PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Lets Fix health care. Come up with a Bi-Partisan Chiefs Planet solution.


BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:09 AM
Assuming you think that health care reform is needed. Then its all about where and how its "reformed"

Let's see if we can come up with a solution that would be acceptable to the left and right on the issue.

I know that not everyone will agree but lets see if we can get 60% of us to agree on something.

I'll update the opening post when/as we reach a consensus on an issue.





Consenus reached on a Health Care plan:
Allow insurance companies to sell plans across state lines.
No denial of health care or removal from a plan when you are paying your premiums on time and then you get sick or injured they drop you.



Starter Plan:
Tort reform. End frivilous lawsuits.(need to iron out details)
No denial for pre-exsisting conditions.(just buying insurance when you get sick is a real concern. You thwart that by a reasonable waiting period and a gradual phase in of full benefits. Details to be ironed out.)
Proposed additional Ideas:
If denied health care coverage on the open market for health reasons you can join medicare and pay the premiums with your own money through Medicare.
Abolish mandates for coverage
Write premiums off your taxes.
Do something about end of life care costs.(Pay more in premiums to avoid end of life panels? Rainman's plan to provide incentive to people to die, instead of hold on is here: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=220485&highlight=incentive)
A public option.
Prohibit employers from providing health care insurance for employees. Prohibit insurance companies from using employer groups as risk pools.
Make it illegal for a health care provider to subsidize one patient's health care by charging another patient more. All patients and insurance plans are charged the same for the same treatment. Write offs come off the bottom line. Health care providers have the right to refuse ShamWow! to anyone.
Whole-life health insurance to ensure portability and to spread the health insurance premiums over a lifetime. The earlier you get in, the lower your lifetime insurance rate. Your whole-life policy accrues value in the early part of your life to allow you to move it to another provider. This would be an market driven option, but with tax incentives to sweeten the pot.
Regulations limiting the ability of insurance providers to segregate risk pools. I'm okay with segregating by age (offset by my whole-life plan), and lifestyle decisions such as smoking. I'm against segregating by things that people have less control over, like family history or previous rates of illness.
Government assistance for the working poor, temporarily unemployed, and the disabled
eliminating the tax benefits that companies get for providing health care insurance to their employees.
Velvet Jones ideas in post 205.<!-- / message -->

jiveturkey
02-10-2010, 08:15 AM
I've understood why the repubs were against the "no denial for pre-existing conditions" part and they're right. Why would anyone carry insurance if you could just sign up once you're sick? Of course those people would be shit out of luck if they got in a nasty accident and were unable to sign up after getting their arms ripped off by a bear.

The pre-existing conditions is going to be the sticking part. Maybe if you're shot down from two different companies you're then eligible to buy into Medicare or something. Charge those under 65 an amount that would be commensurate with private insurance and avoid direct contact with bears.

The rest of your plan works for me.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:16 AM
I've understood why the repubs were against the "no denial for pre-existing conditions" part and they're right. Why would anyone carry insurance if you could just sign up once you're sick? Of course those people would be shit out of luck if they got in a nasty accident and were unable to sign up after getting their arms ripped off by a bear.

The pre-existing conditions is going to be the sticking part. Maybe if you're shot down from two different companies you're then eligible to buy into Medicare or something. Charge those under 65 an amount that would be commensurate with private insurance and avoid direct contact with bears.

The rest of your plan works for me.
Not my plan. I want more. but I wanted to post some "easy" stuff to get us started.

I know its an issue of just wait till your sick and then get insurance and it is a reasonable concern. But there are ways around that. A reasonable waiting period, full benefits are phased in over time etc

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:18 AM
Any bill that can be passed by congress is a bill that doesn't suit the general population, ie insurance company bailout. I would be much happier doing nothing or pushing medicare for all and be done with it.

RedNeckRaider
02-10-2010, 08:19 AM
I agree it needs to happen but I would prefer that the white house would concentrate on lowering spending and creating jobs first~

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:21 AM
I agree it needs to happen but I would prefer that the white house would concentrate on lowering spending and creating jobs first~

Quite unfortunately that ship sailed long ago, these are foreign ideas to those who write the laws. Ironically these principles are what they are most responsible for and severely lack.

wild1
02-10-2010, 08:23 AM
I've understood why the repubs were against the "no denial for pre-existing conditions" part and they're right. Why would anyone carry insurance if you could just sign up once you're sick?

...Maybe if you're shot down from two different companies you're then eligible to buy into Medicare or something. Charge those under 65 an amount that would be commensurate with private insurance and avoid direct contact with bears.

That's it. Along with the thread starter. Do nothing more.

Before they even dream of extending benefits to one more person, existing programs need to be funded so that providers are not losing 50% or more on every one of their government paid patients, as they do today.

Fix that permanently and then you will have costs under control. Then and only then can you talk about who isn't covered who needs covering.

Chief Henry
02-10-2010, 08:23 AM
# 3 is a problem with me....Can you buy fire insurance on your house when your house is on fire ?


Your list is very doable in my book. We don't need all that other garbage in that 2000 page cluster muck.

Keep the IRS out of it.

The health care bill could be 30 - 50 pages tops, if that much.

Chief Henry
02-10-2010, 08:25 AM
Obama would gain alot of props from the American people if he started from scratch
and went with about 4-5 items. Those 4-5 items would help greatly.



Since you added the public option at # 5 I have to disagree with you on that.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:26 AM
Starter Plan:
Allow insurance companies to sell plans across state lines.
Tort reform. End frivilous lawsuits.
No denial for pre-exsisting conditions.
No denial of health care or removal from a plan when you are paying your premiums on time and then you get sick or injured they drop you.


Your first okay.
Tort reform...the devil is in the details. Need specifics. I say allow Unfavorable Outcomes Insurance for one.
You have to allow denial for pre-existing conditions because of how risk works with insurance. This is another micro-management mandate.
I could go for the last one as well.


I'd add:
Abolish most mandates on what insurance has to cover.
Do something about portability. Although I think there has been some here.
Allow premiums to be written off taxes for individuals.


Leave the rest up to the market because there are some that do allow pre-existing conditions if a member of a large enough group.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:26 AM
That's it. Along with the thread starter. Do nothing more.

Before they even dream of extending benefits to one more person, existing programs need to be funded so that providers are not losing 50% or more on every one of their government paid patients, as they do today.

Fix that permanently and then you will have costs under control. Then and only then can you talk about who isn't covered who needs covering.Did I get it right in #5 of the starter post?

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:28 AM
# 3 is a problem with me....Can you buy fire insurance on your house when your house is on fire ? As i said I think just buying insurance when you get sick is a real concern. You thwart that by a reasonable waiting period and a gradual phase in of full benefits. Can we agree on that?

wild1
02-10-2010, 08:29 AM
Did I get it right in #5 of the starter post?

I am not in favor of that. I agreed with the part of his post dealing with pre-existing conditions. The rest of my post placed benchmarks that should be met before anyone more is introduced into those programs.

I'm only in agreement on #1 and #2, maybe #4 depending on how reasonable it is on exclusions

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:30 AM
Oh I missed number 5. I don't know how I feel about that?

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:31 AM
I am not in favor of that. I agreed with the part of his post dealing with pre-existing conditions. The rest of my post placed benchmarks that should be met before anyone more is introduced into those programs.

I'm only in agreement on #1 and #2, maybe #4 depending on how reasonable it is on exclusionsso you are in favor on denial for pre-exsisting conditions? If so you are not health care reform and won't be part of the 60%.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:32 AM
Oh I missed number 5. I don't know how I feel about that?I thought that was what jive and wild were talking about but I was wrong.

But on the other hand? whats wrong wth that idea?

KC native
02-10-2010, 08:35 AM
anything that doesn't include a single payor option is horseshit.

I'm really pissed about the dem's fumbling the ball on this one. They had super majorities and were trying to compromise which allowed the repubs to develop a strategy to shout down health care reform. Obama tried to play nice with the drug companies and negotiate a slow down in price increases and right before they were "held" to that they upped prices across the board. They also didn't abide by their promise to not attempt to derail reform (funding political organizations, ads, etc).

Again, we get to a point where it's clear that our government is bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:35 AM
I thought that was what jive and wild were talking about but I was wrong.

But on the other hand? whats wrong wth that idea?

I don't know yet but on gut feel I don't like more being added to those.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:36 AM
anything that doesn't include a single payor option is horseshit.

I'm really pissed about the dem's fumbling the ball on this one. They had super majorities and were trying to compromise which allowed the repubs to develop a strategy to shout down health care reform. Obama tried to play nice with the drug companies and negotiate a slow down in price increases and right before they were "held" to that they upped prices across the board. They also didn't abide by their promise to not attempt to derail reform (funding political organizations, ads, etc).
It is what it is. Now, what do you propose doing? Nothing?

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 08:38 AM
Assuming you think that health care reform is needed. Then its all about where and how its "reformed"

Let's see if we can come up with a solution that would be acceptable to the left and right on the issue.

I know that not everyone will agree but lets see if we can get 60% of us to agree on something.

I'll update the opening post when/as we reach a consensus on an issue.





Starter Plan:
Allow insurance companies to sell plans across state lines.
Tort reform. End frivilous lawsuits.
No denial for pre-exsisting conditions.
No denial of health care or removal from a plan when you are paying your premiums on time and then you get sick or injured they drop you.
If denied health care coverage on the open market for health reasons you can join medicare or medicaid and pay the premiums through Medicare/Medicaid.


1-agree 100% but allow the buyer to choose what coverage they want, not Feds defining what we have to buy. Like Car insurance, choose coverage, deductables and max payouts.

2-agree 100% Penalty for friv lawsuits, caps on awards, and limits on lawyers participation

3-rephrase as recognize pre existing conditions. No denials but the premium rate has to flex with the situation. Again, like car insurance, if you have a bad record you pay more and get coverage. Same here. You can get coverage but its expensive.

4- spot on.

5-Everybody pays. No freebies.

somehow add: NO illegals get govt help; Major penalties for medicare fraud and set a deadline for government to clean it up; Tax deduction for HC insurance.

Set all this in stone then turn it over to the market and make the market come back with how they want too implement it. Let the professionals do what they do best and keep the Barney Franks out of the how-tos.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:39 AM
I don't know yet but on gut feel I don't like more being added to those.Why? We don't pay that much money to medicare patienmts do we? Isn't it negoiated rates for services/procedures that saves the money? The government is not out money is it for medicare besides some administration costs? Don'r really know all the details about how it works.

KC native
02-10-2010, 08:41 AM
It is what it is. Now, what do you propose doing? Nothing?

I want a single payor option. All that's been proposed so far amounts to subsidies for insurance companies. There's no incentive for them to reduce costs.

Tort reform won't reduce costs to the end user because it costs the health insurance companies very little.

A mandate to carry health insurance is a give away to the same companies that torpedoed reform.

The only positive thing I see on your list, IMO, is the dropping of pre-existing conditions.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:42 AM
3-rephrase as recognize pre existing conditions. No denials but the premium rate has to flex with the situation. Again, like car insurance, if you have a bad record you pay more and get coverage. Same here. You can get coverage but its expensive.I disagree with your analogy. I think the business model should be the resteraunt buffett. Yeah they may lose money when my fat azz shows up to clean them out but they will make it up when grandma shows up to eat.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:43 AM
Why? We don't pay that much money to medicare patienmts do we? Isn't it negoiated rates for ShamWow!s/procedures that saves the money? The government is not out money is it for medicare besides some administration costs? Don'r really know all the details about how it works.

My understanding is that it's broke. Doctors can refuse to take them too.

KC native
02-10-2010, 08:45 AM
3-rephrase as recognize pre existing conditions. No denials but the premium rate has to flex with the situation. Again, like car insurance, if you have a bad record you pay more and get coverage. Same here. You can get coverage but its expensive.

This is exactly what happens now and is bullshit. I meet continuous coverage guidelines so my pre-existing conditions can't be grounds for denial of coverage however since I have pre-existing conditions I am rated which means I would have to pay 1500-2500 a month for health insurance.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:45 AM
My understanding is that it's broke. Doctors can refuse to take them too.True, they can refuse but thats where the free market comes in. Get your costs down to accept those rates from medicare.

KC native
02-10-2010, 08:46 AM
True, they can refuse but thats where the free market comes in. Get your costs down to accept those rates from medicare.

socialist /bep or tj or the other RWNJ's

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:47 AM
This is exactly what happens now and is bullshit. I meet continuous coverage guidelines so my pre-existing conditions can't be grounds for denial of coverage however since I have pre-existing conditions I am rated which means I would have to pay 1500-2500 a month for health insurance.Correct, thats the problem with the car insurance analogy. The insurance companies could just make the premium $1500-$2500 a month and is reality you won't have coverage. No one can afford those premiums.

Chief Henry
02-10-2010, 08:47 AM
As i said I think just buying insurance when you get sick is a real concern. You thwart that by a reasonable waiting period and a gradual phase in of full benefits. Can we agree on that?

I think so. Several things should be done. But the fiasco of that 2000 page cluster must go.

Since you added #5 , no dice. I can't agree at all with that.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 08:49 AM
This is exactly what happens now and is bullshit. I meet continuous coverage guidelines so my pre-existing conditions can't be grounds for denial of coverage however since I have pre-existing conditions I am rated which means I would have to pay 1500-2500 a month for health insurance.

Life sucks. Its your responsibility, not the governments, not everyone else. Suck up and carry some load for a change. Focus on lowering cost not transfering the cost to someone else. All you want is a free ride.

Single payer is a killer to any agreement.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 08:49 AM
This needs to be done a la carte. Each item should be voted on independently. Any item getting 60% gets passed as a stand-alone measure. The congressional bills should work the same way. The more you cram into a single bill, the more special interests get involved. Then you get the Ben Nelson fiascos.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:49 AM
My current insurance covers pre-existing conditions. Where I taught had a policy allowing pre-existing conditions. I got on when I was on crutches needed a meniscus tear repaired. All covered within a week for $60 on $13,000 worth of surgery and an MRI.

wild1
02-10-2010, 08:50 AM
so you are in favor on denial for pre-exsisting conditions?

Yes. Are you in favor of people never paying a cent into the system until they have a serious issue, and then reaming it for 6 or 7 figures?

There can be reform on WHAT is allowed to be a PEC, but there cannot be an insane blanket ban on them.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:51 AM
Yes. Are you in favor of people never paying a cent into the system until they have a serious issue, and then reaming it for 6 or 7 figures?

It will destroy private insurance. It's all about managing risk.

KC native
02-10-2010, 08:51 AM
Life sucks. Its your responsibility, not the governments, not everyone else. Suck up and carry some load for a change. Focus on lowering cost not transfering the cost to someone else. All you want is a free ride.

Single payer is a killer to any agreement.

Seriously, go fuck yourself and then die. I want no such thing and nothing that has been proposed will lower costs.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:51 AM
It's quite possible we could afford FREE(heh) medicare for all if we stopped indiscriminately killing brown people in the name of fighting terror and trying to rule the world through fear. I know those brown people hate us for our freedom, i guess they're just jealous and need a good bomb to the face to set em straight.

KC native
02-10-2010, 08:52 AM
My current insurance covers pre-existing conditions. Where I taught had a policy allowing pre-existing conditions. I got on when I was on crutches needed a meniscus tear repaired. All covered within a week for $60 on $13,000 worth of surgery and an MRI.

I guarantee you that if you read your actual policy language that you're covered for that because you met continuous coverage guidelines.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:53 AM
It's quite possible we could afford FREE(heh) medicare for all if we stopped indiscriminately killing brown people in the name of fighting terror and trying to rule the world through fear. I know those brown people hate us for our freedom, i guess they're just jealous and need a good bomb to the face to set em straight.keep this about health care reform not about your political agenda outside of health care reform

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 08:53 AM
This is exactly what happens now and is bullshit. I meet continuous coverage guidelines so my pre-existing conditions can't be grounds for denial of coverage however since I have pre-existing conditions I am rated which means I would have to pay 1500-2500 a month for health insurance.That's not a pre-ex issue then, but it is bullshit. Companies shouldn't be able to drop you nor raise your rates if your condition happened after you were covered and was not the result of your behavior.

KILLER_CLOWN
02-10-2010, 08:54 AM
keep this about health care reform not about your political agenda outside of health care reform

It all ties in, this is economics 101 and we won't see a bill that does anything but make it worse unless we address our economic situation 1st.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:57 AM
BTW BRC, what's the difference if the market allows doctors to turn someone away and an insurance company being able to? One is just later on the chain.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 08:57 AM
Seriously, go **** yourself and then die. I want no such thing and nothing that has been proposed will lower costs.

Tort reform, portability, competition, and less government involvment lowers cost.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 08:58 AM
I disagree with your analogy. I think the business model should be the resteraunt buffett. Yeah they may lose money when my fat azz shows up to clean them out but they will make it up when grandma shows up to eat.So grandma either essentially pays for half of your meal in addition to her own or she starves?

cdcox
02-10-2010, 08:59 AM
Obviously a key idea is to get every one into the insurance system over their whole life. If you enter at an early age when your health is good, and you pay a constant rate (adjusted for increasing health costs averaged over everyone) over your whole life, the cost is manageable. It should be like a whole life policy where you build up value in the policy over time, so you could transfer that value from one insurance company to another or one employer to another.

If you enter the insurance system later in life, your rate would be higher because you weren't contributing as long.

A provision prohibiting the passing the costs of non-paying patients to paying patients is needed. In other words, if a patient doesn't have insurance and can't pay treatment costs out of pocket, he/she doesn't get treatment, unless the hospital/doctor wants to take it straight out of the bottom line (they won't stay in business long if they do this). I want people who think they don't need coverage to bleed out on the highway if they get in a wreck.

There needs to be severe limitation on the ability of insurance companies to create risk pools. If you allow insurance companies to parse people into low risk and high risk groups, insurance for high risk people will be too expensive and they won't be able to afford it. I might be open to some segregation, but not unregulated.

What do people think of end of life issues? I think there needs to be some management of costs. This is where the treatment does the least good and has the highest chance for cost savings. Maybe have a two tiered system. When you enter the health insurance system you can buy two types of coverage, one less expensive than the other. The least expensive coverage has a minimum $100K guaranteed coverage after age 70. So once you hit 70, they start tracking the costs. Up to $100 K of treatment you are covered. Once you go over that, you can go before a death panel to decide if your prognosis warrants additional expenditure for the quality and duration of life you are likely to get. You can always pay out of pocket for more treatment that the death panel doesn't approve. Or, when you enter the insurance system you can pay a higher rate your whole life and basically be guaranteed gold standard treatment until your dieing breath.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:59 AM
BTW BRC, what's the difference if the market allows doctors to turn someone away and an insurance company being able to? One is just later on the chain.big difference. Insurance compnay denys coverage to avoid paying out money. A independent Dr. office or hospital can decide on its own whether to participate or not and whether it makes financial sense for their individual organizations.

jiveturkey
02-10-2010, 08:59 AM
BTW BRC, what's the difference if the market allows doctors to turn someone away and an insurance company being able to? One is just later on the chain.That's where the competition comes in. There's a shit ton of doctors within 10 miles of my house. There's only about 4 or 5 insurance companies to choose from and if you're denied by one you're f'ed. Hence the need for more competition.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 08:59 AM
Hey bankster lover, KCnaive, how 'bout banning insurance outright? That will drop prices overnight. You just watch! All 3rd-party pays increase costs. This is FACT.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:01 AM
Obviously a key idea is to get every one into the insurance system over their whole life. If you enter at an early age when your health is good, and you pay a constant rate (adjusted for increasing health costs averaged over everyone) over your whole life, the cost is manageable. It should be like a whole life policy where you build up value in the policy over time, so you could transfer that value from one insurance company to another or one employer to another.

If you enter the insurance system later in life, your rate would be higher because you weren't contributing as long.

A provision prohibiting the passing the costs of non-paying patients to paying patients is needed. In other words, if a patient doesn't have insurance and can't pay treatment costs out of pocket, he/she doesn't get treatment, unless the hospital/doctor wants to take it straight out of the bottom line (they won't stay in business long if they do this). I want people who think they don't need coverage to bleed out on the highway if they get in a wreck.

There needs to be severe limitation on the ability of insurance companies to create risk pools. If you allow insurance companies to parse people into low risk and high risk groups, insurance for high risk people will be too expensive and they won't be able to afford it. I might be open to some segregation, but not unregulated.

What do people think of end of life issues? I think there needs to be some management of costs. This is where the treatment does the least good and has the highest chance for cost savings. Maybe have a two tiered system. When you enter the health insurance system you can buy two types of coverage, one less expensive than the other. The least expensive coverage has a minimum $100K guaranteed coverage after age 70. So once you hit 70, they start tracking the costs. Up to $100 K of treatment you are covered. Once you go over that, you can go before a death panel to decide if your prognosis warrants additional expenditure for the quality and duration of life you are likely to get. You can always pay out of pocket for more treatment that the death panel doesn't approve. Or, when you enter the insurance system you can pay a higher rate your whole life and basically be guaranteed gold standard treatment until your dieing breath.

You first sentence is the thinking that's the biggest problem in a free country. It requires force to do that...and that's not liberty.

The end of life issues, takes another personal matter and turns it into another more contentious issues as there will have to be agreement by the public on it. Also, very dangerous.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 09:04 AM
You first sentence is the thinking that's the biggest problem in a free country. It requires force to do that...and that's not liberty.

The end of life issues, takes another personal matter and turns it into another more contentious issues as there will have to be agreement by the public on it. Also, very dangerous.

That man-friend of yours in the industry has really done a number on your ability to think critically when it comes to this issue, ain't he? Goodness.

Of course, your predisposition and ideological myopia don't help none either.

;)

RINGLEADER
02-10-2010, 09:06 AM
The pre-existing conditions is going to be the sticking part. Maybe if you're shot down from two different companies you're then eligible to buy into Medicare or something. Charge those under 65 an amount that would be commensurate with private insurance and avoid direct contact with bears.

The rest of your plan works for me.

Well tort reform will never happen for political reasons. Same with cross-border sales of insurance though you might be able to create a class of insurance that would work. The whole pre-existing conditions issue is at the root of the problem. It's an enormous expense that throws the actuarial tables out the window. The Dems get around it (partially) by forcing those who don't really need insurance to, in effect, subsidize the coverage by allowing those actuarial estimates to be rebalanced. But then you're talking mandates, government control, and IRS penalties to force compliance. All the things most Americans don't want.

Unfortunately we're in Kobayashi Maru territory. The more effective and accessible health care becomes the longer people live. The longer people live the more expensive the overall care. There are many fixes that could yield immediate benefits (you could save billions over time by just limiting the scope of medicare to essential needs and enforce/beef up the penalties for fraud/abuse). But as long as it's in the hands of politicians they will act in their own self-interests.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:06 AM
That man-friend of yours in the industry has really done a number on your ability to think critically when it comes to this issue, ain't he? Goodness.

Of course, your predisposition and ideological myopia don't help none either.

;)

I see the projection illness has been contagious even among collectivists like yourself.
Government is force. That's a fact. When you can't come up with an argument to refute that, by all means, discuss the poster. Owned!

BTW I didn't all my views from Ron Paul. I already had those views and he represents them best.

cdcox
02-10-2010, 09:07 AM
You first sentence is the thinking that's the biggest problem in a free country. It requires force to do that...and that's not liberty.

The end of life issues, takes another personal matter and turns it into another more contentious issues as there will have to be agreement by the public on it. Also, very dangerous.

1. You can exercise your liberty by bleeding out on the curb. Or dieing from an appendicitis. Your choice.

2. Same with end of life. If you don't want to go before a death panel, pay more for your insurance. Your choice.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:08 AM
1. You can exercise your liberty by bleeding out on the curb. Or dieing from an appendicitis. Your choice.
That's exactly right.

2. Same with end of life. If you don't want to go before a death panel, pay more for your insurance. Your choice.

:thumb:

cdcox
02-10-2010, 09:08 AM
That's exactly right.



:thumb:

So you approve my plan?

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 09:09 AM
...

A provision prohibiting the passing the costs of non-paying patients to paying patients is needed. In other words, if a patient doesn't have insurance and can't pay treatment costs out of pocket, he/she doesn't get treatment, unless the hospital/doctor wants to take it straight out of the bottom line (they won't stay in business long if they do this). I want people who think they don't need coverage to bleed out on the highway if they get in a wreck...



Bravo. :clap:

I know it sounds harsh....but I'd LOVE to see what all these imbeciles who say, "hey, I'm healthy; I don't need no insurance!" would say if we actually started to do this....

Alas, too many of us want it both ways:

I don't need no insurance because I'm young and healthy,

BUT, if I need medical attention, society will foot the bill for me.

It simply HAS to stop....


What say you, for example, BEP? :shrug:

KC native
02-10-2010, 09:09 AM
Hey bankster lover, KCnaive, how 'bout banning insurance outright? That will drop prices overnight. You just watch! All 3rd-party pays increase costs. This is FACT.

Crack kills.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:10 AM
So you approve my plan?

I didn't respond to a plan. I responded to the essential truth of those two points.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 09:10 AM
I would submit making emergency room care single-payer. Then, the govt. can collect after the fact. This would make sure that everyone is treated. It would also help identify illegals.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 09:10 AM
I see the projection illness has been contagious even among collectivists like yourself.
Government is force. That's a fact. When you can't come up with an argument to refute that, by all means, discuss the poster. Owned!

BTW I didn't all my views from Ron Paul. I already had those views and he represents them best.

Government is a NECESSARY force, given human nature and the circumstances of civilization.

When you grow up, you may yet realize THAT fact.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 09:11 AM
So you approve my plan?I put it in the idea list. An intriging possiblity.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 09:11 AM
I would submit making emergency room care single-payer. Then, the govt. can collect after the fact. This would make sure that everyone is treated. It would also help identify illegals.Whats that mean make single payer?

cdcox
02-10-2010, 09:12 AM
I would submit making emergency room care single-payer. Then, the govt. can collect after the fact. This would make sure that everyone is treated. It would also help identify illegals.

Nope, no safety net for those who turn down insurance. Emergency room care is way too expensive to be the default treatment.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 09:12 AM
Bravo. :clap:

I know it sounds harsh....but I'd LOVE to see what all these imbeciles who say, "hey, I'm healthy; I don't need no insurance!" would say if we actually started to do this....

Alas, too many of us want it both ways:

I don't need no insurance because I'm young and healthy,

BUT, if I need medical attention, society will foot the bill for me.

It simply HAS to stop....


What say you, for example, BEP? :shrug:

I say it's because we've had society paying other people's costs that we are in the mess we're in. That's because it was no longer considered a "good" but a "right" which it isn't.

I am not going to repost the same points over and over at length. I've said before, our system worked before the govt broke it. It was affordable precisely because doctors and patients worked out their fees with each other which contained costs. Insurance was for catastrophic. And it was the envy of the world.

Entitlement mentality ruins markets.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 09:14 AM
Nope, no safety net for those who turn down insurance. Emergency room care is way too expensive to be the default treatment.That won't work in reality. What Dr./hospital is going to turn away some bleeding patient seeking medical attention?

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 09:20 AM
Nope, no safety net for those who turn down insurance. Emergency room care is way too expensive to be the default treatment.You can't let someone die because they aren't able to show you an insurance card. I have coverage, but I could get into an accident without my wallet. Then what?

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 09:21 AM
Take any compromise you come up with and implement it on every American under the age of 21.

Run it that way for 3 years and decide if it needs to be tweaked, if it's even feasible to consider all Americans, or if that is a good place to stop.

cdcox
02-10-2010, 09:21 AM
That won't work in reality. What Dr./hospital is going to turn away some bleeding patient seeking medical attention?

Right now, the hospital treats them and pushes the cost to me and other well-insured patients. That makes my health costs higher and decreases the quality of treatment my health insurance dollars will buy. That is robbing me as surely as hacking into my bank account and siphoning money from it. There are laws against one, but not the other. How does that make sense?

I'd go for single payer.

I'd go for pure choice as long and the risks are fully born by the people who turn down coverage.

A mixture of those two is destined to fail.

cdcox
02-10-2010, 09:22 AM
You can't let someone die because they aren't able to show you an insurance card. I have coverage, but I could get into an accident without my wallet. Then what?

Computer chip under your skin. Your choice to rely on a card you carry in your wallet, but there are risks and consequences.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 09:24 AM
Whats that mean make single payer?The govt. would be billed for all emergency care. Then the govt. bills and collects from the individual. I don't mind the govt. saying that emergency treatment must be performed regardless of ability to pay, but the er shouldn't get stuck footing the bill.

KC native
02-10-2010, 09:25 AM
Entitlement mentality ruins markets.

simple bitch is simple.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 09:35 AM
hungry, hungry hippo chip under your skin. Your choice to rely on a card you carry in your wallet, but there are risks and consequences.So it's implanted in my arm, and I lose my arm in an accident...never mind...this thread is for 60%ers. You're out in 1% land.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 09:46 AM
Nope, no safety net for those who turn down insurance. Emergency room care is way too expensive to be the default treatment.

Yep. Exactly.

If you don't have insurance...

You die of appendicitis, bleed out after a car accident, or die of an infection that you can't get diagnosed or treated.

We'll see just how many "young and healthy" idiots we have left if that's their reality....

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 09:47 AM
That won't work in reality. What Dr./hospital is going to turn away some bleeding patient seeking medical attention?

You choose not to get insurance; your own, or government provided....then you should bleed out. Period.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 09:48 AM
You can't let someone die because they aren't able to show you an insurance card. I have coverage, but I could get into an accident without my wallet. Then what?

Then you better have ID, and you better be "in the com pu ter."

Chief Henry
02-10-2010, 09:50 AM
Life sucks. Its your responsibility, not the governments, not everyone else. Suck up and carry some load for a change. Focus on lowering cost not transfering the cost to someone else. All you want is a free ride.

Single payer is a killer to any agreement.



This 1000 times.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 09:50 AM
The govt. would be billed for all emergency care. Then the govt. bills and collects from the individual. I don't mind the govt. saying that emergency treatment must be performed regardless of ability to pay, but the er shouldn't get stuck footing the bill.Why spend the money on lawyers and beauracy to try to get money out of people who don't have the money anyway.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 09:53 AM
Why spend the money on lawyers and beauracy to try to get money out of people who don't have the money anyway.

Because there are too many people too stupid to take responsibility for their own lives; either get insurance, or sign up of the the government's hand-out assuming you qualify.

If you refuse, the rest of us shoudn't have to pay for the stupidity of your gamble. Period.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 09:55 AM
This needs to be done a la carte. Each item should be voted on independently. Any item getting 60% gets passed as a stand-alone measure. The congressional bills should work the same way. The more you cram into a single bill, the more special interests get involved. Then you get the Ben Nelson fiascos.

Yes

patteeu
02-10-2010, 09:56 AM
Seriously, go **** yourself and then die. I want no such thing and nothing that has been proposed will lower costs.

Death panels would lower costs, is that where you're going with this?

cdcox
02-10-2010, 09:58 AM
Death panels would lower costs, is that where you're going with this?

You can opt out of death panels by buying better insurance. We spend way too much on keeping people alive, only to suffer for another 3 mos.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 09:59 AM
Because there are too many people too stupid to take responsibility for their own lives; either get insurance, or sign up of the the government's hand-out assuming you qualify.

If you refuse, the rest of us shoudn't have to pay for the stupidity of your gamble. Period.so what exactly do you want me to put in the "proposed" part of the opening post?

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:01 AM
You can opt out of death panels by buying better insurance. We spend way too much on keeping people alive, only to suffer for another 3 mos.so are we reaching a consensus? Death panels for end of life but you can buy additional insurance on your own dime to not go before the death panels?

Or does this idea move up to the "starter" items?

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 10:02 AM
wtf is a death panel good lord.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:03 AM
Obviously a key idea is to get every one into the insurance system over their whole life. If you enter at an early age when your health is good, and you pay a constant rate (adjusted for increasing health costs averaged over everyone) over your whole life, the cost is manageable. It should be like a whole life policy where you build up value in the policy over time, so you could transfer that value from one insurance company to another or one employer to another.

If you enter the insurance system later in life, your rate would be higher because you weren't contributing as long.

A provision prohibiting the passing the costs of non-paying patients to paying patients is needed. In other words, if a patient doesn't have insurance and can't pay treatment costs out of pocket, he/she doesn't get treatment, unless the hospital/doctor wants to take it straight out of the bottom line (they won't stay in business long if they do this). I want people who think they don't need coverage to bleed out on the highway if they get in a wreck.

There needs to be severe limitation on the ability of insurance companies to create risk pools. If you allow insurance companies to parse people into low risk and high risk groups, insurance for high risk people will be too expensive and they won't be able to afford it. I might be open to some segregation, but not unregulated.

What do people think of end of life issues? I think there needs to be some management of costs. This is where the treatment does the least good and has the highest chance for cost savings. Maybe have a two tiered system. When you enter the health insurance system you can buy two types of coverage, one less expensive than the other. The least expensive coverage has a minimum $100K guaranteed coverage after age 70. So once you hit 70, they start tracking the costs. Up to $100 K of treatment you are covered. Once you go over that, you can go before a death panel to decide if your prognosis warrants additional expenditure for the quality and duration of life you are likely to get. You can always pay out of pocket for more treatment that the death panel doesn't approve. Or, when you enter the insurance system you can pay a higher rate your whole life and basically be guaranteed gold standard treatment until your dieing breath.

I like all this.

I'd add in tort reform and tax reform to eliminate the incentive for employers to be the gateway to health insurance (I might even prohibit such practices).

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:05 AM
wtf is a death panel good lord.30% of all healthcare costs occur in the last 3 months of our lifes. Families unable to let go order all tests. procedures, treatments done to prolong the inevitable upcoming death of a loved one. Some panel,committe would have to decide no, grandma doesn't get a kidney transplant, she's 85. Grandpa doesn't get a heart valve replacement, he's 77. Hard gut wrenchig moral choices and who would get to decide?

cdcox
02-10-2010, 10:07 AM
wtf is a death panel good lord.

It is a panel of doctors (or a com puter program) that considers the diagnosis of your illness, your prognosis for recovery, your projected longevity if you fully recover, and objectively decides if you get expensive treatment or get moved into a hospice type situation.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:08 AM
I like all this.

I'd add in tort reform and tax reform to eliminate the incentive for employers to be the gateway to health insurance (I might even prohibit such practices).cdcox, mr. kotter and you are all saying the basic same thing. What do you want me to put in the opening post? I'll be against this so I want it to be your words.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 10:13 AM
so are we reaching a consensus? Death panels for end of life but you can buy additional insurance on your own dime to not go before the death panels?

Or does this idea move up to the "starter" items?

Yes

It is a panel of doctors (or a com puter program) that considers the diagnosis of your illness, your prognosis for recovery, your projected longevity if you fully recover, and objectively decides if you get expensive treatment or get moved into a hospice type situation.

Yep. Exactly as it should be.

And if you CHOOSE to be an idiot, and spend your own money buying better insurance...and CHOOSE to spend your estate on staying alive for a few more weeks or months, with a highly questionable quality of life....then that is YOUR choice.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 10:14 AM
30% of all healthcare costs occur in the last 3 months of our lifes. Families unable to let go order all tests. procedures, treatments done to prolong the inevitable upcoming death of a loved one. Some panel,committe would have to decide no, grandma doesn't get a kidney transplant, she's 85. Grandpa doesn't get a heart valve replacement, he's 77. Hard gut wrenchig moral choices and who would get to decide?


Its absurd. This isnt worthy of being discussed. Its not the role of the govt now. It never should be. Sift through some of these clearly dumbass ideas and toss them.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:17 AM
cdcox, mr. kotter and you are all saying the basic same thing. What do you want me to put in the opening post? I'll be against this so I want it to be your words.

You've already got something for tort reform, so I'd just add

The cdcox plan

and

Get employers out from between health care insurance vendors and the insured.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:17 AM
Its absurd. This isnt worthy of being discussed. Its not the role of the govt now. It never should be. Sift through some of these clearly dumbass ideas and toss them.I don't think anyone is saying the government would do that. A c o m pu t e r program, a panel of Doctors...not my idea anyway. just the facilitator. I don't decide what goes up in the opening post.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:18 AM
You've already got something for tort reform, so I'd just add

The cdcox planNo , the cdcox plan has to be defined in the opening post. We can't ask people to go find it int he thread.
You've already got something for tort reform, so I'd just add

Get employers out from between health care insurance vendors and the insured.Details, how?

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:19 AM
Of course, I reserve the right to reject the cdcox plan when it becomes a big top-down government controlled system. That's where you're going to find disagreement between Mr. Kotter, cdcox, and myself. In fact, this whole exercise ignores the details of these ideas where the devil always resides.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:20 AM
Of course, I reserve the right to reject the cdcox plan when it becomes a big top-down government controlled system. That's where you're going to find disagreement between Mr. Kotter, cdcox, and myself. In fact, this whole exercise ignores the details of these ideas where the devil always resides.thats the point. We agree on a framwework and then see if we can agree on the details. If we can't how can we expect Washington to do that.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 10:21 AM
You've already got something for tort reform, so I'd just add

The cdcox plan

and

Get employers out from between health care insurance vendors and the insured.

How about get insurance vendors out from between providers and patients? At least for routine and preventative care.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:21 AM
No , the cdcox plan has to be defined in the opening post. We can't ask people to go find it int he thread.

I'll defer to cdcox


Details, how?

Prohibit employers from providing health care insurance for employees. Prohibit insurance companies from using employer groups as risk pools.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 10:23 AM
I don't think anyone is saying the government would do that. A c o m pu t e r program, a panel of Doctors...not my idea anyway. just the facilitator. I don't decide what goes up in the opening post.

Its an absurd idea. No reason to have it on any list.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:24 AM
thats the point. We agree on a framwework and then see if we can agree on the details. If we can't how can we expect Washington to do that.

I don't really expect Washington to be able to do it. I'm sure we can't. Most of us probably don't even know enough about the details to know where all the points of contention would be. I have a pretty good familiarity with health insurance, but I know I'm no Velvet Jones.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:26 AM
How about get insurance vendors out from between providers and patients? At least for routine and preventative care.

In other words, limit insurance coverage to catastrophic policies only? I'm OK with that, but I bet you aren't. You're going to want government to step in and cover all the poor who can't afford routine and preventative care. If so, I'm opposed.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 10:27 AM
I'll defer to cdcox

Prohibit employers from providing health care insurance for employees. Prohibit insurance companies from using employer groups as risk pools.

Prohibit providers from discounting coverage for coverage to members of insurance groups, establishing standards pricing and costs...especially for routine and preventative care. Thus eliminating the need for insurance middle men in the first place, and returning care to a relationship between providers and patients.

If you advocate eliminating government inefficiency, it follows logically that you should want to eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies of the current insurance system as well.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 10:29 AM
Government needs to let business alone. Who wants government telling a business what benefits they can offer. What another stupid idea. Its the business' decision if it chooses to offer or not offer insurance as a benefit.

Hands off. Government has no role and offers no benefit getting involved.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:31 AM
Prohibit employers from providing health care insurance for employees. Prohibit insurance companies from using employer groups as risk pools. The only reason health insurance went to employers because indviduals didn't have access to "group" rates from insurance companies. Thats kind of the whole point of the exchange in the senate bill.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 10:32 AM
Government needs to let business alone. Who wants government telling a business what benefits they can offer. What another stupid idea. Its the business' decision if it chooses to offer or not offer insurance as a benefit.

Hands off. Government has no role and offers no benefit getting involved.

Says one of our resident sychophants for the industry.... :rolleyes:

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:34 AM
I don't really expect Washington to be able to do it. I'm sure we can't. Most of us probably don't even know enough about the details to know where all the points of contention would be. I have a pretty good familiarity with health insurance, but I know I'm no Velvet Jones.We got 2 issues agree too and another 2 in principle agreed to.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 10:35 AM
Since Social security is tightly linked to elder care we should require every wage earner pay SS. No exceptions whatsoever.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:37 AM
We got 2 issues agree too and another 2 in principle agreed to.

Without any consideration (or even awareness in most cases) of the details involved.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:40 AM
Without any consideration (or even awareness in most cases) of the details involved.Just like Washington.:rolleyes:

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:40 AM
Prohibit providers from discounting coverage for coverage to members of insurance groups, establishing standards pricing and costs...especially for routine and preventative care. Thus eliminating the need for insurance middle men in the first place, and returning care to a relationship between providers and patients.

I'm opposed to this.

If you advocate eliminating government inefficiency, it follows logically that you should want to eliminate bureaucratic inefficiencies of the current insurance system as well.

I'm an advocate of reducing efficiencies where it makes sense to do so, not eliminating them everywhere. For example, I'm willing to live with considerable government inefficiency in the procurement of weapons because there aren't any acceptable alternatives.

To make a long story short, your logic is based on a foundation of clouds.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:41 AM
Since Social security is tightly linked to elder care we should require every wage earner pay SS. No exceptions whatsoever.Who doesn't pay SS?

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 10:41 AM
Without any consideration (or even awareness in most cases) of the details involved.

So let's do what the healthcare industry/politicians do....throw up our hands, say it's "too complicated."

That way healthcare industry fat cats can just keep getting fatter, and more average Americans can just file for bankruptcy....while those in the industry laugh all the way to the bank.

Yeah. Sounds like a plan.

Inspector
02-10-2010, 10:41 AM
[QUOTE=jiveturkey;6521518] Of course those people would be shit out of luck if they got in a nasty accident and were unable to sign up after getting their arms ripped off by a bear.QUOTE]

They allow you to sign holding the pen with your teeth when you by bear insurance. This is a fairly recent thing too what with all the bear attacks and all.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 10:42 AM
Who doesn't pay SS?

Tons of people. Mostly government employees

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:42 AM
The only reason health insurance went to employers because indviduals didn't have access to "group" rates from insurance companies. Thats kind of the whole point of the exchange in the senate bill.

This isn't true. The reason health insurance went to employers is because employers got a tax break for offering fringe benefits to employees instead of salary. I'd be OK with repealing these tax incentives instead of prohibiting the practice. That might be enough to largely end the practice.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:43 AM
So let's do what the healthcare industry/politicians do....throw up our hands, say it's "too complicated."

That way healthcare industry fat cats can just keep getting fatter, and more average Americans can just file for bankruptcy....while those in the industry laugh all the way to the bank.

Yeah. Sounds like a plan.

I'd rather do nothing than do most of the things you seem to want to do.

Rain Man
02-10-2010, 10:44 AM
I believe I solved your end of life issue in this thread:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=220485&highlight=incentive


I seriously like this idea. I know it's kind of far out, but I think it would work.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 10:48 AM
I believe I solved your end of life issue in this thread:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=220485&highlight=incentive


I seriously like this idea. I know it's kind of far out, but I think it would work.put in the opening thread

cdcox
02-10-2010, 11:04 AM
OK, here are the ala carte bullets for the cdcox plan. Although, I don't believe ala carte is the right way to go. I wouldn't support some of my bullets without having other bullets also approved.

1. It is illegal for a health care provider to subsidize one patient's health care by charging another patient more. All patients and insurance plans are charged the same for the same treatment. Write offs come off the bottom line. Health care providers have the right to refuse ShamWow! to anyone.

2. Medicare reform to control end-of-life costs covered by government health care (death panels). Private insurance available to cover what medicare does not.

3. Whole-life health insurance to ensure portability and to spread the health insurance premiums over a lifetime. The earlier you get in, the lower your lifetime insurance rate. Your whole-life policy accrues value in the early part of your life to allow you to move it to another provider. This would be an market driven option, but with tax incentives to sweeten the pot.

4. Regulations limiting the ability of insurance providers to segregate risk pools. I'm okay with segregating by age (offset by my whole-life plan), and lifestyle decisions such as smoking. I'm against segregating by things that people have less control over, like family history or previous rates of illness.

5. Government assistance for the working poor, temporarily unemployed, and the disabled.

Taco John
02-10-2010, 11:16 AM
Here's my two part plan:

1. Open up the markets.
2. Enforce the contracts.

HonestChieffan
02-10-2010, 11:27 AM
public option and telling business what they can offer as a benefit? Kills it for me. DOA

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 11:44 AM
OK, here are the ala carte bullets for the cdcox plan. Although, I don't believe ala carte is the right way to go. I wouldn't support some of my bullets without having other bullets also approved.

1. It is illegal for a health care provider to subsidize one patient's health care by charging another patient more. All patients and insurance plans are charged the same for the same treatment. Write offs come off the bottom line. Health care providers have the right to refuse ShamWow! to anyone.

2. Medicare reform to control end-of-life costs covered by government health care (death panels). Private insurance available to cover what medicare does not.

3. Whole-life health insurance to ensure portability and to spread the health insurance premiums over a lifetime. The earlier you get in, the lower your lifetime insurance rate. Your whole-life policy accrues value in the early part of your life to allow you to move it to another provider. This would be an market driven option, but with tax incentives to sweeten the pot.

4. Regulations limiting the ability of insurance providers to segregate risk pools. I'm okay with segregating by age (offset by my whole-life plan), and lifestyle decisions such as smoking. I'm against segregating by things that people have less control over, like family history or previous rates of illness.

5. Government assistance for the working poor, temporarily unemployed, and the disabled.

I always wondered how you labeled yourself a conservative.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 11:44 AM
OK, here are the ala carte bullets for the cdcox plan. Although, I don't believe ala carte is the right way to go. I wouldn't support some of my bullets without having other bullets also approved.

1. It is illegal for a health care provider to subsidize one patient's health care by charging another patient more. All patients and insurance plans are charged the same for the same treatment. Write offs come off the bottom line. Health care providers have the right to refuse ShamWow! to anyone.

2. Medicare reform to control end-of-life costs covered by government health care (death panels). Private insurance available to cover what medicare does not.

3. Whole-life health insurance to ensure portability and to spread the health insurance premiums over a lifetime. The earlier you get in, the lower your lifetime insurance rate. Your whole-life policy accrues value in the early part of your life to allow you to move it to another provider. This would be an market driven option, but with tax incentives to sweeten the pot.

4. Regulations limiting the ability of insurance providers to segregate risk pools. I'm okay with segregating by age (offset by my whole-life plan), and lifestyle decisions such as smoking. I'm against segregating by things that people have less control over, like family history or previous rates of illness.

5. Government assistance for the working poor, temporarily unemployed, and the disabled.opening post updated

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 11:46 AM
Here's my two part plan:

1. Open up the markets.
2. Enforce the contracts.need details for the opening post.

KC native
02-10-2010, 11:48 AM
need details for the opening post.

LMAO Do you really expect them?

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 12:40 PM
need details for the opening post.

Those are the details in a free market. Are you guys so used to govt running things that the word free or open needs details? My, our work is cut out for us.:D

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 12:47 PM
Howcome Eye Doctors and Dentist cost haven't go up? Both have no government intervention, Americas current healthcare does.

KC native
02-10-2010, 01:09 PM
Those are the details in a free market. Are you guys so used to govt running things that the word free or open needs details? My, our work is cut out for us.:D

simple bitch is simple.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 01:30 PM
Howcome Eye Doctors and Dentist cost haven't go up? Both have no government intervention, Americas current healthcare does.

And plastic surgery costs have come down.:D

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 01:47 PM
And plastic surgery costs have come down.:DHas viagra costs went down?

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 05:44 PM
Howcome Eye Doctors and Dentist cost haven't go up? Both have no government intervention, Americas current healthcare does.

Link?

I have 4 kids...that is bunk, in my experience.

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 05:49 PM
Link?

I have 4 kids...that is bunk, in my experience.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3602626&page=1

Laser eye surgeons have to compete for their patients' business. And a result of that competition is lower prices.

"In every other field of medicine, the price is going up faster than consumer prices in general," said Dr. John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis.

"[But] the price of Lasik surgery, on average, has gone down by 30 percent."

Prices dropped even though doctors pay for advertising. And while the procedure got cheaper, it also got better.

"When the lasers first came out, all they could treat was nearsightedness," Bonanni said. "[Today] the lasers are faster, more precise."

We see better quality, and lower prices in medical fields where most people pay for care themselves -- cosmetic surgery is another example. The average price of cosmetic procedures has fallen, because doctors compete for patients' business, and if doctors want to get repeat business, they have to offer patients a good deal. It's what happens when doctors respond to you, not your insurance company or the government. And it's happening now, and not just with elective surgery. We're starting to see providers offer everyday health care even in Ö shopping centers.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 05:49 PM
Link?

I have 4 kids...that is bunk, in my experience.yeah just a bunch of BS posted on the internet without facts or links to back it up.

Chocolate Hog
02-10-2010, 05:51 PM
Amazing a true free market corrects itself? No way.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 05:56 PM
Amazing a true free market corrects itself? No way.

Anecdotal evidence or isolated cases, does not make it a substantiated trend or documented study.

You'll need to do better to convince me. Personally, I'm paying a helluva lot more for my 6 and 8 year old on optometry and dental bills than I did just a few years ago for my 10 and 14 year old.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, IF you have real research to back up your claim though.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 06:06 PM
Anecdotal evidence or isolated cases, does not make it a substantiated trend or documented study.

You'll need to do better to convince me. Personally, I'm paying a helluva lot more for my 6 and 8 year old on optometry and dental bills than I did just a few years ago for my 10 and 14 year old.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, IF you have real research to back up your claim though.

If you're keeping score at home, Billay just quoted an article showing that lasik eye surgery prices have dropped 30% industry wide.

Kotter then accused him of using anecdotal evidence. Then, he used his children's bills as evidence for his report.


Irony, thy name is Kotter.

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 06:23 PM
Take any compromise you come up with and implement it on every American under the age of 21.

Run it that way for 3 years and decide if it needs to be tweaked, if it's even feasible to consider all Americans, or if that is a good place to stop.

Hey dumbshits. Here's your answer and I'm not going to tell you again.

HC does not have a silver bullet. Start small with those that deserve health care the most (the innocent) and the American people will get behind it if you can prove whatever solution you come up with works.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 06:25 PM
Hey dumbshits. Here's your answer and I'm not going to tell you again.

HC does not have a silver bullet. Start small with those that deserve health care the most (the innocent) and the American people will get behind it if you can prove whatever solution you come up with works.

Are you advocating health care for unborn children?

patteeu
02-10-2010, 06:26 PM
Anecdotal evidence or isolated cases, does not make it a substantiated trend or documented study.

You'll need to do better to convince me. Personally, I'm paying a helluva lot more for my 6 and 8 year old on optometry and dental bills than I did just a few years ago for my 10 and 14 year old.

I'm open to being convinced otherwise, IF you have real research to back up your claim though.

Classic.

Anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. I think you're wrong because of my own anecdotal evidence. - Mr. Kotter

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 06:29 PM
Classic.

Anecdotal evidence is unconvincing. I think you're wrong because of my own anecdotal evidence. - Mr. Kotter

BEP found it compelling.

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 06:29 PM
Are you advocating health care for unborn children?

Nope. Unless that unborn child is in the womb of a minor not covered under any other plan and the mother wants to keep him or her.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 06:35 PM
Nope. Unless that unborn child is in the womb of a minor not covered under any other plan and the mother wants to keep him or her.

So a chick that gets knocked up meets your definition of innocent?

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 06:49 PM
So a chick that gets knocked up meets your definition of innocent?

Stay with me here.

Under any dem plan she would be covered. My thinking is to pick a segment of the population (the most deserving, meaning minors) and prove any combination of government intrusion into the system will work or not.

The whole dem scheme is we're all in or nothing. Just like global warming the idea we'll all perish if something isn't done RIGHT NOW is ludicrous. People like BRC and dirk are foaming at the mouth.

The best thing we can do for all parties is to take baby steps. Pick out a segment of the population and make it work.

But back to your basic question, yes I think a minor that gets 'knocked up' and her unborn child should have access to health care.

That does not include abortion though IMO.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:03 PM
Has viagra costs went down?

I don't know I don't have a penis for one nor am I old enough to worry about erectile dysfunction if I had one.
Ask Donger.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 07:07 PM
The whole dem scheme is we're all in or nothing. Just like global warming the idea we'll all perish if something isn't done RIGHT NOW is ludicrous. People like BRC and dirk are foaming at the mouthExcuse me, I'm foaming out the mouth for what?

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:07 PM
BEP found it compelling.

Ha, ha! Not exactly. One was on lasik the other on dental and optometry. What's missing is more information such as were the procedures the same for the kids who had treatment later.
BTW, I notice food has jumped. Do I need a study to notice that? Are you someone who needs to carry a govt CPI card to be able to tell if the cost of living has gone up? That truly sad if you do because observation is necessary. I'd say Kotter's and billay's example aren't exactly comparative. Billay's study still shows that the market works despite Kotter's experience which I don't necessarily doubt.

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 07:11 PM
Excuse me, I'm foaming out the mouth for what?

This seems to be a life or death issue for you. It may be, and I'm sorry if it is.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 07:11 PM
Stay with me here.

Under any dem plan she would be covered. My thinking is to pick a segment of the population (the most deserving, meaning minors) and prove any combination of government intrusion into the system will work or not.

The whole dem scheme is we're all in or nothing. Just like global warming the idea we'll all perish if something isn't done RIGHT NOW is ludicrous. People like BRC and dirk are foaming at the mouth.

The best thing we can do for all parties is to take baby steps. Pick out a segment of the population and make it work.

But back to your basic question, yes I think a minor that gets 'knocked up' and her unborn child should have access to health care.

That does not include abortion though IMO.

Your plan is dumb. The pregnant chick is already covered in CHIPRA

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 07:12 PM
Your plan is dumb. The pregnant chick is already covered in CHIPRA

You really are dumber than you let on.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 07:15 PM
You really are dumber than you let on.

I can't help it your plan was dumb and everyone ignored it.

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 07:17 PM
I can't help it your plan was dumb and everyone ignored it.

I can't help it if I give the dems a way out of this mess but you and your dumb ass masters are too stupid to see it.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 07:22 PM
I can't help it if I give the dems a way out of this mess but you and your dumb ass masters are too stupid to see it.

Ok I will help you out. I think they could try it on anyone 21-28 or if you want up to 30. I think that age group doesn't get insurance because they believe they are bullet-proof.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 07:43 PM
Ha, ha! Not exactly. One was on lasik the other on dental and optometry. What's missing is more information such as were the procedures the same for the kids who had treatment later.
BTW, I notice food has jumped. Do I need a study to notice that? Are you someone who needs to carry a govt CPI card to be able to tell if the cost of living has gone up? That truly sad if you do because observation is necessary. I'd say Kotter's and billay's example aren't exactly comparative. Billay's study still shows that the market works despite Kotter's experience which I don't necessarily doubt.

Lighten up. It was a joke.

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 07:45 PM
Your plan is dumb. The pregnant chick is already covered in CHIPRA

...and we're talking about erasing the current system and starting over. CHIPRA wouldn't necessarily exist.

BucEyedPea
02-10-2010, 07:47 PM
Lighten up. It was a joke.
Uh....hmmm. Me thinks you had a passive aggressive moment.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 07:56 PM
...and we're talking about erasing the current system and starting over. CHIPRA wouldn't necessarily exist.

Ok who would pay for this group of people that CHIPRA pays for? Reading through this thread it seems that most are opposed to the government providing or paying for any care.

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 07:58 PM
Ok I will help you out. I think they could try it on anyone 21-28 or if you want up to 30. I think that age group doesn't get insurance because they believe they are bullet-proof.

First, how is CHIRPA largely funded? My idea is to take any plan for everyone and make it work for the young. Prove how and if you can do it first, without loss of services.

Second I could care less about the age group you're talking about unless they are dying. If they need antibiotics stand in line with the homeless unless they are willing to get health insurance themselves.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 08:04 PM
First, how is CHIRPA largely funded? My idea is to take any plan for everyone and make it work for the young. Prove how and if you can do it first, without loss of services.

Second I could care less about the age group you're talking about unless they are dying. If they need antibiotics stand in line with the homeless unless they are willing to get health insurance themselves.

CHIPRA is paid for by the Feds and our tax dollars. The current extension was paid for by taxing cigarettes mostly.

I am just curious how these people are going to get covered if no one wants the government to pay for them. Most people with CHIRPA also qualify for Medicaid.

If your plan is to say fuck em unless they get their own coverage then nothing has changed. They will go to the ER and we will end up paying double\triple for it.

BigRedChief
02-10-2010, 08:13 PM
This seems to be a life or death issue for you. It may be, and I'm sorry if it is.What issue? And what am I foaming at the mouth about? Please provide some links to posts in this thread where I'm "foaming" at the mouth.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 08:17 PM
Mlyonsd the reason why I suggested that age group is because they are the majority of the people that don't get health insurance

U.S. population: some 13 million Americans ages 19 to 29 — or 1 in 3 — lack coverage
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925299,00.html#ixzz0fC4DoeZk

Saul Good
02-10-2010, 08:18 PM
Mlyonsd the reason why I suggested that age group is because they are the majority of the people that don't get health insurance

We'll show them. If they won't buy it, we'll GIVE IT TO THEM FOR FREE!!! Then everyone will learn their lessons.

Mr. Kotter
02-10-2010, 08:20 PM
If you're keeping score at home, Billay just quoted an article showing that lasik eye surgery prices have dropped 30% industry wide.

Kotter then accused him of using anecdotal evidence. Then, he used his children's bills as evidence for his report.


Irony, thy name is Kotter.

Hey...I know it's sometimes hard to follow, but....but lasik surgery is a niche market for OPTIONAL optometric surgery--which many insurances do not cover. That anecdote of an isolated procedure, if accurate, is interesting. It hardly constitutes a trend or research. It's no more valid than, yes, my own. That's the point.

BTW, if YOU have a link (which billay, you, or patty has as YET NOT provided) substantiating the wider claim, I'd be happy to peruse it. Thanks in advance.

mlyonsd
02-10-2010, 08:27 PM
CHIPRA is paid for by the Feds and our tax dollars. The current extension was paid for by taxing cigarettes mostly.

I am just curious how these people are going to get covered if no one wants the government to pay for them. Most people with CHIRPA also qualify for Medicaid.

If your plan is to say **** em unless they get their own coverage then nothing has changed. They will go to the ER and we will end up paying double\triple for it.

So, to recap, CHIPRA, dirk's magic bullet for children is sustainable only by cigarettes. Which is a depleting source of revenut btw.

Then of course is Medicare which is in the red in trillions.

Again, to prove the goverment can provide adequate health care for any given segment of the population. As for the age group you are worried about, if they choose not to participate that's their choice to live with the swine flu for 3 months. Sucks being them.

dirk digler
02-10-2010, 08:38 PM
So, to recap, CHIPRA, dirk's magic bullet for children is sustainable only by cigarettes. Which is a depleting source of revenut btw.

Then of course is Medicare which is in the red in trillions.

Again, to prove the goverment can provide adequate health care for any given segment of the population. As for the age group you are worried about, if they choose not to participate that's their choice to live with the swine flu for 3 months. Sucks being them.

My magic bullet isn't CHIRPA. I would do Medicare for All. From birth to death everyone would pay a premium like the elderly do already. Obviously in the children's case their parents would pay it. Now how the poor pay for it or more like how we subsidized them I will leave that up to smarter people than I.

I am just pointing out mlyonsd that if you don't cover everybody some how or just say fuck em the Supreme Court has already ruled that you can't turn away people at the ER. So what will happen is the same thing that happens now people will flood the ER rooms and we will be stuck with the bill.

patteeu
02-10-2010, 10:47 PM
Stay with me here.

Under any dem plan she would be covered. My thinking is to pick a segment of the population (the most deserving, meaning minors) and prove any combination of government intrusion into the system will work or not.

The whole dem scheme is we're all in or nothing. Just like global warming the idea we'll all perish if something isn't done RIGHT NOW is ludicrous. People like BRC and dirk are foaming at the mouth.

The best thing we can do for all parties is to take baby steps. Pick out a segment of the population and make it work.

But back to your basic question, yes I think a minor that gets 'knocked up' and her unborn child should have access to health care.

That does not include abortion though IMO.

I think the right group for your pilot test program is the elderly, not the young. For one thing, the young don't really need that much health care so it would be easy to make it work. For another thing, we already have a government health care system for the elderly that's broken. Let's see these ideas proven by making Medicare work before applying them to the general population. The truth is that Medicare will never work as a self sufficient system so this idea won't work either.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 07:35 AM
So, what are the Republicans willing to compromise on to do health care reform?

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 07:43 AM
So, what are the Republicans willing to compromise on to do health care reform?

BRC, the Dems are the ones selling. They want the Republicans to buy. Now, if we break it down to that very simple idea, why does a buyer have to "compromise"?

If the seller cannot get anyone to make an offer then they have a couple very clear options. One, take the product off the market and try later; Two, lower the price and see if anyone has an interst; three keep the price the same but sweeten the product offering.

In the case of the current state of the HC bills, the reason there is so little interest by anyone in helping is that there is no shared ownership in the product. And as a result there are no "bidders" interested in the offering.

The two bills are proverbial turds. Obama needs to realize all the polish in the world will not change the turd into something else.

mlyonsd
02-11-2010, 09:26 AM
I think the right group for your pilot test program is the elderly, not the young. For one thing, the young don't really need that much health care so it would be easy to make it work. For another thing, we already have a government health care system for the elderly that's broken. Let's see these ideas proven by making Medicare work before applying them to the general population. The truth is that Medicare will never work as a self sufficient system so this idea won't work either.

My original thoughts on HC when it became such a campaign issue was prove you can make something basic like SS first by fixing it long term. Then talk to me about dismantling HC.

Picking a small segment of the population to try out new HC proposals is more aimed at limiting our long term losses as opposed to ruining the whole thing all at once.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 10:58 AM
So, what are the Republicans willing to compromise on to do health care reform?

The continuing existence of a reformed version of medicare? :shrug:

How about this. dirk posted a column that claimed that democrats had a bunch of Republican ideas in their health care program right now. Of course, they were Republican ideas in title only, but that didn't matter to dirk. I propose that the Republican compromise could be including some of those ideas except that the Republicans get to define what they mean.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 10:59 AM
My original thoughts on HC when it became such a campaign issue was prove you can make something basic like SS first by fixing it long term. Then talk to me about dismantling HC.

Picking a small segment of the population to try out new HC proposals is more aimed at limiting our long term losses as opposed to ruining the whole thing all at once.

:thumb:

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 11:03 AM
The continuing existence of a reformed version of medicare? :shrug:No, anything that any Dem has proposed. anything by anyonw. Just name something, anything you would be willing to compromise on to achieve bi-partisan health care reform.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 11:08 AM
The continuing existence of a reformed version of medicare? :shrug:

How about this. dirk posted a column that claimed that democrats had a bunch of Republican ideas in their health care program right now. Of course, they were Republican ideas in title only, but that didn't matter to dirk. I propose that the Republican compromise could be including some of those ideas except that the Republicans get to define what they mean.

LMAO That is not even true. Most everything that the Republicans advocated on their own website minus tort reform is in the bill.

From FoxNews.com

House Republicans built a Web page (http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare) to battle perceptions they had no ideas. Among those offered up already are allowing individuals to buy insurance across state lines, preventing junk lawsuits, giving states tools to develop their own insurance exchanges, enabling small businesses to form associations to bargain for health plans the way unions and large corporations do.

While the president paid lip service to some of those ideas -- for instance, he told Republicans he would take a serious look at tort reform, but it never made it in the Democratic bill -- Eastman said that "on the goals," Democrats and Republicans have a lot of ideas in common.

"In terms of pre-existing conditions, in fact, the language in their bill and our bill is virtually identical," Sage Eastman, communications director for Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich. said, adding that caps on annual or lifetime benefits is another area of agreement.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Sunday that the House-passed bill included a number of Republican amendments that were added as the legislation worked its way through the three committees, and she expressed hope that more cooperation could be achieved this time around.

wild1
02-11-2010, 11:16 AM
LMAO That is not even true. Most everything that the Republicans advocated on their own website minus tort reform is in the bill.

When will you stop trying to ride this? The fact that 2 things someone likes are in the bill does not obligate them to vote for a bill that contains 200 other things they don't like.

:rolleyes:

mlyonsd
02-11-2010, 11:22 AM
No, anything that any Dem has proposed. anything by anyonw. Just name something, anything you would be willing to compromise on to achieve bi-partisan health care reform.

How do you know they haven't?

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 11:29 AM
How do you know they haven't?I'm asking you and your fellow Republicans on here. If you were a congressman, what would you be willing to compromise on? I know we can agree on more than 2 parts of this puzzle.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 11:45 AM
LMAO That is not even true. Most everything that the Republicans advocated on their own website minus tort reform is in the bill.

I bet it's true in more cases than it's not true.

In any event, my offer remains the same. The Republicans should get credit for compromise for including any of those items your article listed, even if the Republicans want to tinker with the details.

googlegoogle
02-11-2010, 11:46 AM
Freedom.

free market which is not applied in health care.

Pricing transparency.

The monopoly on the profession of medicine also hurts. Licensing kills competition. We could use another form of doctor for minor issues and even removing bullets and dental.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 11:46 AM
No, anything that any Dem has proposed. anything by anyonw. Just name something, anything you would be willing to compromise on to achieve bi-partisan health care reform.

OK, how about this. The Republicans should compromise on the issue of eliminating the tax benefits that companies get for providing health care insurance to their employees.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 12:04 PM
OK, how about this. The Republicans should compromise on the issue of eliminating the tax benefits that companies get for providing health care insurance to their employees.added to the proposed list. I'd like to see us move away from employer based health care also.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 12:05 PM
Freedom.

free market which is not applied in health care.

Pricing transparency.

The monopoly on the profession of medicine also hurts. Licensing kills competition. We could use another form of doctor for minor issues and even removing bullets and dental.Those are ideas, We need concrete propsals. How are you going to get this free market and "freedom"?

mlyonsd
02-11-2010, 12:08 PM
OK, how about this. The Republicans should compromise on the issue of eliminating the tax benefits that companies get for providing health care insurance to their employees.

Forget that crap. I'm yanking it off the table.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 12:12 PM
Forget that crap. I'm yanking it off the table.You really think your way or the highway is going to work?

patteeu
02-11-2010, 12:13 PM
Forget that crap. I'm yanking it off the table.

LMAO

mlyonsd
02-11-2010, 12:22 PM
LMAO

I was just doing my best congressional democrat impression to illustrate why we don't have a bill signed by Obama as of now.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 01:30 PM
As i said I think just buying insurance when you get sick is a real concern. You thwart that by a reasonable waiting period and a gradual phase in of full benefits. Can we agree on that?

This is where you show how naive you are about health insurance. What you state here is already in place and has been for some time. Waiting periods have been in place since the '70. The gradual phasing in of benefits has been in place since at least 1983. This of course only applies to insurance plans that are not of a temporary nature.

So you are proposing legislation to "fix" insurance with rules that are already being mandated? That's like washing you car because you just washed you car. It makes no sense.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 01:41 PM
This is where you show how naive you are about health insurance. What you state here is already in place and has been for some time. Waiting periods have been in place since the '70. The gradual phasing in of benefits has been in place since at least 1983. This of course only applies to insurance plans that are not of a temporary nature.

So you are proposing legislation to "fix" insurance with rules that are already being mandated? That's like washing you car because you just washed you car. It makes no sense.yeahhhh welll we can't even get concensus on that here.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 01:43 PM
yeahhhh welll we can't even get concensus on that here.

I hope you weren't expecting it.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 01:44 PM
I hope you weren't expecting it.pointing out the hypocrites. They can't agree to anything, even the status quo. If there is no desire to fix the problems in here in our abstract way how are the politicians in Washington ever going to get anything done?

You know when the Republicans return to power the Dems will fillibuster everything they want to do as payback.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 01:48 PM
pointing out the hypocrites. They can't agree to anything, even the status quo. If there is no desire to fix the problems in here in our abstract way how are the politicians in Washington ever going to get anything done?

You know when the Republicans return to power the Dems will fillibuster everything they want to do as payback.

That surprises you? Alot of people say they are for health care reform but they are really not..well at least not until it effects them personally and then it becomes an issue.

Of course they will filibuster and the ones on here applauding it today will be crying about it. Round and round we go.

patteeu
02-11-2010, 01:50 PM
pointing out the hypocrites. They can't agree to anything, even the status quo. If there is no desire to fix the problems in here in our abstract way how are the politicians in Washington ever going to get anything done?

You know when the Republicans return to power the Dems will fillibuster everything they want to do as payback.

Republicans didn't block health care. It was democrats who controlled 60% of both houses of Congress, including a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, who failed to pass it. There isn't anything to pay back.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 01:53 PM
yeahhhh welll we can't even get concensus on that here.

No - you are stating what is already in place and acting like this is some type of a concession on your part. It is either a ploy to act like you are compromising or you are just a stupid minion that knows zero about what he is talking. Either way that doesn't change the fact that this provision is already being mandated so it cannot be included in a "fix" for healthcare or insurance.

You know what, with this mentality, you should patent the numbers 0 through 9 and make everyone that uses the numbers 0 through 9 pay you a fee.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 01:55 PM
no desire to fix the problems.

What you are promoting is neither a fix nor is desirable.

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 01:57 PM
This is where you show how naive you are about health insurance. What you state here is already in place and has been for some time. Waiting periods have been in place since the '70. The gradual phasing in of benefits has been in place since at least 1983. This of course only applies to insurance plans that are not of a temporary nature.

So you are proposing legislation to "fix" insurance with rules that are already being mandated? That's like washing you car because you just washed you car. It makes no sense.

Velvet what are the standard waiting periods and phasing in of benefits?

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 02:56 PM
Velvet what are the standard waiting periods and phasing in of benefits?

Normally, limitation on benefits for a pre-existing illness is from between 3 and 24 months depending on the illness. I think there is a state or 2 that have a couple illnesses specified for 36 months. This is for large group, small group and individual coverage where there was no comparable coverage in-place for 6 to 12 months before the effective date of the new coverage. If comparable coverage is in place, in I think all states, the pre-existing illness limitations are waived and there is no waiting period or phasing in of benefits.

If you want to read more about this, I think you can google "guaranteed issue laws" and find more information. You will be surprised to learn that most of what is talked about the problems of these evil health insurance companies has already been effectively addressed.

Additionally, if an insured is added to an existing group at the time that they are eligible for that insurance, all pre-existing illness rules are waived and any pre-existing illness is treated as any other illness. If, however, and insured waives the coverage at the time they are eligible (and no other "life" changes have occurred), pre-existing illness limitation would apply.

These rules are in place to keep people from gaming the system and only getting insurance when they are sick (this is referred to as "anti selection" in actuarial terms).

On the topic of waiting periods, normally the employer specifies a waiting period before the employee is eligible for insurance, not the insurance company.

Essentially, the insured is protected from an insurance company behaving unethically in respects to pre-existing issues and waiting periods.

Hope this helps.

FYI - When are we going to focus on the real problem - the cost of healthcare services and how to effectively and efficiently pay for them?

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 03:04 PM
Normally, limitation on benefits for a pre-existing illness is from between 3 and 24 months depending on the illness. I think there is a state or 2 that have a couple illnesses specified for 36 months. This is for large group, small group and individual coverage where there was no comparable coverage in-place for 6 to 12 months before the effective date of the new coverage. If comparable coverage is in place, in I think all states, the pre-existing illness limitations are waived and there is no waiting period or phasing in of benefits.

If you want to read more about this, I think you can google "guaranteed issue laws" and find more information. You will be surprised to learn that most of what is talked about the problems of these evil health insurance companies has already been effectively addressed.

Additionally, if an insured is added to an existing group at the time that they are eligible for that insurance, all pre-existing illness rules are waived and any pre-existing illness is treated as any other illness. If, however, and insured waives the coverage at the time they are eligible (and no other "life" changes have occurred), pre-existing illness limitation would apply.

These rules are in place to keep people from gaming the system and only getting insurance when they are sick (this is referred to as "anti selection" in actuarial terms).

On the topic of waiting periods, normally the employer specifies a waiting period before the employee is eligible for insurance, not the insurance company.

Essentially, the insured is protected from an insurance company behaving unethically in respects to pre-existing issues and waiting periods.

Hope this helps.

FYI - When are we going to focus on the real problem - the cost of healthcare services and how to effectively and efficiently pay for them?

Velvet you are the man. Seriously you need to post more often because I always learn something new from you.

I definitely would love to hear your ideas on the cost of healthcare services and how to effectively and efficiently pay for them

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2010, 03:11 PM
...

FYI - When are we going to focus on the real problem - the cost of healthcare services and how to effectively and efficiently pay for them?

Since you seem to have some experience and expertise, by all means....proceed, sir. I want to hear from someone on the inside on their SERIOUS proposals to address the cost of services and payment issues.

I'll eagerly await your proposals. :hmmm:

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 03:25 PM
If you think about it, Republican proposals are about addressing issues and fixing them. Democrat proposals are about control over all elements of HC.

One seeks to repair a problem, the other seeks to expand its control over all.

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2010, 03:27 PM
If you think about it, Republican proposals are about addressing issues and fixing them. Democrat proposals are about control over all elements of HC.

One seeks to repair a problem, the other seeks to expand its control over all.

That's a subjective assessment, at best. :rolleyes:

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 03:28 PM
If you think about it, Republican proposals are about addressing issues and fixing them. Democrat proposals are about control over all elements of HC.

One seeks to repair a problem, the other seeks to expand its control over all.

LMAO

:spock:

LMAO

Seriously?

LMAO

How is that $1.2 trillion dollar Republican Medicare Bill working out for you?

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 03:36 PM
If you think about it, Republican proposals are about addressing issues and fixing them. Democrat proposals are about control over all elements of HC.

One seeks to repair a problem, the other seeks to expand its control over all.

Sorry I haven't stopped laughing yet LMAO

Anyway what is the republican proposal for the uninsured again?

patteeu
02-11-2010, 04:10 PM
LMAO

:spock:

LMAO

Seriously?

LMAO

How is that $1.2 trillion dollar Republican Medicare Bill working out for you?

Not that good, but the bright side of the story is that it's cheaper than the one that the democrats wanted at the time.

Iowanian
02-11-2010, 04:28 PM
1. eliminate advertisement for prescription medicines.- I shouldn't have to ask my doctor about a pill....he should know how to treat the ailment without the help of TV ads for lipitor.

2. We need to find ways to lower the costs of health care, and one of the ways I see is to use it more wisely as a citizen. There are some things worthy of an ER trip, and others....not so much. Personal responsibility/accountability would go a long ways.

3. Tort reform. While I think medical establishments and doctors should be held accountable when they do something stupid and reckless, sometimes life events just don't go our way, or people make honest mistakes.

4. I'd rather see more govt money into research for medicines for major ailments, and then see the savings to the patients on the back side....I'm thinking things like cancer treatment.

5. Insurance rates should be reflected on some of our life choices...if you engage in activities that increase your chance for problems, you should pay for it.

6. Stop buying junk food with welfare. Obesity rates, and correlating health issues are through the roof with people eating on food stamps. We'll buy your food....but its going to be healthy.

HonestChieffan
02-11-2010, 04:31 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/%7Ec111tPT6NA

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1324is.txt.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/%7Ec111OVIW6d

A well done piece on how the democrats and the media have generall ignored all efforts by the republicans to be heard or be involved.

http://bigjournalism.com/kashiver/2010/02/10/willful-blindness-msm-ignores-republican-half-of-the-story-on-healthcare-reform-efforts/#more-21810

dirk digler
02-11-2010, 05:05 PM
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/%7Ec111tPT6NA

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1324is.txt.pdf

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c111:./temp/%7Ec111OVIW6d

A well done piece on how the democrats and the media have generall ignored all efforts by the republicans to be heard or be involved.

http://bigjournalism.com/kashiver/2010/02/10/willful-blindness-msm-ignores-republican-half-of-the-story-on-healthcare-reform-efforts/#more-21810

2 of your links says please resubmit your search.

Demint's bill sounds awesome:

The Health Care Freedom plan proposes to cover people denied insurance though “high-risk pools.” Nationwide, high-risk pools cover fewer than 200,000 people. Often, enrollees face high premiums and are denied benefits for treatments related to their preexisting conditions— the very thing DeMint thinks the plan will help. Because these pools will be full of only sick people, covering all high-risk Americans through these pools is likely to be prohibitively expensive. According to the Tax Policy Center, using high-risk pools “to prevent large losses in insurance coverage among the sick and needy could …[cost] on the order of $1 trillion over ten years given projected health care pay-costs.”

I find it laughable you say your article is well done piece where mine that showed 5 out the 6 tenants of the Republican plan was pure spin and BS. Oh wait mine had facts and actual page numbers to back it up yours has nada.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 05:39 PM
If you think about it, Republican proposals are about addressing issues and fixing them. Democrat proposals are about control over all elements of HC.

One seeks to repair a problem, the other seeks to expand its control over all.ROFL
http://www.forumspile.com/Shit-Flag.gif

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 05:45 PM
1. eliminate advertisement for prescription medicines.- I shouldn't have to ask my doctor about a pill....he should know how to treat the ailment without the help of TV ads for lipitor.

2. We need to find ways to lower the costs of health care, and one of the ways I see is to use it more wisely as a citizen. There are some things worthy of an ER trip, and others....not so much. Personal responsibility/accountability would go a long ways.

3. Tort reform. While I think medical establishments and doctors should be held accountable when they do something stupid and reckless, sometimes life events just don't go our way, or people make honest mistakes.

4. I'd rather see more govt money into research for medicines for major ailments, and then see the savings to the patients on the back side....I'm thinking things like cancer treatment.

5. Insurance rates should be reflected on some of our life choices...if you engage in activities that increase your chance for problems, you should pay for it.

6. Stop buying junk food with welfare. Obesity rates, and correlating health issues are through the roof with people eating on food stamps. We'll buy your food....but its going to be healthy.

Hey I'm on board with 1-5. :clap: Who else? Can we get a consensu on any of these?

#6 is too much government dictating a persons life for me. This is a big can of worms. Shoudl they be allowed to smoke? Drink alcohol? foreced to go to the gym? You can't legislate personal and moral choices.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 09:32 PM
Since you seem to have some experience and expertise, by all means....proceed, sir. I want to hear from someone on the inside on their SERIOUS proposals to address the cost of services and payment issues.

I'll eagerly await your proposals. :hmmm:

The seven issues that need to be addressed in order to promote cost containment of healthcare resources. These issues are the low hanging fruit that should be easy to promote and are truly focused on the actually fixing the problems of healthcare cost. If these issues were addressed, the cost of healthcare would stabilize and would become more affordable for all people. Isn’t that what the American people want?

Lack of coordination between healthcare providers.
Doctors rarely coordinate and consult with each other. This is less apparent when in insurance company is involved because the insurance company usually inserts itself as a conduit for that communication in order to insure that the best care can be provided at the best price. Medicare/Medicaid – there is no such coordination. The company I work for employs a staff of RNs and MDs that have a goal of steering the healthcare of our client in order to realize the best results at the minimum expense. We actuarially determine what treatments work and what treatment are suspect. The insured’s welfare is the focus for us and the healthcare provider as well. We force the issue of openness to make sure the insured gets premium care for their dollar. Not having this raises cost. Medicare and Medicade do not require coordination. Not requiring this raises cost for everyone.

Mandated first dollar benefits for preventative/maintenance services.
Most all states mandate that benefits are paid at 100% for each office visit after an office visit copay meaning the insured pays a set nominal dollar amount for any service considered an office visit including lab and radiology. So for a general check up, the insured is required to pay, lets say $40, but the insurance company has to pay the remainder of the $200 or $300 of the office visit. Insurance is meant to insure a persons wealth against unforeseen catastrophic events. Not to pay for normal expenses. For general maintenance of health, the insured pays a very small portion of the expense. Mandated first dollar benefits are mandated in most/all states. Does your car insurance pay for general maintenance? This raises cost for everyone.

Inappropriate use of healthcare resources by the consumer.
This is actually an extension of the prior point. It cost the consumer $40 to get $200 to $300 of service. This is an unintended consequence of mandating first dollar benefits. There is no market pressure for people to consume less healthcare when all it cost is $40 to see the doctor. For a sniffled nose to other minor issues, the insured has no incentive to deal with the issue that will rectify itself by nature when they have little or nothing except the $40 at stake. It is amazing how careful and in tune with medical costs that a consumer becomes when the person has an HSA (Healthcare Savings Account) or a high deductible plan. It is actual money that they must account for so they are less inclined to be frivolous with the cost of healthcare. Consumers have been told led to believe that healthcare insurance is to pay for all expenses. This is due to over-legislation. This raises cost for everyone.

Lack of competition between insurance companies in certain geographical areas.
Several states have basically made a monopoly for a single insurer (read Blue Cross and Blue Shield here) by basically legislating away all competition. Certain states have legislation that certain benefits must be covered at a specific amount for a specific premium. This does not allow for competition because everyone has to have the deep pockets to lose money until all of your competition gives up. BCBS has used this to their advantage. In several states, MD, NY, and NJ specifically, have basically legislatively caused there to be a monopoly that BCBS is enjoying. Texas is getting ready to do the same thing. This raises cost for everyone.

Over regulation that adds overhead cost for the insurance carriers and re-insurers, as well as other expenses.
Few people realize that states charge a tax on insurance premiums. This is used to pay for the states department of insurance. The amount of premium for insurance has a tax included to fund the government. Additionally, the reporting requirements are nothing more than an expense for insurance company and an annoyance to the insured. In California, you must report the receipt of a claim within 7 days and then every 21 days after that. This cost the insurance company is in two ways: the insurance has to produce that notification and it has to absorb the customer service expense of screening the calls about why the notice is necessary. Oklahoma allows providers to charge interest on billed claims expenses even if the reason for the claim not being considered eligible is due to the provider. In Texas, if the eligibility of a PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) claim cannot be determined within 45 days from the date of service, the claim must be processed ignoring any outstanding issues. If the claim is eventually determined to be deficient, the provider is asked to return the money (that happens around zero percent of the time)

Depleting of the insurance industry resources by the federal government through Medicare / Medicaid.
Medicare/Medicaid normally pays around 40%-50% of what is expected from private health insurance is expected to pay. The amount the provider’s loses on Medicare/Medicaid is offset by over-billing insured that have private insurance. Medicare/Medicaid is using the private health insurance industry to supplement the inability/un-willingness for the federal government to appropriately pay for services rendered. This raises cost for everyone.

Simple limitation of rewards for malpractice lawsuits.
Physicians make mistakes. There are many physicians that should not be physicians. Limit what the reward are to a reasonable amount. Just be reasonable. This raises cost for everyone.

Taco John
02-11-2010, 09:52 PM
I find it amusing that there are two points of consensus that this forum - and America really - have reached in the health care debate, but these two points of consensus aren't enough for the Democrats. They need more.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 09:56 PM
FYI - healthcare issues truly should be an American issue, not a Dem or Republican issue. Too bad that both parties make this a political issue. If someone can implement common sense legislation on healthcare, the people would not forget that.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 10:00 PM
I find it amusing that there are two points of consensus that this forum - and America really - have reached in the health care debate, but these two points of consensus aren't enough for the Democrats. They need more.

WTF - I think I agree. WTF - am I in Bazzaro world?

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 10:10 PM
I'll eagerly await your proposals. :hmmm:
I have supplied you with what you have been eagerly awaiting. Try not to sploog all over the place.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 10:15 PM
I find it amusing that there are two points of consensus that this forum - and America really - have reached in the health care debate, but these two points of consensus aren't enough for the Democrats. They need more.You think those two options are enough health care reform to bring down health care costs? Bend the exploding curve of helath care we are getting ready to start to pay.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 10:19 PM
You think those two options are enough health care reform to bring down health care costs? Bend the exploding curve of helath care we are getting ready to start to pay.

You need to chill Dude. Take a minute to contemplate to colossal amount of taxes that we are getting ready to pay.

BigRedChief
02-11-2010, 10:24 PM
You need to chill Dude. Take a minute to contemplate to colossal amount of taxes that we are getting ready to pay.Insurance comapnies meed to chill. Make $2.7 billion profit in 1Q and then raise rates 39%. They got death panels. Deciding who lives and who dies by deciding who get expensive procedures and who doesnt. CEO's making $23 million a year.

Health care should be non profit and what is good for the patient, not for the stock price.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 10:33 PM
4. I'd rather see more govt money into research for medicines for major ailments, and then see the savings to the patients on the back side....I'm thinking things like cancer treatment.


I am in agreement with you but I am also disappointed. The Cancer Society spends almost nothing on pre-testing or preventative measures even though they have more than 300 million in reserves. I lost my Dad, my uncle, and my Mother-in-law to cancer. They want to find a cure when early detection has a way better success record. The Cancer Society spends virtually nothing on preventative testing or promoting preventative measures.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 10:45 PM
Insurance comapnies meed to chill. Make $2.7 billion profit in 1Q and then raise rates 39%. They got death panels. Deciding who lives and who dies by deciding who get expensive procedures and who doesnt. CEO's making $23 million a year.

Health care should be non profit and what is good for the patient, not for the stock price.

Hehehe - you can not be serious. Who are these insurance companies that reported 2.7 billion profits in 1Q and raise rate 39%?

You have shown that you have zero knowledge about healthcare or the insurance that funds it.

Your cannot support anything that you are quoting. Whooo - scary insurance companies - whooooooo.

Do yourself a favor and go yell at a cloud or something.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 10:52 PM
BRC is currently unavailable because the DailyKOS website is really slow right now.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 10:57 PM
Dirk - Was the deal that I owe you a beer or do you owe me a beer. Damn. I can't remember.

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 11:08 PM
OK - little confession here. I have a hard time getting mad at Dirk because his avatar is basically a nice set of boobies. How can that be wrong? Its almost like I inadvertently divided by zero. WTF?

Mr. Kotter
02-11-2010, 11:16 PM
I have supplied you with what you have been eagerly awaiting....

Thanks, VJ. Much appreciated. I'll try to respond when I get some time. :toast:

Velvet_Jones
02-11-2010, 11:31 PM
Thanks, VJ. Much appreciated. I'll try to respond when I get some time. :toast:

You are putting too much pressure on me, I have to come back to this place tomorrow too? Dang.

googlegoogle
02-11-2010, 11:50 PM
Those are ideas, We need concrete propsals. How are you going to get this free market and "freedom"?

read these.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

Taco John
02-12-2010, 12:25 AM
read these.
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=279

This one deserves it's own thread...

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 06:43 AM
Hehehe - you can not be serious. Who are these insurance companies that reported 2.7 billion profits in 1Q and raise rate 39%?Anthem Blue Cross and Wellpoint 4th Q 2009. Raised rates 39% in Cali in January 2010. Google it.

Since you work in the insurance industry you should know what your competitors are doing? How big of a pile of money they are making compared to your pile of money?

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 07:03 AM
Anthem Blue Cross and Wellpoint 4th Q 2009. Raised rates 39% in Cali in January 2010. Google it.

Since you work in the insurance industry you should know what your competitors are doing? How big of a pile of money they are making compared to your pile of money?

Blue Cross and Blue Shield is a "not-for-profit" organization that is in every state. My company is a "for profit" organization. Do the math. "For profit" organizations realized no such increases. The government - both state and federal give BCBS favorable treatment because the are a "not-for-profit" organization. FYI - executive pay is doing still doing fine for BCBS. In case you are wondering.

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 07:05 AM
Anthem Blue Cross and Wellpoint 4th Q 2009. Raised rates 39% in Cali in January 2010. Google it.

Since you work in the insurance industry you should know what your competitors are doing? How big of a pile of money they are making compared to your pile of money?

BSBC is a no profit org that pays their executive handsomely. They are not subject to a lot of the rules that actual companies have to abide by. google that and then you can grovel at my feet later.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 07:08 AM
BSBC is a no profit org that pays their executive handsomely. They are not subject to a lot of the rules that actual companies have to abide by. google that and then you can grovel at my feet later.yep, thats what you want. The public groveling at your feet begging for the health care they paid for while you take $23 million in salary to make sure the bottom line and stock price is great. Yeah, you are a regular Mother Teresa.

patteeu
02-12-2010, 07:27 AM
Insurance comapnies meed to chill. Make $2.7 billion profit in 1Q and then raise rates 39%. They got death panels. Deciding who lives and who dies by deciding who get expensive procedures and who doesnt. CEO's making $23 million a year.

Health care should be non profit and what is good for the patient, not for the stock price.

Stop repeating this lie.

Anthem, the insurance company that raised it's rates, did NOT make a $2.7 billion profit last quarter. It's parent company made that profit on operations OTHER THAN Anthem, including a one time sale of a different subsidiary that accounts for 80% of that profit.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 07:48 AM
Stop repeating this lie.

Anthem, the insurance company that raised it's rates, did NOT make a $2.7 billion profit last quarter. It's parent company made that profit on operations OTHER THAN Anthem, including a one time sale of a different subsidiary that accounts for 80% of that profit.I think we should just all repeat lies as much and as often as we can. It works. Obama is a Marxist. Obama wasn't born in the USA. Obama is a muslim. Obama pals around with terriosts. Death Panels etc etc

Anthem is owned by Wellpoint. Wellpoint made the $2.7 billion. Sorry but I don't see a difference in the big picture. You want to be one huge company but then say no we are just a bunch of smaller companies pooling resources? Not computing for me.:harumph:

patteeu
02-12-2010, 08:18 AM
I think we should just all repeat lies as much and as often as we can. It works. Obama is a Marxist. Obama wasn't born in the USA. Obama is a muslim. Obama pals around with terriosts. Death Panels etc etc

Anthem is owned by Wellpoint. Wellpoint made the $2.7 billion. Sorry but I don't see a difference in the big picture. You want to be one huge company but then say no we are just a bunch of smaller companies pooling resources? Not computing for me.:harumph:

You may not understand it, but given that it's been explained to you, it's dishonest to repeat it nonetheless. It's like criticizing NBC for canceling a failing series just because GE's overall bottom line is still healthy because of profits from it's jet engine business.

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 09:30 AM
yep, thats what you want. The public groveling at your feet begging for the health care they paid for while you take $23 million in salary to make sure the bottom line and stock price is great. Yeah, you are a regular Mother Teresa.

No, I want you to grovel at my feet. Your dumbassery requires that.

ChiefaRoo
02-12-2010, 09:39 AM
anything that doesn't include a single payor option is horseshit.

I'm really pissed about the dem's fumbling the ball on this one. They had super majorities and were trying to compromise which allowed the repubs to develop a strategy to shout down health care reform. Obama tried to play nice with the drug companies and negotiate a slow down in price increases and right before they were "held" to that they upped prices across the board. They also didn't abide by their promise to not attempt to derail reform (funding political organizations, ads, etc).

Again, we get to a point where it's clear that our government is bought and paid for by the highest bidder.

This is wrong. The American people stopped this bill by electing Scott Brown. The polls are showing that if you vote for this bill you're out of congress. The pols may still try to jam it through but at their own peril. The Republicans were a non-factor until the people made them one.

Mr. Kotter
02-12-2010, 10:57 AM
The seven issues that need to be addressed in order to promote cost containment of healthcare resources. These issues are the low hanging fruit that should be easy to promote and are truly focused on the actually fixing the problems of healthcare cost. If these issues were addressed, the cost of healthcare would stabilize and would become more affordable for all people. Isn’t that what the American people want?

1. Lack of coordination between healthcare providers..

2. Mandated first dollar benefits for preventative/maintenance services.

3. Inappropriate use of healthcare resources by the consumer..

4. Lack of competition between insurance companies in certain geographical areas..

5. Over regulation that adds overhead cost for the insurance carriers and re-insurers, as well as other expenses..

6. Depleting of the insurance industry resources by the federal government through Medicare / Medicaid..

7. Simple limitation of rewards for malpractice lawsuits.


V_J, I do appreciate your taking time to do this. There are many suggestions/comments you make in the full post that are legitimate. I'm not one who believes healthcare is a "right," but I do think there is way too much "profit" in the current system that should be preserved for patient care--not investor dividends and executive bonuses. IMO, the current system values "profit" above patient care. That's wrong.

1. Coordination between healthcare providers should be a given. Why isn't it? Who's fault is that, really? Am I understanding you to say that there should be a government requirement/mandate to doctors/providers? If so, I can't say I disagree, but I wonder what the doctors/industry would say about that. It even seems, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, that in some cases this coordination would be making decisions that would be similar to those made by the "death panels" that critics of reform have demonized. Perhaps I just misunderstanding your point though.

2 & 3. Isn't there a pretty good consensus in medicine that we need MORE preventative care, not less? Isn't there a difference between frivilous consumers misusing healthcare, and reasonable use of preventative care? Under your proposal, a whole lot of blue-collar and working-poor types would opt to skip routine physicals, dental care, etc....due to the out-of-pocket expense. As far at the comparison to car insurance....don't most Americans pay for that disparity? Most people pay a fraction for car insurance compared to their healthcare premiums; and healthcare is routine....car claims, not so.

In fairness, I understand and do agree that some over-use the current system, and go to the doctor or ER much too quickly. OTOH, it seems to me that increased costs due to declining preventative care could be a real problem.

4. Agree completely.

5. Over-regulation should be identified and eliminated. If what you describe is common and could be quantified in terms of costs, I think you'd have a good case to make to lawmakers in eliminating or fixing it.

6. Cost-shifting should be exposed in clear-cut terms to the American people, with numbers to show how it affects billing of different types of consumers. I'm entirely sympathetic to the case that providers should not lose money for services provided to any "covered" patient (Medicaid/Medicare/otherwise.) No way we can expect providers to give away services or lose money.

However, if this issue is to be addressed in a fair and judicious way, it needs to be accompanied by COMPLETE AND TOTAL TRANSPARENCY of healthcare service costs. Absolutely 100% transparent. First, consumers should know (ahead of time) the precise cost of any service they receive. Second, there should be a public accessible accounting for every cent of the cost of all procedures, so consumers/patients KNOW what they are paying for and where their money is going. Finally, there should be publicly available and easy access to complete information on salaries, profit margins, and precise expenditure reports on all companies and for all people who work in the healthcare and insurance industries--just like we do with government employees like policemen, firemen, teachers, city employees, etc.

7. Tort Reform? Absolutely agree.

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 11:03 AM
I do think there is way too much "profit" in the current system that should be preserved for patient care--not investor dividends and executive bonuses. IMO, the current system values "profit" above patient care. That's wrong. They are all Mother Teresa's. Whatsyoutalkinabout willis?

Mr. Kotter
02-12-2010, 12:19 PM
They are all Mother Teresa's. Whatsyoutalkinabout willis?

Well, there are non-profit ogranizations that do a good job; it's the for-profit ventures and companies that need to seriously tighten their belts though...though they'll scream bloody-murder at the idea that THEY should have to accept the same scrutiny that we already subject law enforcement/ fire protection/ teachers/ social workers/ other government employees....heaven forbid that THEIR salaries and compensation and benefits be brought back into line comensurate with other so-called "public servants."

Perhaps THAT is how this needs to be presented: health care workers are public servants, really. Or at least they should be, IMHO; that could reframe this debate, couldn't it?

:hmmm:

BigRedChief
02-12-2010, 12:28 PM
Well, there are non-profit ogranizations that do a good job; it's the for-profit ventures and companies that need to seriously tighten their belts though...though they'll scream bloody-murder at the idea that THEY should have to accept the same scrutiny that we already subject law enforcement/ fire protection/ teachers/ social workers/ other government employees....heaven forbid that THEIR salaries and compensation and benefits be brought back into line comensurate with other so-called "public servants."

Perhaps THAT is how this needs to be presented: health care workers are public servants, really. Or at least they should be, IMHO; that could reframe this debate, couldn't it?

:hmmm:
Again, even non-profits CEO's are raking it in. These numbers are in the millions. They are paid like Wall Street bankers.



Ins. Co. & CEO With 2007 Total CEO Compensation

Aetna (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1122304/000095012308004369/y53278dpdef14a.htm#129) Ronald A. Williams: $23,045,834
Cigna (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701221/000104746908003139/a2183837zdef14a.htm) H. Edward Hanway: $25,839,777
Coventry (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054833/000095013308001440/w51967def14a.htm) Dale B. Wolf : $14,869,823
Health Net (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916085/000119312508072805/ddef14a.htm#toc81035_11) Jay M. Gellert: $3,686,230
Humana (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/49071/000119312508052269/ddef14a.htm#toc36536_8) Michael McCallister: $10,312,557
U.Health Grp (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/731766/000119312508093196/ddef14a.htm#toc78885_24) Stephen J. Hemsley: $13,164,529
WellPoint (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1156039/000119312508074752/ddef14a.htm#tx31542_104) Angela Braly (2007): $9,094,271
L. Glasscock (2006): $23,886,169
Ins. Co. & CEO With 2008 Total CEO Compensation


Aetna, Ronald A. Williams (http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/aetnas-ron-williams-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14): $24,300,112
Cigna, H. Edward Hanway (http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/cignas-h-edward-hanway-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14): $12,236,740
Coventry, Dale Wolf (http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/coventry-health-cares-dale-wolf-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14):$9,047,469
Health Net, Jay Gellert (http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/health-nets-jay-gellert-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14): $4,425,355
Humana, Michael McCallister (http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/humanas-michael-mccallister-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14): $4,764,309
U. Health Group, Stephen J. Hemsley (http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/unitedhealth-groups-stephen-hemsley-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14): $3,241,042
Wellpoint, Angela Braly (http://www.fiercehealthcare.com/story/wellpoints-angela-braly-ceo-compensation/2009-05-14): $9,844,212
See Nonprofit Health Related CEO Compensation Here. (http://www.healthreformwatch.com/2009/11/16/nonprofit-health-related-ceo-compensation/)

Here's something to look at from the usatoday piece:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2009-09-27-nonprofit-executive-compensation_N.htm

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 02:06 PM
V_J, I do appreciate your taking time to do this. There are many suggestions/comments you make in the full post that are legitimate. I'm not one who believes healthcare is a "right," but I do think there is way too much "profit" in the current system that should be preserved for patient care--not investor dividends and executive bonuses. IMO, the current system values "profit" above patient care. That's wrong.

The way you get superior care is you attach profits to it. That is how the very best inventions or services are created.


1. Coordination between healthcare providers should be a given. Why isn't it? Who's fault is that, really? Am I understanding you to say that there should be a government requirement/mandate to doctors/providers? If so, I can't say I disagree, but I wonder what the doctors/industry would say about that. It even seems, if I'm reading between the lines correctly, that in some cases this coordination would be making decisions that would be similar to those made by the "death panels" that critics of reform have demonized. Perhaps I just misunderstanding your point though.
Maybe my wording was a little misleading. If you have private health insurance, the coordination between the providers is performed by the private health insurance companies. Insurance companies attempt to make sure that the insured is getting the best treatment in the most cost effective manor. With Medicare, Medicaid, and the uninsured, there is no such advocate for the insured and the doctors and facilities are left to do whatever they want to do with no oversight and no one to be accountable too. I truly believe that the doctors has the patient’s best interest in mind but if there is no one steering the treatment, it ends up being more of a shotgun approach rather that a planned approach.

I personally experienced this with my father’s recent terminal illness. It ended up being a free-for-all procedure orgy that left it up to my Dad and Mom to coordinate – which they were incapable of. The result was that the doctors made a lot of money, the government and my Dad’s secondary insurance lost a lot of money, and my dad is still dead and my mom is still a widow. Now, with a little coordination and information, my parents would most certainly have made some different decisions, expected outcomes would have been known before hand, and appropriate treatments would have been performed. Make no mistake, my Dad would have eventually died from this disease but he may have been with us a few more months rather than 43 days.


2 & 3. Isn't there a pretty good consensus in medicine that we need MORE preventative care, not less? Isn't there a difference between frivilous consumers misusing healthcare, and reasonable use of preventative care? Under your proposal, a whole lot of blue-collar and working-poor types would opt to skip routine physicals, dental care, etc....due to the out-of-pocket expense. As far at the comparison to car insurance....don't most Americans pay for that disparity? Most people pay a fraction for car insurance compared to their healthcare premiums; and healthcare is routine....car claims, not so.

In fairness, I understand and do agree that some over-use the current system, and go to the doctor or ER much too quickly. OTOH, it seems to me that increased costs due to declining preventative care could be a real problem.

Does your home owners insurance paint your house, mow your lawn and clean your carpets? That is normal maintenance. That is not what insurance is for. Does your auto insurance pay to have you oil changed, wax your car twice a year and buy you new tires when required. No. There is a reason why car insurance and home owners insurance is cheap. They don’t pay for regular maintenance. If they paid for that, we may be having this discussion about auto insurance rather than health insurance. Pay for your own health maintenance. Pay for your own strep throat test and Amoxicillin prescription. That is not what health insurance is for. Half of all claims expense is incurred through normal office visit procedures. That is what I’m getting at.

4. Agree completely.
Cool – no preachin’ required.


5. Over-regulation should be identified and eliminated. If what you describe is common and could be quantified in terms of costs, I think you'd have a good case to make to lawmakers in eliminating or fixing it.
Lawmakers are good at making new laws but they suck at unmaking old laws. They also don’t like it when you point out the unintended consequences resulting from a bad law. This is where I think the Fed can help out. Get all or most states to work together in determining what the rules are and allow the market to right itself.


6. Cost-shifting should be exposed in clear-cut terms to the American people, with numbers to show how it affects billing of different types of consumers. I'm entirely sympathetic to the case that providers should not lose money for services provided to any "covered" patient (Medicaid/Medicare/otherwise.) No way we can expect providers to give away services or lose money.
Ohhh shit, we agree.


However, if this issue is to be addressed in a fair and judicious way, it needs to be accompanied by COMPLETE AND TOTAL TRANSPARENCY of healthcare service costs. Absolutely 100% transparent. First, consumers should know (ahead of time) the precise cost of any service they receive. Second, there should be a public accessible accounting for every cent of the cost of all procedures, so consumers/patients KNOW what they are paying for and where their money is going. Finally, there should be publicly available and easy access to complete information on salaries, profit margins, and precise expenditure reports on all companies and for all people who work in the healthcare and insurance industries--just like we do with government employees like policemen, firemen, teachers, city employees, etc.

Ohhh shit, we disagree. Policemen, firemen, teachers are employees of municipalities that are responsible to the tax payers of the municipality. No such reporting requirements exist for healthcare providers or insureds. I agree that cost should be known up front but consumers don’t care because they normally are either out little or no money or they know that the procedure is going to eclipse their deductible anyway – so again they don’t care. Now if health insurance was used like it was intended to be used, the consumer would damn sure know what an office visit cost because they would be responsible for most of it. HSAa do exactly that and it is simply amazing how the consumer holds all parties accountable when its their money. This is how markets work. They put the responsibility on the correct party – normally the person paying for the bill.


7. Tort Reform? Absolutely agree.
Agreed.

Hope this helps clarify my position.

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 10:12 PM
Stop repeating this lie.

Anthem, the insurance company that raised it's rates, did NOT make a $2.7 billion profit last quarter. It's parent company made that profit on operations OTHER THAN Anthem, including a one time sale of a different subsidiary that accounts for 80% of that profit.

BRC was apparently looking at the executive summary.

Velvet_Jones
02-12-2010, 10:32 PM
I just want to issue a sincere "word up" to kotter, because he is at least contemplating what I am promoting. I wish more people were open to other ideas. I sometimes wish I was more open/less stringent. That is truly what openness is about. I wish I was better at that.

Saul Good
02-13-2010, 10:35 AM
Anthem is owned by Wellpoint. Wellpoint made the $2.7 billion. Sorry but I don't see a difference in the big picture. You want to be one huge company but then say no we are just a bunch of smaller companies pooling resources? Not computing for me.:harumph:

Bill Gates runs a charity. Bill Gates earned billions last year. Therefore, his charity earned billions last year.

Mr. Kotter
02-13-2010, 09:55 PM
The way you get superior care is you attach profits to it. That is how the very best inventions or services are created.

On this, I understand the thinking...but we must agree to disagree. I honestly accept what you say to be true, for the "top end" procedures and care; however, there are far too many who cannot afford basic preventative care and catostrophic insurance...at the present "prices" and "premiums." Do we really simply ignore them? As I said, I don't think healthcare is a "right," but it's close...to what we consider education in this country--something to which everyone ought to have access. And, yes, "public" provided may not be the same quality as "privately" purchased....but it needs to be affordable for everyone.

Maybe my wording was a little misleading. If you have private health insurance, the coordination between the providers is performed by the private health insurance companies. Insurance companies attempt to make sure that the insured is getting the best treatment in the most cost effective manor. With Medicare, Medicaid, and the uninsured, there is no such advocate for the insured and the doctors and facilities are left to do whatever they want to do with no oversight and no one to be accountable too. I truly believe that the doctors has the patientís best interest in mind but if there is no one steering the treatment, it ends up being more of a shotgun approach rather that a planned approach.

Simply put, I'm not as confident as you are that "Insurance companies attempt to make sure that the insured is getting the best treatment"--IMHO, they are far more concerned with profits, high salaries, bonuses, and investor dividends. Again, we'll have to disagree.

I personally experienced this with my fatherís recent terminal illness. It ended up being a free-for-all procedure orgy that left it up to my Dad and Mom to coordinate Ė which they were incapable of. The result was that the doctors made a lot of money, the government and my Dadís secondary insurance lost a lot of money, and my dad is still dead and my mom is still a widow. Now, with a little coordination and information, my parents would most certainly have made some different decisions, expected outcomes would have been known before hand, and appropriate treatments would have been performed. Make no mistake, my Dad would have eventually died from this disease but he may have been with us a few more months rather than 43 days.

I don't know if you noticed my thread in the Lounge last month....but I went through something similar with my own father's death. So, I too, can relate. Our case, interesting, went very well compared to yours I think. Long story short, the medical people involved in my father's care communicated very well, despite challenging circumstances; once I became involved, a course of treatment was determined based on the prognosis and circumstances that, perhaps surprisingly to the doctors and hospitals involved (considering my dad was a Medicaid patient) felt was appropriate AND also agreed with his and the family's wishes. I'm sorry your situation was more ambivalent, but I think the key...as you have eluded to is communication, to the doctors, from the patient (preferably ahead of time, with a living will and/or DNR) and from the family (and ensuring the family is on the same page, if at all possible.) I'm sorry your situation was not more peaceful and satisfying for you.

Does your home owners insurance paint your house, mow your lawn and clean your carpets? That is normal maintenance. That is not what insurance is for. Does your auto insurance pay to have you oil changed, wax your car twice a year and buy you new tires when required. No. There is a reason why car insurance and home owners insurance is cheap. They donít pay for regular maintenance. If they paid for that, we may be having this discussion about auto insurance rather than health insurance. Pay for your own health maintenance. Pay for your own strep throat test and Amoxicillin prescription. That is not what health insurance is for. Half of all claims expense is incurred through normal office visit procedures. That is what Iím getting at.

I understand your analogy, but think that health care preventative care is a "cost" of a much different magnitude than car or home insurance--something I think is reflected in the disparity between premiums among the three types of coverage. Healthcare insurance premiums at or exceeding $12,000 per year for average families (employer/employee contributions) would, IMO, justify payment for expected routine and preventative care.

4. Agree completely.
Cool Ė no preachiní required.


Lawmakers are good at making new laws but they suck at unmaking old laws. They also donít like it when you point out the unintended consequences resulting from a bad law. This is where I think the Fed can help out. Get all or most states to work together in determining what the rules are and allow the market to right itself.

I too would, prefer, to see it done at the state level; but I'm not optimistic, given the lack of progress in that area. Then it would fall to the feds.


Ohhh shit, we agree.


Ohhh shit, we disagree. Policemen, firemen, teachers are employees of municipalities that are responsible to the tax payers of the municipality. No such reporting requirements exist for healthcare providers or insureds. I agree that cost should be known up front but consumers donít care because they normally are either out little or no money or they know that the procedure is going to eclipse their deductible anyway Ė so again they donít care. Now if health insurance was used like it was intended to be used, the consumer would damn sure know what an office visit cost because they would be responsible for most of it. HSAa do exactly that and it is simply amazing how the consumer holds all parties accountable when its their money. This is how markets work. They put the responsibility on the correct party Ė normally the person paying for the bill.

Again, another philosophical disagreement; IMO healthcare workers SHOULD work for the taxpayers...healthcare may not be a right, but IMHO it is akin to education, law enforcement, and fire protection---it's something that Americans, living in our society, should have access to basic levels of it.

Agreed.

Hope this helps clarify my position.



I appreciate your efforts V_J, but....our differences are likely indicative of why this effort to "fix" something most Americans feel should be "fixed" (though we disagree on HOW to go about it) is so difficult to reach a consensus on.

Even reasonable people reach philosophical and economic impasse too quickly, too often to make this task....at all, "easy."

Mr. Kotter
02-13-2010, 10:12 PM
I just want to issue a sincere "word up" to kotter, because he is at least contemplating what I am promoting. I wish more people were open to other ideas. I sometimes wish I was more open/less stringent. That is truly what openness is about. I wish I was better at that.

Dittos.

Heh. :p

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:12 PM
I don't know if you noticed my thread in the Lounge last month....but I went through something similar with my own father's death. So, I too, can relate. Our case, interesting, went very well compared to yours I think. Long story short, the medical people involved in my father's care communicated very well, despite challenging circumstances; once I became involved, a course of treatment was determined based on the prognosis and circumstances that, perhaps surprisingly to the doctors and hospitals involved (considering my dad was a Medicaid patient) felt was appropriate AND also agreed with his and the family's wishes. I'm sorry your situation was more ambivalent, but I think the key...as you have eluded to is communication, to the doctors, from the patient (preferably ahead of time, with a living will and/or DNR) and from the family (and ensuring the family is on the same page, if at all possible.) I'm sorry your situation was not more peaceful and satisfying for you.

It's easier for everyone to be on the same page when the patient (or his representative) opts for hospice than when they want to try to fight on. You may well have had a different experience if your father had wanted to try everything possible to extend his life. It's not just about communication.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 07:13 PM
Red was a fitting color for your response to Velvet Jones, Mr. Kotter.

Velvet_Jones
02-14-2010, 07:43 PM
I don't know if you noticed my thread in the Lounge last month....but I went through something similar with my own father's death. So, I too, can relate. Our case, interesting, went very well compared to yours I think. Long story short, the medical people involved in my father's care communicated very well, despite challenging circumstances; once I became involved, a course of treatment was determined based on the prognosis and circumstances that, perhaps surprisingly to the doctors and hospitals involved (considering my dad was a Medicaid patient) felt was appropriate AND also agreed with his and the family's wishes. I'm sorry your situation was more ambivalent, but I think the key...as you have eluded to is communication, to the doctors, from the patient (preferably ahead of time, with a living will and/or DNR) and from the family (and ensuring the family is on the same page, if at all possible.) I'm sorry your situation was not more peaceful and satisfying for you.
It's when the patient (or his representative) opts for hospice than when they want to try to fight on. You may well have had a different experience if your father had wanted to try everything possible to extend his life. It's not just about communication.
Maybe I was drunk or something but I never read this post from kotter. Freaky.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 08:54 PM
Maybe I was drunk or something but I never read this post from kotter. Freaky.

It's one of the red passages in his long response to your post. Based on what he wrote, maybe *he* was drunk.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 09:07 PM
It's one of the red passages in his long response to your post. Based on what he wrote, maybe *he* was drunk.

Red? I'm a teacher, dickface...remember? And you wonder why you've become an asshole, of late.

FWIW, I'd still risk having a beer with you in the real world; I just wonder if you really know how you come across sometimes, man. If you do, and you persist....that would be one interesting encounter, man. Probably why you have no intentions of such, cause deep down you know it ain't right.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 09:08 PM
Maybe I was drunk or something but I never read this post from kotter. Freaky.

Please, elaborate. I'm missing something here, I guess.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:13 PM
Red? I'm a teacher, dickface...remember? And you wonder why you've become an asshole, of late.

FWIW, I'd still risk having a beer with you in the real world; I just wonder if you really know how you come across sometimes, man. If you do, and you persist....that would be one interesting encounter, man. Probably why you have no intentions of such, cause deep down you know it ain't right.

I don't agree with your pro-socialist take on health care. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 09:17 PM
I don't agree with your pro-socialist take on health care. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

The only thing that hurts...is your dogmatic devotion to ideological theory that isn't applicable in the real world, or a "republic" in which the people are represented by members of our legislature, our executive branch, and our judiciary...for whom you seem to seeth with contempt. That sort of ignorance from an educated person, IS painful.

patteeu
02-14-2010, 09:22 PM
The only thing that hurts...is your dogmatic devotion to ideological theory that isn't applicable in the real world, or a "republic" in which the people are represented by members of our legislature, our executive branch, and our judiciary...for whom you seem to seeth with contempt. That sort of ignorance from an educated person, IS painful.

Well, whatever it is that's hurting you, I'm sorry you're hurting.

Mr. Kotter
02-14-2010, 09:54 PM
Well, whatever it is that's hurting you, I'm sorry you're hurting.

A mind IS a terrible thing to waste. Truly. Especially an, apparently, otherwise capable mind.

A teacher to the end, I guess...