View Full Version : ZERO CARE
BMT (RIP)
07-22-2009, 18:37
OBAMA TONIGHT: 'So let me be clear: This isn’t about me. I have great health insurance, and so does every Member of Congress'...
:munchin
BMT
HowardCohodas
07-22-2009, 18:46
Obama is a siren.
Some post-Homeric authors state that the Sirens were fated to die if someone heard their singing and escaped them, and that after Odysseus passed by they therefore flung themselves into the water and perished.
Praetorian
07-22-2009, 19:13
Ughh... What a song and dance....
Fact Check...and so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
FACT CHECK: Obama's health care claims adrift?
Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn, AP, 22 Jul 2009
President Barack Obama's assertion Wednesday that government will stay out of health care decisions in an overhauled system is hard to square with the proposals coming out of Congress and with his own rhetoric. Even now, nearly half the costs of health care in the U.S. are paid for by government at all levels. Federal authority would only grow under any proposal in play.
A look at some of Obama's claims in his prime-time news conference:
OBAMA: "We already have rough agreement" on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: "It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you're happy with it."
THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn't covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.
Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.
It's true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.
He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. "Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?" he said. "No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier."
He acknowledged then that the "government already is making some of these decisions."
___
OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."
THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants "deficit-neutral" health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration's policy, with or without a health care overhaul.
Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.
___
OBAMA: "You haven't seen me out there blaming the Republicans."
THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, "I've heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it's better politics to 'go for the kill.' Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about 'breaking' me."
Praetorian
07-22-2009, 20:13
Fact Check...and so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Wow... That was fast.
Slantwire
07-23-2009, 07:33
OBAMA: "I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it."
And I'm sure he'll count the dollars saved, just the same way he's counting jobs saved by bailouts?
Just ask him.
"...=AP: In trying to rally support for health care overhaul, Obama described a patient who sees a physician for a sore throat, or a parent who brings in a child with a sore throat.
"Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. ... The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, 'You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out,'" Obama told a prime-time news conference.
The president added: "Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change; maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference."......."
I am firmly convinced SOMETHING must be done about the price of healthcare in this country. I am not smart enough to know what. I am smart enough (I think) to know what sounds insane or promoted by special interests. It seems there is too much money syphoned off between the patient and the doctor, that benefits neither the patient nor the doctor. Think about UHC. I am convinced there is a whole lot of money lost in Medicare due to fraud and overcharging for products. I am also a huge believer in Medicare. In regards to Medicare, we need to pay the doctors and force the suppliers to bid for their products.
I know there are doctors and doctors spouses on this board. I would really like to hear your opinions on this issue.
I am also a huge believer in Medicare.
Are you on Medicare??
Nope. Have an 88 yo father who is. It isn't perfect, but take it away and he is uninsurable
Lets just hope that the Medicare Budget maintains enough funding to see him through the rest of his years.
Ive dropped my Medicare and have chosen to (for now) go to alternate health care plans. My Medicare options are still open.
The Reaper
07-23-2009, 11:37
Anyone who cares, and who does not call their elected representatives to express their concerns, should just shut up and pay up if/when this gets passed.
Call, email, mail your reps ASAP if you want them to oppose this.
http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
TR
I am firmly convinced SOMETHING must be done about the price of healthcare in this country.
Sir,
There is no magic bullet, but we got to start somewhere. I suggest we start w/ tort reform.
v/r
phil
Sir,
There is no magic bullet, but we got to start somewhere. I suggest we start w/ tort reform.
v/r
phil
I have been told by lawyers whom I trust and respect, the total cost of malpractice suits is less than 2% of the total healthcare bill. In spite of this, malpractice insurance continues to rise. The WSJ did an article a while back (1-2 years?) which stated the insurance companies were getting to the point where their reserves were so huge they couldn't hide them anymore. Expect some kind of financial shenanigans whereby they do a go private, then go back public type of deal to make off with the money(this is my opinion, not the WSJ).
Here in Texas we passed legislation limiting malpractice awards. The last figure I saw reported the rates continued up about 17% for doctors. The legislation teamed the doctors and insurers against those "evil trial lawyers". The doctors now figure they have been totally screwed (they have) and are aligning themselves up with the same trial lawyers to take on the insurers. Damn, some days you aren't sure who to shoot. All I am certain of is my health insurance has increased by about 240% in the last six years and neither my family doctor's income, nor mine, have gone up that much. I'll bet my insurance agent makes as much as my family doctor and he works about 20 hours a week. My doctor calls a 70 hour week a short week.
6.8SPC_DUMP
08-09-2009, 07:23
Drugmakers to pour cash into health care reform (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/08/MNOP1962LQ.DTL)
What went though my mind is pharmaceutical companies are trying to buy their drugs into health care reform and it's a good indication a plan will pass; if drug makers really are willing to spend 150-200 million.
I wish the Gov. could pass legislation to:
Lower prescription pill cost
Not allow people with pre-existing conditions to be rejected
Not allow insurance companies to drop coverage after people become ill
Provide a clear explanation of coverage
All without divvying out medical care to Americans at a time where spending cuts could soon be large.
The tinfoil hatter in me wonders if the plan isn't designed to aid companies cut down on healthcare expenses and get some back-end on pharmaceutical profits.
Taking TR's advice and trying available methods to contact my Reps.: going to remind them that I'd appreciate it if they read Bill's before voting on them.
FWIW - and MOO - I have problems with having to co-pay for people who suffer the self-induced and often >$$ health effects of smoking, alcoholism, substance abuse, a lack of a reasonable fitness regimen, and the chronic obesity of those w/o a preclusive medical condition.
However - YMMV.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
I am firmly convinced SOMETHING must be done about the price of healthcare in this country.
The solution to that problem (in isolation from all other elements of the problem) is simple. Eliminate all insurance. The patient pays all medical fees immediately and in full, just as with any other consumer product.
Notice that insurance distorts the supply-demand equation. If a patient faces a $10 co-pay for a doctor visit, which also creates a $100 charge to the insurance company, then patient demand will vary according to the cost they see - in this example, the $10.
Likewise, if a surgery has an actual cost of $150,000, but the patient only pays $5,000, then demand will operate at the $5,000 level. Thus, demand is increased.
This propagates through the system. Hospitals obtain more equipment, doctors order more tests, drug companies produce more (and more expensive medications).
Directly couple costs to the patient and you eliminate the distortion and simplify the process. Demand will decline, forcing prices lower.
I'm reasonably certain this will not happen.
I am also a huge believer in Medicare. In regards to Medicare, we need to pay the doctors and force the suppliers to bid for their products.
But notice that Medicare is a large and growing fiscal problem. It's very advantage - that it covers everyone for a fixed price - also means that the people covered will use more medical care than they could otherwise afford. And if one supports Medicare for those 65 and older, there is the question of why those 60 and older...or 50 and older...or 20 and older...should not also be covered.
FWIW - and MOO - I have problems with having to co-pay for people who suffer the self-induced and often >$$ health effects of smoking, alcoholism, substance abuse, a lack of a reasonable fitness regimen, and the chronic obesity of those w/o a preclusive medical condition.
Of course. The more coverage, the more the cost. We each have areas we think should not be covered. This adds further complexity to the problem - and further emotional loading, I suspect.
Quite simply, the program will (IMO, YMMV) compress the upper-middle class and below down to the level of the working class (middle of the lower-class under a 9 class level scheme). It will provide more options to those at or below the middle of the lower class.
It will also lead to rationing of a sort. Dollars in direct payment is one sort of allocation. Insurance, a sort of indirect dollar-based mechanism, is a somewhat different style of allocation. Dealing with a bureaucracy and various government rules is yet another.
For those in the top 1% (about $6 million net worth), excellent care will be available on a private-pay basis.
If the bill passes, some groups and illnesses will be covered very well. Others will lose quite a lot. Over time, the budgetary realities will assert themselves and the rationing will get more severe. Give the bill 5 years - at that point, those who are old and sick will (IMO, YMMV) be strongly encouraged to drop dead (or, if you prefer, to consider end-of-life options).
When government subsidizes anything, the prices will go up. Then when it subsidizes it over regulates to protect its interest. What would happen if college students decided to stop accepting government assistance and student loans? The tuition fees would drop dramatically. Many times the entity offering their solution usually caused the problem in the first place.
Others have touched on this problem and here (http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/08/20/pho.doctor.shortage/index.html) a doctor reports on it directly. Along with what NMAP has pointed out, cost vs demand, when everyone has the right to free medical coverage, who is going to be their to provide it. City EMT workers already tell stories of those with free coverage using 911 to go the ER for a cold, ear ache, etc.
Massachusetts is often held out as a model for national health reform, and the bills being considered in Washington emulate much of that state's 2006 landmark universal coverage law. As a physician in neighboring New Hampshire, I have had the opportunity to observe the effect of the Massachusetts reforms
Today, 97 percent of Massachusetts residents have health insurance, the highest in the country. But less publicized are the unintended consequences that the influx of half a million newly insured patients has had on an unprepared primary care system.
The Massachusetts Medical Society reported that the average wait time for a new patient looking for a primary care doctor ranged from 36 to 50 days, with almost half of internal medicine physicians closing their doors entirely to new patients. And when you consider that Massachusetts already has the highest concentration of doctors nationwide, wait times will likely be worse in other, less physician-abundant parts of the country, should universal coverage be enacted federally.
When patients are forced to wait weeks to obtain medical care, they inevitably find their way into the emergency department for treatment that ordinarily can be handled in a doctor's office. Indeed, since health reform was passed, according to state data provided to the Boston Globe, Massachusetts emergency rooms have reported a 7 percent increase in volume, which markedly inflates costs when you consider that emergency room treatment can be up to 10 times more expensive than an office visit for the same ailment.
Using the ER for Ordinary care means increase cost. Which means increase cost for those with private health insurance and increase to gov for the gov supplied health care. The tax payer will be forced to pay the bill and for those with private health insurance they will pay for it twice, premiums and taxes.
I was just thinking.....( Iknow, I know), with all these social type programs of taking from those who have (money, taxes, etc, etc) and giving to those who don't have. Would this equate somewhat to "reparations" that some have been wanting for years???
Just throwing it out there.
greenberetTFS
08-20-2009, 12:02
Lets just hope that the Medicare Budget maintains enough funding to see him through the rest of his years.
Ive dropped my Medicare and have chosen to (for now) go to alternate health care plans. My Medicare options are still open.
My wife is on Medicare $270/month with a AARP supplement which costs $160/month,how ever without it we'd be unable to afford her medical treatment. She is on Cemo (ritauxan) which costs $35,000 a treatment. This cost is covered by both plans. She also has Pulmonary and Cardiac problems which are equally very costly. Without Medicare and the AARP supplement she would probably be dead by now because there is no way we could afford the insurance cost and live on SS like we are doing now.......... :(
Big Teddy :munchin