Fine for refusing health care?!?!?! - The Health care thread....

[audtatious]

NYT article on cuts to Romneycare: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...?_r=1

"The new state budget in Massachusetts eliminates health care coverage for some 30,000 legal immigrants to help close a growing deficit, reversing progress toward universal coverage"

"Gov. Deval Patrick has proposed restoring $70 million to the program, which would partly restore the immigrants’ coverage. But legislative leaders have balked, saying vital programs for other groups would have to be cut as a result. The cut, which would affect only nondisabled adults from 18 to 65 years old"

Also per the NYT: Massachusetts in Suit Over Cost of Universal Care

What is the big rush via Obama? The "plan" he has won't go into effect until 2013 (while additional taxation for the pet project will begin in 2011). Seems there is plenty of time to get the whole bill read and the majority "on board" with the plan or changes made to it which may give it a better chance to work (fat chance).

To me, it seems that Obama and the far-left Dems in office are pressing on his (dropping) popularity to get everything they had ever dreamed of passed quickly. Penalize big business (or own some of it and penalize the rest), penalize the "wealthy", support the lobby, support unions, press forth environmental efforts and UH have been high on the agenda for decades. Could it be that Obama and others don't want the sheeple to eventually realize they are giving a large portion of their independence away to a Gov that has proven time and again it is incapable of providing what they promise? Could Obama and gang feel his popularity will slip over the next 3.5 years to where they will be incapable of passing such legislature and may lose majority in Congress in the next 1.5 years due to policy?

Hey, the Republicans screwed up and didn't act fiscally conservative. They lost respect of the people and their own constituents. Yet, even with two wars, a 3/4 billion stimulus package, the aftermath of 9/11 and their non-conservative spending habits they were unable to spend in 8 years (only 6 of which they were the majority) what the current Administration has spent in 6 months. We still have 2 wars, prisoners are still in Gitmo, "illegal" surveillance programs are still in use, proposed legislation is not being posted up 30 days prior to vote (promised transparancy), extensive earmarks, partisan politics, lobbyists being the predominant Administration employee, etc. does not sound like the bill of goods which was promised during the election.

Maybe it's just me imagining things in my right-wing, bible thumping ways?

[smockers83]

To go along with the rush tactics, one cannot change a whole system within months. The system would/should take years to change if one wants to change it.

[audtatious]

I agree. Seems this last year everything has been change for the sake of change.

[smockers83]

Obama said Republicans "who openly announce their intentions to block this reform" would "rather score political points"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....html

I actually found myself offended and bitter by this statement and I don't even consider myself as a GOP. What about all the Dems who are against it? What a load of crap.

Sounds like someone's throwing a hissy fit on the Lawn.

[Jesda]

Pedocare

[marlin29311]

To go along with the rush tactics, one cannot change a whole system within months. The system would/should take years to change if one wants to change it.

Any wise business manager knows the first thing you do when you take on your new role is to watch and see what's going on, not change things right away...

[BusyBadger]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI....html

I actually found myself offended and bitter by this statement and I don't even consider myself as a GOP. What about all the Dems who are against it? What a load of crap.

Sounds like someone's throwing a hissy fit on the Lawn.

In PBO's defense (which I can't believe I'm rendering) this was in response to the "This will be Obama's Waterloo. It will break him" comment. While the possibility is certainly there that seems to me to be one of those cards best kept close to the vest and not laid down on the table. PBO was reacting emtionally, not politically (at least not entirely). It smacks of a spoiled kid learning he might not get what he wished for on his birthday.

Most people already know this though and if it doesn't go through soon (or at all) his already waning popularity and approval rating is going to start dropping faster than that comet in Armageddon. The problem for PBO is that now he's getting resistance from his own party...

"Members have concerns, and they're not just Blue Dogs, I want to make it very clear that there's progressives, Blue Dogs and everybody in between who have expressed concerns, and we're working on that."

Regarding concerns about the August deadline...

"No one wants to tell the Speaker [Nancy Pelosi] that she's moving too fast and they damn sure don't want to tell the president."

Flip-flopping...

in the Senate by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV who has consistently said that a bill will be passed in the Senate by the August recess told reporters...

'Obama is the quarterback when it comes to reforming the health care system. He's been calling the plays."

And non-commital...

Reid said he hopes that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., will come up with a bill by the end of the week.

"I don't have any deadlines; I've never had any deadlines."

If PBO isn't careful his own party is going to distance themselves from him and his failed plans then hang him out to dry ala' Carter so they can retain some control over Congress once the 2010 elections roll around.

[smockers83]

I agree. Seems this last year everything has been change for the sake of change.

You would be absolutely right.

"President Obama said Wednesday he was unable to guarantee that health care reform won't change how Americans get medical treatment, but he said any changes would be necessary and positive."--CNN (emphasis added)

Health care was the major determining reason for my vote not going to Obama, and now people are beginning to see why. Not to play partisan politics here, it's just something I really disagree with him on.

[G_whizz]

Realize that countries like the UK, Canada, France, etc. have had far more money to invest in social agendas as they do not invest into their protection as the US is there to fight for them.

What a stupid thing to say Matt... you can't possibly believe that can you??

[audtatious]

What a stupid thing to say Matt... you can't possibly believe that can you??

Dunno, do you think Canada would invest more money into defense if the country to the south was Iraq instead of the US?

[C-Kwik]

Dunno, do you think Canada would invest more money into defense if the country to the south was Iraq instead of the US?

Some might argue that the US tends to put themselves in positions where they have to defend themselves....

[smockers83]

Well, now it's up for vote in the House.

I attended a meeting on health care reform put on by a guy who works a lot on the Hill and has a lot of inside info. What he divulged was seriously scary, not only about healthcare, but other major policy ideas as well.

[audtatious]

Obama sure seems to be good at talking outta both sides of his mouth....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...edded

[heliochrome85]

Hey matt, i think you guys should read this article. I have to say, based on what i know about the current culture in the medical field, this really hits home. it may shed some light on why our costs are so high.

http://www.newyorker.com/repor...wande

[EvillE423]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...onomy

Just keep shooting yourself in the foot, please, so you don't get reelected. Now, he's not saying, YET, that middle class taxes will be raised, but there is no other way for it to be payed for. I can't believe this thread has taken off like it did. Keep it up guys, I've enjoyed seeing everyones opinions and have learned a lot about health care and insurance, etc.

[srellim234]

As someone who has been in the pharmaceutical industry (pharmacy tech, retail management, wholesale on a local level and in corporate management for an $11 billion/year company), the only way that costs can be controlled is when the consumer has to pay for a portion of the care directly (80/20 coverage) and gets educated enough not to use the insurance when it isn't an emergency or a necessity. It's harsh that people will be turning down care because they can't afford the 20%, but companies will only start lowering prices when people quit buying.

Health care companies will not lower prices as long as they can hide behind co-pays so the consumer has no idea what the medical care or medicine really costs. You don't claim your gasoline fillups or oil changes on your auto insurance; why do people use the co-pay incurance to run to the urgent care when the kids get the sniffles? Plus, the consumer mindset is to use the insurance no matter what. In the case of many co-pay prescriptions, the actual price of the medicine would be less than what the co-pay is.

If we want to be altruistic and provide care for those who can't afford it, I'm fine with that. Let's form a government run V.A. type system that people can opt in or out of. Have private insurance you like? Keep it. Need help? Waiting in line (the major complaint about socialized medicine) is something you have to live or die with in the federal plan as a consequence. But having that option available to the consumer is the only way that will provide competition to the existing insurance companies to lower prices to a reasonable level.

Pay for it by creating a pool funded for by 33 1/3% taxpayers, 33 1/3% health insurance companies, 33 1/3% medical equipment and drug companies.

Not perfect by any means, but a whole lot better than what exists now and better than what the monkeys in Washington are proposing.

[Kohster]

But having that option available to the consumer is the only way that will provide competition to the existing insurance companies to lower prices to a reasonable level.

I'm just wondering, can the opposite effect come to fruition? Could the public option instead trigger insurance opposition which, in conjunction with employer health care provider opposition, could kill health care reform altogether?
Modified by Kohster at 12:42 PM 8/3/2009

[heliochrome85]

http://www.reuters.com/article...90803

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Barack Obama will keep his promise not to raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year, the White House said Monday, rebutting comments by administration officials that indicated otherwise.

"The president has made a very clear commitment to not raise taxes on middle-class families," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told a regular briefing.

[srellim234]

Labeling it "reform" is a major part of the problem with this entire debate. They don't have to "reform" or reconstruct the entire industry.

"For profit" companies, from insurance companies, hospitals, health care providers, medical equipment companies and drug companies have all capitalized on the development of the current system to create what is currently being referred to our "broken" system in this country. 50th in life expectancy and a bloated, inefficient, ineffective system of health care.

No matter what is proposed, no "reform" to the current system is going to be acceptable to the "for-profit" companies if it might affect the humongous profits and ridiculous paychecks and bonuses resulting in corporate boardrooms as a result of those profits. I see a more palatable answer as being the development of a non-profit government option to cover those without coverage that also allows more people to "opt in" as they find it necessary in their lives.

If the insurance industry chooses to fight any public option, it may well find itself on the outside, replaced by a universal health care system as the country continues to go bankrupt under the weight of medical care costs.

An example would be the creation of the pool here in California insuring people without car insurance. Despite all the horror story scenarios that forcing insurance companies to create such a pool would drive them all out of the state, they're all still here and profitable. There are just too many consumers to make a buck on.

Same thing will happen with national healthcare. The companies will make blustery threats but they're not going to cut themselves totally out of the gravy train.

Question for you: Why do you refer to "insurance opposition" and "employer health care provider opposition" as different beasts? They are the exact same insurance companies in both cases.

[audtatious]

Hey matt, i think you guys should read this article. I have to say, based on what i know about the current culture in the medical field, this really hits home. it may shed some light on why our costs are so high.

http://www.newyorker.com/repor...wande

Interesting.....Per the article: They have high obesity rates and a greater than 60% drinking rate as compared to the nation at large. The majority having heart surgery were obese, diabetic, both and were not taking preventative medication for cholesterol which would have kept 1/2 of them from surgery and even El Paso has cheaper health care. They also happen to have a new fancy hospital system. Medicare is the primary resource for health care it seems even though the population seems to have lots of work (unfortunately, at Mexico prices it seems)

Hmmmm.....so, they have a 60% higher than average drinking problem and are obese/diabetic and don't have medicine. How about they not drink so much and they eat better in order to have a lower cholesterol level instead of expecting our health system to give them drugs for it, most which will have other side effects to treat? That right there would cut medical costs in 1/2 for heart surgeries alone. The fact that 40% of all children born in that town in 2008 (per Joe Riley, CEO of the McAllen Texas Medical Center) are via illegal aliens is another cost factor. The fact that they are the first "big" town on the border near the Gulf makes access to them easier than El Paso who has fortified their wall, which McAllen has been protesting. Why didn't anyone put 2+2 together and see that the reason health care is excessively expensive there is due to the number of "freebie" claims they are facing? I'm not saying that's the whole deal but you can't ignore one to lay claim to another.

Sheesh....

[szh]

I'm sad, noone addresses me

What are your thoughts on countries that have successfully implemented UH?

Canada, France, UK...

Successfully? Surely you jest.

My aunt used to work for the UK National Health Service as an Administrator.

Given her insider knowledge, it is interesting to note that one of her worst fear was for her having to get treated in the system.

Z

[heliochrome85]

i just thought it was an interesting idea. I know my dad has had colleagues who will schedule 2-3 colonoscopies, removing one polyp each time, in order to increase revinue. Technically, they arent doing anything wrong. Technically.

[audtatious]

Why shouldn't doctors be able to make money for their procedures? Maximizing ones time is efficient. I know when I go and get things done I pay more because I seek out the best that I can find in that field.

[heliochrome85]

it would be like you going to the mecahnic and he would charge you for three service visits: 1 to change the oil, 1 to flush the coolant and 1 to top up the other fluids. technically they can all be done at once, and for less than 3 separate visits. tahts what i meant. there is serious fraud in the system.

[audtatious]

Isn't your dad "servicing" three different patients? Using your analogy above, assuming they are all different cars, then why would there be an issue?

[heliochrome85]

im saying, there are doctors who rather than doing ONE colonoscopy and removing all the precancerious polyps in one fell swoop, they go in and book the same patient three times, each time removing some polyps. that way they can charge for three separate colonoscopies. this way they inflate their numbers. most patients dont need colonoscopies.

[smockers83]

A salaried position would solve that and the waste generated by unnecessary procedures.

[heliochrome85]

thats how Mayo clinic does it. no incentive to schedule more procedures than necessary. but good luck getting that to change.

[audtatious]

im saying, there are doctors who rather than doing ONE colonoscopy and removing all the precancerious polyps in one fell swoop, they go in and book the same patient three times, each time removing some polyps. that way they can charge for three separate colonoscopies. this way they inflate their numbers. most patients dont need colonoscopies.

In that case I would agree with you. If I had a doctor try and schedule multiple operations to remove stuff in the same place I would find another doctor. The insurance companies should push back at those style practices and not pay. If insurance did not pay for it and the people can't afford to pay then the doctors would not do it.

[audtatious]

thats how Mayo clinic does it. no incentive to schedule more procedures than necessary. but good luck getting that to change.

Which is an interesting scenario. I assume salary is determined by what the doctor could do via his own practice and how good he is? If it's just a base salary for all of them then I would think the really good ones would go elsewhere.