Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If it were transparent, and everyone could see what was in it, perhaps there wouldn't be any screaming?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smash255
As far as it being transparent, the language on this as well as some other issues that have caused controversy is quite transparent and specific. However, unfortunately none of that will stop people who want this killed for whatever the reason from screaming and lying about it as we have seen in the case mentioned above with the "death panel" nonsense even though the language is extremely transparent to show that its nothing even remotely close.
The language is not specific enough. It is loose and open and extremely flexible (intentionally so, I might add) which would allow application in any number of future scenarios, some of them not comforting to contemplate. That is what leads to the distrust. Government should not be permitted to take that kind of control over our lives.
Perhaps you are correct in saying it is transparent. It's *too* transparent, reveals the potential for abuse, and people can see that.
The language is not specific enough. It is loose and open and extremely flexible (intentionally so, I might add) which would allow application in any number of future scenarios, some of them not comforting to contemplate. That is what leads to the distrust. Government should not be permitted to take that kind of control over our lives.
Perhaps you are correct in saying it is transparent. It's *too* transparent, reveals the potential for abuse, and people can see that.
That is just a plain bold faced lie. Its very simplistic, when someone is sick you get to discuss with the doctor all the possible scenarios. Any decision you make will be between doctor and patient & family. and you get to charge it to the insurance company. That is what this legislation does. Anything said otherwise is a bold faced lie.
That is just a plain bold faced lie. Its very simplistic, when someone is sick you get to discuss with the doctor all the possible scenarios. Any decision you make will be between doctor and patient & family. and you get to charge it to the insurance company. That is what this legislation does. Anything said otherwise is a bold faced lie.
Is that the only section you think people are against? The bill is great, except for that one small part?
Have you read any part of any of the bills, proposed or otherwise? It is full of troublesome language and provisions.
So very true. When you had to lay out your own money you watched what was charged and asked questions. Now that you only pay $10-25 it doesn't matter what they do or how much the true cost is because it only costs you the co-pay now. I saw it coming too.
And we brought it on ourselves. I tried to stick it out as long as I could but then the PPO came in and did the same as the HMO.
I agree that insurance should have been left at the 80/20 set up. I used to work for a large medical insurer back when the "managed care" thing was coming up and many of us saw the writing on the wall. Now, look at it. All it "managed" to do is screw things up. Not only are you are paying the copays, more out of pocket expenses AND the higher premium.
Then, when my old state put people that was on medicaid on the managed care plans, they didn't have to pay their copays. Oh no, the rest of us paid for their copays, our own and even higher premiums!
I know there are HSAs but why not add something like a medical rider to an homeowners or renters insurance policy? My body is a personal item like my tv? Just a thought...
The plan is not going to gut medicare, it will cut waste and fraud in Medicare. Everyone will have that option on discussing the options for loved ones.
Waste and fraud can be cut without a huge health reform bill.
Quote:
As far as subsidizing more people and the costs involved. Well repealing Bush's tax cuts for those making in excess of $250,000 will be part of that. Bush's tax cuts were a total of $1.3 trillion, 60% of that went to the top 1%. So repealing the cuts on incomes in excess of $250,000 will raise significant $$$.
Secondly you are already subsidizing the uninsured, and you are actually subsidizing them at a higher cost with them uninsured than if they were insured. The reason why that is the case is because those who are uninsured often get sicker than those with insurance. This is due to the fact the uninsured don't have the annual checkups, the do not have the cancer screenings, etc someone with insurance has. Well when someone doesn't have the annual checkups, the screenings and what not, potential illnesses and diseases that could have been avoided have a higher probability of occurring not only that, but when they do occur or often caught in later stages than it would with someone with insurance. The later something gets caught, not only the more serious something is, but it becomes much more expensive to treat. Well, when that person with insurance goes to the ER or Hospital to seek treatment , what do you think the chances are that they can actually afford it?? Its somewhere close to zilch. So what happens is the Hospital, ER, etc have to eat these costs. Well they don't exactly eat the costs, its gets passed on elsewhere, and who pays for that?? We do. The Hospital will charge the Insurance companies more money to recoup those costs, which in turn will charge Individuals and Business more. Not only that, but that often is not enough, Hospitals many times will need more state & local funding to recoup what they lose for services provided to the uninsured. Again, who do you think winds up footing that bill?
No disrespect intended, but I asked that you site specific provisions within this bill as opposed to reciting what the politicians have spouted.
Quote:
As far as illegals if they are eventually given a path to citizenship. Well a few things, first off many illegals actually have coverage through private insurers (something like 50% or so of them do). Secondly, not all of the remaining ones will qualify for subsidies. With that being said if this legislation, and path to citizenship does pass, keep in mind you are already subsidizing their care due to the Hospitals, ER's needing to recoup the $$$ they lose treating them (just like the example above with American citizens who lack insurance). Potential illnesses and diseases have a greater chance of being stopped and caught early, which means its much cheaper to treat.
Again, please cite from the 'transparent' bill. And where are you getting the figure that 'something like 50% or so of (illegal aliens) do (have coverage through private insurance.)
Quote:
The uninsured (and those without adequate insurance) also have a huge snowball effect on the entire economy. A ton of foreclosures happen as a direct result of medical expenses, not only that, by far and away the #1 reason for bankruptcies is Medical Costs, no other reason comes even remotely close. The more foreclosures, and the more bankruptcies will have a negative and snowball effect on every single facet of our economy. Making sure those who lack coverage and lack adequate coverage get quality healthcare will greatly reduce bankruptcies and foreclosures since so many of them are medical cost related.
No argument that medical costs play a significant part in the decision to file bankruptcy. However most foreclosures in this economy are the result of bad banking practice -- giving people mortgages for homes they never could have afforded in the first place.
Where is it written that employers should foot any part of the bill for medical insurance at all? Medical insurance was once issued as a perk to attract the brightest and most talented to a company. Somewhere along the line it people took that for granted and saw it as an entitlement.
Show me where in this 'transparent bill' that employers aren't going to be held liable for providing insurance, or where it states that employers who don't provide it won't be penalized?
If employers are going to be responsible for providing health insurance, how much longer before we're told to provide dental, life, etc? How much longer before we are told we have to set up 529's for our employee's children?
Somehow the government has confused the issue. The employee works for ME, I do NOT work for the employee.
In another post I addressed several issues which have significantly attributed to the rise in health care costs. Health care costs do need to be reigned in, making them affordable, but not under the government's control. Address these issues first: malpractice, big pharma, have patients and practitioners take accountability for their actions -- this will help restore some normalcy to the industry.
Do you deal with Medicare on a regular basis? Years ago when I worked for a GP it was a nightmare. The rejected many claims -- a bilateral ear lavage was denied! Nevermind the patient had wax balls the size of lima beans blocking his ear canals and in effect, deafening him. It took the office manager MONTHS of fighting the charge to receive reimbursement. Medicare claimed it was medically unnecessary.
I've already provided my grandma's eyelids anecdote, so no need to rehash and bore folks again. I am now dealing with my MIL's and it, too, is a nightmare. She was given one med orally in the ER -- Medicare refused to pay for it. Subsequently I have come to learn the same drug as an injection is allowed!
When someone has termites, the exterminator comes in sets baits and they are ultimately eliminated. Repairs are made, and after some work, the house restored. You don't tear down the whole house.
Last edited by OhBeeHave; 03-15-2010 at 10:22 AM..
Reason: wrote not, meant now.
Waste and fraud can be cut without a huge health reform bill.
It perhaps could, but the healthcare system is completely broken and needs to be fixed badly.
Quote:
No disrespect intended, but I asked that you site specific provisions within this bill as opposed to reciting what the politicians have spouted.
Some of this was provided in the CBO analysis of the bill. On top of that I really don't think it takes a genius to realize that the more people who have access to healthcare, the more people who will get annual checkups, screenings etc, and that results in catching any potential diseases, illnesses, etc much quicker and the earlier you catch something the easier it is to treat. That should be common sense. Repealing Bush's tax cuts on the top two brackets is something that will be part of the budget for next year.
Quote:
Again, please cite from the 'transparent' bill. And where are you getting the figure that 'something like 50% or so of (illegal aliens) do (have coverage through private insurance.)
That link discusses the 50% or so, as well as not allowing federal funding for illegals. This was actually about the House Bill, the Senate bill is a bit more restrictive.
Quote:
No argument that medical costs play a significant part in the decision to file bankruptcy. However most foreclosures in this economy are the result of bad banking practice -- giving people mortgages for homes they never could have afforded in the first place.
Where is it written that employers should foot any part of the bill for medical insurance at all? Medical insurance was once issued as a perk to attract the brightest and most talented to a company. Somewhere along the line it people took that for granted and saw it as an entitlement.
Show me where in this 'transparent bill' that employers aren't going to be held liable for providing insurance, or where it states that employers who don't provide it won't be penalized?
If employers are going to be responsible for providing health insurance, how much longer before we're told to provide dental, life, etc? How much longer before we are told we have to set up 529's for our employee's children?
Somehow the government has confused the issue. The employee works for ME, I do NOT work for the employee.
In another post I addressed several issues which have significantly attributed to the rise in health care costs. Health care costs do need to be reigned in, making them affordable, but not under the government's control. Address these issues first: malpractice, big pharma, have patients and practitioners take accountability for their actions -- this will help restore some normalcy to the industry.
Do you deal with Medicare on a regular basis? Years ago when I worked for a GP it was a nightmare. The rejected many claims -- a bilateral ear lavage was denied! Nevermind the patient had wax balls the size of lima beans blocking his ear canals and in effect, deafening him. It took the office manager MONTHS of fighting the charge to receive reimbursement. Medicare claimed it was medically unnecessary.
I've already provided my grandma's eyelids anecdote, so no need to rehash and bore folks again. I am now dealing with my MIL's and it, too, is a nightmare. She was given one med orally in the ER -- Medicare refused to pay for it. Subsequently I have come to learn the same drug as an injection is allowed!
When someone has termites, the exterminator comes in sets baits and they are ultimately eliminated. Repairs are made, and after some work, the house restored. You don't tear down the whole house.
As far as employers, depends on the size of the Business, from a CNN article
Unlike the House version, the Senate bill does not mandate that all employers offer health care. Instead senators focus on larger companies. In businesses with 50 or more workers, where at least one employee qualifies for government subsidies, the business would face a penalty of $750 for every fulltime employee if it does not offer health care coverage.
It perhaps could, but the healthcare system is completely broken and needs to be fixed badly.
We're on common ground here, it's just we have different views on how to facilitate the repair.
Quote:
Some of this was provided in the CBO analysis of the bill. On top of that I really don't think it takes a genius to realize that the more people who have access to healthcare, the more people who will get annual checkups, screenings etc, and that results in catching any potential diseases, illnesses, etc much quicker and the earlier you catch something the easier it is to treat. That should be common sense. Repealing Bush's tax cuts on the top two brackets is something that will be part of the budget for next year.
I don't know whether you had seen the link I included re: Mass healthcare and issues it is having with requiring more money than predicted, increases in premium, etc. The bean counters did not get the numbers right Repealing tax cuts is a start for funding, but instead of forcing us all into a government run entity, use the tax cut revenue to fund an insurance pool for the uninsured/uninsurable.
In its March 11, 2010, cost estimate for H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate, CBO indicated that it had identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation. Discretionary costs under PPACA would arise from the effects of the legislation on several federal agencies (especially the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services) and on a number of new and existing programs. The authority to undertake such spending is not provided in H.R. 3590; it would require future action in appropriation bills.
This is fairly current -- 4 days old -- and already the CBO has indicated there's another $50 BILLION which is not provided for. Where's that coming from?
Quote:
As far as employers, depends on the size of the Business, from a CNN article
Unlike the House version, the Senate bill does not mandate that all employers offer health care. Instead senators focus on larger companies. In businesses with 50 or more workers, where at least one employee qualifies for government subsidies, the business would face a penalty of $750 for every fulltime employee if it does not offer health care coverage.
What happens to the cost of goods or services provided by a company once they are required to provide health insurance for their employees?
What happens when the companies which can, move their operations outside the US in an effort to keep their overhead down by employing lower-paid, foreign labor?
What happens when the companies which can not move outside the US, decide to lay off employees instead?
This is fairly current -- 4 days old -- and already the CBO has indicated there's another $50 BILLION which is not provided for. Where's that coming from?
I'll throw out the standard answer that I keep seeing these days:
We're on common ground here, it's just we have different views on how to facilitate the repair.
I don't know whether you had seen the link I included re: Mass healthcare and issues it is having with requiring more money than predicted, increases in premium, etc. The bean counters did not get the numbers right Repealing tax cuts is a start for funding, but instead of forcing us all into a government run entity, use the tax cut revenue to fund an insurance pool for the uninsured/uninsurable.
In its March 11, 2010, cost estimate for H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), as passed by the Senate, CBO indicated that it had identified at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation. Discretionary costs under PPACA would arise from the effects of the legislation on several federal agencies (especially the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services) and on a number of new and existing programs. The authority to undertake such spending is not provided in H.R. 3590; it would require future action in appropriation bills.
This is fairly current -- 4 days old -- and already the CBO has indicated there's another $50 BILLION which is not provided for. Where's that coming from?
First off to say anyone will be forced onto a Government run Entity is simply false. At this point its not clear if the Public Option will be part of the final bill, but that would be just that an option, you don't have to join if you don't want to. Secondly, that insurance pool you talk about is part of this bill. An Exchange will be set up for those who either do not have Insurance or those without adequate Insurance can shop for coverage and have various companies competing for their coverage. Most of those in the Exchange will be Private Insurers. Subsidies will go to those who can't afford the coverage on their own.
Quote:
What happens to the cost of goods or services provided by a company once they are required to provide health insurance for their employees?
What happens when the companies which can, move their operations outside the US in an effort to keep their overhead down by employing lower-paid, foreign labor?
What happens when the companies which can not move outside the US, decide to lay off employees instead?
Well we already have many of these problems now, and its more of a problem now than it would be. Companies are doing this exact thing because of the massive costs of having coverage for their employees. Business's are hurting now due to Insurance Companies being able to raise rates by massive amounts to fatten their pockets for no other reason other than they can get away with it.
First off to say anyone will be forced onto a Government run Entity is simply false. At this point its not clear if the Public Option will be part of the final bill, but that would be just that an option, you don't have to join if you don't want to. Secondly, that insurance pool you talk about is part of this bill. An Exchange will be set up for those who either do not have Insurance or those without adequate Insurance can shop for coverage and have various companies competing for their coverage. Most of those in the Exchange will be Private Insurers. Subsidies will go to those who can't afford the coverage on their own.
If you don't join or purchase some form of insurance, you are penalized if I understood that correctly. OK, so you're not technically forced into a Gov't entity, but you are penalized if you choose not to do what the government tells you to: Get insurance or else get penalized.
Quote:
Well we already have many of these problems now, and its more of a problem now than it would be. Companies are doing this exact thing because of the massive costs of having coverage for their employees. Business's are hurting now due to Insurance Companies being able to raise rates by massive amounts to fatten their pockets for no other reason other than they can get away with it.
Businesses can currently choose whether or not to provide insurance with no threat of penalty. If my company can't afford it, we don't offer it.
If a business or 50 employees is going to be penalized $750 per employee, that's $37,500 more they are laying out which they wouldn't have been prior to reform. They can cut some jobs, save the money, or cut more jobs and not have to comply with the law if they come in under the cut off.
Going back to what I had written earlier -- companies should not be forced to provide health insurance. It was at one time a fringe benefit which has been twisted into an entitlement. People should be able to buy health insurance individually like auto, homeowners, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
