Health-Care Myths

[Al]

Guess what: I do NOT want universal healthcare.

Sorry about your daughter. I can't imagine having to go through something like that. I hope she is doing OK... but I do wonder what will you do if you lose your insurance or she hits the lifetime limit? Can you afford another $2 million out of pocket? Or will you then turn to the taxpayer funded gov't services and social programs that you are so against? Curious, what is your plan for the future given the status quo in healthcare?

[Tiff]

You didn't read everything I typed. If you had, you would've noticed that I'm NOT against them, I'm against them (current medical benefits) being managed stupidly and being taken advantage of, raising the costs for everyone on normal insurance while also raping the taxpayer for their (the private medical supplies provider) benefit. They want reform, then they (the government) need to get about thirty housewives in their employment to make SURE they're paying FAIR and accurate pricing and not three times the actual cost.

As I said, with more details: The GOVERNMENT was paying $300 for $80 supplies and to get that pricing, they told the MEDICAL SUPPLY company they had to charge everyone else the SAME price and the INSURANCE companies capped out at $200, so the INSURANCE company paid the $200 for $80 in supplies, leaving me with the need to pay another $100 (In my case, we were at the beginning of the year so they didn't want to pay anything). The insurance company AND the government should NOT have had to pay that much, but the government was stupid, the medical supply company was greedy and said, hey, you're stupid, throw us some of that free taxpayer cash our way and we'll raise the price to make everyone with insurance pay more too (Especially if they're not smart enough to shop around).

So ... wonder how many OTHER supplies are overcharged to that extent and how much better things would be without government intervention.

[Al]

You didn't read everything I typed. If you had, you would've noticed that I'm NOT against them, I'm against them (current medical benefits) being managed stupidly and being taken advantage of, raising the costs for everyone on normal insurance while also raping the taxpayer for their (the private medical supplies provider) benefit.

You said "I do NOT want universal healthcare."

Of course anyone should be against wasteful spending an policies, and that further supports healthcare reform - to get rid of the ridiculous regulations and restrictions that make things worse for everyone except the "special interests".

As I said, with more details: The GOVERNMENT was paying $300 for $80 supplies and to get that pricing, they told the MEDICAL SUPPLY company they had to charge everyone else the SAME price and the INSURANCE companies capped out at $200, so the INSURANCE company paid the $200 for $80 in supplies, leaving me with the need to pay another $100 (In my case, we were at the beginning of the year so they didn't want to pay anything). The insurance company AND the government should NOT have had to pay that much, but the government was stupid, the medical supply company was greedy and said, hey, you're stupid, throw us some of that free taxpayer cash our way and we'll raise the price to make everyone with insurance pay more too (Especially if they're not smart enough to shop around).

I read that - but assumed because of that that you don't want universal coverage. I am for universal coverage, but against the waste.

So ... wonder how many OTHER supplies are overcharged to that extent and how much better things would be without government intervention.

Well there is good gov't intervention and bad intervention. Believe me, you don't want to simply get rid of all gov't intervention because some of it is good and needed... otherwise the insurance companies and big pharma will be in total control, and I'm betting they're responsible for a lot of the "stupid" laws that mainly benefit them.

[Al]

Obama would OK health bill minus items he pursued

Good article... things that "caught me eye":

If lawmakers can't overcome partisanship and policy differences and the health care bill dies as a result, Obama said the alternative is not good. He pointed to a 39 percent premium hike just announced by California's largest for-profit seller of individual health insurance policies, Anthem Blue Cross. Insurers say part of the problem is that healthy people hit by the economic downturn are dropping coverage, raising premiums for everybody else left in the pool.

Although Republicans have cast the Obama's approach as a big-government power grab, a report by government economic experts last week found that even without health care overhaul, government programs will soon be paying slightly more than half the nation's health care tab. The reason? Private insurance coverage is shrinking because of the economy, while Medicare and Medicaid are growing.

[neighbor]

If lawmakers can't overcome partisanship and policy differences and the health care bill dies as a result, Obama said the alternative is not good. He pointed to a 39 percent premium hike just announced by California's largest for-profit seller of individual health insurance policies, Anthem Blue Cross. Insurers say part of the problem is that healthy people hit by the economic downturn are dropping coverage, raising premiums for everybody else left in the pool.

And covering people that never paid into the system, and won't have to pay for their share, and blanket coverage for preexisting conditions will do exactly the same thing.

[Al]

And covering people that never paid into the system, and won't have to pay for their share, and blanket coverage for preexisting conditions will do exactly the same thing.

Not "exactly" at all, because many people will actually be able to get medical care (as if they were in any other developed country)... and people would have far more "healthcare security" than they have now (isn't that what insurance is for?). That's worth the price even if premiums go up a bit in the short-term... but I realize it's hard for people (citizens and politicians) to think in the long-term nowadays.

It's too bad that in this country many don't care about sick people being able to get care because "it raises premiums". Well, one day, some of those people who think that way are going to get sick and may not be able to get insurance, except by qualifying for some gov't program. They'll probably change their mind after their own personal experience with our dysfunctional system.

[Al]

Failure of health care overhaul will add more woes

"They complained, 'If you pass this bill, prices will go up,'" said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., who helped shape the Senate Democrats' bill. "Well, you don't pass it, and prices will still go up."

For those with private insurance, the recently announced double-digit premium increases for people purchasing their own coverage with Anthem in California could be a harbinger. Medical costs are rising in a weak economy, causing healthy people to drop coverage and raising costs for those left behind, with no limit in sight.

[Tiff]

Ok, I'm against the CURRENT version of Universal Health Care, but not AGAINST Health Care being made available universally. I don't think it's right to force people to buy it, but do think it'd be fine to tell them: If you don't participate, you will NOT be covered if you are in an accident or suddenly become ill. I like that penalty better than fining people. I read up on some other countries and how they handle things and really liked the one where they just created a group, like being a member of a company group, that spread out the costs that way. The costs would be distributed within the group. I forget which country it was, probably Sweden or Denmark.

I DO find it sad that they're saying if a bad plan doesn't pass, then there won't be any attempts in the future.

[Al]

I've thought about being able to "opt-out" and there are serious problems with that.

1. At what age can someone opt-out? 18?
2. What happens if someone foolishly makes a decision while not thinking straight or under economic hardship/stress and "opts-out"?
3. If one opt-outs out, then it wouldn't be fair for them to get back in when they need it... they'll have to face the result of their decision.
4. What if someone wants to get back in? What will they pay? Will their pre-existing conditions be covered?
5. What should society do with the people who will "opt-out" and then need care they can't afford? Leave them on the streets or to beg for charity?
6. A lot of people will be foolish and opt-out and later realize it was a big mistake... especially young and healthy people who think they'll never need care.
7. What about emergency care? Are they entitled to that even if they can't afford it? Because otherwise the taxpayers will pick up the cost and that wouldn't be fair for someone who opt-ed out and didn't pay into the system.

I just see it creating more problems that it resolves. Besides, people can't opt out of income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, etc... it just won't work very well if people can opt-out, and then what do you do with the "opt-outs" that need care and can't afford it? Just let them die or go without?

[Al]

A rate hike for the few -- until it's you

Good article about the dysfunction of the individual insurance market... many don't care until it affects them, and with companies dropping group health insurance benefits, especially small companies (this happened to a close friend of mine), and people getting laid off, you too (if currently fortunate enough to be covered by a group plan) may be forced into the individual market at some point.

[esemerson]

maybe the dems are finally growing a 'pair'?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/an ... lican.html

[Al]

maybe the dems are finally growing a 'pair'?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/an ... lican.html

Good job!

[josh]

maybe the dems are finally growing a 'pair'?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/an ... lican.html

Interesting that you champion the childish antics of one of your leaders.

I wonder why he failed to mention that the Dems are wholly owned by the trial lawyers? Nah...doesnt fit the narrative does it?

[Al]

Interesting that you champion the childish antics of one of your leaders.

I don't consider the Dems one of my "leaders" as I won't vote for anybody in Congress (or the pres) unless they are pro-life, or at least more pro-life than their opponent.

But there is a lot of truth in those "childish antics"!

By the way, got another one of those ridiculous Republican Surveys again that begs for money... sent it back again with no money and a printout of the first two pages of my link:
http://tetrion.com/healthcare.php

[esemerson]

maybe the dems are finally growing a 'pair'?

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/02/an ... lican.html

Interesting that you champion the childish antics of one of your leaders.

I wonder why he failed to mention that the Dems are wholly owned by the trial lawyers? Nah...doesnt fit the narrative does it?

Almost as childish pissing and moaning about the threat of reconciliation. 16 of the past 19 reconciliation votes were done in a republican senate. including both bush tax cuts. also something called COBRA was passed under reconciliation.

The bottom line is what congressman wiener said was correct. they have gotten what they asked for and then complain once they get it. pretty childish. more like a spoiled child that was used to getting his/her way.