US Health Care Reform

[Totenkopf]

Interesting, the only statements regarding penalties for people not carrying insurance that I've heard about are that they could be up to $3800/family, not that BO is looking to charge people penalties even if they can't afford private insurance. I always took that whole deal to be aimed at the modern "yuppies" who forgo health insurance to pay for a new BMWer or some such.

[Q]

I must have heard it wrong, then.

[mimartin]

I did not hear it wrong when I was listening to Savage, Rush, FoxNews or the local Houston area talking heads.

All those talking heads were the only ones wrong.

[JediAthos]

Interesting, the only statements regarding penalties for people not carrying insurance that I've heard about are that they could be up to $3800/family, not that BO is looking to charge people penalties even if they can't afford private insurance. I always took that whole deal to be aimed at the modern "yuppies" who forgo health insurance to pay for a new BMWer or some such.

 

 

I don't know if it is aimed at anyone specifically, but you are correct. The fines are aimed at people who can afford insurance but simply choose not to carry any. Those who cannot afford insurance premiums would be exempt from any fine.

 

On another note: the link I posted no longer links to the original article, and I can't seem to find it.

[Darth Avlectus]

How is the affordability determination going to be made? Income? Property in your name? How much you put into savings? (Raises another question: Could they legally go into your bank account, electronically for whatever they think they need at the moment?)

[Totenkopf]

Well, I heard it talked about and the figure thrown out was that of ~$40k/yr for an individual and $80k+ for a family of 4. I going to guess that the answer to your last question would ulitimately be yes.

[mimartin]

Could they legally go into your bank account, electronically for whatever they think they need at the moment?)

That would not be a new development, they can already do that.

[Totenkopf]

Interesting....

(This BBCode requires its accompanying plugin to work properly.)

 

*keep in mind this was from 2007

[mimartin]

Edited by the video maker to get an intended reaction. Completely irrelevant to the current debate in it edited form as it is taken out of context.

[Totenkopf]

Given that he wasn't indicting any particular president (why I mentioned 2007), your criticism is misplaced. Just what context do you believe it to be in originally? Frankly, it's almost prescient in a way. We are effectively broke and this group in govt wants to continue spending money we don't have. So, if you get the public option (which even Barney Frank has openly admitted is the first step to single payer govt healthcare), how does a govt with less and less money seriously expect anyone to take their claims as remotely rational that such a system will be revenue neutral? Don't bother citing the current CBO scoring of what is effectively still a work in progress. We all know how right they were with their original projections for medicare. (at the govt) Don't know about you, mimartin, but you can't tax your way into prosperity. If you could, California would be a real nirvana.

[mimartin]

What criticism? I just stated a fact and did not criticize anything, the video is edited and taken out of context to make the editors point. The point that the editor misses is the current system is so messed up that it is destroying this nation and American families to do nothing. At least big drug companies and medical insurance companies are making money, so why change the current system. THREE CHEERS FOR BIG BUSINESS AND TO HELL WITH THE LITTLE GUY.

 

I think the current bill is a joke (as do I think of the current system). I'm actually for Government Health Care, like every other western country has, and they spend a lot less than us.

[El Sitherino]

I'd like to ask what everyone thinks should be done in effort to effectively reform healthcare. Emphasis on effectively.

What can we do to remove the risk of people losing coverage when faced with pregnancy, accidents, and common health concerns such as infectious disease and cancers?

How should we go about making sure all citizens are healthy and have the ability to regain their optimal health?

[mimartin]

We don’t want everyone healthy, that would take away money away from the Pharmaceutical Companies.

[Totenkopf]

What criticism?

 

That you felt that vid was taken out of context and thus irrelevant. Given the govt's track record with financing programs, I'll try my luck with the private sector. The current system doesn't suck, neither is it perfect. Given how the US govt has handled the BIA, the VA and welfare in general, I'm not nearly as trusting of them as you appear to be.

[Ten-96]

I have a few questions for those of you who are in support of the Government's take over of the Health Insurance/Care Industry.

 

1. If this is so important and they have to act right away, why aren't any of the "reforms" going to take place until 2013 (if passed)?

 

 

2. Why are the increased costs and taxes going into effect immediately (if passed) for those of us who already pay for health insurance even though the "reform" won't begin until 2013?

 

 

3. How can anyone in good conscience agree to impose higher costs per person or family for these proposed "reforms" (if passed)?

 

That you felt that vid was taken out of context and thus irrelevant. Given the govt's track record with financing programs, I'll try my luck with the private sector. The current system doesn't suck, neither is it perfect. Given how the US govt has handled the BIA, the VA and welfare in general, I'm not nearly as trusting of them as you appear to be.

 

Don't forget about that wonderfully planned and executed Cash for Clunkers Program. While we're at it, take a look at the U.S.P.S. The Post Office problem alone is enough for many to believe that the Government is incapable of running a business successfully; let alone overseeing Health Insurance for an entire nation.

 

Edit:

Great idea, but one question: Who would regulate these cross state policies? Right now, the insurance companies are regulated by the state department of insurance. However, which state will have jurisdiction in what you advocating?

Or are you advocating the Federal Government regulate Health Insurance Companies?

 

Sorry, I just reread the thread and saw these. My answer is that free market solutions will regulate the interstate policy purchases. The more plans that are available for purchase by consumers, the cheaper they become benefiting everyone.

 

 

Yes, you can find silly cases to make your point. How about limiting all lawsuits to 5 thousand, 10 thousand or something like that? Just how much is a life worth?

 

I wasn't talking about negligent homicide, I was referring to non-fatal cases along the lines of the example I gave.

 

As a friend point out to me I over simplified this:

 

If someone killed one of your family members would you not want them punished?

 

Of course I would want the person to suffer the full penalty of the law. I would not however condone monetary legal action against someone who had been convicted of a crime.

 

Or at the very least, have your family member’s death mean something by being a deterrent to others not to make the same mistake that caused that loved ones death?

 

Mean something by suing someone for a sum of money? No sum of money can be compared to a life, in my opinion. As I stated above, I was referring to minor cases and not cases involving negligent homicide.

[Totenkopf]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/10/15/harry_reid_suggests_health_care_to_cost_2_trillion.html

 

So, if it's so small, what's his problem? The ABA and other deep pockets that contribute to his party no doubt.

 

2 others related stories:

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/63281-leading-blue-dog-suggests-opening-medicare-to-all

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5he0b2g0aWO8TL825uSJcZUEQ1lVQD9BB72JO0

 

 

How about limiting all lawsuits to 5 thousand, 10 thousand or something like that? Just how much is a life worth?

If someone killed one of your family members would you not want them punished?

 

So vengeneance is alright if it's measured in $$?

 

Don't forget about that wonderfully planned and executed Cash for Clunkers Program. While we're at it, take a look at the U.S.P.S. The Post Office problem alone is enough for many to believe that the Government is incapable of running a business successfully; let alone overseeing Health Insurance for an entire nation.

 

Main reason I focused on the three that I chose was b/c of their relevance to quality of life. Welfare was/is a trap, Native Americans have suffered greatly under "govt care" and the VA isn't a particularly sterling example of govt care either, esp of people who may deserve it more than the average citizen.

[Totenkopf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091101/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_public_plan

[mimartin]

So vengeneance is alright if it's measured in $$?[/Quote] Show me where I said it was, please. I said, I want my loved ones meaningless death to mean something. Be it a huge monetary settlement that would deter others from making the same mistake, revocation of the professional license, which would also deter other from making the same mistake or prison time, is up to the system and not me.

 

What exactly is a minor case?

 

Is a doctor making a mistake and cutting off your pinkie a minor case?

 

What if you are a musician?

 

Don’t get me wrong I’m tort for reform. I am just not for protecting idiots and I am not for letting people get away with careless preventable mistake by hiding behind tort reform.

[Jae Onasi]

Don’t get me wrong I’m tort reform. I am just not for protecting idiots and I am not for letting people get away with careless preventable mistake by hiding behind tort reform.

It works both ways. What if the patient is the one being the idiot and not following orders? I live in great fear of being sued for a contact lens-related corneal ulcer or glaucoma going bad and the patient losing sight. The problem is, even if I do everything right, I still might lose ("you didn't refer them fast enough to ophthalmology/the medication you prescribed didn't work right"), even when the patient didn't follow their contact lens wearing schedule correctly, or they didn't change the contact lens solution in their case daily, or they didn't take their eye drops at the appropriate times, they skipped doses, etc. I had a patient who came in to see me for a corneal ulcer and tell me he couldn't afford to replace his contact lens solution daily (here's a hint, dude, you can't afford to wear contacts, then, and should just wear your glasses). He came in 20 minutes late to his follow-up 2 days later with the excuse that he had to program his new cell phone. I document carefully anyway out of habit, but I just about put a transcript of the conversation on the chart because this is the kind of idiot who would sue later.

 

Even when it's clearly patient-mediated, the jury tends to feel sorry for the person who's lost sight, or lost a limb, or whatever, and awards for the patient anyway. This is on the theory that the insurance company will cover the doctor's losses.

 

Another issue is that medical insurance companies will sometimes sue the doctor (and anyone remotely related to the patient's problem) on behalf of the patient to try to recoup the medical costs it has to pay out. Let's take my contact-lens patient who loses sight in that eye. The medical insurance company decides to go after me for malpractice, the contact lens and solution manufacturers for product defects, and anyone else it can find remotely associated with the event. My patient may not even want me sued (note to all medpros--patients don't sue the caregivers they like--cultivate that not only because you care about your patients, but to protect yourself as well), but the medical insurance company may go after me anyway.

 

These are the kinds of things that need to be addressed in tort reform--e.g. awards given because juries develop an emotional attachment to the patient, which may result in too high of an award being given to someone who may not deserve it as much as someone else who doesn't elicit the same level of sympathy, or finding for the patient even when the doctor has done nothing wrong. In addition, limits need to be placed on medical companies seeking to recoup the costs for their patients by suing the doctor, hospital, and anyone else remotely associated with the patient's problem(s).

 

And yes, insurance companies have determined a cost for a life or a limb--in my hubby's accidental death/dismemberment policy, we would be reimbursed a certain amount if he lost a finger, a hand, a leg, one or both eyes, his life, etc. It doesn't matter what profession he has--if you lose your hands, you're only going to be reimbursed the amount specified in the policy, regardless of if you're a soccer player or a world-renowned concert pianist.

[mimartin]

What if the patient is the one being the idiot and not following orders? [/Quote] In that case the doctor should not be punished at all.

 

Although the thought of being sued, seems to have been a deterrent to you not to do anything careless. Has the threat of being sued made you more cautious and sure to explain all the valid information to your patient?

 

And yes, insurance companies have determined a cost for a life or a limb--in my hubby's accidental death/dismemberment policy, we would be reimbursed a certain amount if he lost a finger, a hand, a leg, one or both eyes, his life, etc. It doesn't matter what profession he has--if you lose your hands, you're only going to be reimbursed the amount specified in the policy, regardless of if you're a soccer player or a world-renowned concert pianist.

Yes, a contract between your husband and his insurance company on a disability policy spells that type of thing out. However, that does not validate those same set of reimbursement schedules for someone that is not under that contract. Your husband is free not to take that contract and purchase a different contract, by agreeing to the contract he has accepted how much his sight is worth before the loss. This is very different from a liability claim where the claimant did not have that opportunity to approve the reimbursement schedules before the loss.

 

Since I sell many different types of disability contracts, I know they can be very different depending on occupation. I would never sell the same policy and the same limits to a surgeon that I would to a ditch digger or I’d be the one needing to file a claim against my E&O coverage.

[Jae Onasi]

In that case the doctor should not be punished at all.

 

Although the thought of being sued, seems to have been a deterrent to you not to do anything careless. Has the threat of being sued made you more cautious and sure to explain all the valid information to your patient?

I don't know that I would explain valid information any less--I'm an education junkie and feel the need to teach my patients about their conditions and how to best help themselves. I'm not going to their house every four hours to put their drops in for them, so they have to understand why it's important for them to take responsibility for following my instructions. That part wouldn't change even if we had massive tort reform. I fear being the one responsible for a patient losing their sight far more than I fear the subsequent likely litigation. However, the threat of litigation has made me over-refer a lot more patients to ophthalmology than I need to.

 

I did know a doctor who got sued just for giving basic information about retinal diseases in general to the family of a patient. The family claimed he gave them bad medical advice, even though they weren't his patients. His insurance company wanted to settle the case, but the doctor insisted on fighting it on principle. He eventually won the case, but it was a hassle for him. These are the kinds of ridiculous lawsuits that we need to eliminate with tort reform.

 

Yes, a contract between your husband and his insurance company on a disability policy spells that type of thing out. However, that does not validate those same set of reimbursement schedules for someone that is not under that contract. Your husband is free not to take that contract and purchase a different contract, by agreeing to the contract he has accepted how much his sight is worth before the loss. This is very different from a liability claim where the claimant did not have that opportunity to approve the reimbursement schedules before the loss.

 

Since I sell many different types of disability contracts, I know they can be very different depending on occupation. I would never sell the same policy and the same limits to a surgeon that I would to a ditch digger or I’d be the one needing to file a claim against my E&O coverage.

Fair enough on that point.

 

 

Latest update: The House of Representatives has passed landmark legislation on health care reform.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-health-house-final,0,766249.story

[Ten-96]

Latest update: The House of Representatives has passed landmark legislation on health care reform.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-health-house-final,0,766249.story

 

 

Truly a sad day for our beloved republic. I highlighted and bolded the word landmark. There is nothing in this bill that will lower the cost of health insurance for anyone. I, again, ask anyone in support to answer these:

 

 

1. If this is so important and they have to act right away, why aren't any of the "reforms" going into effect until 2013?

 

 

2. Why are the increased costs and taxes going into effect immediately for those of us who already pay for health insurance even though the "reform" won't begin until 2013?

 

 

3. How can anyone in good conscience agree to impose higher costs per person or family for these proposed "reforms" with the unemployment rate above 10%?

 

 

4. If the goal is to ensure "everyone", why will there still be millions that will not be covered by this "reform"?

[Jae Onasi]

Truly a sad day for our beloved republic. I highlighted and bolded the word landmark. There is nothing in this bill that will lower the cost of health insurance for anyone. I, again, ask anyone in support to answer these:

 

 

1. If this is so important and they have to act right away, why aren't any of the "reforms" going into effect until 2013?

 

 

2. Why are the increased costs and taxes going into effect immediately for those of us who already pay for health insurance even though the "reform" won't begin until 2013?

 

 

3. How can anyone in good conscience agree to impose higher costs per person or family for these proposed "reforms" with the unemployment rate above 10%?

 

 

4. If the goal is to ensure "everyone", why will there still be millions that will not be covered by this "reform"?

 

1. It's going to take time to re-tool the insurance industry, and the House doesn't want to seriously annoy the medical community and the insurance lobbyists too much.

2. Because the gov't likes money and is looking at a huge deficit.

3. If you're unemployed, you'll get covered under Medicaid--that's how they can justify it.

4. Because the conservatives wouldn't go for universal health coverage, and the Dems had to compromise to get a bill passed.

[Ten-96]

1. It's going to take time to re-tool the insurance industry, and the House doesn't want to seriously annoy the medical community and the insurance lobbyists too much.

2. Because the gov't likes money and is looking at a huge deficit.

3. If you're unemployed, you'll get covered under Medicaid--that's how they can justify it.

4. Because the conservatives wouldn't go for universal health coverage, and the Dems had to compromise to get a bill passed.

 

1. It's going to take 4 years? Congress has already annoyed the AMA with this bill.

 

2. We're already in a deficit. This is going to pull us even further down. Those of us whom already pay for health insurance going to be paying more for it. How is that health insurance reform?

 

3. I don't agree that making those of us who already have insurance pay more for people who do not. There are ways to cover the uninsured without putting an additional burden on taxpayers.

 

4. As a Conservative, I still by my affirmation that there is nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress the power nor the right to guarantee health insurance for every American citizen. In fact, there is a provision in the Constitution that protects citizens from undo/unwarranted tax burdens. I pray that the Conservatives in Congress contest H.R. 3962 as unconstitutional.

[Totenkopf]

Well, the big question is what the Senate will do next. All nice and fine for mrs. Pelosi to make her statement, but will Harry get his ducks lined up too? Given that many people are opposed to the govt healthcare solution proposed by the dems, how will this affect the 2010 elections? If it becomes a repeat of 1994, will their opponents manage to roll anything back or scale down the excesses? It's very clear that the dems are marching toward single payer govt healthcare, citizens and finances be damned. Instead of fixing the problem (dealing w/<40 million problems), they seek to remake the system in their own image, so to speak. This has never really been about helping people so much as Congress helping itself to ever larger degrees of control over people. Barney Frank has been quite clear himself on numerous occasions that they seek to increase govt involvement in our lives at every turn and that they want single payer govt healthcare, putting the lie to claims of only providing competition to the private sector.