Healthcare reform?

In addition to Factcheck.org, I also like Politifact (www.politifact.com).  I rely on both of them heavily to sort through the crap and spin.

I am definitely for some health care reforms.  Consumer protections so that insurance can't be canceled or premiums skyrocket to unaffordable levels if you develop a chronic or life-threatening illness, protections against exclusions for pre-existing conditions, etc.  I think we desparately need some source of affordable health insurance for self-employed people, people who are between jobs, people who want to retire before they reach Medicare age, etc.  Whether that needs to be a public option, some type of co-op plan or what . . . I don't know.

I'm really put off by all the false information that's being spread.  The lobbyists that are behind it make me mad.  The elected officials that perpetuate it make me furious.  The incredibly stupid people who are allowing themselves to be the pawns of the insurance/pharma lobbyists make me alternately want to throw up my hands in frustration and cry. 

 Edited to add a couple more thoughts:

For those concerned about rationing of health care -- You need to understand that we already have rationed health care in this country.  We've had it for years.  Those who have insurance get care, those who don't have insurance largely don't get care.  If that's not rationing, I don't know what is.  The more accurate concern IMO is what will happen if millions of people who are currently uninsured suddenly become insured and start going to doctors like the rest of us do?  That's where problems will come in, especially with primary care doctors, which there's already a shortage of.

As far as the rush to get this done -- If it doesn't get done this fall, it likely won't get done in the foreseeable future.  Next year is an election year, and politicians are notoriously hesitant to do much of anything in an election year.  They'd rather sit on their hands and do nothing than have their constituents accuse them of doing something "wrong" right before an election.

As far as somebody to "just tell me what's in it" -- well, that can't really happen because this reform legislation is a work in progress.  There are either four or five proposed bills floating around between the House and Senate.  I hear four from some sources, five from others.  So I don't know which is the correct number.  Nobody can know yet what a final bill will contain.

quick response re the pharmaceutical costs - they try to sell us that WE pay for R&D but while we may pay for some it is spread across the companies few of which are US owned.

We are however the only country that allows advertising of drugs to the public

According to an article a year or so ago in the WSJ, a third of pharmaceutical co's operating budgets are dedicated to advertising. So let's cancel the advertising to the public and drop the cost by a third. Its a start.

Magazines and TV shows would also shrink by half

A little off subject, but I'm sick of people saying our life expectancy is bad in the united states. It's a classic lying with statistics ploy. The all cause mortality is higher, but so is our rates of many diseases that shorten life like obesity. Our survival rates for essentially all major illnesses is MUCH better then any other country in the world. For example our 5 year survival for colon cancer is 10% higher then that in canada. 10%, that's Huge. Also many countries don't count infants under 30 weeks that die after birth as an infant death, which throws off the infant mortality stats. The united states has the BEST healthcare in the world period. It needs reform, which should start with Tort reform. So much misinformation is spewed by both sides. For example Obama in a speech this week inferred that surgeons operate on patients that don't need it to make money and that a surgeon gets paid 50,000 for a leg amputation when in acuality we get paid 700-1100 depending on the insurance. The american college of surgeons has been all over that this week and you will probably see a white house apology soon. It is true that people may not be able to keep your health care plan and here is why. If the government plan is cheaper, many companies will drop their insurance. You the employee have no choice in the matter so yes, many will be forced into the government system. It is not a scare tactic, it's the truth.

ottoluv

It needs reform, which should start with Tort reform.

I absolutely agree with this statement.  If tort reform would be dealt with, medical malpractice insurance costs would go down,  & you, in general, would see a HUGE reduction in costs.   

I think that the idea of government health care plan is ridiculous.  Ask yourself this...Does the federal government run any program efficiently?  I would love examples of things that the govt actually runs efficiently, because I can't think of a single one....If this passes, I can only see it being more of the same....poor policies, bad decision making, & zero accountability.

I also want to point out that this is a government health insurance plan.  Not a health care plan.  It is an outright lie to say that people can't get health care here.  They may not be able to get health insurance, but they aren't denied care.  You can walk into any emergency room & see that for yourself.

 

I say the post office does a half way decent job. I get my mail every day except sunday between 3 and 5pm.

I think that something is better than nothing. From what I've heard of the bill - that this bill will regulate the private insurance companies so they can't do some of the crooked things they do now like discriminate based on gender, age, or pre-existing condition, drop insurance for criticaly ill people, or charge the rediculus co-pays for things. The health insurance companies now get free reign to pick and choose only the healthiest and drop people when they get sick, so WHY is health insurance still so expensive?

It seems to me the current system isn't fair, it's downright cruel actually. I don't have political stance, all I know is that it's wrong for some hard working person to literally loose everything they own and have to go bankrupt just because they get sick, even IF they have excellent health insurance, that doesn't just affect one person it affects many, the family, the kids if there are, what about charitable organisations that the person who got ill used to donate to but is then unable because of this crooked system. About 8 years ago my mom had a serious kidney issue and worked at a hospital with excellent health care, my parents would have had our house paid off by now but instead they'll be paying on it until they're in their 90's. How can america be 'great' anything unless it's citizens, and the government which is elected by the citizens to serve the good of the citizens take care of everyone? Equality - access to health care for everyone when they need it so that they can be productive members of society, how is that a bad thing? If I break a law, part of the punishment is probably going to be a fine, it seems wrong to 'fine' people for getting sick! Life is so short isn't it enough that humans die and people get ill, does it also have to be financial hardship and a burden and the many difficulties lack of money bring? How is that a 'good' world? Any bill that's passed will have problems, but SOMETHING has to be done, nothing is going to please everyone and I do believe this bill is on the right track. Banks are regulated(sort of) how many things are regulated? Why shouldn't health insurance be so they don't rip people off?

BEVOLASVEGAS

I also want to point out that this is a government health insurance plan.  Not a health care plan.  It is an outright lie to say that people can't get health care here.  They may not be able to get health insurance, but they aren't denied care.  You can walk into any emergency room & see that for yourself.

I think that is an extremely cruel thing to say BEVOLASVEGAS. Example: I set up say a 8' by 8' square chain link pen in my back yard, do some mcgyver work and make a 2' diameter ever burning ring of fire 1' wide by 2 feet tall and set it in the center of the pen, then inside the center of the ring of fire I place a huge pot roast with gravy, and inside the pen outside the ring of fire I lock a dog that's literally starving to death. Oh - but I didn't deny the dog food, it's right there!

BEVOLASVEGAS

I absolutely agree with this statement.  If tort reform would be dealt with, medical malpractice insurance costs would go down,  & you, in general, would see a HUGE reduction in costs.

Totally agree with that!   

It is an outright lie to say that people can't get health care here.  They may not be able to get health insurance, but they aren't denied care.  You can walk into any emergency room & see that for yourself.

Yes, a person w/o insurance can get emergency care at a hospital that receives federal funds.  But try to get care for a chronic, complicated illness w/o insurance.  And I'm not talking about deadbeats here, I'm talking about hardworking people who don't want to be a burden on society.  I know how impossible it is, because I have a relative with serious health issues (he is almost completely paralyzed, the result of a brain tumor he had in his 20's).  We've waded through the system on his behalf, so I speak from direct experience, not from just observing an ER and making an assumption.  To say my experience is an "outright lie" is highly insulting.

BEVOLASVEGAS

ottoluv

It needs reform, which should start with Tort reform.

I absolutely agree with this statement.  If tort reform would be dealt with, medical malpractice insurance costs would go down,  & you, in general, would see a HUGE reduction in costs.   

 

 

YES!

I do think that the current system needs reform.  However, i think that everyone needs to take a deep breath, take a step back, and not throw the baby out with the bath water being in a hurry to just pass something.  My issue with a big federal plan is that the federal government does not have a good track record with being able to effectively and efficiently run the programs that they do have, so how are they going to successfully run a new one?

On the radio last night I heard about a place in Pennsylvania where the rule was that if a patient had complications related to surgery within 90 days of said surgery and had to be hospitalized, all the care associated with the treatment of the complication was free (well, free to the patient and insurance, the hospital/doctor had to eat it).  Apparently error rates have gone down.... 

BEVOLASVEGAS

I think that the idea of government health care plan is ridiculous.  Ask yourself this...Does the federal government run any program efficiently?  I would love examples of things that the govt actually runs efficiently, because I can't think of a single one....If this passes, I can only see it being more of the same....poor policies, bad decision making, & zero accountability.

Absolutely! 

Yes, the post office might deliver your mail everyday, but do you get all your mail, all the time?  No.  It's not uncommon at all, and every person has experienced this, for something to get "lost in the mail."  I would bet there is a much higher error rate with the post office than with UPS & FedEx.  Which brings me to that comment about this Obama made this week.  He was trying to say that the post office (government program) exists and UPS and FedEx also exist and are doing just fine.  But UPS and FedEx are not allowed to compete with the USPS in the handling of first class mail.  So the comparison is apples and oranges.

Remember a year or so ago, all the horror stories about what was going on at Walter Reed Hospital (government health care)?  That, to me, is a small example of what we can expect with the "public option."  And, as an employer, I can tell you that yes, it will be cheaper for companies who currently provide private plans to turn their employees over to the government plan.  Why?  Because everyone's taxes, especially corporate taxes, will go up to pay for this plan.  It would not make fiscal sense for a company to pay additional taxes to cover the public option AND pay for a private insurance policy for its employees.

Remember...the government can operate a program because it can do so at a loss every year.  Private companies must make a profit to stay alive.  If the government can operate a program, at a loss, that competes with private industry, it can, and will, drive that private industry out of the picture.

I

sillysally

BEVOLASVEGAS

ottoluv

It needs reform, which should start with Tort reform.

I absolutely agree with this statement.  If tort reform would be dealt with, medical malpractice insurance costs would go down,  & you, in general, would see a HUGE reduction in costs.   

 

 

YES!

I do think that the current system needs reform.  However, i think that everyone needs to take a deep breath, take a step back, and not throw the baby out with the bath water being in a hurry to just pass something.  My issue with a big federal plan is that the federal government does not have a good track record with being able to effectively and efficiently run the programs that they do have, so how are they going to successfully run a new one?

On the radio last night I heard about a place in Pennsylvania where the rule was that if a patient had complications related to surgery within 90 days of said surgery and had to be hospitalized, all the care associated with the treatment of the complication was free (well, free to the patient and insurance, the hospital/doctor had to eat it).  Apparently error rates have gone down.... 

Sorry for the long quote. Yes I also agree with a tort reform, but it is not the only answer. And let's take the slow down, back off approach for a moment because torte reform is not the only answer.

To lower cost both for the health care private sector and the people who use it you need to reduce everything. The cost of a good education is staggering, supply and demand costs are right up there as well.

In regards to government care. My neighbor is failing, his health is so poor everyday is a crap shoot. He is a veteran and gets his care from the VA, not one test or treatment has been denied. They bought him a scooter and installed a trailer and new shocks to hold it on his van. His meds come in the mail on time, not once was he denied anything.

On the other hand I did have an issue with Medicare last year. I had alot and I mean alot of claims denied, and when they do that all they do is send you a letter stating "not enough information for adjudication". After months of redoing these claims over and over we finally found out the real problem. This is going to make you scream, but it's OK, I did enough of it for you. The reason for denial was that the lines printed on my forms.....sometimes fell outside the lines! Yes, because my printer sometimes threw a line over another line, they were denied. I cried when they finally paid us, and paid us indeed, all of it in one check. And now that I have the problem solved we get paid regularly and to be honest, we get paid the same amount that private sector pays, in some cases, more. So, yes the system has some silly snafu's, but it does work.

And let's not let all the Dr.s off easy either. I know why they do it, but it does not help the situation either. Self pay prices are out the whazoo. If I go to my Dr. and have no insurance my visit will cost me (for the sake of example) $200, but if I have insurance it only cost me and the insurance $65, that is a difference of $135...pure profit. I don't blame the Dr.s their fee's, they face costs like everyone else. So where do you draw the line?

And pharmaceuticals? Please! That industry, wonderful that it is, needs to be leashed! To me it is nothing more than legalized drug pushing. Back in the beginning of the year they made a law that the company's could no longer give "freebies" to Dr. offices. No more lunches, no more dinners, no more pens and pads of paper, I have a cabinet full of stuff that we got free.....to use "their medication"

Advertisement for cigarettes was stopped many many years ago, I personally believe that ads for medication and beer...yes beer or alcohol of any kind (sorry!) need to be banned from the airways. Think about it, people on air cannot swear, show nudity or other things of that nature, but here is a drug to make you feel better....but it might cause chest pain, or external bleeding, or maybe headaches and tummy aches, and see your Dr. should you have something longer than 4 hours, but that's OK, it's good for you!

Phhht..........

ETA: I want the preview your post part back! Gah!

sillysally

BEVOLASVEGAS

ottoluv

It needs reform, which should start with Tort reform.

I absolutely agree with this statement.  If tort reform would be dealt with, medical malpractice insurance costs would go down,  & you, in general, would see a HUGE reduction in costs.   

 

 

YES!

I do think that the current system needs reform.  However, i think that everyone needs to take a deep breath, take a step back, and not throw the baby out with the bath water being in a hurry to just pass something.  My issue with a big federal plan is that the federal government does not have a good track record with being able to effectively and efficiently run the programs that they do have, so how are they going to successfully run a new one?

On the radio last night I heard about a place in Pennsylvania where the rule was that if a patient had complications related to surgery within 90 days of said surgery and had to be hospitalized, all the care associated with the treatment of the complication was free (well, free to the patient and insurance, the hospital/doctor had to eat it).  Apparently error rates have gone down.... 

That is not exactly true, and it has had no effect on complication rates. Surgeons are paid by a 90 day global and it has been that way for many, many years in every state with every insurance company. I am paid a flat rate that includes the patient's care and 90 days of post-op care including any complication that occurs during that time frame. It just goes to show you how much misinformation is being spread by the media. If you think that worry over what we get paid affects the job we do you are deranged. The pressure of having another person's life in your hands and the feeling that comes with complications is all the motivation you need to do a great job. THe hospital does get paid during the 90 day global if there is a complication.

ottoluv

It just goes to show you how much misinformation is being spread by the media.

That's so true and it's what makes it impossible to listen to all the hyperbole and sort it out. I don't trust either side to be honest.

I worked with all types of education legislation for several years and it was mind-boggling how advocacy groups could spin something to their advantage. That's why I said the only real way to know what this legislation will or will not do is to read the legislation. Unfortunately, the average person wouldn't be able to understand most of it anyway and even if they did, it'd likely change many times. I know I'm biased because I have good health insurance but the whole thing makes me really nervous.

aerial1313

And, as an employer, I can tell you that yes, it will be cheaper for companies who currently provide private plans to turn their employees over to the government plan.  Why?  Because everyone's taxes, especially corporate taxes, will go up to pay for this plan.  It would not make fiscal sense for a company to pay additional taxes to cover the public option AND pay for a private insurance policy for its employees.

Remember...the government can operate a program because it can do so at a loss every year.  Private companies must make a profit to stay alive.  If the government can operate a program, at a loss, that competes with private industry, it can, and will, drive that private industry out of the picture.

 

For years my husband owned his own business. Pretty much a one man show. Our family's health care was covered by the gov't plan, which we paid for through our income tax.  Under the plan there were certain things that were not covered, Dental and Rx being the major ones. Those we paid for out of our own pocket and yes, at times we put off or compromised in these areas. But generally because we did not have private insurance premiums or copays to worry about for our other health care needs, we as a family of five were able to afford what we needed. We did have the option of buying private insurance to cover anything outside the gov't plan. Luckily, we never needed it, but it is available.

Five years ago my husband went to work for a corporation. We were still covered under the gov't plan exactly as before. However the company  (and most do) had additional health benefits as part of the employment agreement. We now have a 100% Rx plan and a 80% dental plan plus perks like private hospital rooms, eye glasses etc. Because the cost for health coverage is paid mostly through personal income tax, the corporations are in a position to offer many extras to their employees. This has help our personal finances a lot.

In addition to the gov't plan and the benefit package from work, we also have the option of buying private care. For example, if my DH needed a hernia operation he could go to his doctor who would refer him to a surgeon and the procedure would be done and paid for by the gov't. He could also go to a private clinic that specializes in hernias and pay for it himself if he felt he could have it done quicker/better. Same for such things as C-scans or MRI's. There are lots of private health providers available.

  

 

 

denise m

For years my husband owned his own business. Pretty much a one man show.

 

But there's a difference between providing insurance for yourself and providing insurance for your employees.  My company has 18 employees.  If our corporate taxes go up, we won't be able to provide health insurance benefits for our employees anymore.  It's double-dipping.  Either that, or we'd be forced to lay people off.  Which do you think people would prefer?

I guess what you're explaining is the difference between how income taxes work in the US vs. Canada.  In the US, the employers have to match certain taxes that the employees also pay.  So, my employees get FICA taxes withheld from their paychecks, and whatever that total is for all 18 people, the company has to pay the exact same amount (I think it's something like 7.5% of gross pay). 

FICA = Social Security and Medicare.   Here's what I would like to know.  If the government implements this plan, will they lump the tax hike to pay for this into the existing FICA taxes?  If so, not only will people's taxes go up, but so will those of businesses.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if this ends up happening.  Even the White House personnel is now saying they can't guarantee middle class taxes won't increase.

Obama's been saying the tax increase will only be on people making over a certain amount ($250K a year, I think), but a lot of those people  are actually small businesses (subchapter S Corporations), where the company profits are reported on the shareholders' personal income tax returns.  My company is a S corp.  So, even though we're in no way, shape, or form "rich," we'll get slapped with the tax increase.  And then we'll have to cut expenses somewhere.  Usually when a company's tax liability goes up, the first place they look to cut expenses is in labor, because that's usually the biggest expense.  So, people will lose their jobs.

Also, I thought about this earlier.  When I was in college, I went a couple times to a county-run health clinic.  I was going to get birth control pills, and didn't want my parents finding out.  This was my free, government-run healthcare.  The two times I went, it was the most miserable experience.  I waited forever, and then was treated as if I was not at all important (think the DMV).  We all know things that are government-run are done better at a local level, so I shudder to think what the federal government-run clinics will be like.

aerial1313

I shudder to think what the federal government-run clinics will be like.

Where did you get the understanding that there will be federally-run clinics?  That's not something I've heard discussed, and based on the current proposed bills, I can't figure out where there's any provision for setting up clinics of any kind.

That's an interesting point, since no one's actually talking about that right now.

What is in the bills for how the "public option" would work, then?  Would it just basically be a government-provided insurance policy, good at any existing private clinic/hospital/medical office?  Would they then force those private companies to accept their insurance?

Every country that has a government-controlled health care option has government-run clinics, hospitals, etc.  Why would it be any different here?

Not being difficult, just trying to understand how it would all work in reality.