ObamaCare...coming soon

User Forum Topic
Submitted by meadandale on July 16, 2009 - 11:48am

Seems like modeling our system after the Canadians should be a great idea...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

Submitted by CA renter on July 29, 2009 - 1:07am.

AN,

Yes, agree with both of your points (larger portions and fast food) as well.

Submitted by dbapig on July 29, 2009 - 9:26am.

SD Realtor wrote:
Concho and DBA the premise that you guys bring to the table is simply not realistic. It is not. Is every person who has aids going to get treated? Is every person who has drug resistant tb going to get treated as well? So in this perfect world of health maintenance provided by our government everyone will be in perfect health?

I guess I am in the minority by not being afraid to go out in public for fear of catching TB from a guy at a stoplight. I better wait until universal health care comes to go outside... whew, thanks for telling me.

I mean really now, come on guys.

When I argued cap and trade one of the brilliant points taken up by the opposition was that we should lead and countries like India and China will follow. Oh and by the way we will develop all this technology that they will buy to keep thier own development clean. Hmmm, I think I read recently that India just said go to hell with that idea.

So lets see. This healthcare system will prevent the guy on the corner from coughing on me so I will not get TB. We will live in this perfect world where all the newly developing countries will not saw SCREW YOU and they will immediately implement measures to cap and trade on thier own industry as well. Furthermore they will buy our technology to clean themselves up. Furthemore, even though the healthcare reform (IN WHICH I AM AGREEING WITH YOU THAT SOMETHING BETTER IS NEEDED) should be rammed through as soon as possible without diligent thought and examination. It HAS TO GO THROUGH NOW because if it is thoroughly examined then it may not go through even though the party pushing it HAS MAJORITY IN ALL BRANCHES.

I just want to make sure I understand the argument here because it sounds perfectly insane to me.

TB issue is just an 'example.' When a large portion of the country is uninsured, thus not getting enough preventive health care, we all end up paying MORE eventually.

About the law being 'rammed' through, it's not my preference. I was just laying out what the Dems seems to be thinking. Come to think of it, ramming laws (aka invading other nation) seem to be a rather common thing in US politics.

----------------------------------------------------
No one on this thread replied to my question about South Korea. Again, what is South Korea doing right in providing near universal health care that USA can't?
----------------------------------------------------

Submitted by an on July 29, 2009 - 9:57am.

dbapig wrote:

TB issue is just an 'example.' When a large portion of the country is uninsured, thus not getting enough preventive health care, we all end up paying MORE eventually.

About the law being 'rammed' through, it's not my preference. I was just laying out what the Dems seems to be thinking. Come to think of it, ramming laws (aka invading other nation) seem to be a rather common thing in US politics.

----------------------------------------------------
No one on this thread replied to my question about South Korea. Again, what is South Korea doing right in providing near universal health care that USA can't?
----------------------------------------------------


Ramming laws through is only common when one party controls everything. The American people gave them that blank check.

As for us vs SK, well, last I checked, SK doesn't have the illegal immigrant issue we have. That's MILLIONS of people. In Texas, 70% of births with uninsured parents are from illegal. Just one example. Also, have you looked at Korean people vs American in term of obesity? If obesity accounts for 25% of the increase in medical care, they probably spend at least 25% less than us, if everything stay the same. There's really no other country that can give us an apple to apple comparison.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 29, 2009 - 10:42am.

So again, just trying to understand your logic dba. First it was, it had to be rammed through because it will not pass if we wait and really study it. Now it is okay it can be rammed through because previous administrations rammed things through.

My mistake I should have thought of that. Doing something wrong because it was done wrong before certainly justifies doing something wrong again.

Trying to compare South Korea to the US is not practical. In essence, the demographics of the population do not scale at all. Neither does the illegal immigration issues, nor the number of baby boomers we have aging. I would even venture to say South Korea does not have the welfare problem we have today. In essence in some situations it does work but in ours the solution is much more complex and will require more study.

Submitted by dbapig on July 29, 2009 - 12:19pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
So again, just trying to understand your logic dba. First it was, it had to be rammed through because it will not pass if we wait and really study it. Now it is okay it can be rammed through because previous administrations rammed things through.

My mistake I should have thought of that. Doing something wrong because it was done wrong before certainly justifies doing something wrong again.

Trying to compare South Korea to the US is not practical. In essence, the demographics of the population do not scale at all. Neither does the illegal immigration issues, nor the number of baby boomers we have aging. I would even venture to say South Korea does not have the welfare problem we have today. In essence in some situations it does work but in ours the solution is much more complex and will require more study.

Like I said, it was the Dems wanting to 'ram' it through. I said I do not like that myself too much. I'm however inclined to believing that if not 'rammed' through, nothing will get done. If time is taken to 'study' this issue, nothing will be done. Strange logic but that seems to be the way things work in DC. Let me emphasize though me don't like 'ramming' it through.

Funny though. bush/GOP rammed through invading iraq. and Dems 'ramming' through (although not done deal) the health care reform. i'd call it even...

How about comparing what US has (or rather doesn't have) to western european and canada? I just brought up South Korea into 'shaming' us into action...
Remember, South Korea was the nation that brought us the junk Hyundai cars, although the perception seems to be changing.

Submitted by an on July 29, 2009 - 12:21pm.

dbapig wrote:

How about comparing what US has (or rather doesn't have) to western european and canada? I just brought up South Korea into 'shaming' us into action...
Remember, South Korea was the nation that brought us the junk Hyundai cars, although the perception seems to be changing.

Yes, lets please compare. First and foremost, how many illegal immigrants are in any of those western European countries and Canada? That's enough to mess up the statistics. Secondly, what's the obesity rate in those countries? Thirdly, what's the survival rate when you get diagnosed with things like cancer/heart disease? Then compare to the answers of those question to what we have in the US. Once again, what we have is not perfect, but it's not complete crap either.

Submitted by blahblahblah on July 29, 2009 - 12:23pm.

Concho and DBA the premise that you guys bring to the table is simply not realistic. It is not. Is every person who has aids going to get treated? Is every person who has drug resistant tb going to get treated as well? So in this perfect world of health maintenance provided by our government everyone will be in perfect health?

I guess I am in the minority by not being afraid to go out in public for fear of catching TB from a guy at a stoplight. I better wait until universal health care comes to go outside... whew, thanks for telling me.

By this logic we shouldn't have police or fire departments. The police can't stop every crime so why even bother? The fire department can't save every endangered life so why should I have to pay taxes to support it?

Also, TB and other communicable diseases don't care if you're afraid of them or not.

I don't support this health "plan" coming out of Washington either. It will do nothing to improve the nation's health and will simply further enrich insurance companies while delivering another body blow to the middle class.

The system I would like the most for the US would be the Swiss system of highly regulated private medical insurance, but we can never have it here because corporations run the government.

Submitted by dbapig on July 29, 2009 - 12:29pm.

CONCHO wrote:

The system I would like the most for the US would be the Swiss system of highly regulated private medical insurance, but we can never have it here because corporations run the government.

How true. I think we ALL can agree on this.

Submitted by dbapig on July 29, 2009 - 12:37pm.

AN wrote:

Yes, lets please compare. First and foremost, how many illegal immigrants are in any of those western European countries and Canada? That's enough to mess up the statistics. Secondly, what's the obesity rate in those countries? Thirdly, what's the survival rate when you get diagnosed with things like cancer/heart disease? Then compare to the answers of those question to what we have in the US. Once again, what we have is not perfect, but it's not complete crap either.

Ok so you believe we do not need to do anything? status quo?

I read somewhere about health care in Canada or Europe that mentioned an overweight patient. A patient was considered over weight by his Primary care doctor so she was put on a 2 Year long coaching program to bring her weight down. I assume it was something like come in regularly for weight check up and tell us what you eat and how much you exercise etc. I guess that's taking away liberty from the woman?

Many many not being able to afford health care, getting kicked out from insurance when you really need it, I'd say that's pretty crap.

Submitted by Zeitgeist on July 29, 2009 - 1:41pm.

"WASHINGTON — President Obama tried Tuesday to sell his health care plan to older Americans, as members of Congress said they were deluged with calls from constituents worried that their Medicare benefits might be cut to help finance coverage for the uninsured.(July 29, 2009)"

"The outpouring of concern over Medicare came as House Democratic leaders tried to assuage the concerns of fiscally conservative House Democrats who have held up action on health care legislation while they press for changes to reduce the cost of the bill, estimated at $1 trillion over 10 years."

"But some liberal Democrats, like Senators John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, expressed reservations about concessions being made by Democrats to keep a few Republicans on board."

"Mr. Rockefeller said he was unhappy that the legislation would end the Children’s Health Insurance Program and could reduce the scope of benefits for 11 million children in the program"

"Asked if he would support the bill, Mr. Rockefeller shot back a somber, stony look. “Can’t you see the joy on my face?” he asked."

"The House bill would cut more than $160 billion over 10 years from the projected growth of Medicare payments to insurance companies that manage care for more than 10 million of the 45 million Medicare beneficiaries."

"But Robert E. Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, said that if Congress made those cuts, “beneficiaries would face higher premiums and reductions in benefits, and in some parts of the country, they might lose access to their Medicare Advantage plans.” When Congress cut Medicare payments in the past, he said, insurers withdrew from some counties."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/health...

Submitted by Aecetia on July 29, 2009 - 1:56pm.

Hey TG Will you still support the health care bill when they tax your wine? Well will you?

Smokers and diet-soda drinkers would escape higher taxes under a new proposal for how to pay for President Barack Obama’s sweeping health reform overhaul. But if you drink alcohol or sugary drinks, you might have to pay up under a plan released Monday by the Senate Finance Committee.
The committee proposed slapping an excise tax on “sugar-sweetened beverages” for the first time, and imposing a uniform tax across wine, beer and liquor, which are currently taxed a different levels.

Wealthy individuals or workers with expensive health plans may have to pay taxes on their employer-provided insurance for the first time. Health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts could also lose some of their tax benefits.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/050...

Submitted by an on July 29, 2009 - 1:57pm.

dbapig wrote:
AN wrote:

Yes, lets please compare. First and foremost, how many illegal immigrants are in any of those western European countries and Canada? That's enough to mess up the statistics. Secondly, what's the obesity rate in those countries? Thirdly, what's the survival rate when you get diagnosed with things like cancer/heart disease? Then compare to the answers of those question to what we have in the US. Once again, what we have is not perfect, but it's not complete crap either.

Ok so you believe we do not need to do anything? status quo?

I read somewhere about health care in Canada or Europe that mentioned an overweight patient. A patient was considered over weight by his Primary care doctor so she was put on a 2 Year long coaching program to bring her weight down. I assume it was something like come in regularly for weight check up and tell us what you eat and how much you exercise etc. I guess that's taking away liberty from the woman?

Many many not being able to afford health care, getting kicked out from insurance when you really need it, I'd say that's pretty crap.


Did you even read my post?

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 29, 2009 - 2:21pm.

dbapig wrote:
CONCHO wrote:

The system I would like the most for the US would be the Swiss system of highly regulated private medical insurance, but we can never have it here because corporations run the government.

How true. I think we ALL can agree on this.

Yes I think we can. Again, my argument is not against reform. What I am trying to state is that once this is done, it is quite possible that it can NEVER be undone. Thus to say well if we study it and NOTHING gets done then I think it is preferable then getting something done that could very well be worse. I am in agreement that the country is essentially run by corporations. That while the "intent" is to provide competition to existing plans, it is not a stretch that many of these plans will indeed go away.

Take a look at the Hawaii (Obamas birthstate) mandated healthcare and look what happened there.

My argument is not against reform but it IS FOR a well thought out plan.

Once it is done, we will live with it. I would like to get a much better understanding of it.

Here... You have John Conyers himself saying

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

So is this what you guys are advocating? The *&*&$# bill is so complex that nimbus congressman are not going to even read it. However yes we must pass it because if we do not then nothing will ever pass. I am just sorry I don't agree with this philosophy. I am sorry that the govt has fkd up in the past but please just have the guy read the damn bill okay?

Submitted by Zeitgeist on July 29, 2009 - 2:43pm.

Amen to that SDR. I wrote Conyers and told him that if it was too complex and too long for him to have the time to read and understand, then he should not sign it! I was nice. Normally, if a person cannot do their job, they are either over worked or incompetent. I was not sure which one it was, so I just suggested the bill be redone. Maybe they do have too much to read. If that is the case, then they need more time to read it. This is not rocket science.

Submitted by blahblahblah on July 29, 2009 - 3:01pm.

Here... You have John Conyers himself saying

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

It's the same as with the Patriot Act. Remember when Michael Moore interviewed Conyers in "Fahrenheit 911" and asked him if he had read the Patriot Act before voting to approve it? He said something to the effect of -- "Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the legislation we vote on." These bills come out of think tanks funded by corporate interests. Corporate lobbyists jawbone congressmen all day long about the importance of passing the stuff they've written and how they'll be sure to get more campaign contributions if they play along. It's the best government money can buy!

Submitted by dbapig on July 29, 2009 - 4:25pm.

CONCHO wrote:
"Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the legislation we vote on."

hmmm, SDR what do you think?

Submitted by blahblahblah on July 29, 2009 - 4:39pm.

It's the same as with the Patriot Act. Remember when Michael Moore interviewed Conyers in "Fahrenheit 911" and asked him if he had read the Patriot Act before voting to approve it? He said something to the effect of -- "Sit down, my son. We don't read most of the legislation we vote on."

Found it -- it's actually in the trailer for the film. Go to 1:01 in. Just so no one thinks this is anything new, or that Conyers is the only one not reading legislation. He's just one of the few honest enough to admit it.

Submitted by SD Realtor on July 29, 2009 - 10:19pm.

So once again,

Your compelling argument is... and lets just state this for the record,

that this bill should be passed because

a) because if it is not passed now it will not be passed at all.

or

b) because the govt sucked in the past it is okay to continue to suck.

Again, I am not being facetious here, I am simply trying to understand why you want THIS PARTICULAR health reform bill to pass. Again, I am not saying health reform is not needed, I just want a more well thought out plan, one that is more understandable with a less orwellian approach.

So far both yours and conchos responses to my continued queries have been simply to say that this is the way it has always been so it is okay to continue in this manner. (ie patriot act, war in iraq, etc...)

Anyways if you could clarify my understanding that would help.

Submitted by Arraya on July 29, 2009 - 10:25pm.

http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/
"Universal" health care plans have been running in many rich western countries for decades, and while there are no perfect systems, and cost pressures build up there as well, the satisfaction level to date is generally high, much higher than in the US. While at the same time the costs of these systems are way lower than anything the US has been able to come up with. So why the extensive talk, why does the US need to re-invent the wheel? Just look around and pick a tried and true system, like Norway, France, Germany. They're all cheaper and they all function better. And if you don't believe that, ask yourself why none of these countries is presently involved in exasperating talks about their systems.

So why does Washington try to invent the wheel? The answer is easy. The difference between US and Western European health care lies exclusively in the political power acquired by corporate industries, in this case -mainly- a combination of drug manufacturers (closely linked to the chemical industry) and insurance companies (which are in turn closely linked to Wall Street banks). The US needs to fabricate its own system because it needs to satisfy the perverted influence industry has on not just health care itself, but also on the political process.

US health care spending is over 15% of GDP, and within 10 years it will be 20% (there's your bubble). That means today’s dollar total is about $2.2 trillion (that's Britain's entire GDP), and we're on our way to $3 trillion. If the US would adopt a Western European system, it might save 50% of these costs. And a few very powerful corporations would lose $1 trillion per year in revenues. That's all you need to know about the reason why there will be no significant reform. Sick people are big business. And big business runs the nation.

Submitted by CA renter on July 29, 2009 - 10:42pm.

Arraya wrote:
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/
"Universal" health care plans have been running in many rich western countries for decades, and while there are no perfect systems, and cost pressures build up there as well, the satisfaction level to date is generally high, much higher than in the US. While at the same time the costs of these systems are way lower than anything the US has been able to come up with. So why the extensive talk, why does the US need to re-invent the wheel? Just look around and pick a tried and true system, like Norway, France, Germany. They're all cheaper and they all function better. And if you don't believe that, ask yourself why none of these countries is presently involved in exasperating talks about their systems.

So why does Washington try to invent the wheel? The answer is easy. The difference between US and Western European health care lies exclusively in the political power acquired by corporate industries, in this case -mainly- a combination of drug manufacturers (closely linked to the chemical industry) and insurance companies (which are in turn closely linked to Wall Street banks). The US needs to fabricate its own system because it needs to satisfy the perverted influence industry has on not just health care itself, but also on the political process.

US health care spending is over 15% of GDP, and within 10 years it will be 20% (there's your bubble). That means today’s dollar total is about $2.2 trillion (that's Britain's entire GDP), and we're on our way to $3 trillion. If the US would adopt a Western European system, it might save 50% of these costs. And a few very powerful corporations would lose $1 trillion per year in revenues. That's all you need to know about the reason why there will be no significant reform. Sick people are big business. And big business runs the nation.

Amen!

Submitted by an on July 29, 2009 - 11:04pm.

Arraya wrote:
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/
"Universal" health care plans have been running in many rich western countries for decades, and while there are no perfect systems, and cost pressures build up there as well, the satisfaction level to date is generally high, much higher than in the US. While at the same time the costs of these systems are way lower than anything the US has been able to come up with. So why the extensive talk, why does the US need to re-invent the wheel? Just look around and pick a tried and true system, like Norway, France, Germany. They're all cheaper and they all function better. And if you don't believe that, ask yourself why none of these countries is presently involved in exasperating talks about their systems.

So why does Washington try to invent the wheel? The answer is easy. The difference between US and Western European health care lies exclusively in the political power acquired by corporate industries, in this case -mainly- a combination of drug manufacturers (closely linked to the chemical industry) and insurance companies (which are in turn closely linked to Wall Street banks). The US needs to fabricate its own system because it needs to satisfy the perverted influence industry has on not just health care itself, but also on the political process.

US health care spending is over 15% of GDP, and within 10 years it will be 20% (there's your bubble). That means today’s dollar total is about $2.2 trillion (that's Britain's entire GDP), and we're on our way to $3 trillion. If the US would adopt a Western European system, it might save 50% of these costs. And a few very powerful corporations would lose $1 trillion per year in revenues. That's all you need to know about the reason why there will be no significant reform. Sick people are big business. And big business runs the nation.


Can you let me know which rich western country have the immigration problem we have today? Which western country have the obesity problem we have today?

The link I posted on the last page shows that "More than 25% of the increase in medical costs between 1987 and 2001 is attributable to obesity and obesity-related conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, according to a new report from the non-partisan Urban Institute." Today, 30-32% of American between 20-74 are obese. Based on the graph they provided, in 1987, about 15% of American were obese. Even more staggering: "And today, close to 20% of children are obese, up from 4% four decades ago." "Come 2015, it is estimated that 40% of American adults will be obese, which is more than double the rate 40 years ago."

"All told, 9% of health spending last year -- or more than $200 billion -- was spent on obesity-related costs, according to Urban Institute. Half of that bill was footed by taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid." So, today alone, we're spending about $0.2 trillion on obesity. If they estimate that in just 6 years, obesity level will increase by ~30%, we should be looking to spend another $70 Billion just on obesity alone.

So in the grand total of $ that you posted, a pretty decent portion is caused by obesity alone. I don't have the number on illegal immigrants burden on our health care system, but I think it's a pretty large chunk as well.

BTW, talking about general philosophy of universal health care is all well and good, but what do you think about the specifics of the House Bill? Please look up meadandale's post on page 5. Do you agree with those things?

Submitted by CA renter on July 29, 2009 - 11:52pm.

AN wrote:
Arraya wrote:
http://theautomaticearth.blogspot.com/
"Universal" health care plans have been running in many rich western countries for decades, and while there are no perfect systems, and cost pressures build up there as well, the satisfaction level to date is generally high, much higher than in the US. While at the same time the costs of these systems are way lower than anything the US has been able to come up with. So why the extensive talk, why does the US need to re-invent the wheel? Just look around and pick a tried and true system, like Norway, France, Germany. They're all cheaper and they all function better. And if you don't believe that, ask yourself why none of these countries is presently involved in exasperating talks about their systems.

So why does Washington try to invent the wheel? The answer is easy. The difference between US and Western European health care lies exclusively in the political power acquired by corporate industries, in this case -mainly- a combination of drug manufacturers (closely linked to the chemical industry) and insurance companies (which are in turn closely linked to Wall Street banks). The US needs to fabricate its own system because it needs to satisfy the perverted influence industry has on not just health care itself, but also on the political process.

US health care spending is over 15% of GDP, and within 10 years it will be 20% (there's your bubble). That means today’s dollar total is about $2.2 trillion (that's Britain's entire GDP), and we're on our way to $3 trillion. If the US would adopt a Western European system, it might save 50% of these costs. And a few very powerful corporations would lose $1 trillion per year in revenues. That's all you need to know about the reason why there will be no significant reform. Sick people are big business. And big business runs the nation.


Can you let me know which rich western country have the immigration problem we have today? Which western country have the obesity problem we have today?

The link I posted on the last page shows that "More than 25% of the increase in medical costs between 1987 and 2001 is attributable to obesity and obesity-related conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, according to a new report from the non-partisan Urban Institute." Today, 30-32% of American between 20-74 are obese. Based on the graph they provided, in 1987, about 15% of American were obese. Even more staggering: "And today, close to 20% of children are obese, up from 4% four decades ago." "Come 2015, it is estimated that 40% of American adults will be obese, which is more than double the rate 40 years ago."

"All told, 9% of health spending last year -- or more than $200 billion -- was spent on obesity-related costs, according to Urban Institute. Half of that bill was footed by taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid." So, today alone, we're spending about $0.2 trillion on obesity. If they estimate that in just 6 years, obesity level will increase by ~30%, we should be looking to spend another $70 Billion just on obesity alone.

So in the grand total of $ that you posted, a pretty decent portion is caused by obesity alone. I don't have the number on illegal immigrants burden on our health care system, but I think it's a pretty large chunk as well.

BTW, talking about general philosophy of universal health care is all well and good, but what do you think about the specifics of the House Bill? Please look up meadandale's post on page 5. Do you agree with those things?

Ironically, in the decades that have passed since the halt to immigration, more immigrants have come to Europe than in preceding decades. Indeed, by looking at the number of immigrants in various countries, it would be difficult to determine how far back the block had been implemented in practice. In the Netherlands, for example, the number of first- and second-generation Moroccan and Turkish immigrants has increased almost tenfold (see Table 1) since the 1974 halt.

http://www.meforum.org/2107/europe-shift...
-------------------------

Europe most certainly does have "immigration problems," but they are the Turks, Moroccans and others from Eastern Europe and Africa. My maternal family is Austrian, and they have been complaining about the "illegal immigrants" for quite a few years.

And yes...the immigration problem there is most definitely a drain on their more socialized systems. Many western Europeans believe the immigrants are destroying European culture and decimating the social safety nets they've worked so hard to build up.

One thing is true...you cannot have an effective, socialized healthcare system in a country that freely allows (encourages?) an unlimited number of poor immigrants to enter the country and automatically "qualify" for all the benefits.

Submitted by an on July 30, 2009 - 12:09am.

CA renter wrote:

One thing is true...you cannot have an effective, socialized healthcare system in a country that freely allows (encourages?) an unlimited number of poor immigrants to enter the country and automatically "qualify" for all the benefits.

I guess we at least agree on this issue.

Submitted by dbapig on July 30, 2009 - 9:39am.

Arraya wrote:
If the US would adopt a Western European system, it might save 50% of these costs. And a few very powerful corporations would lose $1 trillion per year in revenues. That's all you need to know about the reason why there will be no significant reform. Sick people are big business. And big business runs the nation.

Perfect example of the interest of the NATION as a whole being sacrificed for financial interest a very very few. How is this much better than :( the communism or fascism or dictatorship? We think we have 'democratic' govt but what we really have is a dictatorship by a few powerful corporations.

Private insurance only program doesn't work because sick people add too much cost to the insurance business. And any good business knows it has to cut cost at all cost, hence not signing on people with preexisting conditions etc etc.

After all this, not much will change.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 30, 2009 - 10:15am.

AN wrote:

The link I posted on the last page shows that "More than 25% of the increase in medical costs between 1987 and 2001 is attributable to obesity and obesity-related conditions such as hypertension and diabetes, according to a new report from the non-partisan Urban Institute." Today, 30-32% of American between 20-74 are obese. Based on the graph they provided, in 1987, about 15% of American were obese. Even more staggering: "And today, close to 20% of children are obese, up from 4% four decades ago." "Come 2015, it is estimated that 40% of American adults will be obese, which is more than double the rate 40 years ago."

That's a problem. A huge problem. Obesity accounting for 25% of the increase in medical costs. What about the other 75%? Medical insurance costs during a similar period (from 1990 to 2001) went up almost 83%. And from 1990 to 2007 up a whopping 164%. We're paying more than two and a half times what we paid in 1990. Doctors and hospitals and other medical care providers certainly don't earn 2 1/2 times what they did in 1990. Part of that increase is obesity. And part of the reason for the obesity is lack of preventive care. More preventive care would reduce the costs of treating the acute symptoms of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease.

Who's making 2 1/2 times what they made in 1990? The insurance companies.

Submitted by an on July 30, 2009 - 10:32am.

SK in CV wrote:

Who's making 2 1/2 times what they made in 1990? The insurance companies.

Yes, they are. Yet, AARP is fully behind this bill. Call me cynical, but 1+1 sounds a lot like 2.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 30, 2009 - 10:42am.

AN wrote:
SK in CV wrote:

Who's making 2 1/2 times what they made in 1990? The insurance companies.

Yes, they are. Yet, AARP is fully behind this bill. Call me cynical, but 1+1 sounds a lot like 2.

Help me out here. Are you opposed to it because AARP is in favor? AARP supports legislation that is favorable to their membership. They are anything but unbiased, but their agenda isn't hidden. They would applaud free laxatives and tax exemptions for golf carts. Medical insurance companies are all opposed to real reform that promotes competition.

Submitted by an on July 30, 2009 - 10:44am.

SK in CV wrote:

Help me out here. Are you opposed to it because AARP is in favor? AARP supports legislation that is favorable to their membership. They are anything but unbiased, but their agenda isn't hidden. They would applaud free laxatives and tax exemptions for golf carts. Medical insurance companies are all opposed to real reform that promotes competition.

Please see meadandale's excerpt of the bill on page 5 for some of the reason I'm against this bill.

Submitted by SK in CV on July 30, 2009 - 1:16pm.

AN wrote:

Please see meadandale's excerpt of the bill on page 5 for some of the reason I'm against this bill.

I saw them. The vast majority were outright falsehoods. The plan itself can be seen here.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_11...

The errors included in meandale's first post are:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

False. It doesn't audit the books. It doesn't say "all" anywhere. It examines the solvency of, and risk of self-insured employers of not being able to pay claims. Makes sense to me.

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benes u get

False. It establishes minimum benefits.

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!!

False. No "rationing" is even mentioned. It covers maximum out of pocket expenses for covered individuals and families.

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose UR HC Benefits 4 you. U have no choice!

False. The commissioner will establish minimum standards. Not maximum.

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided 2 ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Maybe. But it doesn't explicitly say that.

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access 2 individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will b issued!

False. It provides for immediate access to patient responsibility for payment of services at the time rendered. Insurance cards will be issued exactly as they are now for most all medical insurance.

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 ur banks accts 4 elect. funds transfer

False. It provides for electronic transfer of funds to health care providers for services rendered. Same as medicare does now.

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan 4 retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Mostly False. It susidizes retirees insurance, otherwise paid by employers, for retirees between 55 and 65 years old. May apply to some organized labor contracts, but no mention of unions or community organizations. No relationship whatsoever with ACORN.

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange 2 bring priv HC plans under Govt control.

False. No Gov't control involved. No mandatory participation by private insurers. It creates a single clearinghouse for insurers.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs 4 priv. HC plans in the Exchange

True. It will provide for minimum standards for those private insurers who voluntarily choose to particpate at the various levels of coverage. (Basic, Enhanced, Premium) Participation is not mandatory.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for of Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration ur Healthcare!

False. Government will establish minimum guidelines for levels of coverage within the exhange. (Basic, Enhanced and Premium)

PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic approp svcs. Example - Translation 4 illegal aliens

Translation for all participants in the plan.

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps 2 sign up indiv. for Govt HC plan

Outreach to inform participants of options within the exchange, including private insurers.

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Ben Levels 4 Plans. #AARP members - U Health care WILL b rationed

False. Government will establish minimum guidelines for levels of coverage within the exhange. (Basic, Enhanced and Premium)

-PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Indiv. will b automat.enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

No change to current law. Those eligible for Medicaid are enrolled in Medicaid.

pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monop

Exactly the same as current Medicare reimbursement rate rules. Participation by health care providers is not mandatory. Lack of participation in public plan does not prohibit participation in other exchange insurance plans.

pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what u can make.

False. Government will set reimubursement rates. Participation by doctors is voluntary, just as it is now for medicare. Lack of participation in public plan does not prohibit participation in other exchange insurance plans.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into pub opt plan. NO CHOICE

False. Employers have coverage requirements. There is no requirement that the coverage is through the public option plan or even the insurance exchange.

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay 4 HC 4 part time employees AND their families.

False. Employers must pay proportionally for other than full time workers. No family coverage specified. (reference should be to page 146, not 126)

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Emplyr w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

False. There is no requirement for participation in the public option.

pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll btw 251k & 400k who doesnt prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

False. There is no requirement for participation in the public option.

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesnt have acceptable HC accrdng 2 Govt will be taxed 2.5% of inc

False. The tax will be limited to the cost of required coverage, up to a maximum of 2.5%, prorated for partial year coverage.

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from indiv. taxes. (Americans will pay)

False. No change to existing tax law for non-resident aliens.

Pg 195 HC Bill -officers & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access 2 ALL Americans finan/pers recs

False. HC Admin will have access to records required to verify eligibility for affordability credits. Affordability credits are not mandatory. If you are elegible, you need not participate, but in order to do so, verification of some tax records are required.

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that

Awkwardly worded, but quoted text makes sense when not taken out of context.

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician svcs 4 Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor affected

False. Referenced sections refer to "target growth rate computation", not direct payment of services.

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesnt matter what specialty u have, you'll all be paid the same

False. Doctors providing exactly the same services will be paid the same, regardless of their specialty.

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of Dr's time, prof judg, etc. Literally value of humans.

False. Government may review service codes to accurately reflect and reimburse for the services provided. Just as every private insurance company does annually.

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

False. Section refers to evaluation of reimbursement rates.

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

False. Section modifies definition of power driven wheelchairs.

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

False. No rationing involved. Section refers to fee schedule adjustments related to certain cancer hospitals if their costs exceed those costs in other hospitals.

Page 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals 4 what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

Correct. Will promote proper aftercare and act as a deterrent for premature discharge, in addition to penalize hospitals which use readmissions to boost revenues.

Pg 298 Lines 9-11 Drs, treat a patient during initial admiss that results in a readmiss-Govt will penalize u.

False. Section refers to a mandated study of readmissions.

Pg 317 L 13-20 OMG!! PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Virtually identical to existing Medicare rules, which reduce possibility of doctors receiving kickbacks for referrals to other care providers in which they have an ownership interest.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

False. Section refers to qualification of certain facilities as "Rural Providers", which may be eligible for alternate fee schedule.

pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can u say ACORN?!!

Section refers to qualification of certain facilities as "Rural Providers", which may be eligible for alternate fee schedule. You can say ACORN, but it would have nothing to do with this section. More likely that "corn" might be related.

Pg335 L 16-25 Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. HC the way they want. Rationing

False. Section refers to bonus payments for quality of care which exceeds specified standards.

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority 2 disqual Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing peeps in2 Govt plan

False. Government has the authority to disqualify some plans for inadequate patient care. No requirement for transfer to public plan.

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs ppl!

False. Section refers to extension of existing rules regarding some plans and provides for an analysis of those plans.

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte. Can u say HC by phone?

False. The section refers to expansion of program already in existence under medicare.

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of life

False. There is no mandate in this section. It provides for payment of services related to advance directives every 5 years.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty. Mandatory!

False. Government will reimburse for those non-mandated services, just as they reimburse for other medical services.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides apprvd list of end of life resources, guiding u in death

False. Reference is description of what services related to advance care planning will be reimbursed. Nothing is mandated.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program 4 orders 4 end of life. The Govt has a say in how ur life ends

False. Reference is description of what services related to advance care planning will be reimbursed. Nothing is mandated.

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will b used frequently as patients health deteriorates

Not exactly. Section provides for reimbursement more than every 5 years if there is significant deterioration of the health of a patient.

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may incl an ORDER 4 end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

False. Reference is description of what services related to advance care planning will be reimbursed. Nothing is mandated.

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

False. Reference is description of a durable advance directive, so that patients will not have to sign a new advance directive every time they enter a different hospital.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment u will have at end of life

False. Section refers to what information may be included in an advance directive.

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Svcs here!!?

Section refers to defintion of a Community Based Medical Home. Objection to this section is unclear.

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment 2 a community-based org. Like ACORN?

ACORN does not operate community based home medical services facilities. So no, not like ACORN.

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt in2 ur marriage

False.

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health Svcs including defining, creating, rationing those svcs

Not entirely. Some mental health services may be covered. No description of rationing is involved.

I spent quite a bit of time reviewing each of the items of above. So please review them carefully. And if you doubt the veracity of any of my responses on the particular items, please click on the link above and review the actual bill.

Submitted by an on July 30, 2009 - 1:53pm.

Pg 30 Sec 123 - Here's the exact wording: "IN GENERAL.—There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to be known as the Health Benefits Advisory Committee to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans. "

I take that as government setting a guideline as to what is considered essential, enhanced, and premium.

PG 50 Section 152 - It doesn't explicitly say illegal won't be covered either.

Just my take on 2 of the points. Thanks for your input on all of them though. It's always nice to get the point of view of people of different opinion.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.