Health care reform: A simple explanation

[napfirst]

Thanks for sharing. I wish more people would educate themselves about our current broken health care system before shouting Fox News talking points at their Senators & Representatives. We need reform & need it now. I am disappointed that the public option may not pass, but I hope they pass a bill that does enough to make a difference. My biggest fear is that it doesn't go far enough therefore making it fail and have all these people that were yelling "I don't want Obamacare" & "I don't want government in my Medicare" saying, "I told you it wouldn't work".

 

People really have no clue do they: LINK - Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!

Public option is code for universal healthcare or govt. healthcare and you don't have to watch Fox to learn that...I agree we need some reform....but who pays for it?

[NLPRacing]

Public option is code for universal healthcare or govt. healthcare and you don't have to watch Fox to learn that...I agree we need some reform....but who pays for it?

 

All taxpayers are already paying for it. All insured are already paying for it. We need reform to save money. Investment now in reform will pay for itself later.

[napfirst]

All taxpayers are already paying for it. All insured are already paying for it. We need reform to save money. Investment now in reform will pay for itself later.

If reforming HC is going to save money...why has the OMB said it will cost $1 trillion?.......maybe you need to watch Fox news.....

[Ron W.]

If reforming HC is going to save money...why has the OMB said it will cost $1 trillion?

 

Nap if you owned a company and wanted to upgrade your computer system in order to make the company more efficient, wouldn't you have to spend some money up front?

 

I don't like the lets spend money we don't have attitude that the current administration seems to have but if they can show a return on investment ........

[Edstock]

http://www.guernicamag.com/spotlight/1207/...ion_of_wendell/

 

Worth the read

 

Insurance giant Cigna purges small firms whose employees have health problems. It just raises premiums till they can’t pay them...

 

Last Temptation

An interview with Wendell Potter

 

The former mouthpiece for insurance giant Cigna divulges his role in misleading the public, the emotional day that led to his whistle-blowing, and what should really scare you.

 

In June 2007, Wendell Potter was head of corporate communications at Cigna, one of the largest health insurance companies in America, when he attended the U.S. premier of Michael Moore’s Sicko. Potter was part of the team charged with discrediting Moore’s film, which advance word said was highly critical of the health insurance industry. Potter “sat quietly in the back and took notes,” but soon realized he had a problem. “When I saw the movie, I’ll be honest: I thought it was a real good documentary. I knew from my own studies of other healthcare systems that it was an accurate portrayal of those systems and how they are able to provide universal coverage.” Yet he was being paid by Cigna to tell people the opposite, that the film was full of lies.

 

Just a few weeks later, Potter, who is from Tennessee, read in a local paper about a free healthcare expedition being held in Wise County, Virginia. He decided to check it out. Walking through the fairground gates, Potter saw hundreds of people waiting in the rain while physicians attended to patients in animal stalls or on gurneys lying on the rain-soaked pavement. Tents had been pitched across the fairground lawns, creating a scene “like something that could’ve been happening on a battlefield or in a war-torn country.” Tears mixed with the rain to cloud Potter’s vision. “What I thought was: ‘Is this the United States?’ It was so remote from my reality. It just seemed impossible.”

 

In months and years prior, Potter had grown increasingly skeptical about his job as chief spokesman for Cigna. Though he insists he never intentionally lied to a reporter, he began to spout what he thought were either misleading or less than honest statements. Moreover, his job required him to hype new programs he felt were not in the best interest of patients or the U.S. healthcare system—particularly when it came to high-deductible, or “consumer driven” plans. He came to feel he was on the wrong side of the healthcare debate and would catch himself gazing into a mirror, wondering, “Who is this? How did this happen to me?” After Sicko and Wise County, he resigned.

[Len_A]

Yeah I've seen the data too man and what you always fail to post while you're painting your rosey picture of Canadian health care is that the two years on average that Canadians live longer has almost nothing to do with the quality of care you recieve in Canada and more to do with the lifestyle choices of Americans. America has a larger and much more culturally diverse population for one thing. Additionally, more Americans per capita drink, smoke and are obese than are Canadians. These are lifestyle choices that can and do shorten lifespans. So Canadians living two years longer really is just a result of Americans making different lifestyle choices, not because you have better health care. Canadians with heart disease and certain types of cancer have a much higher mortality rate than do Americans with the same conditions. That actually is a reflection of the kind of care you recieve there. I suspect Canadians as a general rule make it a point to keep themselves in better shape than do Americans for the simple reason that they know if they get sick they will not be well looked after by the government run health care system that you have. I mean even with the much healther lifestyles that Canadians lead, the best your system can manage to give you is two additional years. If more Americans made it a point to stay healthy and fit and we retained our curent health care system you can bet we would be living much longer than Canadians on average.

I have family living in Canada, Ontario specifically, that wouldn't give up their health care system in favor of ours on a bet. I also have family living in Europe that was living and working in Ontario, for the Canadian subsidiaries of American firms. They relocated to Europe in a lateral transfer, rather than accept a promotion that meant moving to the U.S., specifically over health care and health insurance.

 

I also have a member of my extended family that, like me, was born here. When his parents passed away, and his two siblings moved away, he decided to cash out his retirement accounts, sell his house, and emigrate to Europe. Now his siblings have kids, and he'd like to come back come back to the U.S. (and play the part of the uncle who spoils those kids), but he won't because of how bad the health care situation has become since he moved in 2000, especially since he's now accustom to a government paid for single payer system.

 

I'm not saying I have any answers, and I'm not saying I'm a proponent of a Canadian style single payer system, but I am saying that our private based system has serious holes in it, and the costs have already risen, for state and local government, private businesses and individuals alike, way the fuck past "out of control".

[Mark B. Morrow]

Discussion of the Canadian or British health plans is a Red Herring. Nothing along those lines is even being considered for the U.S.

 

Even if everyone was permitted to join Medicare for basic healthcare, there would still be a market for supplemental private insurance just like there is with Medicare. The insurance would cover those who wanted more than the minimum and would likely be much less expensive since it would not have to cover routine basic needs.

 

The Public Option is for basic care. It is not the Cadillac Plan which would still be available and would be where private insurance would compete with the Public Option by offering more choices.

 

I repeat, We ARE NOT getting Canada's health plan.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Mark B. Morrow

[suv_guy_19]

I repeat, We ARE NOT getting Canada's health plan.

 

Just in case they missed it.

[Len_A]

Discussion of the Canadian or British health plans is a Red Herring. Nothing along those lines is even being considered for the U.S.

 

Even if everyone was permitted to join Medicare for basic healthcare, there would still be a market for supplemental private insurance just like there is with Medicare. The insurance would cover those who wanted more than the minimum and would likely be much less expensive since it would not have to cover routine basic needs.

 

The Public Option is for basic care. It is not the Cadillac Plan which would still be available and would be where private insurance would compete with the Public Option by offering more choices.

 

I repeat, We ARE NOT getting Canada's health plan.

Very true, on all counts. I'm merely pointing out that those people I know, and know very well, that are in that system, aren't bitching about it. And there would definitely be a private insurance system offering supplemental care.

[napfirst]

Discussion of the Canadian or British health plans is a Red Herring. Nothing along those lines is even being considered for the U.S.

 

Even if everyone was permitted to join Medicare for basic healthcare, there would still be a market for supplemental private insurance just like there is with Medicare. The insurance would cover those who wanted more than the minimum and would likely be much less expensive since it would not have to cover routine basic needs.

 

The Public Option is for basic care. It is not the Cadillac Plan which would still be available and would be where private insurance would compete with the Public Option by offering more choices.

 

I repeat, We ARE NOT getting Canada's health plan.

Wrong again......the current bill in the house, HR 3200, will morph into a single payer plan...by not allowing you to go to another private plan if you leave your current plan for any reason.....YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO TO THE GOVT. PLAN......over a period of years as young people change employers, as they often do, then as those in the private plans age and therefore use their insurance more, the private plans will be paying out more than they are taking in and therefore go out of business....and since nothing that the govt. runs has to show a profit, the private plans will not be able to compete...and then eventually we are asking ourselves..."what happened"

[napfirst]

Nap if you owned a company and wanted to upgrade your computer system in order to make the company more efficient, wouldn't you have to spend some money up front?

 

I don't like the lets spend money we don't have attitude that the current administration seems to have but if they can show a return on investment ........

How ironic Ron, I do own a small business...and I have at times upgrade equipment need to run the business...but I did it with a reasonable expectation that I would see a return on that investment....we have no such expectations when the govt. spends OUR money......the govt. is not a business, it's not run like a business and it never will be ......their HC proposal will never have to show a profit.....they jsut run a deficit and come back to the taxpayers for more money.....you know, like the postal service in the end private HC insurance companies will be unable to compete and die.......

[grbeck]

Thanks for sharing. I wish more people would educate themselves about our current broken health care system before shouting Fox News talking points at their Senators & Representatives. We need reform & need it now. I am disappointed that the public option may not pass, but I hope they pass a bill that does enough to make a difference. My biggest fear is that it doesn't go far enough therefore making it fail and have all these people that were yelling "I don't want Obamacare" & "I don't want government in my Medicare" saying, "I told you it wouldn't work".

 

People really have no clue do they: LINK - Keep Your Goddamn Government Hands Off My Medicare!

 

A fair reading of Mr. Greene's post shows that the many problems of the current system have their roots in government intervention in the current system. I'm not seeing how more of the same will necessarily bring about the change people say that they want - lower overall costs with universal coverage that provides everyone with a gold-plated benefit package. That is what many people who advocate a single-payer system, or even the more nebulous "health care reform," expect.

 

And many of us are educated about the real problem. For example, many of us realize that focusing on the imaginary "excessive" profits of insurance companies as the root of current problems is misleading and uninformed.

[Ralph Greene]

I believe you could make significant changes in the current system that would make it much more fair.

 

The problem I see is.....how do you pay for the additional 40+ million the administration wants to add to the insured.

 

I want change and reform, but I don't see how savings in current system can come close to paying for the new insured. So....why not just admit taxes will have to increase to pay for that.....if adding those folks to the list of insured is what the people of US want. Or is this a function of our Government....to provide health care for all? I'm mostly an Obama fan, but why mislead the people about what this costs.

 

I think the reason the administration wants a public option is they see this as only way to force prices down in the private sector. If they give up on that (and it looks like they are), then they lose their leverage for cost reduction. I really don't think they have any ulterior social motives like some fear.

 

I see current situation as two problems. (1) How to make current system more equitable and perhaps lower some premiums, and (2) how do you pay for insuring the currently uninsured. Does thinking this way make me a socialist liberal?

Edited August 19, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[napfirst]

I believe you could make significant changes in the current system that would make it much more fair.

 

The problem I see is.....how do you pay for the additional 40+ million the administration wants to add to the insured.

 

I want change and reform, but I don't see how savings in current system can come close to paying for the new insured. So....why not just admit taxes will have to increase to pay for that.....if adding those folks to the list of insured is what the people of US want. Or is this a function of our Government....to provide health care for all? I'm mostly an Obama fan, but why mislead the people about what this costs.

 

I think the reason the administration wants a public option is they see this as only way to force prices down in the private sector. If they give up on that (and it looks like they are), then they lose their leverage for cost reduction. I really don't think they have any ulterior social motives like some fear.

 

I see current situation as two problems. (1) How to make current system more equitable and perhaps lower some premiums, and (2) how do you pay for insuring the currently uninsured. Does thinking this way make me a socialist liberal?

Ralph I don't think you are a socialist, however I'm not sure where this notion, held by many, comes from...that the rest of us somehow are responsible for the uninsured......there are many millions of people between the ages of 18 and 29 who choose not to be insured.......rather spend it on boats, ski vacation, cruises, race cars..... etc...that's their choice, they can live with it....I'm sure like me, you have made sacrifices throughout your life to be a responsible father, husband and citizen......there are currently people who are eligible for medicad but don't take advantage of it for whatever reason......I agree reform needs to take place, but KEEP THE GOVT. OUT OF IT......they have a poor track record

[Ralph Greene]

Ralph I don't think you are a socialist, however I'm not sure where this notion, held by many, comes from...that the rest of us somehow are responsible for the uninsured......there are many millions of people between the ages of 18 and 29 who choose not to be insured.......rather spend it on boats, ski vacation, cruises, race cars..... etc...that's their choice, they can live with it....I'm sure like me, you have made sacrifices throughout your life to be a responsible father, husband and citizen......there are currently people who are eligible for medicad but don't take advantage of it for whatever reason......I agree reform needs to take place, but KEEP THE GOVT. OUT OF IT......they have a poor track record

 

Based on my above posts....you may have difficulty believing I also don't think it's a proper function of government to provide many of the social services currently provided.

 

However....I've been outvoted on these issues for years....and the people have spoken I think....they want these social services.

 

So now my view is....fine....if the public wants them...lets figure out a way to make them equitable for all....and figure out a way to pay for them. I've given up on fighting againt them, now I'm shifting my voice to "if you want these services, lets pay for them". The US can exist just fine with a few more social services for it's people. But it can't exist indefinately running huge deficits. And I'm aware of how current deficit not a huge amount of our GDP, etc as some say who think deficits nothing to worry about. I think we need a US budget that pays for what citizens want, maybe runs a small suplus so as to "store some nuts for the winter", and begins to pay back some of our debt. That may mean a different tax structure.

 

Why do we not have a sovereign fund from surpluses that invests in the assets of other countries like some of other countries have? Look at Norway? Middle East countries? Etc.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[fmccap]

WIRE: 'Impromptu Obamanomics getting scarier by the day'...

The proliferation of Obama’s gaffes and non sequiturs on health care has exceeded the allowable limit. He has failed repeatedly to explain how the government will provide more (health care) for less (money). He has failed to explain why increased demand for medical services without a concomitant increase in supply won’t lead to rationing by government bureaucrats as opposed to the market. And he has failed to explain why a Medicare-like model is desirable when Medicare itself is going broke.

The public is left with one of two unsettling conclusions: Either the president doesn’t understand the health-insurance reform plans working their way through Congress, or he understands both the plans and the implications and is being untruthful about the impact.

 

Neither option is good; ignorance is clearly preferable to the alternative.

[Mark B. Morrow]

Wrong again......the current bill in the house, HR 3200, will morph into a single payer plan...by not allowing you to go to another private plan if you leave your current plan for any reason.....YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO TO THE GOVT. PLAN......over a period of years as young people change employers, as they often do, then as those in the private plans age and therefore use their insurance more, the private plans will be paying out more than they are taking in and therefore go out of business....and since nothing that the govt. runs has to show a profit, the private plans will not be able to compete...and then eventually we are asking ourselves..."what happened"

 

 

WRONG AGAIN

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-fal...ut-health-care/

 

False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal

 

In July, Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial in which it claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with individually purchased coverage don’t have to give up that coverage unless they want to.

 

Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn’t forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange.

 

"Private Insurance Not Outlawed" Aug. 13

[Len_A]

Ralph I don't think you are a socialist, however I'm not sure where this notion, held by many, comes from...that the rest of us somehow are responsible for the uninsured......there are many millions of people between the ages of 18 and 29 who choose not to be insured.......rather spend it on boats, ski vacation, cruises, race cars..... etc...that's their choice, they can live with it....I'm sure like me, you have made sacrifices throughout your life to be a responsible father, husband and citizen......there are currently people who are eligible for medicad but don't take advantage of it for whatever reason......I agree reform needs to take place, but KEEP THE GOVT. OUT OF IT......they have a poor track record

In a way, napfirst, we already are responsible for them. These are among the people who end up at the public hospitals when they get sick enough or get injured, and as such, we as taxpayers end up footing the bill. Plus, as responsible citizens who do make an effort to be insured, you and I pay a portion of our premiums for the cost shifting the health care system does, in response to taking care of the uninsured.

 

So, nappy, you & I may not want to be responsible for the uninsured, but we're getting stuck with the bill one way or the other.

[mikem12]

All taxpayers are already paying for it. All insured are already paying for it. We need reform to save money. Investment now in reform will pay for itself later.

 

 

If we are already paying for it why in the hell will it cost an additional 1 trillion dollars???

[napfirst]

Based on my above posts....you may have difficulty believing I also don't think it's a proper function of government to provide many of the social services currently provided.

 

However....I've been outvoted on these issues for years....and the people have spoken I think....they want these social services.

 

So now my view is....fine....if the public wants them...lets figure out a way to make them equitable for all....and figure out a way to pay for them. I've given up on fighting againt them, now I'm shifting my voice to "if you want these services, lets pay for them". The US can exist just fine with a few more social services for it's people. But it can't exist indefinately running huge deficits. And I'm aware of how current deficit not a huge amount of our GDP, etc as some say who think deficits nothing to worry about. I think we need a US budget that pays for what citizens want, maybe runs a small suplus so as to "store some nuts for the winter", and begins to pay back some of our debt. That may mean a different tax structure.

 

Why do we not have a sovereign fund from surpluses that invests in the assets of other countries like some of other countries have? Look at Norway? Middle East countries? Etc.

Polls lately have indicated that a majority of American DON'T want the govt. in their HC......so I'm not sure what makes you think they do...

[napfirst]

If we are already paying for it why in the hell will it cost an additional 1 trillion dollars???

I continually ask this question whenever I see this response....but guess what, no one ever answers it...

[RaZor]

I’ve tried to stay out of these partisan discussions lately, but it is raining and I have a little time, so here are a couple of thoughts:

 

For those that do not think that we (esp those that have health insurance) are not paying for the uninsured to receive medical treatment . . . you’ve got to be kidding . . . or you are extremely thick.

 

First of all, hospitals (mostly trauma centers in large urban areas) are not allowed to not treat everyone – in cases of emergency. If one does not have HC ins, the numbers of doctors that will see them is extremely small (less than 1%). So they do not get any care – until the condition becomes an emergency and then they go (like Geo W said) to the emergency room at the hospital. ER’s are not cheap HC. In fact, they tend to be one of the most expensive places to get HC. So even though the average wait may be 12 – 14 hours in a ER, they get some HC. Without insurance, and if they cannot pay (illegals, unemployed, uninsured, etc), then the hospital either gets partial reimbursement from local governments (which in turn get funds from the state and eventually the Feds -- so one way or the other we taxpayers end up paying for their treatment) --- OR – they (the hospital) eat the cost and then increase their billings to insurance companies at the end of their year (for hte next year) – so those that have HC insurance get hit with increased premiums – as the insurance companies pass on those added costs (for services + unpaid costs) to you, the insured.

 

A similar parallel would everyone is probably aware that retail stores pass on the cost of shoplifting with price increases – to those that actually pay for their goods. That is not to say that people that cannot pay for HC at an ER are criminals (well the illegals are - simply by being here) – as crises happen to a lot of people beyond their control – the example is made for the passing on of costs. By the way, most people that have HC insurance are paying approx $700-$1,000 a year additionally in their HC insurance premium to pay for those that couldn’t pay for their HC at the ER. SO you pay: in increased taxes and increased premiums - for the most expensive HC treatment available because people w/o insurance cannot treatment otherwise.

 

So if we are already paying for it, why will it cost a trillion? First of all, that trillion is over 10 years – NOT 1 year. Right now private insurance companies waste $300 billion PER YEAR in excessive administrative (typically 30% or more) – so if you multiply that $300 billion times 10, what do you come up with? More than $1 trillion right? And that does not even get to the heart of the problem, which is use of the ER as a medical provider.

 

By the time people finally go to the ER, their condition is very much worse and the medical costs soar astronomically. It is much cheaper to have a program where then can go to a doctor (but again very few doctors will see you if you do not have insurance and neighborhood clinics are not available everywhere) and get an early alert and treatment for a fraction of cost - long before the eventual ER trip.

 

Let’s put this in automotive terms. You notice that your brakes are fading. If you get the pads replaced with news ones, you nip the problem in the bud. If you don’t, and just keep on driving, sooner or later those pads are going to wear down to nothing and then the rotors get gouged, warped, (etc) and instead of a rather inexpensive repair, now you are looking at a big repair. And if the brakes failed causing an accident – well, I shouldn’t have to go any further on an auto forum of what can happen then, should I? So which is cheaper? Replace the pads before they wear out – or, wait and go after they wear out?

 

So the bottom line is if everyone (including those twenty-somethings that think they are invincible and won’t get HC insurance) has HC insurance, then those ER visits dwindle to a trickle, people actually go to a doctor and get care before a condition gets out of hand. Well, that does leave out the illegals (as there are absolutely no provisions to make HC plans available to them in the reform – contrary to RW fear-mongering beliefs), but if you think about it, many of them will realize that they are going to stick out like sore thumbs if they go to an ER and may fear getting caught as illegal (all citizens and documented immigrants will essentially be able to obtain coverage of some sort) – some may even do the right thing and go home (or another country). But that is a different topic.

[Ralph Greene]

Polls lately have indicated that a majority of American DON'T want the govt. in their HC......so I'm not sure what makes you think they do...

 

Because of the popularity of Medicare and state run medicade programs. Which, BTW, run quite efficiently. I have Medicare, which I pay a premium for, and I can tell no difference in the Gov't bureauracy VS the Blue Cross bureauracy. Should Congress pass a single payer system based on Medicare (which they won't do and aren't talking about doing), it would be more efficient than a collection of private systems like we have now. Contrary to populist BS, Medicare is quite easy to deal with....and beats the Docs, labs, and drug companies down to real low costs. I have no complaints with them. BCBS is my secondary and primary for my family.....and they are not as easy to deal with as Medicare.

Edited August 19, 2009 by Ralph Greene

[NLPRacing]

Wrong again......the current bill in the house, HR 3200, will morph into a single payer plan...by not allowing you to go to another private plan if you leave your current plan for any reason.....YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO GO TO THE GOVT. PLAN......over a period of years as young people change employers, as they often do, then as those in the private plans age and therefore use their insurance more, the private plans will be paying out more than they are taking in and therefore go out of business....and since nothing that the govt. runs has to show a profit, the private plans will not be able to compete...and then eventually we are asking ourselves..."what happened"

 

 

WRONG AGAIN

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-fal...ut-health-care/

 

False: Private Insurance Will Be Illegal

 

In July, Investor’s Business Daily published an editorial in which it claimed that H.R. 3200 would make private insurance illegal. But IBD was mistaken. It was citing the part of the bill that ensures people with individually purchased coverage don’t have to give up that coverage unless they want to.

 

Under the House bill, people who want to buy new individual, nongroup coverage will have to purchase it through a new health insurance exchange. They can still buy private insurance – the exchange, in fact, would offer a range of private plans, in addition to a new federal health insurance option. However, those who were already buying their own insurance before the bill went into effect – about 14 million Americans – will have their plans grandfathered in. The part of the bill IBD cites doesn’t forbid insurers from issuing new plans. It says that new individual plans will not be considered grandfathered, and will have to be purchased through the exchange.

 

"Private Insurance Not Outlawed" Aug. 13

 

Mark, you beat me to it. So many lies being spread out there...

 

If we are already paying for it why in the hell will it cost an additional 1 trillion dollars???

 

That "1 Trillion Dollars" quote that keeps get thrown around is an estimate from the CBO over a 10 year period.

Link - US Healthcare Reform Estimated to Cost One Trillion Dollars

 

"Enacting the proposal would result in a net increase in federal budget deficits of about 1.0 trillion over the 2010-2019 period," the non-partisan CBO said in a letter to Senator Edward Kennedy, a Democratic stalwart who has spent much of his career pushing for an overhaul of the healthcare system.

 

That's $100,000,000,000.00 ($100 Billion) per year. Considering that Health Care (LINK - Facts on the Cost of Health Insurance and Health Care) is a $2,500,000,000,000.00 ($2.5 Trillion) industry, I'm willing to bet there is enough savings to be had to justify a $100 Billion taxpayer investment to lower costs.

[fmccap]

Because of the popularity of Medicare and state run medicade programs. Which, BTW, run quite efficiently.

Are you talking about the one that in reality is bankrupt?