Insurance mandates, NOT healthcare reform (Congressmen, salary, illegal, drug)

[brokensky]

I am very concerned that the public is not being given the facts about the proposals wh/ Obama's administration is making re: what they are referring to as "healthcare reform."

Part of my career has been spent analyzing healthcare legislation.

I have no dog in this fight; I am just an American, like you, struggling to deal with healthcare costs. I see the healthcare system in this country as bloated and rife w/ opportunities to trim fat so that the consumer's expenses are not so great.

I heard so many of you rallying around Obama b/f he was elected b/c you wanted "universal healthcare." Back in 2007, and in the months up to the election, I tried to explain that there will be no "universal healthcare" but rather - there will be insurance reform. Obama himself said nothing about "universal healthcare" yet I kept hearing the average Joe on the street saying he was voting for Obama b/c Obama would give us universal h/c.

And today, we are getting ready to be bombarded w/ all sorts of propaganda telling the public that the insurance "reform" that is getting ready to be passed in Congress is actually "healthcare reform" - BUT IT IS NOT.

I am only asking each of you to read the bill for yourselves. I have had to read all 615 pp of Sen. Kennedy's bill (wh/ will be voted on 6/16) and to shut out ALL THE PUNDITS and anyone speaking for Obama's administration. They are NOT telling you what is in this bill. They are skirting issues and putting a spin on it.

What are my politics? I am a moderate. I believe in a society's obligation to take care of children, the disabled, the elderly and those who are unable to care for themselves. I am not some right wing nutball interested in who wins elections for either party. I am interested in seeing real help for every American who struggles with healthcare costs.

SHOCKING FACT: the number one reason for bankruptcy in this country is b/c of medical bills.

That is what I want to see addressed: the COST of healthcare and increased access to AFFORDABLE healthcare.

What Kennedy's bill proposes are a few good things wh/ I think all of us can agree on, but parts of it are rather ominous and the President's Administration is trying to smokescreen those items.

Here is what I think most of us will like about the proposed legislation:

1. Kids up to 26 can stay on their parents' h/c insurance policy til age 26.
2. Medicaid qualifying threshold will still use poverty tables, but will increase your elibility to include 150% of your salary. So that means more people who are working and have children can qualify for Medicaid. For some people, this may help.
3. If your employer does not offer healthcare insurance, you will be offered a gov't insurance policy. HOWEVER - and please listen to this - you will still have premiums. This is NOT free healthcare. And further, ALL AMERICANS ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE.

Let me re-state this. The President's administration has been using the figure of about 41-45 Million Americans being without h/c insurance. In that figure, they have included about 20 million + Americans whose employers DO OFFER insurance, but these people have chosen NOT to get insurance. Why? Some are young (in their 20s) and they do not feel they need it - and the cost of premiums would cut their checks down. But this legislation REQUIRES every American to have insurance. So these people who have refused coverage will be REQUIRED to have it now.

Also, that means the figure that the Pres's administration is using (40+ million Americans) is seriously flawed. In addition, that figure represents an estimation of illegal immigrants (non-citizens who are here illegally) wh/ may be anywhere from 12 to 20 Million individuals. I have search thru/ 615 pp of Kennedy's bill and I cannot find anything that EXCLUDES these individuals from having h/c insurance coverage in this country. The facts are, this bill mandates that EVERY CITIZEN has healthcare coverage. However, it then re-defines what they consider a citizen by requiring those that do not qualify as citizens to also have insurance. It is tricky language and I have put out requests to attorneys to please look at this legislation and figure out if I am reading it correctly.

Now raising the threshold on salary that a person can have and still qualify for Medicaid seems reasonable to me. It will cost all of us taxpayers more, of course, to pay for Medicaid. Your tax dollars are what pays for another person to be on Medicaid. However, the troubling aspect of this is that they are also LOWERING restrictions on assets that a person can have and still qualify for Medicaid. For some of us, that may be a GOOD thing - those of us living at poverty level and considered the "working poor" - and there are many of us. However, for those who are gaming the system, this is just making it much easier for them to sit on their duffs and get all sorts of subsidies handed to them. It is a dilemma!

But back to the things you will not hear anyone discuss about this bill. Or let's say - that the President's administration is already out there saying anyone who mentions this stuff is "spreading propaganda." (I heard this out of Howard Dean's mouth this morning on CNBC).

This is a concern: Your healthcare benefits that you now receive from your employer are going to be TAXED. Let me break this down for those of you who are clueless about how your employer handles the cost of your h/c insurance. Typically, whatever YOU PAY as your insurance premium each month is about HALF of the actual cost of the policy. So that means - let's say you pay $500 a month for healthcare. Your employer is picking up HALF the cost of your policy. So that means your employer is spending about $6000 more dollars a year to provide you w/ healthcare coverage. This administration wants to pass a provision to TAX that $6000 or so money. That means this money will be recognized as INCOME. This will LOWER your paycheck every month. In addition, tagging on $6000 or more each year to your salary may put some people into a new HIGHER income tax bracket. In addition, each employer is required to turn in a statement annually with every person's name, address, SS# and telephone number who receives insurance. This is for tracking purposes. Why? I have no clue.

And let me state again. If you are turning down your employer's policy right now, you are going to be REQUIRED to carry it once this bill passes.

Also - and this should be a CONCERN - and Howard Dean was trying to play games with this fact this morning - national review boards/agencies are to be set up (yes, this is in the legislation) to review healthcare consumption and limit what is appropriate. And one of the areas that is going to be closely monitored is END OF LIFE care. This means - after age 75 or 80, people w/ cancer are going to get palliative or hospice care but no treatment for cancer. Howard Dean tried to skirt this issue this morning by saying NO NO, we are not going to have "rationed healthcare."

Well, excuse me, Mr. Dean: if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, as far as I am concerned, it's a duck. And these agencies who are going to oversee the consumption of healthcare are there to restrict its use (and thus, ITS COST) and that is RATIONED HEALTHCARE.

To all of you who have clamored for "universal healthcare" let me make this clear: you are NOT GETTING IT. You are getting mandated insurance. All that is going to change is you will be required to get insurance and your employer is going to have no choice but to get lower BENEFITS on those insurance policies.

LOWERED, LESS ROBUST BENEFITS.

In this legislation, there are many other things that concern me and should concern you as a taxpayer. This is not helping with LOWERING HEALTHCARE COSTS. Isn't that what we ALL wanted? Lowered costs?

Instead, this legislation will create more bureaucracy - more agencies to oversee agencies and each STATE. More federal interference as to what your state can offer you.

Get this: the legislation mandates a federal "oral care" program - and I can't believe it but it actually is written in there - $5,000,000,000 going to ADVERTISING (in English and Spanish) to remind people to brush their teeth. This ad campaign is to run for five years. And it will cost tax payers 5 billion dollars - so that you and your neighbors know that it is a GOOD THING to brush your teeth and get regular checkups.

Oh - and it creates a public health center for schools - but the only children who can use the center are children at poverty level. They get free sealants on their teeth, but you will have to pay for dental care for your kids. I am not saying this is a bad idea to take care of illegal immigrants' kids teeth. But I am saying - this is NOT universal healthcare. If it were, YOUR KIDS would get the same free dental exams and sealants on their teeth.

There is money in this bill to cover healthcare education for those wanting to go into healthcare careers - BUT ONLY IF THEY ARE A MINORITY ETHNICITY. I am serious. I am not making this up. My son and his fiancee are going into healthcare but they don't qualify for this money b/c they are caucasian. THAT IS FAIR? And that is how the majority of Americans want to see their tax dollars used? I am NOT talking about LOANS - it is clearly written - these are GRANTS.

There is SO MUCH MORE in this legislation and it is not going to be discussed. Congress is going to rubberstamp it and already, Obama's political machine is out on the street, calling the DEMS who disagree w/ the legislation "contrarians" and saying the objections that the GOP are bringing up are PROPAGANDA. They are determined to pass this legislation and they are determined to do it QUICKLY.

AMERICA: we got the BAIL OUT crammed down our throats and even the Senators and Congressmen had no time to really digest the legislation. I see the same thing happening here. THe President's Administration is bandying around the term "healthcare reform" but that is NOT what this is! This is INSURANCE MANDATES. And no, I did not pick this up from some pundit. To my knowledge, NO ONE else is calling this "insurance mandates." I am trying to inform you, my fellow citizens, what I have analyzed about this legislation on my own.

I am not taking some pundits word for it. I am not taking some biased Congressman's word for it; I am not reading what some Lobbyist has said about it. I have analyzed it myself. Some of it is so hard to wade through, I am still uncertain exactly what it means (b/c it changes language on previous enacted legislation/ACTS).

What I am asking is for YOU to read it. I am asking YOU to refuse to be fed the propaganda. Just b/c you wanted "universal healthcare" - do NOT be fooled into thinking this is something like Canada's system or UK's system. This is nothing more than insurance mandates.

Here is the bill. Huffington was good enuff to post the bill in its entirety. Please do not think I am asking you to be a fan of Huffington. If you have another source for finding this legislation in its entirety online, feel free to post a link:

Kennedy Health Care Reform Bill Released -- Help Us Read Through It

Please find out for yourself what is getting ready to be demanded of you. I think we ALL AGREE - something needs to be done to lower the cost of healthcare, but this ain't it, friends! This is just rationed healthcare tied up in a mandated insurance box.

[jtur88]

Please state the question you would like us to debate.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by jtur88

Please state the question you would like us to debate.

When you hear the phrase, "healthcare reform," what does that mean to you?

What would you like to see changed with the delivery of healthcare in this country?

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Originally Posted by anifani821

When you hear the phrase, "healthcare reform," what does that mean to you?

What would you like to see changed with the delivery of healthcare in this country?

I work for a large health care company and I agree about bloated health care.

I prefer a triage approach. For example, health care companies having to cover kids until sometime in their early 20's, funding for state health care programs primarily aimed at children without coverage, federal & state funded local clinics for basic care for the uninsured.

I am opposed to the increased taxes on heath care deductions as it will mean either losing my vehicle, house or stop supporting either my terminally ill daughter or sons in college- and they would probably have to drop out. I am a moderate independent and I will never understand the fascination liberals have with taxing people into despair.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

I work for a large health care company and I agree about bloated health care.

I prefer a triage approach. For example, health care companies having to cover kids until sometime in their early 20's, funding for state health care programs primarily aimed at children without coverage, federal & state funded local clinics for basic care for the uninsured.

I am opposed to the increased taxes on heath care deductions as it will mean either losing my vehicle, house or stop supporting either my terminally ill daughter or sons in college- and they would probably have to drop out. I am a moderate independent and I will never understand the fascination liberals have with taxing people into despair.

I think your suggestions are on target. At this time, Medicaid and CHIPs has fulfilled the needs of children in poverty. A lot of children who are not covered by insurance have parents who have access to healthcare insurance thru/ their employers, but have elected not to take it (b/c they don't make enuff $$ to meet their expenses and pay for h/c, too).

I also agree w/ your suggestion about local clinics. There is a provision for this in the legislation, but it appears aimed at only specific populations.

I think such things as "minute clinics" are a great idea, too. I just got a bill for my son's strep throat visit to the doc. Insurance contract brought it down to $211, for visit and test. If he had been able to access a "minute clinic" near him (there are none) the cost would have been much more reasonable and it would have been better for him to pay it out of pocket. As it is, all the insurance did for us was lower the doctor's visit charge and the lab costs (wh/ are ridiculously high for this type of visit) - and it all "went against our deductible" - wh/ son will most likely not even meet this year.

I am VERY concerned about taxing healthcare benefits and this is NOT being discussed by proponents of this legislation.

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Another thought.

Is there a definition for "uninsured"?

Here in Oregon the local paper ran a series of stories on the "uninsured". In one case, the family is a couple + 2 elementary aged boys. He makes $105,000 per year, she works full time but will not state her salary. However, based on her occupation, a conservative estimate is $40,000. So the family of 4 makes around $150,000 per year. They have a house, 2 new large SUV's, 4 ATV's, a boat and large travel trailer. Aside from that the article states they have no debt. The couple state that they cannot afford the $500 yearly family deductible (their health care is provided free from one of their employers) so they do not access the health care. Therefore, the Oregonian considers them (and the state counts them as) as being uninsured.

In other circumstances, the jobs pay well, but the parent(s) no not purchase it as their share would be around $200-400 per month and they state it is beyond their reach. They are then counted as "uninsured".

I'd like to see a good definition of what it means to be "uninsured" and work from there.

[jtur88]

There is really nothing we can do. The main culprit in the cost of health care is the tests that are ordered by doctors, to be done at testing facilities that the doctors own. A great majority of tests are medically unnecessary for diagnosis. But there is no way that doctors can be prevented from owning the labs, and there is no way that doctors can be restricted on what tests they prescribe. Not in America.

It doesn't matter who pays the bill---whether it is private insurance, a single payer, or the patient. The bill is still unnecessarily high.

The American people believe that they have a right to live forever with neither prudence nor discomfort, and the health care industry just keeps on billing for whatever the patient believes he has a natural entitlement to. The only thing that can stop this spiral is for the people to resign themselves to the fact that they are mortals equipped with highly evolved capacities to register pain as a warning that their system is under attack.

As a premium-payer for health care, you are paying for the prescription drug that enables a fat man to go to an all-you-can-eat buffet at ten oclock at night and then sleep like a baby. There are even TV ads guaranteeing you this privilege. You pay.

[brokensky]

Under OBRA - Stark regulations (Medicare/Medicaid - Stark II) prohibit physicians from self-referring to labs/imaging centers, etc. where docs own an interest in the business. This is not at the core of why we have a high cost of healthcare. However, diagnostics are over-used in some cases, but that has more to do w/ a physician's need to protect him/herself from lawsuits than anything else.

It does matter who pays the bill. The bills are too high, but a person w/o insurance will pay substantially more out of pocket than someone WITH insurance (whether private, Medicare or Medicaid).

Are you saying that you feel rationing of healthcare services is a good thing? Do you realize this could be you needing that pacemaker and instead, you will be put through six months of pharma treatment, tests and observation, w/ a high mortality rate hanging over your head while you wait and hope they eventually approve that you get that pacemaker?

I don't think most people understand what is involved with rationing healthcare.

[brokensky]

Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET

Another thought.

Is there a definition for "uninsured"?

Here in Oregon the local paper ran a series of stories on the "uninsured". In one case, the family is a couple + 2 elementary aged boys. He makes $105,000 per year, she works full time but will not state her salary. However, based on her occupation, a conservative estimate is $40,000. So the family of 4 makes around $150,000 per year. They have a house, 2 new large SUV's, 4 ATV's, a boat and large travel trailer. Aside from that the article states they have no debt. The couple state that they cannot afford the $500 yearly family deductible (their health care is provided free from one of their employers) so they do not access the health care. Therefore, the Oregonian considers them (and the state counts them as) as being uninsured.

In other circumstances, the jobs pay well, but the parent(s) no not purchase it as their share would be around $200-400 per month and they state it is beyond their reach. They are then counted as "uninsured".

I'd like to see a good definition of what it means to be "uninsured" and work from there.

Anyone who has an insurance policy, whether they pay for it themselves or they get it as a free benefit from their employer, is INSURED. I don't care what reporter or bureaucrat in the state of Oregon say they are uninsured. If this family were in a car wreck and ended up w/ all of them in the hospital, their insurance would pay for their healthcare, so (HELLO OREGONIAN- DUH) those people are insured.

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Originally Posted by anifani821

Under OBRA - Stark regulations (Medicare/Medicaid - Stark II) prohibit physicians from self-referring to labs/imaging centers, etc. where docs own an interest in the business. This is not at the core of why we have a high cost of healthcare. However, diagnostics are over-used in some cases, but that has more to do w/ a physician's need to protect him/herself from lawsuits than anything else.

It does matter who pays the bill. The bills are too high, but a person w/o insurance will pay substantially more out of pocket than someone WITH insurance (whether private, Medicare or Medicaid).

Are you saying that you feel rationing of healthcare services is a good thing? Do you realize this could be you needing that pacemaker and instead, you will be put through six months of pharma treatment, tests and observation, w/ a high mortality rate hanging over your head while you wait and hope they eventually approve that you get that pacemaker?

I don't think most people understand what is involved with rationing healthcare.

Rationing healthcare can be a detriment. However, I wonder if the Obama plan will better "manage" healthcare. That is one way to cut costs. Over prescribing medicines, unnecessary tests, too quick surgeries are all common problems we now have.

It'd be nice to find some middle ground on some of this stuff.