|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
OP
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091029/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer Erica Werner, Associated Press Writer – 34 mins ago WASHINGTON – After months of struggle, House Democrats rolled out sweeping legislation Thursday to extend health care coverage to millions who lack it and create a new option of government-run insurance. A vote is likely next week on the plan largely tailored to President Barack Obama's liking. Speaking on the steps of the Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Congress was at a "historic moment" and lawmakers were "on the cusp of delivering on the promise of making affordable, quality health insurance available to every American." Officials said the measure, once fully phased-in over several years, would extend coverage to 96 percent of Americans. Its principal mechanism for the wider coverage is creation of a new government-regulated insurance "exchange" through which private companies would sell policies in competition with the government. Federal subsidies would be available to millions of lower-income individuals and families to help them afford the policies, and to small businesses as an incentive to offer coverage to their workers. Large firms would be required to cover their workers, and most individuals would be required to carry insurance. Thursday's ceremony marked a pivotal moment in the Democrats' yearlong attempt to answer Obama's call for legislation to remake the nation's health care system by extending insurance, ending industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions and slowing the growth of medical spending nationwide. Across the Capitol, Senate Democrats, too, are hoping to pass legislation by year's end. Legislation outlined by Majority Leader Harry Reid this week would include an option for a government-run plan, although states could drop out if they wished, a provision not in the House measure. Obama said House Democrats had reached a "critical milestone" on the road toward health care overhaul, and he singled out the proposed government insurance option. He also said the bill "clearly meets two of the fundamental criteria I have set out: It is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term." Republican reaction was swift and critical. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., head of the Republican Study Committee, said Democrats had produced a "government takeover that will limit choice, competition and innovation in health care while increasing costs and decreasing quality." He said the measure would kill jobs, raise taxes and inflict cuts on a program of private Medicare that provides benefits to millions of seniors. The insurance industry criticized the bill, with America's Health Insurance Plans arguing that it would increase costs and disrupt "the quality coverage on which millions of Americans rely today." But the Federation of American Hospitals welcomed the bill as "an important milestone on the road to reform." In Congress, GOP leaders long ago decided to oppose the approach requested by Obama and taken by Democrats, and health care is expected to figure in next year's congressional election campaigns. Democrats issued a statement saying their 1,990-page measure "lowers costs for every patient" and would not add to federal deficits. They put the cost of coverage at under $900 billion over 10 years, a total that leaves out several items designed to improve benefits for Medicare and Medicaid recipients and providers, as well as public health programs and more. The legislation would be financed by a combination of cuts in planned Medicare spending and an income tax surcharge of 5.4 percent on individuals making at least $500,000 annually and couples making at least $1 million. With Republicans expected to oppose the measure unanimously, Pelosi and her lieutenants worked for weeks to resolve differences within the Democratic rank and file. The toughest dispute involved the terms under which the government insurance option would function. Liberals generally wanted the government to dictate the rates to be paid to doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, with the fee levels linked to Medicare. Moderates, fearing the impact on their local hospitals, held out for negotiated rates between the government and private insurers — and won. Not all liberals were ready to sign on. "My inclination is not to support it," said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, but that represented a softening of his opposition. Grijalva acknowledged there was an argument for progressives to vote "yes." "The logic is to keep the ball rolling," Grijalva said Thursday. Democrats control 256 seats in the House, are overwhelmingly favored to win one special election next week and are competitive for another. As a result, they can afford more than 30 defections on the legislation and still prevail. House Democrats' campaign arm wasted no time in using the bill release as a fundraising opportunity. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee e-mailed supporters asking them to help raise $50,000 by Thursday night "so we have the resources to fight back against Republican attacks and prove that grass-roots Democrats are standing strong behind health insurance reform with a strong public option." The bill would require nearly everyone by 2013 to sign up for health coverage either through their employer, a government program or the new exchange. In the meantime, a temporary government program would help people turned down by private insurers because of medical problems, lawmakers said. After that, insurers no longer could refuse to provide coverage to the sick, nor could they charge more because of poor health of the insured. The plan also calls for a significant expansion of Medicaid, the federal-state health program for low-income people. And it would impose a requirement on employers to offer insurance to their workers or face penalties. Pelosi, D-Calif., and the leadership have yet to work out disputes over abortion services and health care for immigrants, issues that must be settled before the bill can come to a vote. Pelosi has also said the bill would strip the health insurance industry of a long-standing exemption from antitrust laws covering market allocation, price fixing and bid rigging. The bill also would give the Federal Trade Commission authority to look into the health insurance industry at its own initiative. While precise figures were not immediately available, it appeared the legislation would target the drug industry for more than the $80 billion that pharmaceutical firms agreed to contribute toward health care in a deal earlier this year with the White House and key senators. But the industry managed to come away with a provision worth billions: 12 years of market protection for high-tech drugs to combat cancer, Parkinson's and other deadly diseases. Medical device makers also took a hit, with a 2.5 percent excise tax on sales of their products that is reported to cost the industry $20 billion over the next decade. A $40 billion fee on those businesses was included in a Senate Finance Committee-approved version of the legislation, but Reid is considering cutting it by as much as half.
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,227 |
Boy, I'm sure glad they kept it under 2,000 pages, otherwise reading it might've kept me up all night. 
We're... we're good?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Its principal mechanism for the wider coverage is creation of a new government-regulated insurance "exchange" through which private companies would sell policies in competition with the government. Federal subsidies would be available to millions of lower-income individuals and families to help them afford the policies, and to small businesses as an incentive to offer coverage to their workers.
Say goodbye to private insurance.
Quote:
He also said the bill "clearly meets two of the fundamental criteria I have set out: It is fully paid for and will reduce the deficit in the long term."
It is fully paid for by counting "eliminating medicare and medicaide fraud inflated projected totals" as money in the bank and by borrowing. How they can say this will not contribut to the deficit with a straight face is beyond me.
Quote:
House Democrats' campaign arm wasted no time in using the bill release as a fundraising opportunity. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee e-mailed supporters asking them to help raise $50,000 by Thursday night "so we have the resources to fight back against Republican attacks and prove that grass-roots Democrats are standing strong behind health insurance reform with a strong public option."
Portraying this as a "grass-roots" initiative has to be the joke of the month.
It is fully paid for by "reducing Medicare and Medicade fraud". They're counting the reduction predictions like it's money in the bank. Just how is this program going to reduce the deficit?
Quote:
Democrats issued a statement saying their 1,990-page measure "lowers costs for every patient" and would not add to federal deficits.
It's not lowering the cost of treating the patients, it's lowering the cost of what providers can charge the patients. Either the difference will be added elsewhere or the services will no longer be provided.
Quote:
They put the cost of coverage at under $900 billion over 10 years, a total that leaves out several items designed to improve benefits for Medicare and Medicaid recipients and providers, as well as public health programs and more.
Gee, let's leave a few things out that add to the total.
Quote:
Medical device makers also took a hit, with a 2.5 percent excise tax on sales of their products that is reported to cost the industry $20 billion over the next decade. A $40 billion fee on those businesses was included in a Senate Finance Committee-approved version of the legislation, but Reid is considering cutting it by as much as half.
Naw, this won't be passed on to the consumer.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,253 |
I guess Obama, Pelosi, and Harry Reid don't really care that Dawg Duty and most of America don't want to pay for Illegal Aliens ( also called Undocumented Immigrants by the Dems) overseas abortions, and higher taxes.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Figured this was kinda related... Health insurance coverage denials know no age limit. Alex Lange, a four month old baby from Colorado, was recently denied insurance after he was deemed to be too fat for his age. At 25-inches long and 17lbs., Alex is above average. Alex's father Bernie Lange and his wife Kelli say that their insurance went up 40% when he was born. So when they went to shop for better premiums, they were shocked to learn that the size of their baby matter. An insurance underwriter for Rocky Mountain Health Plans simply wrote, "Your baby is too fat." Alex born at a healthy 8 1/4 pounds. He boasts quite a healthy appetite, which is why he has been packing on the pounds. For a baby of his age at his weight and height, he ranks in the 99th percentile. Bernie, a part-time news anchor for KKCO-TV in Grand Junction, CO said: "We can't put him on the Atkins diet or on a treadmill." Kelli added: "He's healthy in our eyes. It's like we're being punished." Dr. Douglas Speedie, director of Rocky Mountain Health Plans, explained: "We do it because everybody else in the industry does it." Most insurers won't cover any baby above the 95th percentile, no matter how healthy they are. It's simply a numbers game. The Langes said they are appealing the decision, but they are "not going to withhold food to get him down below that number of 95" and they are "not going to have him screaming because he's hungry." link
![[Linked Image from i190.photobucket.com]](http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z33/booger52/phpGGRdhwAM.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
strange....
my eldest son was in the 95th percentile in weight and length (why they can't just call it heigth...whatever)
my youngest son was in the 125th perdentile in length and 100th percentile in weight
I had no issues getting either insured at any point. Also, as they aged both went back towards the norm naturally (80-90th percentile)....
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Figured this was kinda related...
Health insurance coverage denials know no age limit. Alex Lange, a four month old baby from Colorado, was recently denied insurance after he was deemed to be too fat for his age.
At 25-inches long and 17lbs., Alex is above average. Alex's father Bernie Lange and his wife Kelli say that their insurance went up 40% when he was born.
He wasn't "denied" insurance ... their insurance went up because their son fell into an "at risk" group.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
He wasn't "denied" insurance ... their insurance went up because their son fell into an "at risk" group.
He WAS denied because of his weight.
There was a girl on the news the other day that was denied as well because she was too thin.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
He wasn't "denied" insurance ... their insurance went up because their son fell into an "at risk" group.
I.E. "we can't make money off of him".
I think the current gov't plan is awful ...
... but the current system is awful as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Did you read what I quoted?? It said their insurance went up ... he wasn't DENIED. The only thing he was denied was a lower rate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 410
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 410 |
I have worked as a Employee Benefits Broker since 1997. I got started early at the age of 21. It has been my only career. I consider myself to have a successful career and a book of business that I have worked hard to retain.
I have watched the Healthcare Reform issue very closely. I am 100% certain that some type of healthcare reform will pass, as it should. However, if a Public Option is introduced, if the government only allows the insurers to offer 4 plan designs, if the goverment no longer allows insurance to be a pretax benefit, WATCH OUT!!!
Health Premiums will go through the roof thus force employers to drop private health coverage and adopt the Government Option. Eventually we will all be covered by Uncle Sam. Smaller Hospitals and Doctor's Offices will lose profits and be forced to shut there doors.
For me, it will mean a career change. This is the toughest part for me personally as I love what I do for a living. It is a very stressful career, but very rewarding as well. I have been fortunate enought to allow my wife the luxury to stay at home and raise our family. I was able to help build a successful agency only with 2 years of college under my belt. So now at the age of 33, I am considering going back and finishing my degree. I'm starting to look into other sales careers where my 13 year Group Employee Benefits Broker experience will help. I'm looking into medical device sales at this point.
I am trying to keep a positive attitude, but every day it seems more and more possible that my career could be erased by a government takeover of the health insurance industry.
Thanks a lot Mr. Obama.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
No company other than his parents' will offer him health insurance because he's too fat. At 4 months. Here's another story... ---------------------------------------- Christina Turner feared that she might have been sexually assaulted after two men slipped her a knockout drug. She thought she was taking proper precautions when her doctor prescribed a month's worth of anti-AIDS medicine. Only later did she learn that she had made herself all but uninsurable. Turner had let the men buy her drinks at a bar in Fort Lauderdale. The next thing she knew, she said, she was lying on a roadside with cuts and bruises that indicated she had been raped. She never developed an HIV infection. But months later, when she lost her health insurance and sought new coverage, she ran into a problem.
Turner, 45, who used to be a health insurance underwriter herself, said the insurance companies examined her health records. Even after she explained the assault, the insurers would not sell her a policy because the HIV medication raised too many health questions. They told her they might reconsider in three or more years if she could prove that she was still AIDS-free.Stories of how victims of sexual assault can get tangled in the health insurance system have been one result of the Huffington Post Investigative Fund's citizen journalism project, which is calling on readers to provide information and anecdotes about the inner workings of the insurance industry. The project aims to uncover details and data that can inform the larger debate over how to fix the nation's health care system. As the Investigative Fund reported in September, health insurance companies are not required to make public their records on how often claims are denied and for what reasons. Some women have contacted the Investigative Fund to say they were deemed ineligible for health insurance because they had a pre-existing condition as a result of a rape, such as post traumatic stress disorder or a sexually transmitted disease. Other patients and therapists wrote in with allegations that insurers are routinely denying long-term mental health care to women who have been sexually assaulted.Susan Pisano, spokeswoman for the health insurance industry's largest trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans, said insurers do not discriminate against victims of sexual assault and ordinarily would not even know if a patient had been raped. "These issues you are bringing up, they deserve to be brought up," said Pisano. "People who have experienced rape and sexual assault are victims and we want them to be in a system where everyone is covered." Story continues below Turner's story about HIV drugs is not unusual, said Cindy Holtzman, an insurance agent and expert in medical billing at Medical Refund Service, Inc. of Marietta, Ga. Insurers generally categorize HIV-positive people as having a pre-existing condition and deny them coverage. Holtzman said that health insurance companies also consistently decline coverage for anyone who has taken anti-HIV drugs, even if they test negative for the virus. "It's basically an automatic no," she said.
Pisano, of the insurance trade group, said: "If you put down on a form that you are or were taking anti-HIV drugs at any time, they [the insurance companies] are going to understand that you are or were in treatment for HIV, period," she said. "That could be a factor in determining whether you get coverage."Some doctors and nurses said that the industry's policy is not medically sound. "The chance of a rape victim actually contracting AIDS is very low. It doesn't make any sense to use that as a calculus for determining who get health insurance," said Dr. Alex Schafir, faculty instructor at Providence St. Vincent Hospital in Portland, Ore. Nurses who deal with sexual assault cases say the industry's policy creates a significant problem for those treating women who have been assaulted. "It's difficult enough to make sure that rape victims take the drugs," said Diana Faugno, a forensic nurse in California and board director of End Violence Against Women International. "What are we supposed to tell women now? Well, I guess you have a choice - you can risk your health insurance or you can risk AIDS. Go ahead and choose." Turner, now a life and casualty insurance agent, said she went without health coverage for three years after the attack. She second-guesses her decision to take the HIV drugs. "I'm going to be penalized my whole life because of this," she said. Several women told the Investigative Fund that after being sexually assaulted they had been denied care or ruled ineligible for health insurance because of what were deemed pre-existing conditions stemming from their assaults -- particularly post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. A 38-year-old woman in Ithaca, N.Y., said she was raped last year and then penalized by insurers because in giving her medical history she mentioned an assault she suffered in college 17 years earlier. The woman, Kimberly Fallon, told a nurse about the previous attack and months later, her doctor's office sent her a bill for treatment. She said she was informed by a nurse and, later, the hospital's billing department that her health insurance company, Blue Cross Blue Shield, not only had declined payment for the rape exam, but also would not pay for therapy or medication for trauma because she "had been raped before."Fallon says she now has trouble getting coverage for gynecological exams. To avoid the hassle of fighting with her insurance company, she goes to Planned Parenthood instead and pays out of pocket. A New Mexico woman told the Investigative Fund she was denied coverage at several health insurance companies because she had suffered from PTSD after being attacked and raped in 2003. She did not want to disclose her name because she feared that she would lose her group health insurance if she went on the record as a rape victim. "I remember just feeling infuriated," she said. "I think it's important to point out that health plans are not denying coverage based on the fact that someone was raped," said Pisano of the insurance trade group. "But PTSD could be a factor in denied coverage." "That might not be a discriminatory action, but it certainly would seem to have a discriminatory impact," said Sandra Park, staff attorney at the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. "Insurance discrimination against rape victims will only further discourage them from coming forward to law enforcement and seeking medical help." Even when patients have coverage, there are fundamental disagreements between insurance companies and doctors about what mental health treatment is medically necessary. The Investigative Fund spoke with doctors, psychologists, and licensed clinical social workers around the country who work regularly with victims of sexual assault. They said that their patients have been experiencing an increase in delays and denials, particularly for talk therapy. "There's a lot of anger about this in the medical community," said Dr. George Shapiro-Weiss, a psychiatrist in Middletown, Conn. "You don't realize what an Alice in Wonderland web this has become." "A lot of my patients are being told that their treatment isn't medically necessary," said Keri Nola, an Orlando, Fla., psychologist, who said about 75 percent of her patients are victims of sexual violence. Several therapists cited problems with managed care companies that specialize in mental health. Such firms generally work under contract with health insurers to hold down costs while still authorizing appropriate care. link Is this healthcare proposal perfect? No. But to those claiming that we shouldn't change anything, I hope they can see just how messed up this current system is.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,288 |
The system needs to be "fixed" so fewer bad things happen to good people...no doubt.
However, anyone who thinks the government will be a better administer of health insurance and medical care is absolutely clueless about our government and/or has not had any experiences in life that makes such a statement so painfully clear. (Not saying that YOU are such a person.)
The King was elected to "fix" health care...he has decided to "own & run" healthcare. The difference is huge.
I say they try this first:
Set out to end medicare/medicaid fraud. The King claims there is big money here...let's SEE IT BEFORE WE SPEND IT. Make it a two year project...show me the quantifiable results and where the savings are sitting...we will revisit any further changes after that evaluation;
Make exceptions for pre-existing conditions illegal...or allow those people immediate access to medicaid regardless of age...that is where the medicaid fraud savings allows these people coverage "at no additional cost" - via private insurance or medicaid;
Allow insurance companies to compete across state lines.
That's it for now...see what happens for 5 years...then re-evaluate.
It should be a one-page document...instead we have nearly 2,000 pages of crap that the majority of Americans don't want.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 27,365 |
If our government wrote the constitution today it work be 10,000 pages long, and 20 years later nobody would still understand what it said. Lord do I miss common sense.
I AM ALWAYS RIGHT... except when I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,507 |
very solid srgument against the bill backed up with solid facts and solid emotional appeal. I wonder how it would sell on to a wider TV audiance? (Not that I expect it to get wide airplay)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
Vote is scheduled for today at 6PM. This legislation will:*call for $900 billion in new taxes and Medicare cuts *cost $1.2 trillion (CBO estimate, which is almost certainly too low) *require taxpayers to pay for abortion *cover illegal immigrants *contain an individual mandate for unconstitutional fines and incarceration for non-compliance Contact your Congressman here:https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
I would contact my Congressman but haven't read the bill, I doubt he has read it either.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Vote is scheduled for today at 6PM.
This legislation will:
*call for $900 billion in new taxes and Medicare cuts
Which is totally against everything we have been told - as far as the new taxes to pay for it thing. Liars.
Quote:
*cost $1.2 trillion (CBO estimate, which is almost certainly too low)
Again, we were told O wouldn't sign anything over....what was it....8 or 900 billion dollars????
Quote:
*require taxpayers to pay for abortion
Once again, we were told that Wouldn't be the case.
Quote:
*cover illegal immigrants
We've been told hundreds of times that wouldn't be the case.
Quote:
*contain an individual mandate for unconstitutional fines and incarceration for non-compliance
So, now they want to feel free to JAIL people that don't follow???? I thought this was supposed to just cover the people that didn't have insurance currently? Ya know, the legal citizens? But now I have to have insurance and if I don't they can jail me? (if it passes, of course) Fine. In jail people get free health care too, don't they.
Nothing like saying one thing, then trying to pass the exact opposite, huh?
Is it still in there that congress people are exempt from the rules they are passing for the citizens?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
The reason you haven't read the bill is because Queen Nancy has reneged on her promise to post the bill online 72 hours before any vote. Ask yourself why ...
If you really feel that your representative hasn't read the bill, then shouldn't you contact them to tell them that their ignorance and the lack of transparency on Speaker Pelosi's part is not acceptable?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,102 |
Why should I contact my Congressman when whichever way it goes won't cause me to get my shorts bunched up? I quit getting riled up long ago on these things and I really don't trust those that are riled any more than I do the perpetrators. I'll save my goat to be gotten for when they next send soldiers off to war with what seems no more good reason than a blind faith belief that killing will bring about peace.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 13,205 |
The bill passed the House 220-215. 39 Dems voted against, 1 Republican voted for. Now it goes to the Senate.
In other news, I saw an interesting bumpersticker recently:
Are We Venezuela Yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 194
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 194 |
So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,177 |
I'm starting a new job tomorrow, and i have to decide on whether or not to take the level pay package with healthcare, or a higher pay package without. I can only change the plan every 23 months.
I wish I knew if this trash was going through, I don't want to be paying for healthcare twice.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I'm starting a new job tomorrow, and i have to decide on whether or not to take the level pay package with healthcare, or a higher pay package without. I can only change the plan every 23 months.
I wish I knew if this trash was going through, I don't want to be paying for healthcare twice.
Take the employer health care. First of all, the plans they are even talking about (gov't. plans) wouldn't take effect until at least 2012 or 2013).
Secondly, the house plan is dead in the water when it gets to the senate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 750
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 750 |
Quote:
Secondly, the house plan is dead in the water when it gets to the senate.
By the time a compromise is reached the elections will be on. Those will probably kill it completely.
Go Irish!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301
2nd String
|
|
2nd String
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 301 |
The dirty little secret is the Senate can pass a bill that is nothing like the house's bill, meaning no coverage for illegals, no mandates, no higher taxes, no public option, etc. This will get them the ability to have 60 votes for passage. Then, during reconcillition, they can add all those things back into the bill. The reconciled bill only needs a 51 majority to pass; which wouldn't be a problem. Then Uncle O signs it into law and we are all screwed!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
How is this a secret? Of course they can make changes once reconciliation rolls around. However, is it likely? I doubt it. They're trying to keep the least popular options out of the bill. That's the reason for the deadlock. If they wanted all those things in there, they would put them in now, pass it through, and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Thought provoking as always..................... Quote:
Statement of Congressman Ron Paul
United States House of Representatives
More Government Won't Help
September 23, 2009
Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.
Points to consider:
1.) No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.
2.) If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.
3.) Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States has deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.
4.) More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.
5.) Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.
6.) First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.
7.) The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.
8.) Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.
9.) The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.
Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.
10.) Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.
11.) Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.
12.) The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.
13.) The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed.
Early on medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.
14.) Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.
15.) There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
16.) We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.
True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.
Link
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I was with him until this: Quote:
16.) We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.
BS. Show me the proof that a nutritional regiment can cure diseases like cancer, AIDS, etc and I'll go along with it. Acupuncture, homeopathy, and holicism have been shown to not work any better than double-blinded controls. They do not do any better than placebo even in the best of cases and perform worse than doing nothing in many cases. I'm sorry, but this is just
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Show me where you have the right to choose the medical path any person has to follow....I think that is the point and not whether or not homeopathy and holistic medicine is better. It is about an individuals right to choose. If you don't like holistic medicine...you don't have to use it...
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
I never said that anyone had to follow anything, just that insurance companies should not have to pay for debunked and mythical treatments with no proven effect. There's all this talk about overspending and hospitals doing procedures that have little to no ramifications on treating the patients problem that is one of the major causes of American healthcare costing so much. Now we want to force unproven methods of treatment down a company's throat to assuage peoples unfounded and sometimes totally disproven beliefs? We want to make it so that people can get paid by insurance companies for anything that can be deemed "alternative" and don't actually work? We want to set the precedent that taking 100 vitamin pills a day and getting a coffee enema 3x's a day is a valid way to treat pancreatic cancer even though it's shown to actually decrease your life expectancy? I'm sorry, but if a specific alternative method had anything to offer, it would have shown some type of efficacy over the amount of time it's been around and would be incorporated into modern medicine. This is a dangerous idea to propagate. Putting belief on par with facts and data can only stand to harm the common man and create a hierarchy of those who would prey upon the vulnerable (ie. the sick and potentially dying) with any type of nonsense they can think up.
We've discussed on here the failings of alternative methods before. Remember the couple who let their child die of eczema-caused septic infection rather than simply giving her antibiotics? Or how about the man who lacerated his foot and instead of seeking medical attention, sought the teachings of alternative methods, lathered his foot with honey and ended up dying of a gangrenous infection? Just because someone thought it was a great idea at one point, doesn't mean that it's an efficacious treatment of a problem in light of our current understanding of how the body works and how to fix it.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
I meant you figuratively not you personally...And actually, I think you're right to a point. I think the Insurance company in coordination with the client should be able to choose whether or not they will cover those types of treatments...
I mean if there is anything we have learned about insurance companies..is they can and will insure just about ANYTHING if the money is right...And possibly those types of treatments would need some sort of regulation as well.
I am not going to get into whether or not holistic treatment works, is better, or is worse than traditional Western Medicine...I don't care....and it is irrelevant to the discussion unless you are talking about a public funded coverage.......However many people gain greater relief from it and are denied even the possibility to have their treatment covered.... I mean if you are going to pay into an insurance for your health coverage...shouldn't you get some kind of say of what kinds of services you would like covered???
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,458 |
Its about choice.
People should be able to make up their own minds about their health care.
I wish to wash my Irish wristwatch......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
j/c
Has anyone been able to find the bill that just passed the house on line anywhere? All 1,990 pages of it?
I'm hearing some very disturbing things about it right now, but I haven't found the bill, has anyone else?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Why I Voted No By Dennis Kucinich 09 November, 2009 We have been led to believe that we must make our health care choices only within the current structure of a predatory, for-profit insurance system which makes money not providing health care. We cannot fault the insurance companies for being what they are. But we can fault legislation in which the government incentivizes the perpetuation, indeed the strengthening, of the for-profit health insurance industry, the very source of the problem. When health insurance companies deny care or raise premiums, co-pays and deductibles they are simply trying to make a profit. That is our system. Clearly, the insurance companies are the problem, not the solution. They are driving up the cost of health care. Because their massive bureaucracy avoids paying bills so effectively, they force hospitals and doctors to hire their own bureaucracy to fight the insurance companies to avoid getting stuck with an unfair share of the bills. The result is that since 1970, the number of physicians has increased by less than 200% while the number of administrators has increased by 3000%. It is no wonder that 31 cents of every health care dollar goes to administrative costs, not toward providing care. Even those with insurance are at risk. The single biggest cause of bankruptcies in the U.S. is health insurance policies that do not cover you when you get sick. But instead of working toward the elimination of for-profit insurance, H.R. 3962 would put the government in the role of accelerating the privatization of health care. In H.R. 3962, the government is requiring at least 21 million Americans to buy private health insurance from the very industry that causes costs to be so high, which will result in at least $70 billion in new annual revenue, much of which is coming from taxpayers. This inevitably will lead to even more costs, more subsidies, and higher profits for insurance companies - a bailout under a blue cross. By incurring only a new requirement to cover pre-existing conditions, a weakened public option, and a few other important but limited concessions, the health insurance companies are getting quite a deal. The Center for American Progress' blog, Think Progress, states, 'since the President signaled that he is backing away from the public option, health insurance stocks have been on the rise.' Similarly, healthcare stocks rallied when Senator Max Baucus introduced a bill without a public option. Bloomberg reports that Curtis Lane, a prominent health industry investor, predicted a few weeks ago that 'money will start flowing in again' to health insurance stocks after passage of the legislation. Investors.com last month reported that pharmacy benefit managers share prices are hitting all-time highs, with the only industry worry that the Administration would reverse its decision not to negotiate Medicare Part D drug prices, leaving in place a Bush Administration policy. During the debate, when the interests of insurance companies would have been effectively challenged, that challenge was turned back. The 'robust public option' which would have offered a modicum of competition to a monopolistic industry was whittled down from an initial potential enrollment of 129 million Americans to 6 million. An amendment which would have protected the rights of states to pursue single-payer health care was stripped from the bill at the request of the Administration. Looking ahead, we cringe at the prospect of even greater favors for insurance companies. Recent rises in unemployment indicate a widening separation between the finance economy and the real economy. The finance economy considers the health of Wall Street, rising corporate profits, and banks' hoarding of cash, much of it from taxpayers, as sign of an economic recovery. However in the real economy - in which most Americans live - the recession is not over. Rising unemployment, business failures, bankruptcies and foreclosures are still hammering Main Street. This health care bill continues the redistribution of wealth to Wall Street at the expense of America's manufacturing and service economies which suffer from costs other countries do not have to bear, especially the cost of health care. America continues to stand out among all industrialized nations for its privatized health care system. As a result, we are less competitive in steel, automotive, aerospace and shipping while other countries subsidize their exports in these areas through socializing the cost of health care. Notwithstanding the fate of H.R. 3962, America will someday come to recognize the broad social and economic benefits of a not-for-profit, single-payer health care system, which is good for the American people and good for America's businesses, with of course the notable exceptions being insurance and pharmaceuticals. http://www.countercurrents.org/kucinich091109.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,831 |
Quote:
j/c
Has anyone been able to find the bill that just passed the house on line anywhere? All 1,990 pages of it?
I'm hearing some very disturbing things about it right now, but I haven't found the bill, has anyone else?
here it is
It's in PDF form and about 1100 pages.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Thank you.
My staff and I will get back to you in an hour or so............wait, I didn't get to vote on this, so maybe I'll have to actually READ it before I get back to you.
Regardless, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Didn't take as long as I thought. At least, to find the first issue I have with it.
Page 16 and 17. We can keep our current plans. As long as the rates don't change. If I get sick and they want to change my premium, they can't unless they change EVERYONE'S premium. Plus, if there is a change in premium, deductible, or any other change, that plan is not able to be in effect anymore. In other words, you get the gov't. health plan.
Wow. That's a great option.
Page 21. It is allowable to charge more for an older person. But the ratio cannot be more than 2 to 1, meaning the 65 yr. old diabetic, life long smoker that has stomach cancer cannot be charged any more than 2 times the amount of, say, an 18 yr. old that is in perfect health.
Wow, just watch how much the young and healthy are going to have to pay - it'll go WAY up.
I'll have more.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
page 25: Insurance companies must meet a "medical loss ratio" determined by some commissioner. If the insurance company pays out less, ratio wise, they have to rebate money to the insured.
Sounds great.
Also sounds like gov't. telling private companies the amount of money they are allowed to make.
It also sounds like some bean counter in DC is going to tell insurance companies how much money they need to spend on care.......after that number is met? Look out.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Queen Pelosi Rolls Out YOUR Health
Care Bill
|
|
