Healthcare Reform Bill Implodes

[Savetheplanet]

 

 

How you could post that

 

(and the majority of the voters) didn't want?

 

 

How could you post that? You guys are in the minority! The majority of voters want HCR. The majority of voters overwhelmingly chose Democrats in 06-08. and your little photo of Obama in your Avtar is funny, you guys love to talk about how he has to depend on a teleprompter, yet you forget that Obama had no problem handling McCain in the debates, or that he went up to the Republican retreat in Baltimore and handed them their collective ass on a platter!

[Len_A]

Are you freaking kidding me???!?!

 

How you could post that, and admit yourself it was "two different times", and still try and pass it off to make your point, is utterly and totally mind blowing. It was an idea, that he party realized wouldn't work.

 

Would you like to know all the things I thought were a great idea back in the 90's, only to now realize they weren't?

 

Why aren't you asking why the DNC thought this was a bad idea in the 90's, and now think it's a good one?

 

Keep shifting the attention away from the fact that the guy who promised to work with both sides of the political spectrum, lied his face off, and shoved through legislation that the other side (and the majority of the voters) didn't want?

 

People like you make me want to pull my hair out

Really? You'll look awfully funny with random bald patches on your head!!

 

If my memory is correct (and it may not be), the DNC in the 1990's were pushing for a single payer system. That's why they thought this was not the way to go. Deal with it.

 

As far as shifting attention, why don't you answer how anyone is supposed work both sides of the aisle with one side openly calling stopping you as your "Waterloo"? Remember last summers comment from Sen. Jim DeMint?

“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo, it will break him,” DeMint said.

You can hear it here:

 

If you're going to continue pulling your hair put, I suggest you find a real good topical anesthetic. It'll hurt less. Not much less, but it will help!

 

 

[Len_A]

A big factor is that this idea HAS been implemented in Massachusetts by a Republican - former Governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney. It is turning out to be far more expensive than originally forecast (sound familiar - this always happens with government health care programs) and is causing other, unintended side effects. So part of the opposition could very well be based on this key fact.

Unintended consequences is something I'm also afraid will happen with this bill. I'm not sure what the answer is anymore, aside from the fact the status quo was not something I favored.

[Len_A]

 

How you could post that, and admit yourself it was "two different times", and still try and pass it off to make your point, is utterly and totally mind blowing.

 

 

One other thing I forgot to say yesterday - "two different times" just means two different points in time, not a commentary on the political state of affairs at those points in time.

 

 

The fact that you would read more into those words, and then get yourself worked up in a lather is what's mind blowing. Calm the hell down, before you give yourself a heart attack.

[joihan777]

What was needed was healthcare insurance reform. It was immoral for unscrupulous insurance companies to cease coverage if a customer came down with a serious disease.

 

But, like car insurance, a bigger 'risk' should entail increased premiums but not cancellations. Common sense was lacking in this bill..... hopefully the public won't forget come November.

 

Also, I agree everyone should have healthcare insurance, just like every driver should have car insurance. However, people who choose 'not' to buy it should of doubled their existing payments into medicare, since most emergency visits for low income people are paid for by the fed anyway!

[mettech]

What was needed was healthcare insurance reform. It was immoral for unscrupulous insurance companies to cease coverage if a customer came down with a serious disease.

 

But, like car insurance, a bigger 'risk' should entail increased premiums but not cancellations. Common sense was lacking in this bill..... hopefully the public won't forget come November.

 

Also, I agree everyone should have healthcare insurance, just like every driver should have car insurance. However, people who choose 'not' to buy it should of doubled their existing payments into medicare, since most emergency visits for low income people are paid for by the fed anyway!

 

 

How much more should the premiums be?

 

With car insurance, a high risk driver can be deleted... If fully support that policy for the same reason I support that same policy for the health care system.

 

Why should I have to pay more for health insurance because of the fat, heavy drinking, smoking, poor diet lazy motherfuckers?

 

[jpd80]

How much more should the premiums be?

 

With car insurance, a high risk driver can be deleted... If fully support that policy for the same reason I support that same policy for the health care system.

 

Why should I have to pay more for health insurance because of the fat, heavy drinking, smoking, poor diet lazy motherfuckers?

 

 

Isn't funny that the people who really need health insurance are usually the ones not covered

and healthy members are the ones who go through life not claiming much until they get older...

[RangerM]

Isn't funny that the people who really need health insurance are usually the ones not covered

and healthy members are the ones who go through life not claiming much until they get older...

Insurance is something you get in case something bad happens. It's not something you (wait to) get after it already has.

[Len_A]

How much more should the premiums be?

 

With car insurance, a high risk driver can be deleted... If fully support that policy for the same reason I support that same policy for the health care system.

 

Why should I have to pay more for health insurance because of the fat, heavy drinking, smoking, poor diet lazy motherfuckers?

 

What I support is what one Michigan employer did a few years ago - if you're one of those fat, heavy drinking, smoking poor diet lazy motherfuckers, you pay a hefty surcharge on your health insurance. Yes, it smacks a bit of Big Brother, but since the way insurance works is that it's a pool of shared risk, those whose risky behavior jacks up the costs for the pool should pay for that behavior.

[Trimdingman]

What I support is what one Michigan employer did a few years ago - if you're one of those fat, heavy drinking, smoking poor diet lazy motherfuckers, you pay a hefty surcharge on your health insurance. Yes, it smacks a bit of Big Brother, but since the way insurance works is that it's a pool of shared risk, those whose risky behavior jacks up the costs for the pool should pay for that behavior.

 

 

If you are abusing your body and shortening your life span, and reducing the quality of your life; being short of cash is the least of your problems. Medication isn't going to be of much use to this individual anyway. Don't insure him, and if he has insurance, kick him off. Under socialized health care, with unlimited funding available from the taxpayer, doctors will see people such as this as potential gold mines.

Edited April 3, 2010 by Trimdingman

[rn4]

If you are abusing your body and shortening your life span, and reducing the quality of your life; being short of cash is the least of your problems. Medication isn't going to be of much use to this individual anyway. Don't insure him, and if he has insurance, kick him off. Under socialized health care, with unlimited funding available from the taxpayer, doctors will see people such as this as potential gold mines.

 

 

Who is going to determine that you are abusing your body?

[napfirst]

Who is going to determine that you are abusing your body?

That would be the "Body Abuse Czar"...or some of the 16000 new IRS agents.....

Edited April 4, 2010 by napfirst

[Mark B. Morrow]

How much more should the premiums be?

 

With car insurance, a high risk driver can be deleted... If fully support that policy for the same reason I support that same policy for the health care system.

 

Why should I have to pay more for health insurance because of the fat, heavy drinking, smoking, poor diet lazy motherfuckers?

 

 

The fact is that you and everyone who has health insurance ARE paying more for the uncovered and unpaid care given to the uninsured, including those "fat, heavy drinking, smoking, poor diet lazy motherfuckers". The people who have no coverage and no access to preventitive care show up in the emergency room when the situation becomes critical and more expensive to treat. We are all paying more now.

 

Despite his attempts to run away from the support for the nearly identical system he championed in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was right about the mandate for coverage, with subsidies where needed. Sometimes it seems that Romney isn't aware of the existence of video tape and YouTube. It should be an interesting campaign.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Mark B. Morrow

[Mark B. Morrow]

That would be the "Body Abuse Czar"...or some of the 16000 new IRS agents.....

 

 

Except that the claim of 16,500 new IRS agents is a lie concocted by a GOP policy group.

 

http://factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

[RangerM]

Except that the claim of 16,500 new IRS agents is a lie concocted by a GOP policy group.

 

http://factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

Regardless of the existence of 'new' IRS agents, the fact remains that there must be an agent of the government tasked with enforcing any penalty for failing to purchase a product from another private entity. (First time in history the Federal Government has attempted such a thing, as a prerequisite for merely being alive.)

 

If not the IRS, then who?

[napfirst]

The fact is that you and everyone who has health insurance ARE paying more for the uncovered and unpaid care given to the uninsured, including those "fat, heavy drinking, smoking, poor diet lazy motherfuckers". The people who have no coverage and no access to preventitive care show up in the emergency room when the situation becomes critical and more expensive to treat. We are all paying more now.

 

Despite his attempts to run away from the support for the nearly identical system he championed in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was right about the mandate for coverage, with subsidies where needed. Sometimes it seems that Romney isn't aware of the existence of video tape and YouTube. It should be an interesting campaign.

This is my favorite reason...."The people who have no coverage and no access to preventitive care show up in the emergency room when the situation becomes critical and more expensive to treat. We are all paying more now."

If this is true, why is it going to cost an additional $1 trillion.......?

[fmccap]

Despite his attempts to run away from the support for the nearly identical system he championed in Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was right about the mandate for coverage, with subsidies where needed. Sometimes it seems that Romney isn't aware of the existence of video tape and YouTube. It should be an interesting campaign.

Maybe he is doing that because it's not working there and now he knows it was a mistake.

[rn4]

Maybe he is doing that because it's not working there and now he knows it was a mistake.

 

 

Maybe it is just pure politics. Did you know that ole Mitt brought in tons of immigrants to,work the Salt Lake Olympics.

[RangerM]

Maybe he is doing that because it's not working there and now he knows it was a mistake.

Maybe it is just pure politics. Did you know that ole Mitt brought in tons of immigrants to,work the Salt Lake Olympics.

 

If there was ever a time when we need to observe the negative effects of the MA plan, it is now.

 

Health care hikes rejected - State tells insurers no on 235 plans for small groups

Making good on Governor Deval Patrick’s promise to reject health insurance rate increases deemed excessive, the state Division of Insurance yesterday denied 235 of 274 increases proposed by insurers for plans covering individuals and small businesses.

 

The rulings, following a review process set in motion by emergency regulations Patrick filed in February, mark the first time the state has used its authority to turn down health premium increases. The action immediately sent ripples through the state health care industry.

 

Insurers said it would usher in an era of price controls, and vowed to appeal to the state or through the courts — a process that could drag on for months.

 

“We share the concern about rising health costs, but we don’t think government price controls will solve the problem,’’ said Jay McQuaide, vice president at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state’s largest health insurer.

 

But small businesses applauded the rejection of higher premiums, saying they can’t continue to endure rapidly escalating insurance bills, especially after the long economic downturn.

 

“Costs will double in four years if it keeps going on the same trend,’’ said Dennis Franson, whose two-person investment firm in Woburn was facing an 18 percent rate increase. “That’s unsustainable.’’

 

Insurance Commissioner Joseph G. Murphy found that most of the base rates proposed by state health plans were “unreasonable relative to the benefits provided,’’ according to a statement issued by the agency.

 

The rates were to have taken effect yesterday for thousands of businesses and individuals in the so-called small group market. That group, created by the state’s 2006 universal health care law, combines businesses employing up to 50 people with sole proprietors and self-employed people who previously bought insurance on their own or were uninsured........

 

......For now, premium rates established last year remain in effect. Because insurers send out bills four to six weeks in advance of the date policies take effect, companies or individuals that already made the new, higher payments will receive a refund or a credit from insurers.

 

During a meeting with 10 small-business owners at Chelsea Clock Co. yesterday, Patrick said escalating health care costs have crippled many companies.

 

“For me this is all about jobs and creating conditions in which small businesses will start hiring,’’ he said. Patrick has also filed legislation that would allow regulators to review contracts between insurers and health care providers, and yesterday he called on hospitals and doctors to help control costs.......

 

........The Insurance Division, in letters to carriers, outlined reasons for the rate rejections. Among them were rate proposals that are significantly above the medical consumer price index — a consumer health care spending measure estimated at 4.8 percent — and proposals that failed to explain how insurers set different reimbursement rates.

 

Several proposals, including those from for-profit, out-of-state insurers such as Aetna, ConnectiCare, and United HealthCare, were approved after the companies worked with Insurance Division staffers on ways to reduce costs. Some of those approved called for increases above 4.8 percent, but insurers offered data justifying the increases, according to the state.

 

Insurers whose rates were rejected — most of which posted operating losses for 2009 due to job cuts at companies they sell plans to — received yesterday’s decision with anger.

 

“We’re very disappointed,’’ said McQuaide at Blue Cross-Blue Shield. “The rates we filed reflect expected medical costs of members buying our products. And we were surprised the disapprovals had no actuarial opinions, suggesting this was an arbitrary decision.’’

 

Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, said her group was weighing all administrative and legal options with its members, which include nonprofits such as Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Tufts Health Plan, and Fallon Community Health Plan.

 

“If we’re not going to be allowed to have our prices cover our costs, that will be a problem for the whole industry,’’ she said........

 

Until we get serious about reducing costs (as opposed to prices), and peoples' expectations that healthcare should/will be manna from heaven, we will see more of this in the future.

[mettech]

If there was ever a time when we need to observe the negative effects of the MA plan, it is now.

 

Health care hikes rejected - State tells insurers no on 235 plans for small groups

 

 

Until we get serious about reducing costs (as opposed to prices), and peoples' expectations that healthcare should/will be manna from heaven, we will see more of this in the future.

 

 

Much of the cost is due to labor rates. The high cost of teachers, school loans, doctor' s wages, doctor's operating office overhead (nurses, admin, utilities, facility, insurance).

 

Very few speak about the "out-of-control" school tuition increases... that makes the student borrow more... and is passed on to the customers....

 

The insurance companies are the easy targets and scape goats that everyone likes to hate and blame.

 

Insurance companies are just the tip of the "iceberg".

 

 

The only true way to control health care is to control the consumer and to ration out health care services.

 

And/Or,.... control the wages of everyone involved in the health care chain.

[RangerM]

Much of the cost is due to labor rates. The high cost of teachers, school loans, doctor' s wages, doctor's operating office overhead (nurses, admin, utilities, facility, insurance).

 

The only true way to control health care is to control the consumer and to ration out health care services.

 

And/Or,.... control the wages of everyone involved in the health care chain.

Costs are costs, be they labor, overhead, etc. They must be covered in order to provide the service, or the service will not be provided.

 

If the government rations, then people will live or die at the hands of their peers and outside of their ability to control their own destiny.

 

If government attempts to control wages, then people will refuse to do the work, or like in the case of CEO pay, compensation will be made other ways, and costs will not be controlled.

 

I'd really like to see a study on that statistic (that labor is the greatest component of healthcare costs).

 

Could you provide one, please?

Edited April 5, 2010 by RangerM

[mettech]

Costs are costs, be they labor, overhead, etc. They must be covered in order to provide the service, or the service will not be provided.

 

If the government rations, then people will live or die at the hands of their peers and outside of their ability to control their own destiny.

 

If government attempts to control wages, then people will refuse to do the work, or like in the case of CEO pay, compensation will be made other ways, and costs will not be controlled.

 

I'd really like to see a study on that statistic (that labor is the greatest component of healthcare costs).

 

Could you provide one, please?

 

 

ABC

 

"...A recent American Hospital Association survey of its members suggests that labor costs were the largest component of hospital expenditures from 2004-2008. But that’s a red herring, since spending on high-tech medical equipment is a far more significant driver of healthcare costs...."

As noted above, the labor cost is a "red herring" because spending on high-tech medical equipment is the significant driver of healthcare cost...

 

Now go find what the labor market cost is for the people that make the high-tech medical equipment and medications....

 

Every pill, every piece of equipment in the hospital or doctors office was invented, tested and made by.... people...

 

Every Doctor had a teacher... For a school to get the best..or even adequate teacher, they have to pay excellent wages... those wages are passed on to the student doctor, who has to get a loan from the bank, and he passes that cost on to his customers when he gets out of med school.

 

For a pill or equipment company to be a leader, they need to get the best people to work for them... That company must pay more for the best engineers, scientist, chemists, testing, and marketing.

 

AHA

 

"...The single most important factor driving up costs was labor, accounting for about 35% of overall growth. Labor was also responsible for more than half of the growth in the costs of purchased goods and services, according to the data in the report that was obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the AHA ..."

 

Again... Insurance companies are the easy target.... but they do employ the guy that lives down the street too.

[grbeck]

The fact is that you and everyone who has health insurance ARE paying more for the uncovered and unpaid care given to the uninsured, including those "fat, heavy drinking, smoking, poor diet lazy motherfuckers". The people who have no coverage and no access to preventitive care show up in the emergency room when the situation becomes critical and more expensive to treat. We are all paying more now.

 

This has been studied in Pennsylvania...the idea that health care costs will be lower because people will stop turning to the emergeny room at the last moment is not true. The ballyhooed cost savings will not result.

 

If lower income go to the doctor on a regular basis, they will be pushing up health care costs through increased use (which will still require a government subsidy - they won't be paying out of their own pocket to visit the doctor, just as than they are not now paying out of their own pocket for emergency room visits).

 

The idea that those fat, heavy, drinking, smoking, poor-diet people will reform their behaviors because of regular access to health care (paid for by taxpayers) is another fantasy. They will continue in their current behaviors, and we will still be picking up the tab for the resulting conditions and illnesses. Unless the government is now going to tell us what to eat, whether to smoke and how often to exercise.

 

In this day and age, virtually everyone knows what activities promote good health, and which ones detract from it. Many people simply choose not to follow good health practices, for a variety of reasons - it's too much work to prepare nutritious meals; exercising takes time and effort to really work; those negative behaviors are pleasurable (smoking, eating too much, watching television instead of exercising, etc.).

[RangerM]

Now go find what the labor market cost is for the people that make the high-tech medical equipment and medications....

 

Every pill, every piece of equipment in the hospital or doctors office was invented, tested and made by.... people...

 

Every Doctor had a teacher... For a school to get the best..or even adequate teacher, they have to pay excellent wages... those wages are passed on to the student doctor, who has to get a loan from the bank, and he passes that cost on to his customers when he gets out of med school.

 

For a pill or equipment company to be a leader, they need to get the best people to work for them... That company must pay more for the best engineers, scientist, chemists, testing, and marketing.

 

AHA

 

"...The single most important factor driving up costs was labor, accounting for about 35% of overall growth. Labor was also responsible for more than half of the growth in the costs of purchased goods and services, according to the data in the report that was obtained from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and the AHA ..."

 

Again... Insurance companies are the easy target.... but they do employ the guy that lives down the street too.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what your point is here, or if you're trying to make one. You said earlier, that we should control the consumer and ration care, using labor (ie people) as the primary driver behind decreasing healthcare costs.

 

I agree that if you go back far enough in the production of anything (commodity, "widget", service), ultimately labor will be the (overall) largest cost. But that is true for everything, and not special to healthcare.

 

Are you saying that labor costs (wages) should be controlled for the healthcare industry only, so people who aren't in the healthcare industry can afford it? Why?

 

The laws of economics don't get thrown out simply because a commodity may be "required" for human well-being. If that were true, then other basics of survival would follow the same trend (food, shelter, etc.) As far as I can tell, the "needs" that have the greatest costs are those with the greatest level of government involvment. Example: Illegal drugs. In this case, "illegal" would be the pinnacle of rationing.

 

Supply vs. demand still holds true. The supply of MRIs and MRI technicians is relatively low, compared to the population at large, and that relative scarcity (along with public demand) would explain its expense. An X-ray on the other hand, being commonplace, is cheap. Not as revealing from a diagnostic standpoint, but cheap.

 

If you want people to be able to pay for their own healthcare, you have to establish the economic conditions that provide the types of employment to generate the means. (Of course, the people must also be willing to do the work.) Otherwise, you will have to extort from those who have it.

Edited April 6, 2010 by RangerM

[Cocheese]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/thousands-of-children-facing-unacceptable-wait-times-for-surgery/article1608469/

 

 

But, but, but, it's free!!!

 

A buddy of mine, who blew out his knee in October playing hockey, finally saw the specialist this week to have it looked at. The doc said surgery was needed, and now he is back on the waiting list. Best case scenario is, it will be over 2 years from the time it happened, to the time he is healthy again.

 

To my US friends, you better hope Obamacare doesn't get through. It is a disaster waiting to happen