LipeGIG
Topic Author
Posts: 5050
Joined: Tue May 03, 2005 7:33 am

Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:38 pm

Continuation of part I, which become too long:
Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress (by UAL747 Sep 9 2009 in Non Aviation)
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:20 am

A friend of mine, just got out of the hospital, self employed. 3 days for a stomach infection, treated with Antibiotics only, no surgery. Tests etc, plus room etc. 17 thousand some odd dollars, he just told me today, local county hospital. How can this continue? I would say, something has to be done. Who says we do not need reform? In the paper today in R.I. Visit to ER, timed by family, from the time the Doctor looked at the patient, prescibed the medicine and discharged him they figured $ 22 a second by the amount on bill. $1320 an hour at $22 per second.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
asuflyer05
Posts: 2054
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 8:53 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:42 am

I spent less than 24 hours in the hospital last year for some lower abdomen pain. 2 cat scans, anti-biotics, a surgical consult and a night in the hospital rang up $8,500.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:52 am



Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 2):
I spent less than 24 hours in the hospital last year for some lower abdomen pain. 2 cat scans, anti-biotics, a surgical consult and a night in the hospital rang up $8,500.

Staggering amount. Based on 24 hours = $354 Per Hour = $5.90 per second, or close to it.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
WestWing
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:01 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:02 am

There was a news report about a woman from San Francisco who discovered she was bleeding from her breast nipple, and her shirt was soaked with blood. So her husband took her to an emergency room.

The insurance company (Blue Shield of California) refused to pay the ER bills, saying that the patient ought to have known that her symptoms were not an emergency situation.

Only after a TV station (KPIX) did a story exposing this, did the insurance company agree to pay.

Sad, really sad.

On a positive note, while the doctors at the ER initially thought it was cancer a later a biopsy revealed the good news that it was not
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
 
austinairport
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:56 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:33 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 1):
$1320 an hour at $22 per second.

And the sad thing is, Republican senators have been quoted telling people to pretty much just suck it up, and deal with it.
Sad time for America.
I don't see how anyone can justify being on the Republican side of this debate. I mean honestly folks, lets grow up a little.

I love the Right-wing commercial that suggest that the left is totally wrong and the we should reform healthcare the "Right" way.
So that means we do nothing at all? LOL.
That's all I get out of that commercial.
Whoever said you can do anything you set your mind to has obviously never tried to slam a revolving door!!!
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:26 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 1):
Tests etc



Quoting Asuflyer05 (Reply 2):
2 cat scans, a surgical consult

How many of these tests were CYA tests to keep from getting sued I wonder?

Quoting WestWing (Reply 4):
The insurance company (Blue Shield of California) refused to pay the ER bills, saying that the patient ought to have known that her symptoms were not an emergency situation.

She probably should have. How much blood was she losing? She actually did not realize she was bleeding until her shirt was soaked? No one else noticed her shirt becoming stained? I find this story a little incredulous. How about a link?

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 5):

And the sad thing is, Republican senators have been quoted telling people to pretty much just suck it up, and deal with it.

How about a link to those quotes?

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 5):
I don't see how anyone can justify being on the Republican side of this debate. I mean honestly folks, lets grow up a little.

I don't see how anyone can be on the democratic side of this debate given the fact that medicare is going broke. Yet somehow if we give the government even more of a strangle hold over us somehow things will get even better?

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 5):
So that means we do nothing at all?

Nope, the GOP has had several good reform ideas not only this year but in years past. Unfortunately since there was no President of the same party in office the past 3 years there was not impetus to do anything since they wouldn't get credit. Before that no matter what the President suggested it wasn't enough or the democrats said "no".

The funny part, well not so funny for you, is that you are on the leading edge of the age group that is going to start bearing an ever larger tax burden to support those baby boomers as they hit the real retirement years starting next year when those born in 1945 hit 65. My tax burden at your age 10 years from now was nothing compared to what yours will be.

From the previous thread:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 351):
And increase the costs for all taxpayers? Sure, why not?

It looks like you're supporting increased spending for seniors (thank you very much!) and I would assume that would include even if your taxes go up to pay for it.

I won't post individual replies as that would take too much time. Anything extra above and beyond 75% of the benchmark price has to be returned to the beneficiaries as extra service or in the form of cash rebates. Simply put, your claim, and the Presidents, that the insurance companies are just raking in the profits is now debunked. According to the CBO even if the extra money that it takes to run medicare advantage were eliminated and returned to medicare all it would do is reduce the amount of services now offered to seniors and extend the day that medicare itself goes bankrupt. Aside from that, since the government already has to add to medicare every year you're not really saving anything, just reducing the amount the government has to borrow to keep the whole house of cards upright.

If you would care to show some responsible numbers to refute that be my guest. It's high time emotion was taken out of the argument and when you do that the math that the President, and by extension you, have been putting forth just doesn't add up. Reform health insurance responsibly by using the existing system. Fix it for the actual 5-8% of citizens that don't have insurance because they can't afford it. Institute tort reform so the examples that are posted above above are reduced. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competiton which always lowers price. Eliminate pre-conditions as a right of refusal but do expect those with them to pay something more than a person in good health. Raise the financial floor for medicaid and give tax credits to families just above that floor to a to be determined level, so they can afford to buy health insurance. That's the place to start. Drop the ridiculous stories of people bleeding from their nipples and such. There aren't that many of them and all they do is insert emotion where it is not needed. That includes the President with his sob story of the day eveytime he speaks.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
WestWing
Posts: 1133
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:01 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 2:47 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
How much blood was she losing? She actually did not realize she was bleeding until her shirt was soaked? No one else noticed her shirt becoming stained? I find this story a little incredulous. How about a link?

Here is the link to the story: http://cbs5.com/investigates/insurance.claim.denied.2.1207332.html

(If I had a loved one - wife, sister, daughter - bleeding profusely from her nipple, I would take her to the emergency room without hesitation. Perhaps you would have acted differently).
The best time to plant a tree is 40 years ago. The second best time is today.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:16 pm



Quoting WestWing (Reply 7):
(If I had a loved one - wife, sister, daughter - bleeding profusely from her nipple, I would take her to the emergency room without hesitation. Perhaps you would have acted differently).

Profusely? Where does it say that? If it had been dripping blood all night the same effect could have been achieved. Secondly, did she feel faint when she stood up? What was the rate of flow of blood? I smell a panic attack. I've had bloody noses during the night that made the pillow look like an axe murder was committed nearby and yet have not run to the emergency room. I think the insurance company is paying off just to brush off the media attention. I absolutely think they were right to question the nature of the "emergency". If we practice what the attorney is preaching, that if "you" think it is an emergency it is, then emergency rooms will be full of non-emergency cases of people with insurance that could afford to choose a different option.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:26 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
It's high time emotion was taken out of the argument and when you do that the math that the President, and by extension you, have been putting forth just doesn't add up.

Right about the math, wrong about taking emotion out of it. When it comes to people's relatives, children, parents, etc - the very awareness of mortality and natural fear of health-related matters most rational people still have - it's damn-near impossible to take emotion out of it. There has to be some room for it in a healthcare discussion - physicians don't take all the emotion out of their jobs either even though they see this stuff 24/7.

Quoting DXing (Reply 8):
I smell a panic attack. I've had bloody noses during the night that made the pillow look like an axe murder was committed nearby and yet have not run to the emergency room. I think the insurance company is paying off just to brush off the media attention. I absolutely think they were right to question the nature of the "emergency".

It's a ridiculous denial whether it was a panic attack or not. Speaking thereof, millions of Americans suffer from panic and/or anxiety disorders. Stress from these conditions manifests in all kinds of ways, including chest pain and heart arrythmias that can closely mimic serious cardiac disease. Should these people, knowing they've already been diagnosed with panic attacks, stop running off to the ER every time they think they have a heart attack?? A little empathy, please.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:37 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9):
wrong about taking emotion out of it.

If we can't seperate emotion from the math then we might as well pass a bill that gives everyone everything for nothing. There are a lot of things I'd like to have just based on emotion, how they will make me feel, but I'm smart enough to know that to do so will permanently damage my financial position. The political leaders have to look at it that way else we will all be in the same boat.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 9):
A little empathy, please.

I have empathy for people who have a legitimate reason for it. Unless the blood was flowing quite freely "emergency" seems a little over the top in this case. Nothing described in the story screamed, "she's bleeding to death". As I noted I've had bloody noses while I slept that made the pillow look like hell. Was that an emergency? I hate to bring up personal responsibility since so many here think so little of it but that is case here. Perhaps they could have made a phone call or two before jumping in the car?
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:45 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 10):
I hate to bring up personal responsibility since so many here think so little of it but that is case here. Perhaps they could have made a phone call or two before jumping in the car?

Fair enough with the phone calls but no two people can be expected to react to a situation involving their health the same way. Some people are very blase about their bodies and others are moderate to severe hypochondriacs. I refuse to judge those people on the basis of some standard of acceptable reaction.

Quoting DXing (Reply 10):
As I noted I've had bloody noses while I slept that made the pillow look like hell.

No doubt your reaction was reasonable and appropriate. I guarantee you that if you were stricken with panic disorder or something of that nature you'd be compelled beyond logic and reason to get to the nearest doctor as if all life depended on it.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:53 pm



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 11):
I refuse to judge those people on the basis of some standard of acceptable reaction.

Unfortunately there has to be some standard applied.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 11):
I guarantee you that if you were stricken with panic disorder or something of that nature you'd be compelled beyond logic and reason to get to the nearest doctor as if all life depended on it.

Agreed, but the reference to a panic attack was used more semantically than actual. There is no reference to either having that disorder.

Life is nothing if not a continual learing process. This couple learned a lesson and until the TV station intervened on their behalf it was going to cost them. Now, I have a feeling they've learned nothing other than if you squeal loudly enough there's a better than even chance your mistake will be covered.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:10 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
I don't see how anyone can be on the democratic side of this debate given the fact that medicare is going broke. Yet somehow if we give the government even more of a strangle hold over us somehow things will get even better?

Maybe we need to look at the whole picture and go from there.

The country has a deficit, yet we continue to spend money on capital military equipment. The USAF wants a new tanker and not the cheapest option that meets standards. Cound save money upgrading existing planes?

We need to make decisions based on what is best for the country - which in itself can generate debate. On the tanker side, I'll probably be happy with either option as both can do the job.

On the health side I believe that the health insurance company has sufficiently established that they are not going to take care of certain parts of this population. Nor would they want to face new legislation that would require them to act in a manner that a reasonable person would consider acceptable.

That means there needs to be an affordable option for those that are not within the insurance companies desired pool. We started that with Medicare years ago, Do you really believe that insurance companies want to return to providing coverage for the older population?

With seniors covered with Medicare it is time for those with existing (or emerging) conditions to have affordable coverage that will allow for responsible care. Since you are so supportive of Medicare Advantage maybe we can use that program.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
s and extend the day that medicare itself goes bankrupt.

Doesn't that mean "push back the date"? Or keep Medicare financed longer without raising taxes?

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
If you would care to show some responsible numbers to refute that be my guest.

The number I put up was $113 Billion. The number you mentioned was $100 Billion. Over a 10 year period I would doubt we are that far apart.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Reform health insurance responsibly by using the existing system.

Unless you fix a lot of the broken parts of the existing system you are not going to get reform. Pre-existing conditions, multiple prices for the same coverage, denial of payment for treatments that medical professionals consider necessary. Lots of reform that impacts your premiums and corporate profits.

I simply don't believe that the insurance companies are going to be willing to go for that.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competiton which always lowers price.

I have State Farm for my Medicare Gap coverage. That's a national company IIFC.

Large companies that use State Farm, Aetna, BC/BS seem to have their employees covered in all states.

I think the important issue might be that there are minimum state standards that some companies want to avoid.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Eliminate pre-conditions as a right of refusal but do expect those with them to pay something more than a person in good health.

In other words, keep shrinking the "cheapest pool" and hope you get to stay in it.

The larger the pool you establish - including those with existing problems - the better the opportunity you have to be successful with reform of existing approaches. That would increase everyone's premiums, but I doubt if anyone knows how much.

The other option is to use a "public option" like Medicare for those with conditions that make them undesirable for insurance companies. We're the rejects or undesirables - what ever you want to call us. As soon as an insurance company sends the reject document automatically enroll the family in this option.

That keeps the private insurance premiums as cheap as they can be. Just as important to some of us is that it would set the same level of importance for patients as it does for profits.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Drop the ridiculous stories of people bleeding from their nipples and such.

While the situation may sound unique, the efforts of insurance companies to deny ER trips isn't that unique. Why wouldn't they? They boost their profits when they deny.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
There aren't that many of them and all they do is insert emotion where it is not needed.

Some conditions are sufficiently unique that a doctor may only see 1 or 2 cases in a career - or none. Easy to see why infrequent situations are denied insurance coverage, especially if it "sounds strange".

Regardless of how frequent or strange a condition may be, lots of emotions are generally what is needed to get the insurance company to do what they should have done in the first place. It's a shame that it takes public embarrassment to get a normal coverage. Maybe that's why some people want to keep
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:43 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Maybe we need to look at the whole picture and go from there.

The country has a deficit, yet we continue to spend money on capital military equipment.

Because the Constitution mandates that the federal government is responsible for defense. It says absolutely nothing about being responsible for individual health care, education, or a whole host of other items. You can cry about the general welfare all you wish but that is all you are doing since it is not written. I find it interesting when I bring up selling insurance across state lines you claim States rights yet once again the interstate commerce claus is clearly written in the Constitution. It's interesting that the left can only use the Constitution to promote their causes if you are willing to believe that what is not there actually is and what is there is of no importance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
On the health side I believe that the health insurance company has sufficiently established that they are not going to take care of certain parts of this population. Nor would they want to face new legislation that would require them to act in a manner that a reasonable person would consider acceptable.

And I think you're wrong. Given the right incentives, cross state line selling, and tort reform chief among them they would be willing to take on those with pre-existing conditions since their liability would be limited.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
We started that with Medicare years ago,

Medicare was started as a political ploy to get voters. A democratic party President with a democratic party Congress. I have no choice but to pay into the plan. A plan that I highly doubt will still be solvent without massive tax increases by the time I reach 65 or whose benefits will be highly diluted. Medicare is going broke. The government has no one to blame but themselves for it happening as they do not pay 1-1 to the providers and as such encourage ever higher prices. Yet somehow I am expected to believe that my taxes won't go up, as they have already several times in my working career, to pay for what some want me to beleive will be the governments first ever social program that is managed correctly and doesn't cost far more and deliver far less than orginally envisioned. Sorry, I don't believe a bit of it and thank goodness the majority of Americans don't either.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Do you really believe that insurance companies want to return to providing coverage for the older population?

I think at some point they will have to because the government run program is going broke.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
With seniors covered with Medicare it is time for those with existing (or emerging) conditions to have affordable coverage that will allow for responsible care. Since you are so supportive of Medicare Advantage maybe we can use that program.

I used Medicare Advantage to show the fallacy of your ideas, not that I support it. Your position, and the Presidents, that there are huge savings to be made with Medicare Advanatage and the only thing impacted will be the insurance companies profits has been shown to be completely false. Seniors enrolled in that program will lose benefits and the entire medicare program will still be on track to go broke, only just a little slower. On top of all that, if these saving are there to be had why, in the past 8 months he's been in office, has the Presidnet not been able to identify specific savings to be had from medicare instead of the ever present "we can achieve" line. Let's see the savings (even if only paper) now if they are there to be had.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Doesn't that mean "push back the date"? Or keep Medicare financed longer without raising taxes?

Unless taxes are raised medicare will go broke under the weight of the baby boomers of which I'm at the very tail end. Unless there is a massive tax increase there is absolutely no way you can enroll even 30 million more people let alone 46 million (which number is it this week?) without one.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Unless you fix a lot of the broken parts of the existing system you are not going to get reform.

I'd rather fix the broken parts than trash the entire system since once that is done we will have a hard time going back too since the government rarely admits failure, just pours more money down a hole.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
I simply don't believe that the insurance companies are going to be willing to go for that.

As discussed, if the proper incentives and safeguards are there they will.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
I have State Farm for my Medicare Gap coverage. That's a national company IIFC.

How many times to we have to cover the same ground? Regular health insurance is regulated by the States. Medicare supplement insurance or Medigap insurance has to fit a federal standardized formula. Even with that there are three States in which special policies must be written. As such, the individual companies that umbrella under one name, such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield will offer medigap insurance but they are still individual companies licensed within a particular State. So if you buy health insurance in Texas, you can't take it with you into Arizona. That is part of the problem with the cost of insurance and something, if fixed, would help to lower costs.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Large companies that use State Farm, Aetna, BC/BS seem to have their employees covered in all states.

Yes, but the individual polices are written by the individual companies and then combined into one over all policy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
I think the important issue might be that there are minimum state standards that some companies want to avoid.

Which if eliminated in favor of federal ones would open up markets.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
While the situation may sound unique, the efforts of insurance companies to deny ER trips isn't that unique. Why wouldn't they? They boost their profits when they deny

Or the person who panicked and went to the emergency room should be made to find out that not every thing is an emergency and some personal responsibility is expected. Just like the driver who keeps hitting things because of inanttention will quickly find out that most insurance companies don't want their business.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13):
Regardless of how frequent or strange a condition may be, lots of emotions are generally what is needed to get the insurance company to do what they should have done in the first place. It's a shame that it takes public embarrassment to get a normal coverage.

With that attitude, multiplied enough times, our country is bankrupt. Why buy one twizzler at the check out counter when the whole box is there for the taking.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:40 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
Because the Constitution mandates that the federal government is responsible for defense.

The Constitution doesn't say what percentage of the GNP should be used to finance the DoD, does it?

There is no new money for the USAF in the Constitution for those tankers. Actually there is no USAF noted or included in the constitution.

And what does the Constitution say about the federal government spending all that money to distribute the Salk vaccine to everyone in the country back in the 50s to rid us of polio?

Or the money being spend today on vaccines for the swine flu?

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
bring up selling insurance across state lines you claim States rights

I simply find it ironic that conservatives can be so strongly in favor or state rights when it suits them, yet turn their backs on them when they are inconvenient.

I think state rights can be good in some cases, as long as it doesn't infringe on national standards and protections. Segregation was a classic example of state rights gone nuts and needing federal override. California auto emissions is a classic example of a state determining when more intensive local control is necessary.

On other topics I like the idea of federal requirements. One such area would be electronic toll stickers we have in our car. If federal dollars paid for part of a toll road then I believe that a national toll sticker should be recognized by the readers. It's not that difficult to mandate national standards. Actually, its rather stupid not to mandate them. I have two - one for Oklahoma and one for Houston. Why can the same sticker work everywhere?

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
Given the right incentives, cross state line selling, and tort reform chief among them they would be willing to take on those with pre-existing conditions since their liability would be limited.

Some pre-existing conditions can get rather expensive. Some are basically cleared up before being reviewed for a policy - never to return. A woman who finds breast cancer early and gets fast treatment may well live a long, happy life with no future medical bills related to the cancer. Other's like my wife can get hit with something far more severe. For my wife, it was acute leukemia - not cheap, that one.

Insurance companies don't really know what the future is holding so they are most unlikely to happily take on this population without some very think strings attached. "Reform" for them is a means of *expanding profitability*, not for taking better care of the people in this country. That is one of the basic conflicts that has caused our problems in the first place.

I'm quite happy with State Farm selling health insurance in multiple states (which they do already), but strongly believe that we do not need to shift to the lowest standards in the country when that happens. Maybe we pick the best standards in the country.  Smile

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
Seniors enrolled in that program will lose benefits and the entire medicare program will still be on track to go broke, only just a little slower.

So you would rather keep a minority getting more expensive versions of Medicare, even if it causes the system to go broke faster?

If these seniors are getting benefits in excess of standard Medicare participants then they should be the ones putting in the additional costs. Just like I do with my Medicare Gap insurance. No way should the program "go broke" or require you pay additional taxes so these folks can enjoy there ride.

Before praising the plan, however, you should check to see if there are restrictions on where you may go for care and is there an HMO factor to it. Fastest way to loose freedoms you can find.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:49 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
The Constitution doesn't say what percentage of the GNP should be used to finance the DoD, does it?

Deflection.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
There is no new money for the USAF in the Constitution for those tankers. Actually there is no USAF noted or included in the constitution.

The USAF is part of providing for the common defense. Arguing that it isn't is naive.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
And what does the Constitution say about the federal government spending all that money to distribute the Salk vaccine to everyone in the country back in the 50s to rid us of polio?

Nothing. But like a war, it is a one time expense, not an ongoing program that will drain more and more resources.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Or the money being spend today on vaccines for the swine flu?

Most doctors will say that the swine flu is being over-hyped at this point. It's a waste of money.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
I simply find it ironic that conservatives can be so strongly in favor or state rights when it suits them, yet turn their backs on them when they are inconvenient.

Here we go again, covering the same ground over and over.

Quoting DXing (Reply 14):
It says absolutely nothing about being responsible for individual health care, education, or a whole host of other items. You can cry about the general welfare all you wish but that is all you are doing since it is not written. I find it interesting when I bring up selling insurance across state lines you claim States rights yet once again the interstate commerce claus is clearly written in the Constitution. It's interesting that the left can only use the Constitution to promote their causes if you are willing to believe that what is not there actually is and what is there is of no importance.

I also find it humorous that you write:

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Some pre-existing conditions can get rather expensive. Some are basically cleared up before being reviewed for a policy - never to return.

But then say that the insurance companies don't know what the future holds.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
Insurance companies don't really know what the future is holding so they are most unlikely to happily take on this population without some very think strings attached

and yet are supposed to take on higher risk persons, since they don't know what the future holds either, without any kind of premium protection built in. I suppose you expect the taxpayer to take the same risk. Why take one twizzler when the whole box is there for the same price right?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15):
So you would rather keep a minority getting more expensive versions of Medicare, even if it causes the system to go broke faster?

My point was and remains that it doesn't make any difference, the program is going broke one way or the other. My point was that yours, and the Presidents, claim of the insurance companies just raking in profit is false. It also completely debunks any notion that the government can manage an even larger scale health program without resorting to either higher taxes or lowered services, or both since they can't manage medicare.

Reform the existing system. Polls out today show that only 41% want the Presidents plan and 56% oppose it. Here's some change we can all believe in, that the politicians in Washington actually listen to their constituents.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Mon Sep 28, 2009 5:16 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 16):
My point was that yours, and the Presidents, claim of the insurance companies just raking in profit is false.

So who pays out the $113 Billion? Taxpayers?

And if the Medicare Advantage program wasn't profitable do you really believe that the insurance companies would be in that business? Or be spending money to avoid it being cut?

Quoting DXing (Reply 16):
It also completely debunks any notion that the government can manage an even larger scale health program without resorting to either higher taxes or lowered services, or both since they can't manage medicare.

Would my services be lowered if Medicare Advantage was eliminated? Nope.

And what services are you talking about?

Let's look at a non-liberal newspaper article - the Dallas Morning News:

"Up to one-third of Dallas-area residents don't have health insurance, and the number is rising. Everybody in North Texas pays the cost, through taxes and higher insurance costs – as much as an estimated $1,800 per family."

""The cost is borne by those of us who have insurance to perhaps a greater extent than people recognize," said Eduardo Sanchez, vice president and chief medical officer of BlueCross BlueShield of Texas, the state's largest health insurer. "It's borne by all of us as taxpayers at local, state and federal levels."

Sanchez, a former state health commissioner, said people insured through their jobs pay for the uninsured again in the workplace, through higher premiums and eroding benefits – particularly if they're employed by small businesses.

A "vicious circle" of higher hospital prices, generated by costly emergency room care of the uninsured, drives up insurance premiums for employers, he said. Every year, that causes a few more bosses to drop coverage of their workers, he added.

"Now you have a higher number and percentage of uninsured," Sanchez said, and the downward cycle begins anew."

"The Texas "cost shift" represents about 13 percent of all private premiums paid, far more than the national average of slightly more than 8 percent.

The average annual family policy premium, shared by employer and employee, is $13,500 in Texas, the center found. For individuals insured through jobs at private companies, the average is $4,800."

As for Texan's believing that everyone who truly health care and can't afford it will be covered:

"Joel Allison, chief executive of Baylor Health Care System, and other health care providers said a restrictive state Medicaid program helps swell the ranks of Texas' uninsured.

Though the federal government puts up most of the money for Medicaid, an insurance program for the poor, states set the rules. Texas rules bar coverage for an able-bodied adult who makes more than $188 a month and is not pregnant."

OK, so they will be treated and personal & business insurance premiums will go up. Big surprise.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont.../092009dnbusuninsured.21f0d1c.html

The costs I was seeing in the article pretty well demonstrates that there are no big cuts in the cost of care when tort reform is put into effect. Texas has tort reform and costs are pretty well in line with what I was paying.

Maybe others on the board can compare the Texas rates to theirs and let us know how much tort reform appears to be saving Texans.

I guess $188 a month is big money in Texas. Reminds me of when I was in the military in the 60s.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:20 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
So who pays out the $113 Billion? Taxpayers?

Any of the $113 billion that is above the federally set benchmark must be returned to the beneficiary in the form of addtional service or cash rebates, that is the law.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
And if the Medicare Advantage program wasn't profitable do you really believe that the insurance companies would be in that business? Or be spending money to avoid it being cut?

Hold it, before you, and the President, were insinuating that the insurance companies were just raking in that $113 billion as pure profit for no extra service. I've shown where that is a completely false assumption, using the law itself. Now you want to change your tune and suggest that the insurance companies should be doing this as a non-profit? That is not the way the program is set up and not the way the President has suggested it ought to be. Of course the companies involved are going to make a profit, that is what they are in business to do no matter how much you think they should be operating as charities. And as has been shown they are are not making any undue profit either based on the volume of business they are doing. You can try and spin your way out if you wish but the fact is that the Medicare advantage program is not the insurance boondoggle that you and the President make it out to be.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
Would my services be lowered if Medicare Advantage was eliminated? Nope.

No because you are on basic medicare, but those that are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, approximately 19% of all those on medicare, will see a decrease in their benefits.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
And what services are you talking about?

In many cases dental and vision insurance are offered in lieu of cash rebates. In other cases catastrophic care insurnace. It depends on what policy you sign up for.

It sure would help if you provided the source for the quote.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
as much as an estimated $1,800 per family

The paper does not really identify where this number comes from.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
A "vicious circle" of higher hospital prices, generated by costly emergency room care of the uninsured, drives up insurance premiums for employers, he said. Every year, that causes a few more bosses to drop coverage of their workers, he added.

Yet farther below, from a Baylor official:

Officials at Baylor Health Care System in Dallas said they charge insured patients 150 percent of actual costs to cover charity care of the uninsured and underpayment by Medicare, the federal program for seniors and the disabled. Gary Brock, Baylor's chief operating officer, said that's standard in the hospital industry.

So Medicare if at least partially at fault for underpaying and helping to drive up cost. Yet somehow if we give the government even more power they are going to better manage the system? How stupid do you have to be to believe that?

Ah...here's where the paper gets their $1800 figure:

Across Texas, private sector workers this year paid $1,800 more in premiums per family policy, and $630 more per individual plan, to help pay for care of the uninsured, according to the Center for American Progress, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank, updating an earlier study by Democratic health care economist Kenneth Thorpe.

Of course they wouldn't be too biased would they?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17):
The costs I was seeing in the article pretty well demonstrates that there are no big cuts in the cost of care when tort reform is put into effect. Texas has tort reform and costs are pretty well in line with what I was paying.

Then you would have to explain if there are no benefits why Texas has such a big influx of doctors from other states? As I have stated, time and time again since you like to cover old ground over and over again in the hopes of salvaging a losing argument, everything takes time. Part of the ongoing problem is the surrounding states. Since they don't have tort reform their prices are still high. Since doctors don't operate on a charity base of pricing, anymore than insurance companies, what is the incentive to reduce their costs even if their medical malpractice insurance cost has fallen? That is something that tort reform, nationwide, can factor in. It is not a reason to scrap the existing system in favor of a system in which you would have less avenues of redress than you do now.

Reform the existing system.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:49 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Any of the $113 billion that is above the federally set benchmark must be returned to the beneficiary in the form of addtional service or cash rebates, that is the law.

What about changing the law to require the government be refunded the money, rather than spend it on Medicare Advantage customers? If there are funds in excess of the benchmark then the rest of the taxpayers in the country don't need to be paying more for it than is necessary.

Basically there is a sucker born every minute. If Medicare Advantage cannot do the job cheaper then they aren't needed. There certainly should be no additional costs - like the $113 Billion - paid for by the taxpayers.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
So Medicare if at least partially at fault for underpaying and helping to drive up cost.

Yep. Medicare pays for the treatment costs, not excess charges to cover the uninsured. You pay a higher premium than I do because of the need to cover unpaid care. But you don't mind as it keeps the government out of the business of taking care of those costs.

Your contribution is made every month there is a premium made in your name. It's going to keep increasing if no reform is made to change it. It's going to minimize the number of people a company can employee, and how much employees can be paid in wages and salaries.

But think of the "freedom" it brings to those who are stuck in a "medical network" system.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
No because you are on basic medicare, but those that are enrolled in Medicare Advantage, approximately 19% of all those on medicare, will see a decrease in their benefits.

Tax dollars don't need to be spent on excess from private plans, which is what Medicare Advantage is.

If a health insurance provider can provide the same benefits (without network restrictions) at the same cost as normal Medicare policy holders AND make a profit then I have no problem. If the costs to taxpayers increases, reducing the care that can be provided to others, then I don't see any reason to fund it. Your charity is impressive.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
In many cases dental and vision insurance are offered in lieu of cash rebates. In other cases catastrophic care insurnace. It depends on what policy you sign up for.

If it is the taxpayer's dollars that are funding Medicare Advantage why give the "excess funds" to anyone but the source of those funds? Medicare alone costs enough, no need to spend an extra $113 Billion on a select few. If people want more they can buy Medicare Gap, or any other type of plan that does not rely on taxpayer dollars.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
The paper does not really identify where this number comes from.

Does it matter? Probably a lot of various numbers within a statistically relevant range available from multiple sources. I chose that one as it is from Dallas - not a hard core liberal enclave.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Of course they wouldn't be too biased would they?

Probably less biased than Fox.


But here is a quote from a conservative in the same article:

"Steven Camarota, research director at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative group that supports stronger immigration enforcement, said that if immigrants and their U.S.-born children aren't counted, only New Mexico tops Texas in percentage of residents without health insurance – and by less than 1 percentage point."

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
Then you would have to explain if there are no benefits why Texas has such a big influx of doctors from other states?

Doctors are heading there because they know that they do not have to reduce their prices, even with tort reform.

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
everything takes time.

Sure it does. LMAO

Quoting DXing (Reply 18):
That is something that tort reform, nationwide, can factor in.

Just like it has in Texas?

The Dallas article points out some issues that cost employers and employees unnecessary money. You can talk all you want about conservative ideals, but this conservative newspaper article makes it pretty clear that you are paying a heavy price for your position.

And you make it clear that you are willing to pay any price (especially if you boss picks up the tab) in order to keep the status quo.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:39 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
What about changing the law to require the government be refunded the money, rather than spend it on Medicare Advantage customers? If there are funds in excess of the benchmark then the rest of the taxpayers in the country don't need to be paying more for it than is necessary.

To which it doesn't make any difference. Medicare is still going to go broke. You just don't seem to want to understand that nor admit insurance companies aren't making out hand over fist as you and the President insinuate.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Basically there is a sucker born every minute. If Medicare Advantage cannot do the job cheaper then they aren't needed. There certainly should be no additional costs - like the $113 Billion - paid for by the taxpayers.

There sure is, it's someone who thinks the government can manage anything properly and keep it's promise of containing cost and delivering what it promises.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Yep. Medicare pays for the treatment costs

No it does not. It pays 70-80% of treatment costs. I get stuck for the rest which is on top of the taxes I already pay. So when you go see the doctor, I get to pay twice.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
You pay a higher premium than I do because of the need to cover unpaid care.

Which includes medicare patients. Why do you think fewer and fewer MD's are taking on new medicare patients? They know there is no money in it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
But you don't mind as it keeps the government out of the business of taking care of those costs.

I don't mind since seeing the abysmal failure that the government has made of just about everything outside of the military it touches what I have is worth the price versus the mess I would have if the government were in charge.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
If people want more they can buy Medicare Gap, or any other type of plan that does not rely on taxpayer dollars.

So now who's rationing? And now you are promoting private insurance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Probably less biased than Fox.

Fox isn't even quoted in the story!!!

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
"Steven Camarota, research director at the Washington-based Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative group that supports stronger immigration enforcement, said that if immigrants and their U.S.-born children aren't counted, only New Mexico tops Texas in percentage of residents without health insurance – and by less than 1 percentage point."

Yep, there is a huge part of the Hispanic population on medicaid. No doubt about that and they would not be counted as having health insurance. So the safety net works.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
Doctors are heading there because they know that they do not have to reduce their prices, even with tort reform.

Which is why I pointed out that tort reform needs to be enacted nationwide with that issue being addressed specifically.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
You can talk all you want about conservative ideals, but this conservative newspaper article makes it pretty clear that you are paying a heavy price for your position.

Which is all the more reason to enact the reforms that conservatives were calling for during the Bush administration but that the democratic party members blocked since they would not get credit for it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19):
And you make it clear that you are willing to pay any price (especially if you boss picks up the tab) in order to keep the status quo.

I've been clear in calling for reforming the existing system which is not maintaining the status quo. We've covered the same ground 3 or more times now. The Presidents plan, and thus Congresses, has less and less support every week when new polls are released. Rather than rush something through in October perhaps for once the leaders will wake up and see what they are talking about is not what their constituents want, scap what they have, and start over. This time rather than depending on imaginary savings from a program that is already forecast to go bankrupt in a few years they will take a hard look at reforming the system that is in place and works just fine for a majority of people in this country.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:24 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
Medicare is still going to go broke.

Unless changes are made to the revenues going to it.

If funding can be improved when I was young and paying, funding can be improved today,

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
You just don't seem to want to understand that nor admit insurance companies aren't making out hand over fist as you and the President insinuate.

Oh, I understand.

I understand that if the money wasn't there then the insurance companies would be there either.

I'm just not as willing as you are to let the insurance companies have a good ride while denying payment of care (which is added to your premiums, by the way) to those without insurance.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
There sure is, it's someone who thinks the government can manage anything properly and keep it's promise of containing cost and delivering what it promises.

And there are those of us who has seen the insurance companies screw up our care more than the government ever has. And there are those of us who can compare the care under Medicare + Gap with what we used to have.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
It pays 70-80% of treatment costs.

And a part of those treatment costs goes to investments in the future, like a new MRI system. Medicare doesn't pay that part of the charge so you get to.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
I get stuck for the rest which is on top of the taxes I already pay.

And add to that the costs of the uninsured, which is shifting more and more costs onto your back until there is a public option.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
So when you go see the doctor, I get to pay twice.

And I went to the doctor 2 weeks ago.  old 

Thank you for that.

And I'm thinking about another sleep study.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
I don't mind

Wow! Thank you! I will get that sleep study!  yes 

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
Yep, there is a huge part of the Hispanic population on medicaid.

Recheck the article - a person in Texas can't make over $188 a month ($188 a month!) in order to qualify.

You get the shaft on care for the uninsured, not Medicaid. Dramatically cut the uninsured population dramatically with public options and maybe a penny in sales taxes and that cost can be reduced.

Stay with your hard right position and these costs are going to continue to increase. But, as you said above, you're happy with those increases.

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
So now who's rationing? And now you are promoting private insurance.

Not rationing, just not throwing in the extras when others can't get the core care.

And I've never been against insurance companies - I just don't go for the fluff they are putting out.  fluffy 

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
Which is why I pointed out that tort reform needs to be enacted nationwide with that issue being addressed specifically.

And the failure of tort return to reduce prices in Texas is probably why you dropped the "lower cost" position.

Check the polls again.

When asked if they want their own health care screwed up then 65% to 75% will say No.

When asked if a public option like Medicare should be available to others 65% are now saying Yes.

Maybe we need a poll that asks

Should we have a public option with affordable rates for those who have been refused coverage or care because of an existing condition?

How do you think that one would go?

Quoting DXing (Reply 20):
The Presidents plan, and thus Congresses, has less and less support every week when new polls are released.

 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 1:49 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Recheck the article - a person in Texas can't make over $188 a month ($188 a month!) in order to qualify.

That is either a typo or completely in error. Medicaid is a federal program administered by the States. The federal government sets the poverty line that the States have to abide by. $188 a month is only $2,256 a year. The federal guidline for a single person to be in poverty for 2008 is $10,400 a year or $200 dollars a week gross. Figure taxes and you're looking at $188 a week.

http://www.hhsc.state.tx.us/medicaid...orts/PB7/BookFiles/Chapter%202.pdf
page 3.

Feel free to post where State law in Texas says $188 a month.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:20 am

http://www.projo.com/opinion/contrib..._09-28-09_F0FM1CK_v12.3f8ccc0.html

I think this covers in very well in my opinion. The man speaks the truth.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:12 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 22):
Feel free to post where State law in Texas says $188 a month.

I already did- it's in my original link to the Dallas Morning News.

"Though the federal government puts up most of the money for Medicaid, an insurance program for the poor, states set the rules. Texas rules bar coverage for an able-bodied adult who makes more than $188 a month and is not pregnant.

"Medicaid in Texas is very limited," Allison said."


Maybe you need to note the "able-bodied adult" part - looks like it makes a good out for the state, but adds to your costs.

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 23):
I think this covers in very well in my opinion.

Good article, but conservatives probably don't trust their doctors. It's much more exciting to talk about "death panels" and more people will believe you if you do.
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:31 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
Good article, but conservatives probably don't trust their doctors. It's much more exciting to talk about "death panels" and more people will believe you if you do.

Yes, I agree. the good Professor covered that with the term "Public Howling" no question, a good choice of words on his part.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:02 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
I already did- it's in my original link to the Dallas Morning News.

And of that I said:

Quoting DXing (Reply 22):
That is either a typo or completely in error.



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 24):
Maybe you need to note the "able-bodied adult" part - looks like it makes a good out for the state, but adds to your costs.

Because the amount of income for a disabled person would be even lower. Nowhere can I find any statute in the Texas Medicaid program on line that says the max someone can make is $188 a month. As I said, that is either a typo or a complete error. Taking the poverty line for a single adult and dividing by 52 gives you $200 a week. Take out $12 for taxes and you are left with $188 a week. That should ring a bell as being more than a coincidence.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:47 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
Taking the poverty line for a single adult and dividing by 52 gives you $200 a week. Take out $12 for taxes and you are left with $188 a week. That should ring a bell as being more than a coincidence.

Let's assume you're right - a single person living on $200 a week:

How far does that go, assuming they try to pay rent, utilities & cheap food? Look around at the costs you see every day. If you're realistic you'll agree that someone making twice that much isn't going to be able to make it,especially in the area of health care.

Quoting DXing (Reply 26):
Because the amount of income for a disabled person would be even lower.

Abled bodied person is also an interesting concept - and it doesn't necessarily focus on "not disabled". A person can be undesirable for a potential employer for a number of reasons, but still considered by a Texas state worker to be abled bodied and not eligible for help.

All of which is going to lead those in the lower incomes to be without insurance and to head to the ER for the expensive heath care.

That is why I'm a believer in universal core care, based on a income related tax. When I say core care I mean just that. Let's build hospital wards to save money - they worked very well in the past. And let's use residents when possible - it works & gets doctors trained.

That approach also makes health insurance a LOT cheaper and very desirable (and affordable) for those that want a choice of doctors and a private room.

Sadly that approach isn't going to fly these days. Health care is not expensive enough, but is getting there. Health insurance companies will continue to focus on keeping the status quo and they have the money to get their way.

And the average insured person (and their employer) will continue to pay out the big bucks. For a while.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:18 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Unless changes are made to the revenues going to it.

If funding can be improved when I was young and paying, funding can be improved today,

Which proves my point about the government being unable to deliver what it promises. Not once but twice it has had to come back and redo the way the program is funded and yet it is still going broke because they mismanage it and yet you still want to give that same government even more power and authority. It defies logic. If the car mechanic doesn't fix your car and demands even more money, do you go back to him over and over?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Maybe we need a poll that asks

Should we have a public option with affordable rates for those who have been refused coverage or care because of an existing condition?

How do you think that one would go?

Pretty sadly for you. Much earlier on in these thread we covered this ground. A solid majority of people already on public assistance and using medicaid were against any type of program run by the government. If the people already on it don't like it maybe they know something we don't?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
How far does that go, assuming they try to pay rent, utilities & cheap food?

With housing, and utility assistance as well as the food stamps they are eligible for? Not to mention this is not the situation that you are supposed to remain in for any longer than it takes to move up, just like a minimum wage job is not a career.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
A person can be undesirable for a potential employer for a number of reasons, but still considered by a Texas state worker to be abled bodied and not eligible for help.

You mean like a drug addict or criminal? Well that old evil called "personal responsibility" rears its head in the strangest places doesn't it?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 27):
That approach also makes health insurance a LOT cheaper and very desirable (and affordable) for those that want a choice of doctors and a private room.

Maybe so but that doesn't in any way mean that the government could manage any health care program any better than it has managed the two it is already in, and ready to run into the ground. If an insurance company mismanages its business it goes broke and is either sold or shut down. So what happens when the government goes broke? Who buys it or bails it out?

[Edited 2009-09-29 10:26:00]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:07 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
You mean like a drug addict or criminal?

Do you always assume the worst in people? I didn't say anything about an addict or criminal.

Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
Which proves my point about the government being unable to deliver what it promises.

Or maybe it relates to the fact that there have been changes in medicine since I was young.

There were no CT Scans or MRIs "back in those days". Heart caths? None.

So medicine has changed.

And people are living longer. That makes it more expensive, which you probably detest, but that is the reality.

So the option is either adjust the program to improvements in medicine or urn your back on advances to ensure they are not there when you get older.

Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
Pretty sadly for you.

Actually about 65% of the good folks in this country supported something very much like that question. And I have a feeling that as the public learns what crap the FUD like "death panels" are they will look at options.

Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
just like a minimum wage job is not a career.

For too many companies these days the minimum wage is a large chunk of their wage structure.

Quoting DXing (Reply 28):
If an insurance company mismanages its business it goes broke and is either sold or shut down.

Or maybe the insurance companies get together and ensure their profits by working together. The least they can do is delay cash disbursements by denials, "lost claims", etc.

And then there is the option of insurance companies refusing to ay for new procedures, tests or medications because they are "experimental".

They know there is a sucker born every minute, which is why they are investing so much cash to avoid any reforms.

Personally i would vote for a public option for anyone who has an undesirable medical condition and their families. I simply believe that there is something very wrong when a country turns their back on those who are sick, or have been sick.

And "have been sick" is a pretty important indicator. My wife is 16 years past breast cancer, but is an undesirable for insurance companies. She will be in remission from acute leukemia for 3 years in the middle of October. While we're now protected with Medicare & Gap the experiences we went through taught us a lot about how well insurance companies screw decent people around.

A good example would be all the kids you see with leukemia. The medical community has done an exceptional job in finding cures (with St. Jude's the best known) and these kids are now growing into good, decent adults. But health insurance companies certainly don't want them as it's know they might have heart problems from the poison we call chemo.

I believe that one rejection from an insurance company and they (and their families) should be covered under a public option.

I call that common decency.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Tue Sep 29, 2009 11:39 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Unless changes are made to the revenues going to it.

If funding can be improved when I was young and paying, funding can be improved today,

You mean like the changes made in 1997 that were to cut waste and fraud in the system and have been waived every year by Congress since then? That is exactly what will happen with any public option that is passed. When it runs into monetary trouble, rather than actually fixing it they will pass a bill and then ignore the very bill they passed digging an even deeper hole and passing the buck on to some future Congress.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 21):
Maybe we need a poll that asks

Should we have a public option with affordable rates for those who have been refused coverage or care because of an existing condition?

How do you think that one would go?

If people who are already on public health plans don't like it I think the results would be exactly the same. Anyone but the government running it scored well. When the government was running it the poll went negative.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Do you always assume the worst in people? I didn't say anything about an addict or criminal.

Short of those two things, and exeperience, what else would make a person that undesirable? If they are sick and applying for a job they are already at a disadvantage over someone applying for the same job who is healthy. Why is it you believe that any employer has to be part charity?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Or maybe it relates to the fact that there have been changes in medicine since I was young.
There were no CT Scans or MRIs "back in those days". Heart caths? None.
So medicine has changed.

Yep, and all those things cost money which in part explains higher premiums, expecially when Medicare and Medicaid don't pay 1-1 and leave private industry to pick up the remaining tab.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
And people are living longer. That makes it more expensive, which you probably detest, but that is the reality.

Why would I detest that people are living longer? The problem is that people don't prepare for their old age and end up costing everyone a lot of money because of their lack of preparation.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
So the option is either adjust the program to improvements in medicine or urn your back on advances to ensure they are not there when you get older.

Or rationed care which is most likely what will happen.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
Actually about 65% of the good folks in this country supported something very much like that question.

Until asked who should run it and when government was mentioned support evaporated.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
For too many companies these days the minimum wage is a large chunk of their wage structure

Show some figures to support that.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
And then there is the option of insurance companies refusing to ay for new procedures, tests or medications because they are "experimental".

Which the government will do as well. The government already restricts the use of experimental drugs whether you can afford them or not. Remember the big uproar over some of the aids cocktails that the government would not allow?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 29):
They know there is a sucker born every minute, which is why they are investing so much cash to avoid any reforms

As opposed to 5 talk shows in one weekend, a joint session of Congress, a day in the life of the President with one network, and as many interviews as often as he can from the President? And yet everytime he speaks the poll numbers go even further in the tank for a public option.

Thank goodness democrats in the Senate finance committee saw the light and voted against a public option amendment not once but twice today. Even Senator Baucus voted against it. Rockefellers amendment had 3 democrats vote against it, Schumers had two democrats voting against it.

More and more it seems that the only way any public option makes it out to general vote is for the democratic party to get it included during the reconcilliation conference. Even then the democratic party may not have the support that they need to pass it. Also becoming a question mark is the Presidents idea to tax or fine those that do not buy insurance. More than one Constitutional scholar is saying that that provision would most likely be deemed Unconstitutional. Also, the Presidents pledge that illegal aliens would not be included in any public option, taxpayer supported health care legislation is falling apart as it appears that the Supreme Court has already ruled that any social program has to be open to all and that you cannot practice discrimination. So more and more the Presidents claims fall by the way side as either unrealistic or Unconstitutional.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
austinairport
Posts: 615
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:56 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:29 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
How about a link to those quotes?

Rachel Maddow Show. So, if you have Dish channel 209. LOL.

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
I don't see how anyone can be on the democratic side of this debate given the fact that medicare is going broke. Yet somehow if we give the government even more of a strangle hold over us somehow things will get even better?

Everything is about numbers to Republicans. I'm much less worried about the cost. I'm worried about people who cant afford health care!

Quoting DXing (Reply 6):
Nope, the GOP has had several good reform ideas not only this year but in years past. Unfortunately since there was no President of the same party in office the past 3 years there was not impetus to do anything since they wouldn't get credit. Before that no matter what the President suggested it wasn't enough or the democrats said "no".

The funny part, well not so funny for you, is that you are on the leading edge of the age group that is going to start bearing an ever larger tax burden to support those baby boomers as they hit the real retirement years starting next year when those born in 1945 hit 65. My tax burden at your age 10 years from now was nothing compared to what yours will be.

Ahh poor poor Republicans.

I'm fine with paying higher taxes.  Wink If it means one less person dies because they couldn't pay for health-care, than that is just fine!
But... I guess since the "numbers" are all important, you can ignore me wanting to help someone less fortunate. I guess the "numbers" mean more than lives.
Oh well.
Whoever said you can do anything you set your mind to has obviously never tried to slam a revolving door!!!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:18 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 30):
what else would make a person that undesirable?

Try appearance, or being over 40 for some companies.

ANd maybe the employer knows with that leg amputated there will probably be more medical bills.

Lots of reason besides drugs & crime.

Quoting DXing (Reply 30):
Until asked who should run it and when government was mentioned support evaporated.

The question was on offering a Medicare type public program - my bet is most of that 65% percentage understood it was a "government run" alternative.

Quoting DXing (Reply 30):
Show some figures to support that.

KMart, McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King.

Starting to get the idea?

And look in these types of stores and see the staff - especially the older one that would be trying to support a family.

Any wage that qualifies for any government support (like Medicaid or food stamps) is basically corporate welfare. Why don't I feel you would be for raising the minimum wage to were it's above the poverty line?

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 31):
I'm worried about people who cant afford health care!

Conservatives won't be worried about them until they have a permanent voting block that can change the direction of every election. SInce this block is gaining every year (for a lot of reasons) it would seem that there would be a genuine effort for reform. Sadly it's all about money so you know how they will go.  Sad
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:35 pm



Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 31):
Rachel Maddow Show.

Gosh, does that mean I can start quoting Sean Hannity without fear of a backlash?

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 31):
Everything is about numbers to Republicans. I'm much less worried about the cost. I'm worried about people who cant afford health care!

You won't be when you get your first real job and realize what kind of bite the government takes.

Quoting AustinAirport (Reply 31):
I guess the "numbers" mean more than lives.

What good is saving lives if you are going broke doing it? At some point you won't be able to save a single life at that rate. I'm willing to bet budgets are not something you spend a lot of time worrying about.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
Try appearance, or being over 40 for some companies.

ANd maybe the employer knows with that leg amputated there will probably be more medical bills.

Lots of reason besides drugs & crime.

If two people are applying for the same job, one is 30 the other 40 and both have the same job experience and qualifications then the advatage is with the 30 year old and I see nothing wrong with that. It certainly makes more sense than laws that say in the same situation with age not being a factor and one person having less work related experience and qualifications being hired soley because of the their race or gender to satisfy some government quota.

Apearance? You bet. If I owned a company and had a choice between a clean cut well groomed person and some freak with multiple face piercings, tatoo's, and tye dyed hair applying for a job where they would represent my company in public there shouldn't be any doubt the former would get the job given everything else being equal. Unless I was running a tatoo and piercing shop. sarcastic 

Like it or not ongoing medical problems are a legitimate reason to give an applicant a second look. Why is it you insist tht companies operate as not for profit charities? They exist to make money for the owner or shareholders. Employees who are going to be out for extended periods, or shorter but more frequent absences due to illness cost the company in productivity and are actually an unfair practice to their fellow employees over the long term.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
The question was on offering a Medicare type public program - my bet is most of that 65% percentage understood it was a "government run" alternative.

Understood and the answer was still, not as long as the government is running it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
KMart, McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King.

If your asperation in life is to flip burgers and you want to make more than the minimum wage, start your own hamburger stand.

If your asperation is to work in retail then eventually, if you are good at it, you will be making better than 35k a year as my wife is. If your asperation is to do as little as possible for yourself, then you have no one to blame and you don't have any argument to make on how anyone owes you anything.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
And look in these types of stores and see the staff - especially the older one that would be trying to support a family.

Those trying to support a family will fall with the safety net financial guidelines and are eligible for a number of support programs so your argument is again nothing but an emotional one and devoid of logic.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
Any wage that qualifies for any government support (like Medicaid or food stamps) is basically corporate welfare.

Then where are the democrats on raising the minimum wage? Let's start there then see how many can actually afford health insurance on their own? Beats the daylights out of letting a government that has shown time and again it can't financially manage anything correctly have more money to waste.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
Why don't I feel you would be for raising the minimum wage to were it's above the poverty line?

Minimum wage, if you work even part time 30 hours a week as a single person is above the poverty line. 30 hours a week 52 weeks a year, times $7.25 is $10,875 per year. The 2009 federal poverty guideline shows a single person being in poverty when they are below $10,830 a year. Once again you throw out a number and it get debunked. When you drop the emotion and start looking at the numbers it makes no sense to fork over more money to a government that has done nothing but waste the money it has already been given, plus the money it has borrowed.

Reform the existing sytem, say no to any public option.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:34 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 33):

Gosh, does that mean I can start quoting Sean Hannity without fear of a backlash?

LOL no. Hannity and Maddow are opposite branches of the same tree. There's just nothing to be taken seriously there.

Quoting DXing (Reply 30):
You mean like the changes made in 1997 that were to cut waste and fraud in the system and have been waived every year by Congress since then? That is exactly what will happen with any public option that is passed. When it runs into monetary trouble, rather than actually fixing it they will pass a bill and then ignore the very bill they passed digging an even deeper hole and passing the buck on to some future Congress.

This is why there is no public confidence in getting anything done - one way or another Congress and their incompetents will touch it!
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:47 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 33):
If your asperation in life is to flip burgers and you want to make more than the minimum wage, start your own hamburger stand.

I had my own business and loved it.

I understand, however, that not everyone can handle that. With 100 being the AVERAGE IQ it's logical that about half the population is under that number. We're talking limitations at one level or another.

Quoting DXing (Reply 33):
Understood and the answer was still, not as long as the government is running it.

The responses to the polls also understood a Medicare type public plan is government run.

On the topic of government being nothing but failures, my wife & I were in OKC today and went to the Murrah Building Memorial after lunch. On the west side by the sidewalk they have what remains of the chain link fence and people from around the country (and Canada) leave tokes of one type or another.

There are also pictures of some of those lost, kept fresh by family members. And today it really struck me how strong some people hate the government. Certainly not as much as McVey, but at levels that make them very angry. And there is enough hatred of our government by some conservatives that I am genuinely concerned at times.

You can put all of your faith in the public sector, but I tend to trust those working in government a bit more at time. Especially when those in private sectors put more in their pocket if they screw you a bit.

Looking at the faces on the fence today brought home the fact that those who were killed were basically just like you and me and don't deserve the scorn that some toss at them with such casual indifference, or total mistrust.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Thu Oct 01, 2009 12:08 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
The responses to the polls also understood a Medicare type public plan is government run.

Makes no difference. Whenever the question contains an option run by the government support goes down the drain and quickly.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 35):
On the topic of government being nothing but failures

That's a nice emotional story. I'm sure the people working in government offices across the country are all well meaning and just trying to do the job in front of them as they best see fit. I imagine the same is true of the small fish workers at insurance companies across the country as well. The problem is with the political leadership. They are the ones that pass laws yet fail to look at the details before voting. They are the ones, that given the chance, pass the buck onto the next Congress. By the time the people you are talking about get involved the deal is already done and they are left to sort out the mess on a daily basis. But when the rules are wrong from the start there is only so much an individual can do. Hence SS, medicare, and medicaid all creep closer to bankruptcy with every passing day. Yet some would give the government even more power and more money. It's just totally illogical. I don't hate the government and most people don't, but on the same hand they have seen the political leaders completely mismanage one program after another and they realize that this one is so big and so invasive that if it isn't done right it will quickly become not only a quagmire but a living nightmare as well. Scrap what is on the table. Start over. Reform the existing system.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Thu Oct 01, 2009 2:43 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 36):
Reform the existing system.

Start with reforming insurance companies?

If you give them the authority to deny payment on treatment then give them the responsibility for any damage they do.

That's something I learned in a management class many years ago - responsibility should equal authority.

And provide health care to the rejects. Period. No BS about making them pay more than they can afford.

And damn well make sure that if you cure a child of a horrid medical condition that they are covered for the rest of their life - not branded.

Don't think it's a problem with kids? Ask DocLightening how many kids would have headed to hospital this year with a new diagnosis that will currently brand them for life.

Ask Doc, then talk about how the poor wee insurance companies can't survive.

To be blunt - I'll trust the government far faster then I will insurance companies.

But then I've been through the mill with their games.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Thu Oct 01, 2009 4:34 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
If you give them the authority to deny payment on treatment then give them the responsibility for any damage they do.

Been discussed.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
And provide health care to the rejects. Period. No BS about making them pay more than they can afford.

Sorry, but there has to be equity as those types will more than likely be using the system more.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
And damn well make sure that if you cure a child of a horrid medical condition that they are covered for the rest of their life - not branded.

That would fall pretty much in line with no denial of pre-existing conditions no?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 37):
To be blunt - I'll trust the government far faster then I will insurance companies.

Guess we'll talk later when your medicare benefits get cut. Whyyou trust the government when they openly seek to undercut their own bills is beyond me. Senator Reid has no problem making other statess pay for his. And you think any public option isn't going to be loaded with little tricks like this?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27781.html

When Baucus first floated the bill in mid-September, Reid strongly criticized it because the federal government would pick up just 87 percent of the new costs, leaving the rest to the states. But Baucus later modified the language to ensure that the federal government paid 100 percent of the costs in Nevada. Reid’s state — along with Michigan, Oregon and Rhode Island — has been given the added protections because it has been hit especially hard by the recession.

[Edited 2009-10-01 09:45:26]
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Thu Oct 01, 2009 6:19 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 38):
Sorry, but there has to be equity as those types will more than likely be using the system more.

I think we both know you are against taking care of those who can't pay high costs of health insurance plus deductables, co-pays, etc. Let's just agree that I want them covered and you don't want your money spent on others.

Quoting DXing (Reply 38):
Guess we'll talk later when your medicare benefits get cut.

Or we can talk about our private health insurance benefits that got cut during my wife's 2 years of chemo for acute leukemia.

And maybe ask DocLightening to join us with some reality about how wonderful your insurance companies are.

Quoting DXing (Reply 38):
Been discussed.

Yep, and never resolved in my mind. If they have the authority to impact medical treatment then they should have the responsibilities that go with that authority. The only ones who would logically fight that one would be people who work for insurance companies - and they aren't fighting it on moral grounds.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:25 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39):
I think we both know you are against taking care of those who can't pay high costs of health insurance plus deductables, co-pays, etc. Let's just agree that I want them covered and you don't want your money spent on others.

No, let's not agree on that. I'm all for them having insurance, but they have to pay what is fair, just like those evil rich people whom you want paying a surcharge just for having money. Just like a bad driver has to pay more than a good driver even if it isn't their fault they are bad drivers! I find it amusing that the left holds up mandatory automobile insurance as reason that mandatory health insurance is legal and Constitutional yet on the same hand dismisses the fact that bad drivers pay more for their auto insurance (whether or not their bad driving record is really their fault) as reason that pre-conditions should pay more for their health insurance.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39):
Or we can talk about our private health insurance benefits that got cut during my wife's 2 years of chemo for acute leukemia.

And maybe ask DocLightening to join us with some reality about how wonderful your insurance companies are.

I think we can agree on two things here, you're flip flopping again because you keep saying you don't care about us in the private market sector since you are in the wonderful shrinking world of medicare and VA, and that it has been apparent from the beginning that your families unfortunate luck with poor health has biased your view towards the private sector.

Perhaps we can also talk to Doc about how he'll feel when the government, in it's misguided way, attempts to control medical costs by controlling health care workers pay, just like they are already doing in other industries.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 39):
Yep, and never resolved in my mind. If they have the authority to impact medical treatment then they should have the responsibilities that go with that authority. The only ones who would logically fight that one would be people who work for insurance companies - and they aren't fighting it on moral grounds.

Ok, I guess we can cover that ground again although this argument has been debunked as well. For the third time, private industry is not charity. Charity and the government safety nets exist, funded by private, corporate, and taxpayer contributions to cover those that private industry does not. It has been proven several times that a large amount of the so-called "uninsured" are already eligible for one or more of these type programs but just don't know it. So again, until you can drop the "emotional" charges and deal with the facts you're argument is without merit. A contract works both ways and it is up to the individual to realize what is in it and what they are eligble for and what they are not. That old evil personal responsibility thing again rears it's ugly head because once you do that you can set about protecting yourself.

On a seperate note, if Senator Reids antics weren't enough to show that political leaders do not have the publics interest anymore at heart than suppoesed evil insurance companies, his junior Senator has introduced an amendment, and gotten it passed that, would offer discounts to those living a "healthy" lifestyle, as defined by the government.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2009...-scores-win-health-care-amendment/

WASHINGTON -- Republican Sen. John Ensign scored a victory in his pursuit of healthy lifestyle rewards with passage of his amendment to health care reform legislation that would offer deep discounts to those who quit smoking, lose weight or otherwise meet healthy milestones.

The Senate Finance Committee accepted Ensign’s amendment, co-sponsored by Democratic Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware, on a mostly bipartisan vote despite fierce opposition from the American Cancer Society and other public health groups who worry it would be punitive.


Wouldn't smoking and obesity be regarded as "pre-conditions"? Yet in this amendment that has passed and is now in the bill, those that smoke or are over weight will pay more, under the proposed government sponsored public option plan.

Scap this bill, reform the existing system.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:56 am



Quoting DXing (Reply 40):
that it has been apparent from the beginning that your families unfortunate luck with poor health has biased your view towards the private sector.

My situation when we were in our 40s was very much like most people's - probably even yours.

Our most unfortunate situation has been the private insurance that we ended up with, and the vigor with which they deny existing conditions.

WIth my wife and I both on Medicare these days we're protected far more than you are.

For my granddaughter, O know that she is one of the "branded for life" and believe that she should be able to live as normal a life as possible. That, based on our experience, means a public option is far more ethical and affordable. You approach is to put them in a program where profit margins increase costs, and then increase them yet again.

Quoting DXing (Reply 40):
For the third time, private industry is not charity.



You missed my point about authority = responsibility. Throw in tort liability to keep them reasonably honest.

And while you're so impressed with your private insurance company why not Google them along with the word "lawsuits" or "investigations" or "fines". Might be surprised.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Fri Oct 02, 2009 3:57 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
Our most unfortunate situation has been the private insurance that we ended up with, and the vigor with which they deny existing conditions.

Of course there is only one insurance company in the country and they should all be judged by the way you were treated. sarcastic 

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
WIth my wife and I both on Medicare these days we're protected far more than you are.

You would hope so but in order to make any public option work, medicare and medicaid are going to take cuts in service and benefits. There is simply no way to make any public option anywhere near deficit nuetral without them doing so. That does not even begin to address the fact that they are both going broke.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
For my granddaughter

Which is exactly where my comment about your bias is derived from. Even though it would be far less costly to enact legislation forcing insurance companies to acknowledge and cover her you would rather the tax payer go even deeper into debt via a whole new social program.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
You missed my point about authority = responsibility. Throw in tort liability to keep them reasonably honest.

I didn't miss your point, I don't accept it as we have charitiable and government safety programs in place to cover those that insurance won't at this time. Want to legislate those ideas in, fine, drop the public option, make those who fall into the catagory pay what is fair for the companies exposure and maybe you have a deal.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 41):
And while you're so impressed with your private insurance company why not Google them along with the word "lawsuits" or "investigations" or "fines". Might be surprised.

And of course these well meaning legislators won't write in safeguards that protect the government from being sued will they? sarcastic 

You just don't get it. This is not about the welfare of the citizen. It is about the continuing accusition of power centered in Washington D.C. and nothing more. Your health, your grand daughters health, the financial position of the United States, none of these mean anything to the legislators. What is important to them is that once in place they have yet another strangle hold on their hold over you thus making them more important. It's narcissim run amok. Since the money isn't theirs, and they can always take more if they need it, the financials mean nothing to them. Any problems will happen more than likely after they have set themselves up for life and left.

The really hypocritical, and sad, part of this whole past few months are the crocodile tears that legislators like Speaker Pelosi, Rep. Frank, and most lately Rep. Grayson have been crying all the while injecting nothing but emotion into the argument and nothing in the way of fiscal responsibility.

Scrap this bill, reform the exisitng system.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Fri Oct 02, 2009 6:58 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
make those who fall into the catagory pay what is fair for the companies exposure and maybe you have a deal.

And if they can't afford the price? Gonna let kids go uncovered, are you? Or, say, people who develop MS or MD later on in life?

Of course, you'll never have a problem that you aren't prepared for.

Or how about a public option if their premium from your friends in the insurance industry is, say, over 8% of their income? That 8% number seems to be popular with the Republicans right now.

Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
This is not about the welfare of the citizen.

That is very obvious from your remarks.

You have said nothing in any remark that shows concern for anything bu your wallet and your friends at the insurance companies.

Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
There is simply no way to make any public option anywhere near deficit nuetral without them doing so.

Amazing that other countries can do it. Australia is an outstanding example of public and private options working side by side.

On the Google side, I took a look. This one is in Texas:

"The state's largest health care payment plan has settled a class action lawsuit filed under the [i] Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act]/i]. More than 90 percent of Blue Cross and Blue Shield health plans and the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association have agreed to implement key business practice changes and to restructure the way they administer and pay for medical care for Blue Cross enrollees."

Emphasis mine

"The settlement, announced April 27, includes a guaranteed cash payment of more than $128 million to class members. "

That one legal action was settled for $128,000,000.00?  eyepopping 

Well, Texas is a big state.  Yeah sure

Other parts of the $128,000,000.00 settlement:


"Implement a definition of medical necessity that makes sure patients are entitled to receive medically necessary care as determined by a physician exercising clinically prudent judgment in accordance with generally accepted standards of medical practice;

Provide physicians with access to an independent medical necessity external review process;

Use clinical guidelines based on credible scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed medical literature (taking into account Physician Specialty Society recommendations, the views of physicians practicing in the relevant clinical areas, and other relevant factors) when making medical necessity determinations;

Establish an independent external review board for resolving disputes with physicians concerning many common billing disputes;

Pay for the cost of recommended vaccines and injectibles and for the cost of administering them;

Not automatically reduce the intensity coding of evaluation and management codes billed for covered services;"


The link is http://www.texmed.org/Template.aspx?id=5796

And the headline for the link is:

Blue Cross Agrees to Settlement in Antiracketeering Lawsuit


Antiracketeering?????

Corrupt Organizations Act?????

Blue Cross/ Blue Shield settles a RICO?

RICO?????

Holy Lawsuit, Insurance Man!!! Isn't RICO for Mafia Guys?

And BC/BS settled?

Wow! Next we're giong to need to be worried when Santa puts his finger to the side of his nose before going up the chimney.

Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
Of course there is only one insurance company in the country and they should all be judged by the way you were treated

I've been googling a lot of companies. BC/BS for one - they aren't the company I used, by the way.

Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
make any public option work, medicare and medicaid are going to take cuts in service and benefits.

FUD, pure FUD.

Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
Which is exactly where my comment about your bias is derived from.

Obviously I shouldn't want the same standard of health care for others as I want for my family. How can we be a conservative country is we get that concerned about our fellow man?

Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
You just don't get it.

After some time on google I get it more than before. Might just be seeing a lawyer.

Quoting DXing (Reply 42):
Scrap this bill, reform the exisitng system.

And leave the lawsuits to us!

Wow, actually looking into how the insurance companies are screwing others as much as us was an eye opener.

Especially when it was DOCTORS suing BC/BS!

Wow Pissed Jury!!!!! There may be some hope for this country's health standards yet!
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:03 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
And if they can't afford the price? Gonna let kids go uncovered, are you?

The safety nets are there and still will be. I keep telling you that as long as you leave emotion in the equation your posts will always come up short.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
Or, say, people who develop MS or MD later on in life?

Who, if it is disabling, are then eligible to enter into SS and medicare at an earlier age. Of course those programs are going broke because of financial mismanagement at the Congressional and Presidential level but for now that would be the remedy.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
You have said nothing in any remark that shows concern for anything bu your wallet and your friends at the insurance companies.

If someone doesn't keep an eye on the wallet there won't be anything left in it. We are well on our way as a nation towards that point right now. You just keep on wanting to have the whole twizzler box for the price of one of them.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
Amazing that other countries can do it. Australia is an outstanding example of public and private options working side by side.

Unfortunately our government employees at the top level aren't interested in a level playing field between public and private. Their goal, stated by more than a few of them, is a single payer government run system that the public has seen for itself would not work via the failing programs of medicare, medicaid, and SS.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
I've been googling a lot of companies. BC/BS for one

Well that's a nice piece that speaks to opening up State markets to other companies and gives a preview of what to expect when government becomes the only health care insurance company. BTW, the lawsuit was about billing practices, not about health care delivery.

http://www.hmosettlements.com/settle...ross/BLUE%20CROSS%20SETTLEMENT.PDF

Read the "what is this litigation about", it has nothing to do with denial of service and everything to do with delayed or denied payment to doctors based on inproper billing.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
FUD, pure FUD.

I know, it's all you have left to say when the facts are completely against you.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
Obviously I shouldn't want the same standard of health care for others as I want for my family. How can we be a conservative country is we get that concerned about our fellow man?

Concern is one thing, capitulation is quite something else.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
After some time on google I get it more than before. Might just be seeing a lawyer.

Have fun.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 43):
Especially when it was DOCTORS suing BC/BS!

About something that had nothing to do with health care delivery.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Fri Oct 02, 2009 8:19 pm



Quoting DXing (Reply 44):
Who, if it is disabling, are then eligible to enter into SS and medicare at an earlier age.

Let me give you some bad news.

If, say, you hit a problem like my wife did - acute leukemia. Get a diagnosis and head straight to the hospital for a month - the first of 10 hospital stays.

My wife got her Dx in October and was told not to bother working to renew her medical license.

Pretty good indication that she's disabled in terms of ever working again.

Now, you go into hospital and get a good social worker who tries to take care of you.

Gets you set up on Social Security Disability - actually helps you file, because even if you're approved your SS Disability will not start for 6 months after the Dx.

Of course, you have taken care of you and your family so you are fully covered those 6 months for income and medical protection.

And 2 years after your SS Disability takes effect (30 months after your Dx) you will then qualify for Medicare (Disability) - assuming you are under 65 AND you live that long.

Now that assumes you're lucky and live that long. One guy got a Dx of AML during one of my wife's hospitalizations and went straight to the hospital. Less than 24 hours later he was at the funeral home.

And of course, that assumes the rest of your family is fine. I was on an operating table 10 days after my wife first went to hospital. Cancer surgery.

What should scare you is that we're not unique these days. Happens more than you think and it can happen to you as easily as an auto accident.

Quoting DXing (Reply 44):
BTW, the lawsuit was about billing practices, not about health care delivery.

You really don't think they are related in any way? ROTFLMFAO!

$128,000,000.00! Wow!!! Holy Denied Care!!!

Used to be BC/BS was one of the most reputable names in this country and now the basically admit to a racketeering and corruption legal action.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:16 pm

Socialist Alert! Socialist Alert!

Radical Left Wing Publication Praises Government Medicine:

"Vets Loving Socialized Medicine Show Government Offers Savings"

"Rick Tanner is one American who loves his government-run health care.

After serving in Vietnam and spending three decades in the U.S. Navy, Tanner retired in 1991 with a bad knee and high blood pressure. He enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration and now benefits from comprehensive treatment with few co-payments and an electronic records system more advanced than almost anywhere at private hospitals."


Must have had cranial injuries to love his government run health care!  hypnotized 

"As Congress considers changing Americans’ access to health care, the veterans agency, whose projected budget this year is $45 billion, is evidence that the government can provide care favored by patients that may offer savings when compared with private insurers.

Researchers publishing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the British Medical Journal and the Annals of Internal Medicine in recent years have endorsed the system. A Canadian policy journal, Healthcare Papers, devoted an entire issue to it in 2005.

“The VHA’s experiences have become a model around the world,” the editor-in-chief of Healthcare Papers, Peggy Leatt, wrote at the time."

Obviously the NEJM has been corrupted by the frozen brains up north and those folks in Old Europe.  crying 

"Patients routinely rank the veterans system above the alternatives, according to the American Customer Satisfaction Index. Last year, the government program got a satisfaction rating of 85 for inpatient treatment, compared with 77 for private hospitals. The index, a University of Michigan project, found that veterans’ outpatient care scored 3 points higher.

Proponents say the agency also offers a model for restraining health-care costs. While an August report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found a “substantial degree of cost control,” it also said the comparison with private care is difficult because of the changing mix of enrollees in the veterans system and differing benefits.


I say it's frightening how the socialists are tossing this stuff out in public, potentially corrupting the youth of this country.  crazy 

Link to this socialist organization:


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aLIc5ABThjBk

Bloomberg? Haven't I read that name somewhere?  dopey 
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8716
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sat Oct 03, 2009 1:26 am

http://www.projo.com/opinion/editori..._10-02-09_ROFTB7D_v47.3f8a72a.html


Here is a good realistic summary of it all. I do not think it is off topic.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:25 am



Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 47):
Here is a good realistic summary of it all.

Not too bad at all, and pretty well on topic.

There is a lot of money in playing games with policy holders' health and insurance companies sure don't want their nice ride shut down.

Of course one way to help pay for the needed reform is to disallow a tax deduction on all the political contributions that insurance companies make to politicians.

And here is an interesting one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A39IpJF5Q0
 
Ken777
Posts: 9061
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama Healthcare Speech To Congress - Part II

Sat Oct 03, 2009 2:46 am

"Bill Frist on Health Bill: I'd Vote For It"

http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009...ist-on-health-bill-id-vote-for-it/

Remember Bill?

He used to be the Republican Majority in the Senate.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], casinterest and 14 guests