var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

Underpants Gnome

September 25, 2009 6:13 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

You forgot the part where the death panels are going to force you to have an abortion and swear loyalty to socialism.

8 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

September 26, 2009 1:03 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Underpants Gnome: Health Insurance Companies ARE Death Panels - 4500 deaths a week, 100 a day killed because the companies commit fraud and refuse to cover them when they said they would.

I loved how Michael Moore took to bringing and blocking the health insurance nazi offices with coffins in some of his cable shows! Too bad they didn't have corpse-actors spraying employees with blood, screaming, etc.

Yes, they should have to see and deal with what they are causing to everyday people in the real world.

$\"user-pic\"$

zjgz

September 25, 2009 7:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Underpants Gnome: Everyone keeps putting the death panels down. Soylent green doesn't make itself!

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

September 25, 2009 6:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Underpants Gnome: And marry someone of the same sex.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Underpants Gnome:
Do you realize the irony in the fact that your outrageous exaggeration mimics the exaggerations you are referencing?

\"Death Panels\" is an exaggeration. But unless every procedure for every person is going to be paid for, somebody in the government is going to have to decide what treatments will be approved and what won't be.

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

September 26, 2009 5:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: Uh, as opposed to non-medical personnel who make the decisions now, knowing that they have to keep the medical loss ratio (aka - \"money paid to doctors and hospitals\") down to keep their jobs?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: Well it could be like the Canadian system and the doctors decides. We have finite resources as well and we only spend 1/2 as much as you do (no your R&D is not included in that number and does not make the difference.) But we give out better care for the average person.

$\"user-pic\"$

Traveshamockery

September 25, 2009 8:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well it could be like the Canadian system and the doctors decides. We have finite resources as well and we only spend 1/2 as much as you do (no your R&D is not included in that number and does not make the difference.) But we give out better care for the average person.

Link please?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 12:27 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery:

cost roughly double in private and public
[www.oecd.org]

life expectancy
[aging.senate.gov]

overview
[www.canada.com]

doctors point of view:
[www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov]

generally doctors who've been in both systems favor the Canadian sysem slightly.

Over view (Canada is comparable in most areas better in some)
[www.urban.org]

$\"user-pic\"$

SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor

September 26, 2009 12:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kingmanic: Canadians believe their health care system needs more reform than Americans believe theirs need reform. Link? I don't need one, I'm qualified to say this.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kingmanic: I have to say, I miss the Canadian system. I miss not having to look over 30 health care plans and try to decide what is going to work and what is a waste of money for myself. When I moved to the US, I didn't have any idea how well I had it.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Except that Canadians, and the rest of the world, come to the US for treatment.

But you do pay less, that's true. We come over the border to buy our drugs whenever we get the chance.

$\"user-pic\"$

Falcon5768

September 25, 2009 10:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: YEAAAAAH no.

Thats what we call made up Republican/Insurance company bullshit. Its actually the reverse.

But thanks for playing Facts vs Stupidity.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: I've never mey anyone who's left the UK for treatment in the US. Thinking about it, I only know a handful of people who have had private treatment of any sort - except dental and cosmetic, of course.

$\"user-pic\"$

Traveshamockery

September 25, 2009 9:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I've never mey anyone who's left the UK for treatment in the US. Thinking about it, I only know a handful of people who have had private treatment of any sort - except dental and cosmetic, of course.

You may want to check your country's record of survival and treatment success on a number of major illnesses versus the USA: [iusbvision.wordpress.com]

* Breast cancer kills 25 percent of its American victims. In Great Britain, the Vatican of single-payer medicine, breast cancer extinguishes 46 percent of its targets.

* Prostate cancer is fatal to 19 percent of its American patients. The National Center for Policy Analysis reports that it kills 57 percent of Britons it strikes.

* Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development data show that the U.K.'s 2005 heart-attack fatality rate was 19.5 percent higher than America's.

And for those who claim removing the \"profit motive\" of insurance companies will lead to improved care:

* The U.K.'s National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) just announced plans to cut its 60,000 annual steroid injections for severe back-pain sufferers to just 3,000. This should save the government 33 million pounds (about $55 million).

$\"user-pic\"$

LadyTL

September 26, 2009 4:33 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: Way to pick such a tiny example of the system. Never mind that the US system kills thousands of people each year because they can't get the basic care they need to not die from simple things like the flu or a broken bone.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 10:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: To take one example - prostate cancer, the stats vary vastly according to where you get them from - and they're rarely directly comparable as they take different starting positions and measure different things. Some UK sources claim 75% survival.

Steroids for lower back pain? Read page 193, line 27 of this
[www.nice.org.uk]

Why would we spend money on something that in few cases actually works?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 9:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: Nice bullshit blog stats.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

September 25, 2009 8:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: Really? I have yet to see the hordes of Canadians coming across the border plugging up US hospitals and clinics and I live fairly near the border. Try again.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: No actually we don't.

[content.healthaffairs.org]

\\Not in a significant enough numbers to mean anything. Just like Americans heading to Mexico for cheap treatments are not significant factor in your system.

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

September 25, 2009 7:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: \"Except that Canadians, and the rest of the world, come to the US for treatment.\"

Like all the people who go to Mexico and Indian and Thailand to get cheap operations that are just as good as the ones here? Huh.

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

September 25, 2009 6:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Murph1908: \"...somebody in the government is going to have to decide what treatments will be approved and what won't be.\"

You mean sort of like how the system is now where somebody who works for an insurance agency decides what treatments will be approved and what won't be?

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

September 26, 2009 2:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: hehe:
\"somebody who works for an insurance agency decides what treatments will be approved and what won't be?\"
that's quite true, something i am going through now.
my insurance company decided that a continuous glucose monitor for my diabetes is covered due to cost effectiveness. and they approved it and it was sent to me and they paid for it.
unfortunately i can't USE it because they won't cover the replenishable supplies that it needs to work.
the insurance company decided they would only pay for those if i order them from the pharmacy, but it's not an item the pharmacy can get.
so now i am sending off mountains of paperwork to the 'nurse reviewers' who are the real live human beings who make those decisions for the insurance company. .. supposedly human anyway!

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

September 25, 2009 7:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: Well, with the insurance companies, at least this country is a democracy so we have the power to vote people out and chance the way things are handled and such.

Oh, wait. That's with government.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TCama: Happens all the time with Insurance agencies. They go out of business if they don't change their policies.

The company I work for has been sued and has lost market share to better insurance companies because they have failed to do a good job.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: Yep. Except it will a government bureaucrat with full legal immunity and not a person or corporation that can be sued for their actions.

$\"user-pic\"$

squinko

September 25, 2009 6:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: Yep. That's exactly what will happen.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: Exactly! Just like all those lawsuits have caused the insurance companies to totally change their ways and not screw anyone in the pursuit of a healthy profit!

Oh wait...

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Notsewfast: Work for one of said insurance companies. Yes, they do continue to do it, but they are also kept in check by the lawsuits.

It is pretty clear that they make that calculation: Can I do this and get sued?

For a government bureaucrat, the question is just: can I do this?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko:
Yes.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jfielder

September 25, 2009 6:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: No, right now it's like \"Your 94 year old grandmother has cancer.... for the 5th time, but she has insurance. So the hospital will do everything they can to get another year on gram's life... even if it costs a million dollars... because that doesn't matter, those costs will just be passed onto the average insurance buyer\". On the gov't medical plan, someone will decide exactly how much that extra year on gram's life is worth... Yeah, it's harsh, but this is just how it'll go. A human life does have a financial value.

$\"user-pic\"$

elysse

September 25, 2009 8:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Jfielder23: \"Your 94 year old grandmother has cancer.... for the 5th time, but she has insurance.\"

Sorry, it's more like \"we just found out your gran has cancer for the 1st time so.. we're dropping coverage. Hope she makes it!\"

True Story.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ballistic90: I'm in the same position. Health care in this country needs some serious work.

I'm also tired of the old \"Canadians come to the U.S. for care\" argument. Some Canadians indeed do this, but only because they don't want to wait for the procedure in Canada and would rather pay out of pocket to have it done in this country.

I felt I was treated adequately in the Canadian system and never needed to run down here for treatment. The percentage of Canadians who comes to the U.S. for care is low.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

September 25, 2009 8:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Jfielder23: Wow. You obviously have NO CLUE how private insurance is operating right now. Ever heard of death by spreadsheet?

At least the health reforms try to move to evidence based decisions rather than profit based decisions. If medical care is going to be decided (it already is) I would rather see it done based on medical merit rather than some CEO wanting a new yacht (like it is now).

$\"user-pic\"$

edebaby

September 25, 2009 7:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Jfielder23: your's? about $0.02

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

No, right now it's like \"Your 94 year old grandmother has cancer.... for the 5th time, but she has insurance. So the insurance company will comb over her records with a fine tooth comb to determine is they can rescind coverage because they know their contracts are easily voided. Unless of course she belongs to a strong profitable group plan. If that is the case then gram lives another year.\"

$\"user-pic\"$

Mint137

September 25, 2009 6:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Jfielder23: You do realize that currently, someone does decide how much that one year of life is worth, and that person works for the insurance company do you?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow. I thought everyone was oblivious. I'm glad to see Mint137, Notsewfast, veg-o-matic, squinko and murph see it how I do.

$\"user-pic\"$

Applekid

September 25, 2009 6:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko: Yes, and it's wrong in both cases and clearly something whose opportunity to fix was missed.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Applekid: Well, who would you have decide? Given that clearly no country can affored to pay for every treatment for everyone.
In the UK the task is given to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (yes, and that really is a tacky acronym) but at least it's open and subject to scrutiny. It's supposed to be, and largely is, based on fairly sound statistics. The idea of Quality Adjusted Life Years isn't hard to grasp, and given finite resources it's a reasonable stab at a hard problem.

What I really don't understand about the US argument is that you all make out as if private medicine will cease to exist if you have a properly funded state system. As far as I know, this hasn't happened anywhere in the world - national health systems run in parallel with private medicine with only a few grumbles where they rub shoulders.

Oh, and just in case anyone hasn't yet got the message, Stephen Hawking was born under the British NHS and has repeatedly failed to die under their tender care.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

So we just decide that everyone gets every service every time? How about a drug that costs $1 billion per dose and will extend life by 30 seconds. Do we give that to everyone?

$\"user-pic\"$

Applekid

September 25, 2009 6:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: I would hope such a drug wouldn't get marked as \"safe and effective\" because it's clearly not effective. And obviously something that doesn't save a life shouldn't be granted for free. Nobody should have to die of a curable disease because they had the audacity to get sick.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Sure it would be safe and effective - it would safely extend life by 30 seconds, guaranteed. It was an extreme example, but nice try blowing off the point.

Somebody, in any system, somewhere, has to be in the position to say \"the benefit of that procedure/medication doesn't justify the cost, we're not going to pay for it.\" We can certainly debate who that person should be (gov't employee, insurance company employee), but that person needs to exist.

Nothing \"saves a life,\" it merely extends it by a given amount.

Read up on the UK's QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Year), which is the honest way to deal with this issue:

[www.medicine.ox.ac.uk]

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

September 25, 2009 6:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Underpants Gnome: All hail Marx and Lenin!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The important question is... How can i get on one of these death panels I've heard so much about? I aim to avenge my grandfather's death through bureaucracy... I'm looking at you Old Man Fitzpatrick, may you suffer with that gout until your final days!!

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Notsewfast: I keep seeing AARP commercials promising Seniors that their tax money will go to their healthcare, and it makes me wonder why I should want *my* tax money going to *their* healthcare if they are so opposed to paying for mine in the event something happened to my job.

(I can't even tell if the point is that AARP wants no reform or wants a public option and doesn't like the current proposals... those ads are seriously unclear)

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

September 25, 2009 6:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Notsewfast: Although, a glut of old people deaths would put too many houses on the market, increasing inventory and dropping prices. Not smart in the middle of an inventory crisis. :)

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: I thought all old people lived in retirement communities in Florida?

$\"user-pic\"$

antisane

September 25, 2009 8:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JohnQPublic: Take it from someone living on the seacoast of NH: they don't all live in Florida year-round, many just go there for the winter.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: All part of my master plan... I will buy all of the (former) old people's homes, pull the plastic off of the furniture, get rid of all the cats and sell for a huge profit once the market turns around.

It can't fail!

$\"user-pic\"$

The Porkchop Express

September 25, 2009 6:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Notsewfast: sure it can, those cats can be hard to rid of.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 1:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: I suppose you wanted to link this?

You're welcome :D

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 6:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

$3200 annual premium? Screw you, imaginary Randy; we pay $8,000 in annual premiums! And then $3,000 out of pocket before benefits kick in! And that's the cheaper, high-deductible plan!

The coverage kicks ass but oh my GOD do we pay an arm and a leg for it.

10 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): *cough* Damn, and I thought my health insurance was unfair with me paying 20% of doctor's visits.

Truth be told, my employer covers 100% of the monthly contributions as long as it's just me being covered. And after hearing about all of this, I'm feeling really lucky.

$\"user-pic\"$

The Porkchop Express

September 25, 2009 6:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): But at least with insurance the arm & leg will be healthy, right?

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 7:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@The Porkchop Express: Yep!

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

Wow, that is steep. I pay $125/month for me, 100% payment in network, for out of network $600 deductible and 80% payment thereafter.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Damn that's a lot of money.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 6:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Alex Chasick: I know I live in a high-insurance-cost state, but it's pretty ridiculous.

$\"user-pic\"$

Jfielder

September 25, 2009 6:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Seriously... that's what I was thinking! I pay 1700 a year... for myself (young and healthy too)...

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

September 25, 2009 6:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

At my current job, (employer provided insurance), you'd pay about $600 a month for a family of 3, and then you have a $2,000 per year deductable...so if you actually use the insurance, it is going to cost you around 10k a year for insurance (not including any copayments, etc). And in my area, if you make 30k a year, you have a good job.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

September 25, 2009 8:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: This is about on par with where I live. Plus we have a health care monopoly. Well actually it is two big companies that own just about every clinic and hospital in the state. The price for a medical procedure here is more than it costs on the east or west coast including NYC and LA. W-T-F. Now add to these two factors that one of the two only providers in the state is ruthless about collecting every last penny on anyone who is above the medicaid cut off. Google Catholic Health Services and debt collection.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 6:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: We get a memo from the employer every year, so I happen to know the employer's share is around $20,000. So that's $28,000 in premiums and $3,000 out of pocket before the 80% copay kicks in (and then I ceiling out at some point and get 100% coverage, but I don't remember what that point is.)

So $31,000 a year before the insurance company covers a damn thing. My entire pregnancy, birth, post-natal care, and pediatric coverage so far (to 4 months) hasn't gotten up to $31,000.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Okay, so you will see a tax increase because you have a Cadillac plan.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 7:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: I am happy to pay increased taxes for universal coverage. I'd be even happier if it was single-payer, but we can start with universal coverage.

And frankly, reforms and oversight should send my costs down ... as should universal coverage making sure the poor get actual coverage instead of using the ER for minor ailments that could have been treated cheaply.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I agree with what you are saying, but the problem is that the poor (who should already be on Medicaid! or SCHIP) are not given a financial incentive to seek care outside of the ER.

When my kids had SCHIP for one year, it was $5 for anything.

Hospital stay: $5 (not per day, per stay)
Surgery: $5
ER Visit: $5
Dr Visit: $5
Lab: $5
Prescription: $5 (if covered, mental health ended up going to the county, and the county had their own formulary)

Under this there is no incentive to seek care cheaper than the ER. Esp. since the ER is open 24-7 (in most places)

I know myself to seek out urgent care centers for the non-ER stuff, but due to EMTALA (or due to malpractice concerns) the ER can't tell you to go to an urgent care centers or a clinic.

When I worked at a Children's Hospital there was one or two doctors that had the guts to tell parents NO in the middle of the night for anything beyond tylenol on ear infections. (There is actually a study that shows no benefit to antibiotics for treatment of ear infections, I believe that would make antibiotics an unnecessary care in those cases)

$\"user-pic\"$

LadyTL

September 26, 2009 4:50 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: Actually state income requirements for Medicaid varies massively from state to state. In my state at least a family of 4 needs to make LESS than 5k a year to get medicaid and even lass than that for any single person so unless you don't have a job you can't get it. Also not every family in need qualifies for SCHIP. The problem isn't that they need a \"financial incentive\" but the fact that there is alot of people out there that cannot afford and/or get any kind of insurance.

$\"user-pic\"$

ktetch

September 25, 2009 9:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: \"There is actually a study that shows no benefit to antibiotics for treatment of ear infections, I believe that would make antibiotics an unnecessary care in those cases\" US medical care with uncecessary care? you don't say!

A large proportion of the development of agressive strains comes from the tendency of certain countries, to overuse drugs. You're left then with the resistant strains, which grow back up. Flu's a major case in point. Tens of thousands take a flu-shot to basically save a week or so of discomfort, and as a result we end up with the super-strains,

To quote a doctor friend that practiced for a while in NYC \"they give drug prescriptions away like willy wonka gave away sweets\"

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

September 26, 2009 3:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ktetch: yes! i am now only able to take antibiotics for life threatening infections. i had 11 ear infections in one year [after recurring one or two a year since birth] as a kid that kept worsening due to resistance. and when my doctor finally had me let the eardrum rupture and drain it did so in two days and i haven't had an ear infection since and my hearing is very marginally damaged.

$\"user-pic\"$

j-o-h-n

September 25, 2009 6:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Holy Crap, your employer needs to get a better plan. My family coverage is $1028 employeer/$51 me and that's 100% coverage on everything except a small prescription drug copay.
[ [www.hrs.iastate.edu] ]

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@j-o-h-n: well, herein lies the problem. you work for an employer with A LOT of people in their pool. it's not listed on the link, but i would imagine they also provide student coverage thru the same program. that's a whole lot of heads to pay for the few people that might get sick.

but where i work, i'm one of 3 people in the insurance pool. my insurance costs ~$12,000. we don't have the negotiating power of 50,000 people. we could, if they allowed non-traditional pools to form, but my state doesn't give employers that option.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 7:08 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@j-o-h-n: High insurance cost state. :) And if that's your monthly, your employer is paying something over $12,000/year; for apples-to-apples, the employer pays $1666/month and we pay $666/month -- oh, right, they made that deal with the devil ...

One reason OUR portion of the premium is so high is that my husband's firm is apparently already full of socialists ... secretaries and paralegals pay the lowest percent of the premium (around 10%), associates pay around 30% of the premium, and partners pay around 50%. Because they can better afford it.

$\"user-pic\"$

j-o-h-n

September 25, 2009 9:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Even accounting for your local socialism, that's still $13K/yr vs $31K/yr. What makes your state so expensive health insurance-wise? It's not like Iowa is exactly a hotbed of the svelte and healthy! Dare I ask if it is the legal climate there?

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 11:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@j-o-h-n: It's not a particularly notable legal climate; I think it's a higher cost of living, more hospitals in an expensive urban area; VERY limited competition among insurers, especially in rural areas; etc.

My self-insurance premium was literally ten times more expensive in Illinois than in North Carolina, both Blue Cross/Blue Shield. When I self-insured. I don't think there's anything remotely like rationality or market forces in insurance prices.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 4:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

It's also (possibly) an issue of mandatory coverage. States where insurers are required to cover mental health issues, infertility treatment, etc etc are going to have highe premiums than states where insurers aren't required to cover such things.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

XTC46

September 25, 2009 6:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If accurate, this sounds reasonable to me. I am in the first catagorey of people who have good medical coverage through my employer, so nothing else even affects me.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

winshape

September 25, 2009 7:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: It might. The private option is dependent on making profit to survive. The government option has no such motivation. If it runs out of money, then they just get a government bailout...otherwise government officials will be accused of killing people by not funding the government option.

A private option dependent on profits vs. gov't option with nearly unlimited source of income? How can anyone possibly think that the two can coexist?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@winshape: Yeah, Stanford just can't compete with UC Berkeley. I expect them to close up shop any day now.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@winshape: If it runs out of money, then they just get a government bailout

You mean like the for-profit financial sector? And the for-profit airline industry? And the for-profit auto industry? Free market, baby!

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@xtc46 - thinksmarter on twitter: the conservatives would caution you that if employers lose their tax deduction, they may stop offering your old coverage. nobody can predict what will happen in the future, but what bothers me about this bill in general is it seems they're trying to rush a plan out before fully exploring all of the options. a subject this important should be debated extensively, with plenty of research, before we pull the trigger. but many lawmakers have not even read the whole bill, much less debated or thought about it

$\"user-pic\"$

XTC46

September 25, 2009 9:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: Thats very true. Making laws like this in under a year seems like no where near enough time. I have a hard time relating to this particular issue becasue i have never had a job that hasnt given me medical benefits (ever, and I have worked full time since I was 16) I also dont have a family to support (although Ive lived with my girlfriend for a couple of years and she also has medical through her job).

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@craptastico: The math does not work.

Oh never mind the money. I mean the doctors and nurses:

[www.nytimes.com]
[www.slate.com]
[www.reuters.com]

So where are we getting all the staff to take on the 30-50 million newly insured?
Sure, some will no longer use the ER, but then they will be eligible for normal treatment and that will increase demand.

$\"user-pic\"$

Falcon5768

September 25, 2009 10:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: So where are we getting all the staff to take on the 30-50 million newly insured?

You realize how many people use our healthcare system and dont have insurance right?

The reason why many doctors are quitting and many hospitals are closing is specifically because legally we cant reject uninsured people but the insurance companies dont have to cover the uninsure so the government has to pay for them.

This is why a public option is so important. With a strong pubic option, the insurance companies cant overcharge anymore and our health care costs may actually fall in line to the rest of the world where they legally CANT jack prices up 300-500%

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

September 25, 2009 8:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: Come to Sioux Falls, SD you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a doctor, someone wearing scrubs or a car with a hospital parking permit sticker.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: this is why i think we need some federal education incentives for general practitioners & general surgeons - the 2 categories in most need of new doctors. i would even support tort reform for these 2 groups of doctors to lower their malpractice insurance, provided their salary was under a pre-determined cap & a medical review board was charged (& responded) with pulling licenses for doctors that make egregious mistakes.

offer them up to 75% reimbursement for first 10 years of service - this gives them the opportunity to use general care as a springboard to specialization later on in their career while providing a much needed pool of doctors for the influx of patients.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: I'm hoping this leads to a reform of the system. Right now, most medical students try to become surgeons or some specialty have you and very rarely do they go into family doctor positions or primary physician positions, mainly because there's no money in being a primary physician, and a lot of long hours. These are the people that, in my opinion, could use some help too, since they need to maintain a wide range of knowledge and are constantly over worked.

$\"user-pic\"$

bohemian

September 25, 2009 8:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ballistic90: With a more regulated system and a public option insurance there could be a push for a better primary care model. If insurance will compensate for better care or pay more for a more comprehensive exam it could change primary care.

The way it is right now you have 10 minutes with a rushed doctor who is working on a piecework system and your just a piece to complete to up their average. I have all but quit using primary care doctors because they can't do anything. They don't have enough time and make way too many mistakes. I have most of my medical care down to a few specialists. If I have anything else they can't handle I deal with it myself if at all possible.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Interesting, but doesn't include some potential downsides, such as:

1. tax increase to fund expansion of coverage
2. employers limiting raises if mandates increase the cost of health care plans
3. loss of access to high-deductible plans (if that's what you want/right for you)

Overall, probably worth looking at this analysis in context - it's from a group that advocates health care reform, so it's likely to have some biases, although they don't seem to be egregious.

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown:

1) Baucus' bill discusses the tax increases, like taxing Cadillac Plans, and the excise tax (Sorry Mr. President, it is a TAX) on those who fail to get insurance. (more later)
2) Yep.
3) Yep Yep Yep.

The tax for families won't exceed $1800 a year for failure to obtain insurance, but then, who will pay for health coverage when they use it and can't afford it? Oh, that's right, the other insurance plans will pay for it, and that's how we're supposed to make Health Care affordable, by insuring everybody so we don't have to pay more for services to cover losses to uncollectible debts...

The thing that irritates me the most is that these bills don't address keeping things affordable except for:
- digitizing records (okay, that saves what, 1%? 5%?, and that would only be a one time savings, right?)
- cutting Medicare waste (okay, why aren't we doing this right now? And they've already cut back on reimbursements to doctors, and the doctors are beginning to revolt. A dirty little secret is that private insurance has not only been paying for uncollectible debts but also Medicare overruns....)
- removing the $1k per person premium to cover the uncollectible debts incurred by the uninsured. (This would be a one time savings only)

The real reason that so many people don't want a public option is this: in order to reach the goals you want, you either have to ration care - voluntarily or involuntarily, or restrict access to care. Doesn't Canada basically use an HMO type system, where primary care doctors are paid a flat amount per year, but in return they only have to work a set number of hours a year? I've read stories about doctors not being available for appointments late in the year because they're taking a three month vacation since they won't get paid for any other work that they do...
And we also know the story of Natasha Richardson, who wasn't flown to the closest hospital with the equipment needed to scan her head properly.... I think that we are at a crossroads where it will be either all private or all public, and with the all public, the only way I can see the system to survive is to ration access to equipment, which means closing trauma centers in the small cities (those cases can go to the big cities!), and of course, months to wait for appointments....for one year my children were on SCHIP because my employer at the time didn't contribute one penny to family coverage, and it was very expensive to go from employee+spouse to family coverage, and due to liberal income limits I qualified.

When my son needed care I had to wait 6 weeks to see a doctor - there was only 5 doctors in my county accepting the plan, and 4 weren't accepting new patients. To top it off, even though I was on the SCHIP plan, my kids were uninsured for three months due to the government's snafu, and what was my recourse?

Write a letter to the state board. That's it. No lawsuit, nothing. I don't expect anything better to come from a public option plan.

$\"user-pic\"$

ktetch

September 25, 2009 10:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: \"Doesn't Canada basically use an HMO type system, where primary care doctors are paid a flat amount per year, but in return they only have to work a set number of hours a year? \" The system isn't going to be like canada's. Just for comparison to another system it won't be like though, in the UK, they get paid by how much work they do, but on a performance basis, not just throughput as US doctors are paid, and there's no kickbacks to encourage uses of certain drugs, as there is in the US.

\"When my son needed care I had to wait 6 weeks to see a doctor - there was only 5 doctors in my county accepting the plan, and 4 weren't accepting new patients. To top it off, even though I was on the SCHIP plan, my kids were uninsured for three months due to the government's snafu, and what was my recourse? Write a letter to the state board. That's it. No lawsuit, nothing. I don't expect anything better to come from a public option plan.\"
I lived in the Uk for 20 years. I could go to any doctor any time. UK doctors are paid by the work they do (and if they don't like working for the NHS, there's private medicine (BUPA) as well, even 65 years after the NHS was formed!

I've had to do ER runs before now in both the US and UK. UK hospitals being busy, and US ones being empty and the UK ones got me in and out sooner, less form filling, and no checking with some guy in a suit over coverage, as has happened in the US.

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

September 26, 2009 5:22 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ktetch: yeah i know what you mean about the ER in the US. i've spent more than an hour in the ER waiting area in a wheelchair with the staff trying to get me to hold a pen and sign some forms - and then once being seen by the medical staff as opposed to the admin staff, the doctors were saying how amazed they were that i wasn't dead or in a coma [this was the day i discovered i was diabetic]
because i still COULD sit up they MADE me sit up until they got that paperwork.
and i'm quite well insured. i mean, semi comatose person - take my driver's license and my insurance card, go photocopy them and get me to a doctor already!

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 7:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: First, you need to learn more about Canada's system, and second:

\"The real reason that so many people don't want a public option is this: in order to reach the goals you want, you either have to ration care - voluntarily or involuntarily, or restrict access to care.\"

Care is ALREADY RATIONED. Currently it is rationed so that the rich get care and the poor do not, and so that the well get care and the sick do not. Is this the system you feel is fair and just? Also consider that when the poor don't get health care, they're less likely to be able to work.

\"which means closing trauma centers in the small cities (those cases can go to the big cities!),\"

Already happening, but you're thinking specialty units, not trauma centers.

\"and of course, months to wait for appointments.\"

Already happens (in ALL systems, public and private), and is a function of doctor distribution, not a function of \"managed care\" or \"public insurance\" or \"state health care.\" My parents have \"Cadillac care\" and my mom waited six months for a routine joint surgery ... which is a slightly longer wait than she would have had in Canada or in the U.K. It was non-emergent and there aren't enough surgeons doing it, so that was the first appointment she could book. It takes over a year to get in with my ob/gyn because they're so popular and you have to book your yearly pap a year out.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):

First, I want the poor to have access. At the same time I don't want to subsize someone who voluntarily chooses to spend their money on something else other than health insurance.

I looked up the Canadian thing: Apparently there was at one point a large tax levied if a doctor's office's billings exceeded $400k. (that includes all costs billed, so it's more than just the doctor's salary) That was in the mid-90s, not sure if it's still in place. So, I can see a doctor meeting that before 12 months is up.

Yes, rationing goes on right now. The question is what kind of rationing is best? I think a PPO style is better than an HMO, which is what the original proposal in the House was hinting at (The Secretary determines that will be covered or not). HMOs \"save\" money by having a process to approving non-emergent care, and denying certain non-necessary procedures. The President said he doesn't want to pay for unnecessary procedures - so who is going to determine what is necessary and what isn't?

If you need a procedure but the gov't denies it, I doubt you would find a doctor to do it - right now there is already a law that states if a doctor accepts Medicare they can't give treatment *above* what Medicare covers by accepting cash from the patient. (Which makes me wonder, what doesn't Medicare cover?)

The poor should get care. My employer pays for a really good plan ($3000 max deductible per family/year, $25 office, $50 ER, 100% after deductible.) and the EE portion of the premium for a single person is only $90 a month. But even that is \"too much\" for many people. (Note: ER portion is almost the same as $3/hr benefit)

I just think by eliminating state requirements and opening up group coverage to larger pools (and go across state lines!) we may be able to reduce the costs. At the same time mandate coverage and eliminate any preexisting condition exclusions. If you sit down and look at what each state requires a plan to cover, you can understand why it costs as much as it does.

Something has to change, but every option should be looked at.

(And BTW, it does seem that the best docs in an area are booked solid.....but in my area, I haven't had to wait that long for an appointment except for my son's doctor who sees more lower-income patients)

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: I don't know what kind of rationing is best, but this statistic got me thinking: According to the Kaiser Family Foundation using Dept of Health & Human Services Data, half of all the money spent on healthcare in 2006 went to treat 5% of the population.

That blows my mind - 5% of the people use half of the health care resources in the whole country?! I'm not sure how I feel about that.

p5 in this pdf
[www.kff.org]

This may replace my previous favorite health care statistic, which is that the annual salaries of the top 16 health insurance executives is equal to the amount of $$ needed to provide insurance for everyone who is uninsured in the U.S. 16 people vs. millions without health insurance - it's a bit unreal.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

the annual salaries of the top 16 health insurance executives is equal to the amount of $$ needed to provide insurance for everyone who is uninsured in the U.S.

So, how exactly does that work, then? If we assume $5k per person, and 40MM uninsured people, that's $200BN, which would mean each of those executives is making $12BN/year. Numbers just don't add up.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: As far as #2, employers have already been largely limiting raises as the cost of health care has skyrocketed over the past few years and corporate productivity has increased, but pay has been relatively flat.

For me, at the end of the day the key thing is competition, and there's a few problems with the health care market that keep it from being truly competitive, which would naturally keep prices down. I think a public option would likely lead to a tax increase at the end of the day, but the benefits would outweigh the costs. I'd actually generally prefer that government ration care rather than corporations, because their motivations are different - I'd take government inefficiency over a corporate desire to make profit most days.

$\"user-pic\"$

Skaperen

September 25, 2009 6:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: The USA already has much higher health care costs than countries like Sweden with a (mostly) government system. The cost of paying for the health care for uninsured people is also partly built in to the existing costs. The tax increase that would happen would be met by a corresponding decrease in costs. And if done right, the cost decrease would exceed the tax increase. Republicans are basically just opposed to the government having a hand in it ... they don't care about whether it increases or decreases costs.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If we went to single payer, I agree, it would eventually decrease costs, partially through limiting care (which needs to happen, don't get me wrong). All of the plans being discussed would increase spending in the near term, though, and quite materially. Now, it's certainly possible to make the argument that achieving universal health care is worth spending money and increasing taxes, but I wish that argument were made honestly, rather than pretending we can expand coverage for free.

[www.washingtonpost.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: This isn't a standard government take over of the health care system, though. Most people are forgetting this.

They've already got a source for the initial start up costs outside of increasing taxes, and it's NOT going to be free, but instead acts like any other health care option, wherein if you want to use it, you have to pay for it. That's where the money is to come from. The monthly premiums and the start-up.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

These breakdowns don't include the tax hikes needed to pay for it all.

BTW, if you want to see a detailed critical analysis, try this which includes things like:

Sec. 1501 (beginning), Pg. 659-670 - Doctors in Residency - government will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you'll live.

9 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RevRagnarok: You realize that you have little to no choice of where you do your residency now, right? There's a whole process called \"The Match\" in which you fill out paperwork detailing your academics, what specialty you want, et cetera and are matched with a residency program based on your information and the preferences of said program. You can request certain residency programs and attend interviews for those programs, but if they don't rank you high enough on their list of desired candidates, you're SOL.

After all the paperwork and interviews, you're assigned a match in March. By submitting the paperwork at all, you're contractually obligated to accept whatever match you're given (and, of course, participating in the Match is the only way to complete a necessary residency and become certified to practice medicine). Some people aren't matched at all, and some programs aren't matched at all. Those programs go up for application after Match Day in what's called \"the scramble.\" There's no guarantee that you'll end up in the city or state you want or even with the specialty you want. Hoped to practice plastic surgery in California and didn't get matched anywhere? Welcome to your proctology residency in Idaho!

So yeah. You don't really get to choose where you go now, anyway, and aren't even guaranteed a residency (and any residency you match with, you have to take). Nice try, though!

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@FaustianSlip: Oh, and in case you think I'm just making up stories about this Byzantine system by which we get our doctors (I thought it was insane when I first read about it), here's a link to the appropriate Wiki article.

$\"user-pic\"$

ktetch

September 25, 2009 10:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RevRagnarok: Section 1501, that would be THIS section 1501, right?
TITLE V--MEDICARE GRADUATE MEDICAL EDUCATION
SEC. 1501. DISTRIBUTION OF UNUSED RESIDENCY POSITIONS.

I note where it says UNUSED. It's incredible how many people take sides, when they've never even read the bill, or the sections they say are so bad.

It's just plain ignorant and stupid of those people.

Random person says \"I banged that Paris Hilton last night\" and you'd be dubious and want proof. They says this law is going to do all kinds of evil things, and you believe them unquestioningly.
\"saw it on the news\" means nothing, as thanks to Akre V Fox, there's no requirement for news reporting to be factual, or even based on facts.

$\"user-pic\"$

UGAdawg

September 26, 2009 2:19 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ktetch: Oh snap! Someone just got schooled.

$\"user-pic\"$

UGAdawg

September 25, 2009 7:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@FaustianSlip: HELLO! Someone's done their homework. I work at a medical school and that's EXACTLY how it works. Match Day across the country happens in March in case anyone is interested.

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

September 25, 2009 6:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'm sorry, but anything labeled \"Obamacare is about controlling every aspect of your life\" as the title isn't credible in the least.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Wow. You got as far as actually clicking it? I stopped giving it credibility when I saw the link was to something called 'stoptheaclu.com.'

$\"user-pic\"$

Mint137

September 25, 2009 6:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RevRagnarok: I'm all for opposing views, but when you quote something like that, it doesn't support your side at all. All of those \"quotes\" on that webpages are not actually quotes from the bill itself. They're opinionated and taken out of context.

$\"user-pic\"$

TCama

September 25, 2009 6:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RevRagnarok: Ah, yes, the site with the URL that ends in \"obamacare-is-about-controlling-every-aspect-of-your-life\". Trustworthy.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RevRagnarok: (Oh yeah, before the personal attacks begin, I didn't write it. Personally, I think health care should remain private but be a taxable benefit, because beyond this discussion I believe in a flat tax rate of all income of any form with no deductions/loopholes.)

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RevRagnarok: Funny. You say you favor a flat tax with no exceptions just after you propose a tax exemption for health premiums.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:31 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

To his credit (what little he deserves), he did say that health premiums should be taxable.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 6:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RevRagnarok: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You're kidding, right?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

September 25, 2009 6:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I just figured out my health coverage costs $9264/year (Me + husband) and I pay in $1848 of that. I know I'm one of the lucky ones, but I'm curious as to how this bill will help me. Am I now going to be taxed on the $1848/year I pay to medical? I pay dental separately. That's one of my major concerns.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: Most of the plans won't tax the amount you pay unless your insurance costs more than $20,000

$\"user-pic\"$

woohhaa

September 25, 2009 6:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: I'm in the same boat.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Forgive my ignorance (work's been crazy for the last few months) but are the public option and compulsory registration off the table now?

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thrillwill: It's not off the table.
\"Schumer And Rockefeller: We Will Get Public Option\"
[tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com]
Don't believe everything the Beltway insiders write.

$\"user-pic\"$

chiieddy

September 25, 2009 6:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@thrillwill: The President said, in his speech to the joint house and senate, that while he thinks the public option is the best way to go, it's more important to do something and not go with the status quo. This effectively said he'd sign a bill without it and took it off the table.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: Though Pelosi is moving ahead with a House version that does have a Public Option. The last fight is still not done.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@chiieddy: It's nice to know that he felt it was important enough to really fight for it. *sigh* I had a feeling this would happen even before Obama was elected, but I'm not happy about it.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

A lot of people have \"good coverage\" through their job? Sorry I think that's a highly debatable point. My last job had what I would classify as \"decent\" coverage but I still ended up paying a fair bit for various things.

I know a lot of people working decent jobs and very few have what I would classify as \"good coverage\"

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: Yeah, exactly. I love that Obama has just completely yanked the public option off the table, which to me was the whole point of this exercise, and now they're saying that it's okay, because if you're uninsured, they're going to allow people who make more money to get Medicare! Of course, by \"more money,\" they mean $16,500 instead of $14,000, which still excludes a hell of a lot of people who work two jobs and are barely making things work on, say, $25,000, but can't afford hundreds of dollars every month in premiums, but who's counting?

So help me, if this garbage gets put through with no public option, no new ways for the uninsured to get insured and is touted as any kind of \"solution\" when it's just further lining the pockets of the insurance companies, Obama can forget about my vote the next time out.

$\"user-pic\"$

morlo

September 25, 2009 7:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@FaustianSlip: Yeah, voting for Palin will really show him!

$\"user-pic\"$

corinthos

September 25, 2009 7:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: Mine is good at doing things through a specialist but then when it comes to a 8 inch long and 2 inch wide piece of wood piecing my leg they want to go around with me on it. I was even todl to go to the er after going to my family doctor to just get it removed and to get something to fight infection. He exclaimed holy **** and laughed a bit and told me to go to the hospital.(family doctor I grew up with and joke around a lot) I could see why in case he pulled it out and it broke or something but I was about to pull it out myself but would rather had something for the pain.
They were trying to say because I was not admitted to the hospital they weren't going to cover it. Yeah let me hope I don't damage any arteries or make things worse by pulling it out myself.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 8:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@corinthos: OH OUCH!

That is not something that should be done in the doctor's office. How in the hell did you do that anyway!?

Stupid insurance!

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81: My insurance pays for almost nothing. They deny almost all my claims. So get this, I'm responsible to pay a bill that I have no clue how big it will be? Imagine buying a car and the dealer won't tell you the price until after you agree to buy it. Then you have no choice but to pay what they tell you to! No thanks!

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Skaperen

September 25, 2009 6:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Define \"good coverage\". Denying coverage isn't coverage at all. It's just money wasted on bad insurance. Will reform put an end to denying coverage?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: Yes, it's supposed to. They want to remove the ability to cancel health coverage due to pre-exisiting conditions.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Skaperen: If it doesn't, I don't believe it's even worth the trouble.

Of course, I'm talking about medical necessity, not, like, face lifts and teeth whitening.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Love the fact that the IRS will be the data repository for any of the bills pending.

We know how often that records get messed up. Imagine the health insurance company makes an error on the SSN. IRS sends you a letter \"Our records indicate that you said you had 12 months of insurance coverage on your 1040, while the named insurance company did not report you. Please provide your last five years of tax returns for a mandatory audit due to potential fraud, along with a check for $3800 plus interest and penalties for failure to remit the excise tax by April 15 within 30 days of the date of this letter. Additionally, please provide documentation for all sales made through eBay as Paypal provided us with a 1099-eBay which shows that you did not report your PayPal income on your 1040.\"

If the insurance companies can't even get COBRA right, how do we expect them to get IRS reporting correctly.

And the Paypal thing is already law.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor

September 25, 2009 6:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

do it the deutsch way!!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil: @chiieddy: I think under the Baucus bill your plan won't be considered a \"Cadillac\" plan and thereby taxable. However, does your husband have a job? If so, your husband's employer may have to pay a penalty for not insuring him....Baucus' bill would MANDATE coverage of large employers. Unless you have a public plan (Tricare, Medicare, SCHIP, Medicaid), you will have no choice.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

BeerManMike

September 25, 2009 6:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The only way i see is that im going to be forced to pay for people, like single illegal mexican women with \"anchor\" babies, out of my pocket. List it with the MANY other welfare programs stupid low-life wanna-be \"gangbangers\" are leeching off the system, useless \"eaters\".

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

September 26, 2009 6:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BeerManMike: The \"socialist\" police protect your precious Abercrombie and Fitch and Hollister from shoplifters and autistic teenagers...

$\"user-pic\"$

arcticJKL

September 26, 2009 2:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

1. I believe he was referring to illegal people not all hard working minimum wager earners
2. I know many people who would trade public schools and libraries for money to spend on books and private schools.
3. I think that the issue we are debating is whether or not we as a society feel the working class should pay for people who are here illegally.

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

September 25, 2009 6:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BeerManMike: Do you have kids? If so, do you send them to a public school? If you do, I'm sure the taxpayers in your school district will be more than glad for you to give them back their money. While you're at it, you may as well give back what they pay for roads, libraries, firefighters and the police force, too. You know, so someone else isn't paying for something you use.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: What a nice and decent response to a terrible, terrible troll. (No sarcasm - I really thought that was quite polite, given the context).

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

September 27, 2009 5:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@oneandone: Thanks! I know he's just a waste of time, but I like to hope that someone able to think will see the counter-argument and consider their stance.

$\"user-pic\"$

ElizabethD

September 25, 2009 8:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

So people working minimum wage jobs and busting their asses making up hotel beds and cleaning toilets are not \"work(ing) very hard for their money\" like you? I would argue that many if not most employees work VERY HARD for their money; but some of us earn more money than others for the equivalent effort. Does this mean low-income workers don't \"deserve\" affordable health care -- only the fortunate ones who have stockpiled their higher wages? Come on! This isn't the wild frontier where everyone can make their own fortune if they just pull themselves up by the bootstraps etc. It's a huge, complex, socioeconomically stratified society we live in today. Our whole society benefits (and makes our individual lives less stressful, more pleasant) when we rugged Amrican individuals relax our death-grip on our \"hard won dollars\" enough to help ensure the PUBLIC GOOD. (As in \"free\" education and other services. How is basic health care not as essential as free education and fire-fighters?) \"Entitled\" is a loaded word. \"Deserve\" is more to the point. Do you deserve access to good health care while other human beings do not? Please. I'm so sick of this \"I'm OK, they're not OK\" rhetoric.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 10:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ElizabethD: You get a heart click for that one!

$\"user-pic\"$

Bunnies_Attack!

September 25, 2009 6:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BeerManMike: Who do you think pays for them right now? Thats right! You do! Hospitals know that 40% of their bills don't get paid, so guess what, they raise the prices for everyone else... the money's got the come from somewhere.

So... instead of 10 million \"poor people\" paying $30 a month to pay for each other's medical bills, right now you're paying for them. This is better?

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I, sadly, am not represented by any of the scenarios above, as I am an hourly contractor and therefore get no benefits whatsoever, other than cash (And that's minimal as well).

Was looking forward to public option. Oh well :(

~I

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 4:57 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@IMoriarty: so was I. my employer offers coverage with deductibles & ratios my family can't afford. we're stuck with it to avoid the gap in coverage Hell issue or the car accident w/o coverage issue.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 9:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@IMoriarty: I'm with you.
Half my income is freelance the other half is from bartending. NEITHER of which offer me health insurance.
I'm over people regarding those without employer based insurance as either :
a. lazy and don't work hard enough
b. invisible and inconsequential

Where are all the other self-employed in all this?

$\"user-pic\"$

Falcon5768

September 25, 2009 10:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah: The best part of the whole argument, is the parrots who champion this idea are mostly people who are getting government benefits one way or another as it is.

Its the typical, I am allowed to have it but fuck you scenario.

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

September 26, 2009 6:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: They're the alter kackers who watch Glenn Beck-erwood and scream \"Keep government out of my Medicare!\".

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

September 25, 2009 6:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My dad is in the same boat...owns his own little construction company (just him and some helpers). The only thing keeping him afloat right now is COBRA coverage, and that is like $600 a month. Once he can't get that anymore...not sure what will happen. Bankruptcy? (he has some circulation problems..bypasses, etc...and he is already in a 'risky' field).

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

BeerManMike

September 25, 2009 6:37 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@BeerManMike: @Skaperen: What are they denying coverage for? If it's for experimental treatments, I don't think that is going to change, the President doesn't want to pay for unnecessary or unproven procedures. Of course, that will depend on the list that the \"Secretary\" will create. (read the bill, the Secretary of HHS will set the standards of what is covered/what isn't)

For the stupid preexisting conditions thing, yes, that should stop under any of the proposed bills, even the evil Republican proposals.

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

September 26, 2009 1:08 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: experimental=any procedure the ins. company has to pay for. Experimental pregnancies (Hey, you shouldn't have had kids!), Experimental aging (Hey, it's not our fault you're getting old and frail old bag!), etc. etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

September 26, 2009 5:33 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer: @ShruggingGalt: the problem i have seen so far is the part where the company makes the product and goes through years of clinical trials to prove something and then the insurance company continues to call it experimental for a year or three.
yes, i work in the pharmaceutical industry so i have some knowledge of the thoroughness of [most] clinical trials.
and i am waiting be able to use an 'experimental' medical device that's been in use in europe for a few years and was approved by the FDA in march of 2008.
granted, my insurer stopped considering it experimental in june, but many other insurance companies still do. they may consider it tried and true in another 5 or 6 years.
personally, i think the definition of experimental should end when the product or treatment passes FDA approval for that indication. i realize off-label use is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: Yeah because, as everyone knows, despite insurance companies' oodles of lawyers, they're held fully accountable by the mighty weight of our justice system, which in no way favors the party with the most money.

Come on.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Get ready for a huge tax increase! Why? Because this so called health care bill is an enormous tax increase in disguise. How? The government knows it can't tax us directly more than they are, therefore, they are getting the insurance companies to collect the taxes for them. We will be coerced to pay for expensive and ineffective health care, the government will charge the insurance carriers a hefty regulatory fee (read tax)… ta da! Sure Obama can blast the insurance companies all he wants and they won't make a sound because the carriers will still make out by getting more coerced customers and they get a nice chunk of the money. When the private health companies can't/won't deliver the health care we demand, the government will say, \"see? Private health care isn't working.\" Then it will be plan B, which will be for the government to further take over and regulate. Boy are we going to pay! This deal is similar to the 401K deal where the government forces employers to pump serious cash into the pockets of financial firms, the difference is the new cash is going to insurance carriers. Nice! If you're a big insurer.

12 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 7:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: The government can't tax us more? Really?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 12:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): Of course they can. But they won't do it directly because people would get mad. It's much easier when you can tax indirectly. The ultimate goal would be to tax us all at %100, but that's not likely to happen. They can hide taxes in things like healthcare, 401Ks, schools, social security, fees for \"services\": tolls, 911 fees, airport charges, carbon taxes, etc. The idea of taxing big business is the strategy. Many think that taxing business isn't taxing the denizens. I happen to disagree. Don't get me wrong, I think \"health care\" is a big mess: it's expensive, insurance companies are the worst and we are denied basic health care in the US. I happen to think this \"plan\" is a plan to tax us. Any health care will be purely incidental. I also think the US will go multi-tier. There will be a big health care divide with the haves and have nots. Sure government healthcare will be just like social security and public schools: not quite good enough.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 26, 2009 3:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: pfft. i went to public schools.

and why, pray tell would \"they\" want to tax \"us\" 100% What possible incentive would \"they\" have to do that?

And you realized that \"of the people, by the people, for the people\" means \"them\" is \"us\" right?

If you're this angry about how things are being run, why don't you run for office? I did, for local office. I won. I cut spending last week, bleeding-heart liberal that I am.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 7:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): That'd be the historic top tax bracket. I got so caught up in remembering how to embed images I forgot to label.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:11 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: Well, I'VE heard that the new health care reform includes free money to everyone in the country and will make it so it rains money and no one will ever work again.

Ok, see what I did there? I made some BS up right on the spot like you did. Unless you sight sources for your garbage you're spouting up there (other than out of another right wing pundit), then your 'facts' are just as valid as mine.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 6:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: A right-leaning and left-leaning tinfoil hat scenario in the same post. You, my friend, win.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 12:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@PunditGuy: Two heads of the same serpent! Why thank you! :)

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

September 25, 2009 6:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: Here's my question: Will this 'huge tax increase' be more or less than the 12K a year we were quoted last time my husband and I looked for private insurance? If the answer is 'less' and we still get coverage, I'm all for it.

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

September 26, 2009 6:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: I guess we're lucky that we only pay 9K a year for our health insurance. But people like vastrightwing would rather pay 30K a year to an insurance company than one penny to the gummint!

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

September 26, 2009 4:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@varro: The punchline is that even with a cost of 12K a year, I would only have limited coverage -- see, I survived a very premature birth, foolish thing that I am, and have a congenital heart defect. When I was covered under my mother's insurance, the company refused to fix the problem on the grounds that it wasn't 'severe enough yet'. Key word here is 'yet'. I was advised by doctors that things would deteriorate as I got older.

I've gone most of my life with very few issues, but because I've had to go without routine health care for so long I'll be lucky to make it past 45 without heart failure. According to anti-healthcare folks, I deserve to die because an insurance company didn't want to pony up 50K and fix my heart when I was 17 and then dropped me as soon as they were able and I was unable to get coverage elsewhere.

At least I know exactly how much money my life is worth to other people.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 9:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: Thank you, that's what I ask everyone that is so against a public option.
Would the increase in taxes to give EVERYONE health care be more than you already PAY for your insurance?
Couldn't you then take all that extra money [you should be making more at work in this scenario as well since your employer isn't kicking down for insurance too] to pay for all these super fabulous extra insurance benefits you are supposedly going to lose?

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

September 26, 2009 5:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@veronykah: for myself and my coworkers, yes the tax probably would be higher than what i currently pay. but that's because my employer makes a HUGE percentage of the contribution for us and i recognize how rare that is.
for the option to have insurance even if my employment ends for whatever reason [company goes under, i get fired or can no longer work due to illness] then i don't mind paying a higher amount as long as i can afford it by cutting back in other areas.

$\"user-pic\"$

Saboth

September 25, 2009 6:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing:

Private industry *already* can't deliver the care I demand. That's why the government has to step in, in the first place. If the industry had it's act together, (along with legal, medical, etc), we wouldn't be in this mess. Fact is, 10 years from now, at the current rate, NO one will be able to afford insurance. I don't care if you make 100k a year.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 6:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: Because the government hasn't stomped/stepped in already?

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Saboth: \"Private industry *already* can't deliver the care I demand\"

I think that will be a problem with a govt run single payer or any plan also. You can not deliver care to everyone when they demand it at a reasonable cost. Period.

If an ER visit costs you $5, period, do you think you would hesitate to go? There are too many people that abuse the system and go to the ER for things that could wait until the next day or next week (but maybe not next quarter when they can see the doctor), and due to EMTALA the ER can't tell them to see their primary care doctor. This uses up valuable resources, especially there is very little financial rationing by the ones demanding care.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: Oh boy! It's the Moral Hazard argument! You know - the one that claims people will go to the doctor for every little thing if you make it too cheap. It's even better when you apply it to the ER. Only problem is, almost nobody does that! Going to the doctor, much less the ER, is not something anyone would prefer over say, watching TV - unless they're sick. To answer your question \"If an ER visit costs you $5, period, do you think you would hesitate to go?\" - YES, I would hesitate to go. I hate the ER experience. Anyone who enjoys it should get their head examined while they are there.

Please note that countries like France, where people can go to the doctor for every little thing, don't have a problem with doctors being crushed by masses of hypochondriacs. Please also note that the French pay half of what we do per capita for health care, and get better outcomes. If you'd rather pay an insurance company two times as much in premiums as what you'd pay in taxes, that's your preference. Lots of us would rather not.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 1:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@perruptor: As proof of the above statement re: ER, this.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 1:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@god_forbids: Oops. I meant \"as refutation\". XD

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@perruptor: Umm. We're both using personal experiences to prove an argument. I've worked in an ER, I've seen the people who come in for basic complaints.

I've also run 911 EMS calls for things they could take a cab to the hospital for. But we couldn't refuse to take them to the hospital or we'd risk getting sued. (And no, that's not a metaphor, a colleague of mine, same station, refused to take a simple laceration via ambulance, and they hired an attorney.)

Your rebuttal was based on the fact that you don't like an ER experience...so therefore no one else would use it for care in the middle of the night?

Fact is, a certain segment out there does. I think it's mainly an education thing v. lack of urgent care centers not a lack of primary care....but if it is primary care, is it because it is hard to just choose a doctor out of the phonebook? (again, the true poor should be on Medicaid)

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Red_Flag

September 25, 2009 6:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I basically match Frank's profile ([www.prescriptionforchange.org]), having \"high-deductible insurance through (my) job\".

I apparently \"could keep (my) coverage through (my) job\". Unless my employer decides that it's cheaper to cut me loose and just pay the fines for not providing insurance. Then I'm at the mercy of whatever public insurance I can afford and hope that it covers me at least as well as the \"ok\" insurance I have now.

What if my employer does keep offering the \"ok\" insurance I already have? I could theoretically purchase public insurance to cover the holes my work-provided insurance doesn't cover. But since my job \"offers (me) coverage now that meets required standards, (I) wouldn't get financial help to buy a policy in the exchange\".

Oh, joy.

Apparently, my \"costs may stay about the same. But as more of uninsured get covered, their costs will no longer be embedded in the premiums that people like Frank pay.\"

Right, because as we saw with the Grocery Shrink Rays, private corporations motivated solely by profit always bend over backwards to pass on savings to their consumers. They would never keep prices artificially high since people are already accustomed to paying them, right?

Right?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

morlo

September 25, 2009 7:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Red_Flag: Yeah, premiums won't drop much if at all, but after \"reform\" you'll be paying an almost equal amount in taxes to cover the premiums for the poor too. When people who generally avoided doctors start going, the cost will be vastly higher than any meager savings that the mythical \"preventative care\" will bring.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What's the point of passing the first bill put in front them without researching every option? Or maybe looking at a state (Mass.) that's made health insurance mandatory and see how that is working out. [www.southcoasttoday.com] Doesn't seem to be reducing the high priced ER visits.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Traveshamockery

September 25, 2009 8:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Wild Monkey: Agreed. Why don't our all-knowing overlords in Washington fix Medicare before they go forcing this mess on all of us?

Universal Heath Care has successfully provided mediocre to poor care for other first-world nations all over the globe. Why do we think we can try the same experiment and get an excellent standard of care for everyone? Protip: we're not the golden child.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 3:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Traveshamockery: Name one of those first-world nations that has worse medical outcomes than the U.S. based on any objective measure. Go ahead. In about 30-35 instances, you'd be wrong. Now name one first-world nation that spends more than the U.S. per capita for health care.

@Wild Monkey: I can't figure out why we don't use existing systems to draw information from. Massachusetts is a great example for mandates; Texas is a great example for tort reform. Every other industrialized nation provides a laboratory from which we can pick best practices. We don't seem interested in learning.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 10:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@PunditGuy: Easy - health care reform as it stands is more about political power-playing than actual health care.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Wild Monkey: Nice article. Isn't the state also slow paying the healthcare providers as well up in MA? (maybe they should be reported to a collection agency!)

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Antiks

September 25, 2009 7:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The insurance industry is already running for-profit death panels, designed to deny you coverage when you really need it, even if it's a life or death emergency. I call that criminal.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Antiks:
Just because the insurance company denies coverage doesn't mean you won't get treatment in a life-or-death emergency. Most (all?) hospitals are required to treat emergency patients, regardless of ability to pay.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 4:54 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: tell it to the dead. there are at least 3 people left to die on or off site every year that we actually get to hear about on the news. god only knows how many we DONT get to hear about.

that does not even begin to address the people given life shortening & quality reducing 1/4-assed 'care'.

requirement w/o enforcement & staffing = fail.

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think it's terribly unfortunate that those of us who have worked very hard for our money are soon going to be forced to hand even more of it over to the government so that they can in turn give it (indirectly) to others. Further, I think the idea of forcing me paying more taxes just because I *can* is repulsive. I also think it's absurd that people think they are *entitled* to low-cost healthcare. Why are you entitled not to have to pay the cost of your healthcare?

7 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

September 26, 2009 4:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: The line to pay me back for the roads you drive on, the schools your children attend, the police who keep your neighbourhoods safe, the parks you jog in, the sidewalks where you walk the dog and the firefighters who will come when you need them starts on the left. Cash only, thanks.

$\"user-pic\"$

LadyTL

September 26, 2009 5:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Well, how much of the direct costs of YOUR medical care do you pay now since you and bitching about other people paying for it?

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

September 26, 2009 1:11 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: They most certainly are entitled not to die for something ridiculously simple to prevent. Media FULL of those stories. And you should support them having cheap reasonable health care through a social net you both pay into and benefit from yourself, so you aren't UMMMM paying for their emergency room visit at 500 times the cost!!!

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: Um, what? I recommend you watch a little less Fox News. The whole \"Obama is going to tax me to pay for illegal aliens to force grandma to have a death bed abortion\" thing is wrong.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 11:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AdvocatesDevil: He's a caricature of a lawyer, don't feed the troll.

$\"user-pic\"$

Traveshamockery

September 25, 2009 8:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AdvocatesDevil: So how exactly is President Obama going to create $900 Billion out of thin air to pay for this program?

I recommend you watch a little less MSNBC.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@AdvocatesDevil:
That's not my main concern (I agree that such is unlikely to happen anyway). My main concern is subsidizing (or outright providing) taxpayer-funded healthcare for everyone else. I don't think people have a right to health insurance and, to be blunt, I don't think the government should be providing it to poor people by raising my taxes.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 25, 2009 11:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: [You claim] YOU'RE IN LAW SCHOOL! How high can your taxes be, you gigantic mooch who's doubtless using federally-subsidized loans?

Oh, I forgot, it's only THEM POOR FOLKS that you don't think should get government benefits. They're okay for you, because you work HARD.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 11:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):
My federally subsidized loans only cover a portion of my tuition. Further, it's not like the government it paying my tuition.

As far as my household income, between my wife's salary and my summer earnings, we're paying more than our fair share. Moreover, my taxes upon graduation will be incredibly high.

I'm not against some level of government benefits, particularly those related to education, defense and emergency services. I simply don't think paying for healthcare for everyone is something that the government should be doing, and I don't want to have my (current and future) taxes increase even more in order to fund it.

I noticed above that you indicated that you wouldn't mind paying higher taxes so that \"them poor folks\" can have healthcare. Good for you; why don't you donate that money to a charity that funds healthcare for those who can't afford it, or to a free clinic, rather than assuming that because you're willing to pay more because you can that the rest of us should pay too.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 26, 2009 3:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: \"Moreover, my taxes upon graduation will be incredibly high.\"

Good luck with that. If you're not TT (and you're not), \"incredibly high\" is a pipe dream, no matter what your career services office is telling you.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 5:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!):
I'm not sure what you mean by TT, but I already have a Market-paying job offer in NYC after I graduate. My marginal tax rate, fed, state and local, will be 50% at today's rates. I think that's enough of my income going to the Govt.

$\"user-pic\"$

mrgenius

September 25, 2009 8:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I don't think any one has a \"right\" to health care either. Or a public education, or a national defense, or interstate highways, etc.

One could make the argument, however, that the state has an interest in providing certain services for its citizens. In a federal republic like ours, like it or not, states' interests matter. I tend to think that it would be a good thing to have an educated healthy population.

Do you think that public schools should be eliminated? Social Security/Medicare? The US Army?

It would be mighty hard to find a good private school for your kids or customers for your products or really any innovation at all if the vast majority of the population were not educated.

I, for one, do not have children and will never have children. Why should I use my hard earned pay for their education? Or healthcare?

The answer is that I'd rather have healthier, more educated poor people running around than uneducated sick poor people running around.

Perhaps you do not, and that's your right. Perhaps, you think poor people should just die because they are poor. Again, your right. As it's mine to think you an immoral person.

$\"user-pic\"$

arcticJKL

September 26, 2009 2:08 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mrgenius: Thank you for a rational thought provoking statement.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 9:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mrgenius:
I think there is a huge difference between public education and public healthcare. Same with national defense.

Both education and national defense directly benefit a huge percentage of the population; public healthcare will only benefit a relatively small portion of the population. National defense can, reasonably, only be provided by the Federal government; insurance can be provided easily by the private sector. Education is funded largely at the local level. If individual states want to fund their own universal healthcare, so be it. At least the residents of those states who oppose can move to another state.

I certainly don't think poor people should die just because they're poor. I also don't think it's my responsibility to ensure they have health insurance. There are jobs that provide insurance (Walmart) that are not hard to get.

Further, just because health care is expensive doesn't mean it's out of reach for people. If you don't have insurance you can still get treatment, you just have to pay for it. So what if it's a huge financial burden? People encounter financial burdens all the time due to unexpected circumstances; they shouldn't get to have someone else foot the bill just because they can.

$\"user-pic\"$

LadyTL

September 26, 2009 5:18 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: BTW I think it's funny that you really believe that Walmart of all companies would actually give their workers any kind of decent benefit much less health insurance that did anything. Let me clue you in as one of those working for walmart. They Don't.

$\"user-pic\"$

arcticJKL

September 26, 2009 2:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99:
I want to know what happened to the Second Estate?
Churches (etc.) used to take care of the poor, hungry and needy. When did they toss that over to the government?

If private parties would take care of those in need no one would argue about how much the poor cost in taxes nor how so many go hungry.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 2:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@arcticJKL:
I agree. Those who feel like they have a moral obligation to take care of those in need should be donating money to (or establishing) organizations that provide that function.

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

September 26, 2009 1:18 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: It is fundamentally morally WRONG for any private corporation (which admittedly has NOT the care of human beings as its main goal but PROFIT NO MATTER WHAT as it's main goal) to control any fundamental service, like electricity, running water, police and fire dept. services, roads or health care that people need to survive, and deny them to people just on a monetary basis.

If you disagree, then don't you DARE drive on the roads, run any water or AC or lights in your house, or anything requiring them, or walk in your neighborhood when you lose your job, because if you do, you are an absolute hypocrite.

The fact is, some things, many in fact are okay for corporations to manage, but essentials are NOT. Finally, the current out of control corporate form seriously needs some hard core toughlove. Corporations need to be MADE to care about the communities they draw profit from, not pollute them, not destroy them financially, and to give back to them substantially.

$\"user-pic\"$

DollaValueLIFO

September 25, 2009 9:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Ok, I'll take the bait.

In the event of widespread outbreaks of flu and other communicable diseases, I might think the state has a compelling interest in seeing that it's citizens are immunized and treated rapidly to prevent mass casualty.

I think you reveal your lack of understanding of the \"real\" world when you suggest that the poors go find jobs at Wal-Mart for the insurance, and imply that somehow jobs are growing on trees. Where in the hell have you been for the past year? Companies are dropping benefits left and right, most employer's require full-time status for benefits, and most min. wage jobs are definately cutting back on the number of FT employees.

Insurance is currently being provided by the private sector, which is why we are where we are now!

Your commentary smacks of the pseudo-libertarianism that exposes a lack of empathy and experience. As a degreed professional, even I can't just pick up at the drop of a hat if I don't like the decisions made by my state legislature.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 11:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DollaValueLIFO:
Immunizing people from a widespread disease outbreak is different from providing general health insurance for everyone. I don't have a problem with infrequent, emergency-based government funded immunizations or care. What I do have a problem with is government-funded general care.

$\"user-pic\"$

That's Consumer007 to you

September 26, 2009 1:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I would really love to see you go to France and tell all the people there that love their socialized health care, are happy healthy and doing well what a crisis they are in. They would laugh you right into the ocean. Go see \"Sicko\" then you will understand.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 1:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Areyouagoodlittleconsumer:
1) Insurance companies don't deny people healthcare; they simply refuse to pay for certain things. Further, lack of insurance doesn't mean you're denied healthcare; it merely means you have to pay for it yourself.

2) Health insurance is fundamentally different from roads, utilities, electricity and police/fire protection. Again, insurance is only a means of paying for healthcare.

3) I have seen Sicko. You should ask the French how much of their income goes to taxes. I personally like to decide how I spend the money I work hard for, rather than handing it over to the government so they can re-apportion it to those who prefer to live off of government support.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 26, 2009 3:33 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: BTW, if you get one of those awesome jobs you're after, and calculate the cost of your health care premiums as \"taxes\" into your taxes? You're paying more in \"taxes\" than Sweden and getting substantially less care at substantially higher cost. I've done the math.

The 30% of the health care dollars that are wasted in a privatized system are a big part of it. Doesn't it piss you off that you're paying 30% of those dollars into bureaucracy and waste, when the most inefficient government system in the world wastes only 3% and provides better care?

Except that you don't actually CARE about fiscal responsibility -- you care that you get whatever you want at the expense of everyone else in society, and that if anyone else gets ANYTHING, it's somehow a personal affront to you, EVEN IF your costs go down. You cloak it in the language of the free market, but that's bullshit, because you're not actually concerned about competition or cost; you're concerned about an oligarchy that you are DESPERATE to join.

Again, unless you're TT, you ain't joining.

$\"user-pic\"$

LadyTL

September 26, 2009 5:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: You know a funny thing happens when insurance companies deny payment to treatment on low income people. They don't have the money to pay for it themselves so their lives are made a living hell by debt collectors and they have trouble getting any further treatment.

$\"user-pic\"$

Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)

September 26, 2009 3:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@LadyTL: And then they go on Welfare and cost Esquire even MORE of the money he (doesn't) pay in taxes!

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 4:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: I see a fatal flaw in your argument. If government run healthcare were enacted, EVERYONE would likely have to pay more taxes to support it. In Canada we have higher income tax and our national sales tax. It's not like we are only asking rich people to pay the taxes that fund our health care system, every person, regardless of income, is made to pay a portion of health care costs.

You seem like the kind of person who never wants to pay taxes ever. How do you expect the government to provide vital services if no taxes are charged?

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 7:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My insurance, dental and medical, costs me $780 a year. Granted, I'm not a breeder. Still, please don't change a damn thing.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

varro

September 26, 2009 6:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HIV 2 Elway: $9000 a year for us with no kids. I'm 39, my wife is 43.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

oldschoolconservative

September 25, 2009 7:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Health reform is needed but not at the expense of the American taxpayer. The amount of debt being run up by the last two administrations is simply unacceptable. It is also wrong to basically ignore Tort reform as part of this process. I do not think this is the change most people signed up signed up for with this administration. Seems to be politics as usual to me. I am disappointed to see Consumer Union supporting health care reform plans that will burden the country with debt for several generations.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

kylere

September 25, 2009 7:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

All of these include the idea that insurance companies will drop prices as their costs lower.

Anyone who believes that is a fool (or doesn't read consumerist)

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Professional_Iceberg_Hunter

September 25, 2009 7:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

First off, let me say this, I am against the health care deform. Now, please note that people from Europe and Canada come the United States for health care, and let me explain why.

You see, universal health care is all fine and dandy if you get a broken arm or need to give birth; they pay everything for you and you get out of there with no hassle and no bill.

BUT if you have cancer or a brain tumor you draw the short straw. You have to wait for them to treat you, which can take YEARS to happen and more likely than not by that time you will either be dead (which has happened several, several times before) or be worse off than your original condition. That is why people who have the funds and have a serious condition (or one that needs attention right away) come to the USA for health care. Even though you may not have a flippin'penny we will treat you.

Moreover, if the health care bill passes (what ever Obama and the Whine House says is on the bill it most likely isn't, look into it) people without insurance will have to pay a tax to join this \"elite leauge\" of free healthcare. Even if they don't have the funds they will still have to fork over the cash.

This is HORRIBLE for small businesses (which provide over 60% of our nations employment). Lets say that 9% of income from \"Jill's Hair Company\" goes to workers insurance and the government says that if they don't provide health care they will have to pay 6% in taxes. well, of course they are going to opt out for the lower 6% tax, putting more of a strain for the government. Not to mention that if the company \"Jill's Hair Company\" doesn't offer any insurance whatsoever they will now have to pay 6% in tax MANDATORY. (please don't quote me on the actual percentages as those are numbers from memory. Although very close to the real numbers)

Oh, and how is Obama and the Whine House going to fund this? Through finding corruption and using that money for it. Yeah, good luck with that. They barely even wanted to react with the whole Acorn scandal and that went on for years, now you are telling me they want to find ALL the corruption? I wasn't born yesterday.

Look, guys, our health care may be messed up and bad; but yours is worse. A man with no money and no insurance will get treated regardless. They will have to pay a lot (a lot-lot), but they still live.

Anyways, doctors are prescribed according to were you live and you can't change that. So if I have cancer and the best doctor for cancer lives a block over, I can't see him. Instead I get stuck with the heart specialist. And finally, try to fix Medicare and Medicaid before you even attempt universal healthcare.

Remember, fantasy based lawmaking is unwise.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter: I agree, but go a step further again:

Watch Discovery Health.

See the shows with the unique medical conditions.

Where do they go for care?

Example: Progeria (I'm probably spelling it wrong); yes, the doctors of the DHS are caring for her, but the experimental treatment is occuring in the U.S.....why can't the UK get that kind of treatment started?

And don't forget that the UK instructs their doctors to refuse care for certain premature babies.

$\"user-pic\"$

Professional_Iceberg_Hunter

September 25, 2009 8:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ShruggingGalt: Talking about babies, doctors will have to do operations (like abortions) wether they are against it or not. What would happen to all the catholic hospitals that take a stand against such acts? The doctors get fired. Moreover, remember simple math. 20,000 does not equal 100,000. The hospitals are WAY to understaffed to even fathom taking so many people. And bureaucrats. For every 1 nurse or doctor in London there are 2 bureaucrats.

$\"user-pic\"$

SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor

September 26, 2009 12:54 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Professional_Iceberg_Hunter: Because of prescription drug price ceilings across Europe and much of the rest of the world, the US ends up footing the bill for the pills. So in a sense, the US is supplying ALL R&D money to the Pharmas. If we follow the German system of setting price ceilings for drug categories, all Pharmas will have a severe R&D cut.

So everyone from the rest of the world who claims you have better health care - go and look where your lipitor, your prozacs and your viagra comes from. Someone has got to foot the bill, and America is the only one that can suck it up.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

AngryK9

September 25, 2009 8:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Someone asked me to sum up my thoughts on the whole health care reform thing in three sentences or less. I only needed two words: \"We're screwed\"

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 8:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I do love these shameless editorials wrapped in the guise of fact. They seem to know exactly how the health care bill will impact us and can draw all the correct conclusions on their own. Conclusions that nobody in congress seems to be able to agree on, but don't worry. These are just the facts here, you can trust them.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Professional_Iceberg_Hunter

September 25, 2009 8:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@yantelope: Sheesh, tell me about it. I remember when Obama was giving his health care speech a week or two ago they compared his speech to what was actually in the bill. Lets just say he hasn't even opened it. I mean, rock stars can't be bothered with actually being informed.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Traveshamockery

September 25, 2009 8:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The \"you'll get to keep your current coverage\" mess is a joke, and this is why:

What happens when the mediocre taxpayer subsidized \"Public Option\" becomes much less expensive than my current coverage through my employer? My employer drops my excellent coverage, picks up the crappy government coverage. So NO, President Obama, I don't get to keep my current healthcare plan, and the intentional disregard for the law of unintended consequences is very scary.

Follow it to the logical conclusion: people jump ship to the cheaper (read: taxpayer subsidized) Public Option, which then becomes the Only Option after private for profit companies fail due to the unfair competition.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

littleAK

September 25, 2009 10:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It is unfortunate for the data collectors of CU that they wasted their time. Those willing to read about an issue prior to making a decision probably already know how health care reform will affect us, possibly from reading the bills themselves. Those that want to fearmonger or decided that health care reform was evil prior reviewing any true evidence will either not read the CU's information or they will simply disregard it.

By the by, the doctor shortage was not created by health care reform. It is an issue related to baby boomer retirement. That is a problem for industries across the board. The newly insured receiving health care will only change where they go for care. Currently it is the emergency room, emergency or not.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

psm321

September 25, 2009 10:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Snowblind: Government bureaucrat has no incentive to deny treatments. Insurance company adjuster gets bonuses (or even just a richer company who can theoretically pay him more money) for denying treatments. Let me put it this way: do you ever hear horror stories of someone who needed treatment dying because Medicare refused it (and later decided that the treatment was indeed covered but oops, too late)? Happens all the time with insurance companies.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 25, 2009 11:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Self pay.

I have to keep my private insurance policy from my youth because of a pre-existing condition.

Currently the premiums:

$4k and change per year for insurance.

Coverage:

$1K deductible per year. 20% co-pay thereafter up to $10K, then 100% coverage. Resets annually. Life time cap of $2 million.

No preventive care covered.

No drug coverage.

And in 30 years I have never, I mean never have had a claim paid because I have failed to meet the $1k deductible.

I estimate I have spent $87K over the past 30 years for and insurance plan that has provided absolutely no coverage. $25K out of pocket for DR visits. And a big smacking $125k for drugs.

Of course I could just drop the insurance and hope that I never am stuck in the hospital for a nice 3-7 day visit.

I am truly hoping reform happens so that I can find a plan that will accept my pre-existing condition and include drug coverage at a reasonable price.

As it is now, insurance that accepts pre-existing contions would cost me $10k per year or better. Drug coverage? Forget it. Platinum policies are never available for self payers.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

gemetzel

September 26, 2009 12:00 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Keep in mind that the cost is spread over the entire tax paying populace. Alot of what you pay in premiums to insurance companies is inflated. I pay very little in the way of my taxes as a Canadian yet I get full coverage for my healthcare.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor

September 26, 2009 12:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@gemetzel: really, because the last time I wanted to get a icecream at Port Dalhousie I had to give my left pinky finger in taxes (compared to in America).

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor

September 26, 2009 12:40 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Things that need to be in the bill that probably won't be:
-Health Care Tort Reform: Before you get up in arms about this, hear me out. Tort reform will cost us more, but it will be more fair. Most people that sue doctors/hospitals/insurance companies don't deserve their money, for they just had bad luck. They need to be pushed out of the system (which is what most people think tort reform will do). But that's not all, it will allow an even larger portion to start suing and get their earned compensation. (Costing us more).

-The widespread adoption of CPGs as well as the Maine guidelines to shield doctors from lawsuits and prevent them from the defensive practice of Medicine. Some of these CPGs need to be implemented in force - an example would be forcing OBGYNs to only conduct pap smears on women patients once every two years instead of one unless they have family history of cervical cancer. Most doctors are afraid of following CPGs because they are afraid they will be used against them in lawsuits. If we as a nation adopt the Maine laws of only allowing CPGs as defense in lawsuits, more doctors will not be afraid of following them.

-Implementation of cost guidelines set up by ECONOMISTS. In the previously mentioned example, a pap smear once a year instead of two gives every American woman on average 8 extra hours of life (those 8 hours and more would be spent getting extra pap smears). This equates to over 800,000 dollars per life-year. This is grossly too much for us as a society to be paying for a life-year. Most economists (through many varied means) agree that the value of a life year is from 75,000 to 125,000 dollars. So we shouldn't be doing anything that exceeds this (economically thinking). But the problem is people are not rational. Doctors don't want to implement better procedures because they must be held to what a least a respectable minority of other doctors do in their practice under the law to not be sued and thus there is a slow way of getting progress.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 1:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Self-employed here, married/no kids, preexisting condition, lowest premium offered for me and spouse (unemployed-laid off last December(!)) was $600/month, $10k deductible, ultimately denied due to said preexisting condition. Sure, we might qualify for tax credits under the proposed plan, but not much compared with people with kids and/or working for small businesses, and we couldn't possibly front the cash in the first place. We still couldn't afford health insurance as I understand this plan. But I have a feeling my self-employment taxes will go up! Depressing and discouraging.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 1:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I am in Texas and we have tort reform here and cost isn't any cheaper. So I believe that whole thing is a red herring.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mommiest

September 26, 2009 2:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I have family in Canada and lived in France. People in both countries are much less likely to sue because their health costs are covered, even if new treatments for their injuries come up, for the whole of their lives. Of course, you always have nuts who will sue for anything, but the malpractice cases that go forward tend to be the most egregious ones in which there is proof of incompetence. Most people don't even consider suing. They just get the treatment they need.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 2:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mommiest:
I think many of the malpractice suits in the US are purely money grabs. People see news reports of plaintiffs getting millions and millions of dollars for various lawsuits, so anytime they feel they've been \"wronged\" they rush to the courthouse hoping to strike it rich.

$\"user-pic\"$

mommiest

September 26, 2009 12:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Then why don't we see the same \"money grabs\" in countries with universal coverage?

Very few people are willing to stand up in a Canadian court and say, \"I know my medical care for this negative outcome are completely covered by a system we all pay for, but I want pain and suffering, too.\"

And when you have coverage, guaranteed, for life, you don't have to pay a lawyer 30% and increase the amount asked for to cover all eventualities.

Of course, you will find cases motivated by greed, but they tend to really stick out like sore thumbs when medical costs are covered.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 6:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mommiest:
The money grabs have less to do with the insurance system and more to do with American culture. They would still occur if we have universal coverage in the US.

$\"user-pic\"$

mommiest

September 29, 2009 2:24 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Esquire99: And your basis for that assertion is?

$\"user-pic\"$

SpruceStreetPhil - in a new Pine flavor

September 26, 2009 2:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mommiest: Tort reform will raise costs.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 2:39 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@bitplayer:
I don't think tort reform will lower costs at this point; the idea is to keep costs from continuing to rise.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

mommiest

September 26, 2009 2:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

On the topic of whether or not taxpayers should support health care for low-income folks, it's worth knowing how much we spend supporting the health care industry through research. Here's one example: [report.nih.gov]
We all benefit, of course, but so do pharma and health care providers who make a profit when taxpayer-funded research yields something useful. Of course, the for-profit part of our sector rarely acknowledges this. I'm in favor of this kind of research and industry support; my point is that no matter how wealthy you are or how great your insurance, you do benefit from taxpayer support, especially if you are treated for cancer.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 4:48 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mommiest: thank you & well said.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 5:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

I'll keep saying it, no one will listen. Public only it will benefit everyone, including those who already have it.

","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Daphix

September 26, 2009 7:23 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The biggest thing being left out here is that this breakdown being provided here was created by consumer reports, who openly back a single payer system and want a gov plan asap. I love consumer reports, but sometimes I do not get why they chose to side with so many government programs.
The solution is to open up the ability for insurance companies to sell across state lines and for us to pick out specific coverages that we want. The government forces us to take an all or nothing approach right now.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

kabuk1

September 26, 2009 8:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

If Obamacare gets approved, my dad will be left to die. He has Myelodysplasia, which is like 'preleukemia'. He gets sick easily, a cold can easily land him in the hospital for 2 weeks or more. His treatments & meds are expensive, but with them he leads a normal life and feels pretty good. He's 71, retired, and on Medicare. If Osama gets his way, my dad will be denied his Neupogen shots & given Tamiflu & end of life counseling instead.

I hate Obama. So, so much.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

September 26, 2009 4:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kabuk1: Well, your rhetoric-free, non-politically-biased argument has certainly convinced me that you must be right!

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 2:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

First off, nobody knows what the implications would be to that level of detail.

Secondly, I hate to be harsh, but nobody is saying your dad has to die - you're welcome to pay for the care that would keep him alive.

It's the right of the rest of society to say, frankly, that we are not willing to pay out of our pockets to keep your father alive, and would rather spend our health care dollars, on, say prenatal care to reduce infant mortality, or something like that, where we would get more bang for the buck.

The UK does a very fair, honest, rational assessment of this. Look up QALYs.

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 2:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NeverLetMeDown: \"It's the right of the rest of society to say, frankly, that we are not willing to pay out of our pockets to keep your father alive\"

I totally agree, and if the president would say this openly, we could discuss government funded health care in a realistic way.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 2:27 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Most posters have missed the biggest effect here.

If (a) we cover 43, or 40, or 47 million more (or whatever number Obama uses in his next game changing speech) and (b) there is no increase in overall cost or the federal deficit and (c) every current insured (Medicare or private) has no diminution whatever in services offered...

then -the laws of mathematics are essentially repealed-!!

I don't know how -your- life will change if the associative property of addition goes away, but personally I am backing up all my Mint files and giving myself a refresher course in abacus operations.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Falcon5768

September 26, 2009 3:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@SpruceStreetPhil: HAHAHAHAHAH you are only qualified to prove how stupid you are.

Most Americans HATE the healthcare system, and most Americans WANT a public option.

No amount of data manipulation can hide this fact no matter how much the Rethugs want you to believe.

I certainly wouldn't listen to a group of politicians who are condoning murdering census takers.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

September 26, 2009 4:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Falcon5768: Most people I know are against a public option, they just want cheaper, more stable insurance that can't be yanked out from under them for any stupid reason the company makes up.

","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

September 27, 2009 11:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This isn't an objective, journalistic account of the proposals ... it's boosterism (the \"act now!\" button ought to give that away if nothing else does.

And I've had about enough of the guffawing about death panels. Yes, it's a silly phrase, and ridiculous if based purely on the existing legislation.

The problem is that the existing legislation, if it leads to a public option, will lead to single payer by swallowing up a critical mass of privately insured customers. At the point at which government pays for all health care, it will be obligated, to hold down costs, to make it illegal or significantly more difficult, for you to use your own money to pay for care.

And because costs will continue to rise (as they do all over the world), taxes will go up across the income spectrum. When they've risen as far as is politically expedient, politiicans will have to create rationing systems to try to hold down costs.

And THAT's when you get the federal government telling you how much it will spend to preserve grandma's life.

It won't convene a panel. It will just send you a denial of benefits letter.

So much better.

","","");