insurance coverage.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8296 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2618 times:



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 9):
To me what seems to be developing is something I believe Australia has had for decades, that you can go choose a Public Option plan or have private insurance coverage.

There are some very good parts to the Aussie system. I lived there when Labour started their Medicare and it was about 2% Medicare Tax and $4 prescriptions. There are a couple of things I disagreed with. The first was the Labour Government banning gap insurance policies at the start.

Then your taxes didn't pay any part of private care. You could go to the local doctor without a problem and generally get a reasonably priced prescription. If you needed to go to the hospital your family doc would send you and you would then get another doctor, a specialist or a "hospitalist".

The "hospitalist" term is one I borrowed from my wife's doctor's group. They found that it is cheaper to have doctors stay in hospitals and the office docs to stay in the office. And this is an expensive US medical group - not some foreign game being played.

Private insurance at that time was a fraction of the cost it was here - simply because it wasn't jacked up in price to cover those without insurance.

As far as the comments on grandfathering, I really wouldn't worry too much. I can see some give on policies that have pre-existing conditions limitations - for a while at lest.

I can also see insurance companies doing very well, thank you, by providing gap policies like they do with Medicare already. There are some very good profits to be made there and only fools will pass it up.


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2563 times:



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 3):
But, I have not read beyond the section quoted above

No offense, but that site darn near crushed my computer twice. Here's another link to the bill for anyone else having similar problems.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/aahca.pdf

Starting on page 16 the bill says:



1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER
18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be
26 fore the first day of Y1.

VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:TEMPAAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:P11NHI
17


1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without
5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
7 Commissioner.
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
9 BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
14 riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require
17 ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS
21 PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
22 an employment-based health plan in which the
23 coverage consists only of one or more of the fol
24 lowing:


VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 C:TEMPAAHCA0~1.XML HOLCPC
July 14, 2009 (12:51 p.m.)
F:P11NHITRICOMM


18
1 (i) Any coverage described in section
2 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the
3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
4 of 2009 (PL 111–5).
5 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in
6 section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement
7 Income Security Act of 1974), including
8 coverage under a specified disease or ill
9 ness policy described in paragraph (3)(A)
10 of such section.
11 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the
12 Commissioner may specify.
13 In no case shall an employment-based health
14 plan in which the coverage consists only of one
15 or more of the coverage or benefits described in
16 clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable
17 coverage under this division
18 (2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPT
19 ABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified
20 in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health
21 plan that is described in such paragraph shall be
22 treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
24 COVERAGE.—


VerDate Nov 24 2008 12:51 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO


(1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance
2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered
4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par
5 ticipating health benefits plan.
6 (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PER
7 MITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section
8 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not
9 included within the definition of health insurance
10 coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the
11 offering, other than through the Health Insurance
12 Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is of
13 fered and priced separately from health insurance
14 coverage.




The whole section is a restricition on private coverage. Your plan is grandfathered but the insurance company is restricted from, enrolling new persons under that plan, cannot change coverage, raise premiums without a "commissioners" (read kommissar) approval, and after 5 years any grandfathered employment plan must start to mirror the essential benefit package under section 121, most likely whatever that may be at that time. Several references are made to "whatever the commissioner may decide" which means that there is no rule.

It also says that certain coverages shall not be considered coverage at all and will not be grandfathered.

This is the section where you see your coverage, the coverage that you may like and want, going up in smoke. It's the section that will be used to batter private insurance into submission and most likely near extinction.


User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2547 times:



Quoting DXing (Reply 11):
This is the section where you see your coverage, the coverage that you may like and want, going up in smoke. It's the section that will be used to batter private insurance into submission and most likely near extinction.

Only if you like and want less than the minimum coverage.
Your health plan will only be "grandfathered" if it doesn't meet the new standards of care. Most people who are happy with their health insurance have insurance that exceeds the new minimums so there is no need for them to be "grandfathered" in.
Basically it sets a minimum standard for health insurance in the future, just like most states do with car insurance. If you're happy with your health insurance now you can keep that as long as it meets the minimum standards.

I don't really see what the problem here is unless there really are a lot of people that want to keep coverage that doesn't meet the minimum standards.


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2527 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 12):
Only if you like and want less than the minimum coverage.

That's the problem. It's not minimum coverage, but a mandate for Deluxe Gold-Plated Coverage, which will be damned more expensive than many people will be willing to pay. Read the bill. These are the required coverages:

(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic
services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other
health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies inci4
dent to the services of a physician’s or a health pro
fessional’s delivery of care in institutional settings,
physician offices, patients’ homes or place of resi
dence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services.
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder
services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services
recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task
Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those
vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral
health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and
supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

This is too much. If I were to design a minimum coverage package, I would keep it down to:
(1) Hospitalization.
(2) Outpatient hospital and outpatient clinic
services, including emergency department services.
(3) Professional services of physicians and other
health professionals.
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies inci4
dent to the services of a physician’s or a health pro
fessional’s delivery of care in institutional settings,
physician offices, patients’ homes or place of resi
dence, or other settings, as appropriate.

(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services. Accident only
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder
services.

(8) Preventive services, including those services
recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task
Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those
vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral
health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and
supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.


And tack on a $5,000 minimum - i.e. you have to spend the first $5,000 before the insurance pays a dime. That should keep the price down to $100 per month or so, because it would be designed to only kick in for serious illnesses and hospitalization, and not for every runny nose. Most people faced with a $5K bill will be able to arrange some sort of payment schedule. Maternity is voluntary. Substance abuse is voluntary. Mental Health - get a hanky and stop blubbering - we are talking about essential health coverage, not helping you deal with the death of your dog when you were a child.

But this excessive coverage is not surprising. It's supposed to be expensive so that more people will bail out of it and become dependant on the government program.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11380 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2525 times:



Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 9):
One problem I have with the Public Option, is that many employers, especially smaller businesses will ditch their offering private insurance and tell their workers to get on to the Public Option plan, saving money and not having to worry about the administration costs.

If that is the case (and I believe you to be correct), then the Public Option is pro-business, is it not? This is one of the primary reasons I'm for it.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2519 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):

I would love to have a debate on health care. I think that's exactly what we need more of. People should be sharing their ideas for reform.
However, I will not debate it in this thread, because this thread is not about ideas for health care, but rather a provision in the bill which is falsely claimed to not allow private insurance to be sold.
Start a new topic and I'll be more than happy to debate what we should and should require insurance companies to cover.


User currently offlineN867DA From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1008 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2518 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder
services.

I am always amazed that mental health is not covered under most insurance plans.



A nation turns its lonely eyes to you
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2518 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 14):
If that is the case (and I believe you to be correct), then the Public Option is pro-business, is it not? This is one of the primary reasons I'm for it.

Not when small business owners are going to get hit with an additional 6% or so in income tax, which is in the bill. Corporate income tax is also headed north (not sure how much.

I'm all for eliminating the link between people's health insurance and their employers. That was something companies came up with in WWII to attract talent while there were salary freezes in place during the war. Not it has grown into a monster.

I've had a number of discussions with my CEO and the board, and if this goes through we will probably dump our employee health plan, simply to save some money short term. But I hate the idea - we have a fantastic plan, and it's not very expensive. In the end, we'll have to pay the bill through taxes anyway, and it will end up being more expensive.

Can anyone name me one single thing that got cheaper because the government got involved?



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2512 times:



Quoting Max550 (Reply 15):
I would love to have a debate on health care. I think that's exactly what we need more of. People should be sharing their ideas for reform.

Tell Nancy Pelosi and the other hard-lefties in Congress. When they were finalizing the bill the other day, even blue-dogs (moderate Democrats, for foreigners here) were not allowed in the room, let alone Republicans. They don't want productive ideas - they have an agenda to kill private insurance and control health care for all of us - everything else is incidental to them, it appears, including the plan's effectiveness in treating people's illnesses or controling costs. I honestly think they don't care a rat's ass about those two issues.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6598 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2507 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
ontrol health care for all of us



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
cluding the plan's effectiveness in treating people's illnesses or controling costs. I

How does that differ from your run of the mill HMO?

When has HMOs been the "Horn of Plenty"?

[Edited 2009-07-17 11:18:01]


Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11380 posts, RR: 52
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2504 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Not when small business owners are going to get hit with an additional 6% or so in income tax, which is in the bill.

And you think these businesses are paying less than 6% for their employees' health care right now?

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Can anyone name me one single thing that got cheaper because the government got involved?

Roads. BIG example that you use every day.

And what does "cheaper" have to do with it? The issue is not so much about cost as it is about access. You do realize that there is a vast amount of people who do not have access to insurance at all right now, right?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2497 times:



Quoting Mt99 (Reply 19):
How does that differ from your run of the mill HMO?

Personally I have never had any experience with an HMO, so I can't really say. But I would remind you that HMOs were another brilliant idea of the federal government back in the 70s. More precisely, HMOs existed before then, but the market saw that they didn't work very well and they had all but disappeared until the government decided that they would force companies and insurances to offer them in the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8847 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2485 times:



Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
And you think these businesses are paying less than 6% for their employees' health care right now?

They will have to pay (as I recall) 8% for not offering their own health insurance PLUS 6% additional income tax. Sorry, I should have been more precise.

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
Roads. BIG example that you use every day.

I bet if I, personally, wanted to build 1 mile of road, I could do it better and more efficiently than if the government did it. But then we can't really know because the government is really the only entity that builds roads. There are basically 2 things that ONLY government can do better than private industry - the military and roads/Infrastructure (simply because private individuals would not build them).

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
And what does "cheaper" have to do with it? The issue is not so much about cost as it is about access.

Hasn't Obama always said that he wanted to reduce the cost of health care? Or are you saying "only for some of us"?

Quoting D L X (Reply 20):
You do realize that there is a vast amount of people who do not have access to insurance at all right now, right?

And as I've said, there are other ways to fix that without resorting to government-managed health care. Government-regulated, ok, government-managed and paid for, no way.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1151 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2466 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 18):
Tell Nancy Pelosi and the other hard-lefties in Congress. When they were finalizing the bill the other day, even blue-dogs (moderate Democrats, for foreigners here) were not allowed in the room, let alone Republicans.

Unfortunately I lack the connections to tell her that. The blue-dogs are the ones who should tell her that though, since the Democrats only have 203 members without their votes. If they vote with the Republicans the bill will fail.


User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8296 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2432 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
(4) Such services, equipment, and supplies inci4
dent to the services of a physician’s or a health pro
fessional’s delivery of care in institutional settings,
physician offices, patients’ homes or place of resi
dence, or other settings, as appropriate.
(5) Prescription drugs.
(6) Rehabilitative and habilitative services. Accident only
(7) Mental health and substance use disorder
services.
(8) Preventive services, including those services
recommended with a grade of A or B by the Task
Force on Clinical Preventive Services and those
vaccines recommended for use by the Director of the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
(9) Maternity care.
(10) Well baby and well child care and oral
health, vision, and hearing services, equipment, and
supplies at least for children under 21 years of age.

Equipment used in the home? Oxygen? How many people do you want to deny that before the shit hits the fan?

Rehab from accidents only? My wife was a physical therapist and treated a lot of stroke patients. Guess they don't get help. Or those having hip/knee replacements?

Mental/addictive hep denied? Our representative to DC just had help for his booze problem. But he's a conservative so I guess he is covered.

Or would it be useful to determine what is cheaper - taking care of addiction or just let it continue?

As for maternity and babies - even conservative politicians kiss babies.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 13):
And tack on a $5,000 minimum - i.e. you have to spend the first $5,000 before the insurance pays a dime. That should keep the price down to $100 per month or so,

Maybe make the deductible something like 3-5% of the family's adjusted gross income - that way people will get the care they need without bankruptcy.

As for a $100 per month premium, forget it unless you're looking at Medicare. I dropped about $1,200 a month on health insurance before medicare and we basically got jackshit for coverage. But then I didn't have a sugar daddy employer taking care of me.

Quoting D L X (Reply 14):
If that is the case (and I believe you to be correct), then the Public Option is pro-business, is it not? This is one of the primary reasons I'm for it.

A pro-business version could be developed, but conservatives would fight it tooth and nail. No way for that for some years,.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
But I hate the idea - we have a fantastic plan, and it's not very expensive.

For you or your employer? Shit happens and things change so you should look for long term safety. Like coverage if you become unemployed or disabled and face a lot of medical care.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 17):
Can anyone name me one single thing that got cheaper because the government got involved?

Old folks medical care. It's called Medicare and it sure works for me.  Smile

I even have private gap insurance and am amazed at how well private insurance companies work with Medicare. I guess they don't want you to know how well it works.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 22):
I bet if I, personally, wanted to build 1 mile of road, I could do it better and more efficiently than if the government did it. But then we can't really know because the government is really the only entity that builds roads. There are basically 2 things that ONLY government can do better than private industry - the military and roads/Infrastructure (simply because private individuals would not build them).

There are some private freeways in Houston. All you need to travel on them is the electronic sticker that takes your money every time you travel. No free lunch there.


25 PPVRA : None taken. It was probably the sheer size of the bill that caused problems. But yes, they want to regulate the hell out of us and tell you what you
26 DXing : Name a private company that has the right of eminent domain? To build the interstate system whole neighborhoods, in relatively good shape, in cities
27 Post contains links Melpax : The Medicare Levy is now 1.5% of your taxable income. However if your income is over $70K a year for singles or around $140K a year for families and
28 Flighty : Here that would be $600-$1500 per month for something like that. The larger figure would be for a family.
29 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Which is something most Congressmen and Senators have not, and will not do. Not even their staffs will read this bill. You do know that while Congres
30 Dreadnought : Don't exagurate. It varies from state to state. Here in Kentucky we pay around $250 for a single and $700 for a full family, for a fully loaded polic
31 D L X : You don't need eminent domain to build roads. All of the historical roads were toll roads built by private industry, including good chunks of our cur
32 Flighty : Wow. That is pretty good. But, it's much cheaper than my last corporate insurance in another low-cost state. I thought around double that would be ba
33 DXing : Not a single piece of interstate in my home state of Ohio was built with private funds. If you mean built by private industry as in the land being le
34 Yellowstone : Now you're just making crap up. You have absolutely no evidence to support that claim.
35 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : In addition to that, everyone in the US is eligable to buy into COBRA, those costs are fixed by the federal government,at $450 for single, and $650 f
36 Mt99 : COBRA runs out after a period .. no?
37 Post contains links D L X : That doesn't mean that nowhere in the country was a road that eventually became part of the Interstate system not privately owned, operated, and cons
38 DXing : Nor did I make such a claim. I spoke to the roads I know of. However, I would be willing to wager, prior to doing any research at all, that the vast
39 D L X : I wouldn't disagree with you, but that would only strength my point. Government does roads better (more efficiently) than private industry, in most c
40 Post contains links DXing : What is a fuel tax if not a hidden toll? http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...overnment_really_make_more_in.html One thing that fact check does not
41 Blackbird : Is it actually true that Obama's Healthcare program actually in one way or another condones euthanasia? That can be badly abused...
42 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal...nt_population_of_the_United_States Additionally, that is the estimate used by the US Congress, DHS, and the st
43 Post contains links Texan : Interesting article about the ethics of the debate: http://ethicist.blogs.nytimes.com/20...how-not-to-talk-about-health-care/ Texan
44 KC135TopBoom : This is a very good artical. I am finally impressed with a story in the NY Times.
45 Yellowstone : Which is why it lowers costs for those who find themselves needing more health care. On the other hand, there are also people who use less health car
46 KC135TopBoom : So, a not for profit health care system run by the US Government will work better? I don't think so, look at what they have done with Medicare and Me
47 Max550 : Where does it say that in the bill?
48 Dreadnought : It's a natural consequence of such a system, when controlling costs becomes the priority of the bureaucrats in charge rather than pleasing a paying c
49 D L X : Sooo.... then it's the natural consequence of all insurance then, correct? ESPECIALLY private insurance that is beholden to shareholders and fiduciar
50 DXing : ???? If I pay $6000 a year for 5 years towards a health care insurance policy and over that 5 years don't get sick, yet at the end of the 5th year en
51 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Here is the Sernate version of the bill, look it up yourself. I'll bet your Representitive and seantors have not read it. http://docs.house.gov/edlab
52 Dreadnought : You misunderstand. Insurance companies have a profit motive but is tempered by competition, and the fact that if they screw with people too much, the
53 Mt99 : Can you sue ur HMO? Not sure if true, but i heard that everyone is happy with the bill: drug companies, doctors, hospitals. Everyone expect Insurance
54 D L X : Really? You make a claim, get challenged, then literally ask us to go find your needle in your haystack? Perhaps. I'm much more about economics than
55 Max550 : I've already read at least half of the bill. I didn't see it in there. Since you made the claim that care for anyone over 50 will be rationed, I'd li
56 Dreadnought : They will cut costs in all the wrong places. They won't mind spending 50% of their budget on overhead, and won't bat an eye when a supplier bills the
57 D L X : So, you think they will be cutthroat "because they can?" That's FOD.
58 Mt99 : And that makes them different from your HMO .. how? Maybe they will parse our medical benefits depending on political affiliation. Remember they clos
59 FlyPNS1 : So do airlines, but they almost uniformly treat customers poorly. How many people switch between airlines, yet service has not improved? The same is
60 Yellowstone : You'd have been better off, but what about all the people who paid 6k a year and didn't have to have the operation? In order for the insurance compan
61 Post contains links Dreadnought : Almost certainly it would be cheaper. But do you want to run the risk? Would you drive your new car without insurance, knowing that if you (or someon
62 Post contains links Dreadnought : Oh, and for those who still think that the government can buy for cheaper: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...s.-of-ham-for-1.2m-2009-07-20.html "
63 Mt99 : Does your local grocery store carry 400 tons of ham? Just thinking aloud here, but maybe the increase in price is due to to the fact that it could be
64 Dreadnought : I think we have just sorted out why some people buy into socialist ideology and ideas - they haven't a clue about wholesale/retail/bulk purchases and
65 Mt99 : Well i was being facetious of course with my example. But go to the grocery store and tell them than you want 400 tones tomorrow not in few days. The
66 Yellowstone : Of course not. My remarks were in response to DXing's claim back in post 40 that insurance lowers the cost of a service, which it doesn't. It provide
67 DXing : You answered your own question. That's only partially true. In order to keep from going bankrupt it has to make more than it pays out. Premiums are o
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will Canada Phase Out Public Health Care? posted Tue Jan 24 2006 20:47:32 by AerospaceFan
Not-so-universal Health Care In Canada? posted Sat Jun 11 2005 00:38:17 by SQuared
Still Want Government Health Care? posted Thu Mar 19 2009 09:19:27 by Dreadnought
Idea For Lowering The Cost Of Health Care posted Fri Oct 17 2008 08:21:13 by Dreadnought
Why Is Socialism A Bad Word In US Health Care? posted Sat Nov 10 2007 07:41:34 by Mbj-11
Bush Threatens Poor Children's Health Care posted Mon Sep 24 2007 17:11:54 by B752fanatic
Hillary's New Health Care Program. posted Mon Sep 17 2007 08:26:02 by FXramper
Obama's "Universal" Health Care Plan posted Wed May 30 2007 03:26:10 by Aa757first
Dangers Of Government Health Care posted Wed Mar 28 2007 13:42:10 by Cfalk
Your Health Care Costs? posted Wed Mar 21 2007 23:27:13 by AA787823