Universal Healthcare Update

Even Insurance company executives say it won't reduce costs maporsche. Insurance companies have to negotiate fees with each facility. Increasing the number of facilities they have to negotiate with and monitor doesn't reduce the number of people they need to do that.

I've never heard that said. Which companies said that so I can investigate further.

maporsche, you have hit on precisely the point why private insurance company costs are so high AND WILL INEVITABLY REMAIN SO, and why single payer plans cost so much less. One set of fee schdules. Look at it from the other end too: doctors and hospitals who provide the services then have to bill fifteen or twentyu different insurers, each with a different set of forms to fill out and a different set of picky standards to judge them by and then fight them for reimbursements when they figure out a way to deny the expensive coverage (as has been amply documented that they so often do), which means they have to have a lot of people spending a lot of time figuring out how to negotiate those labyrinthingeprivate company bureacracies. And then of course, you've got theprivate medical insurers who make those mega million dollar payouts to ex-executives. MA congressman Ed Markey had one exec testifying before his committee, who made $80,000........ (wait for it)........ .....a day, which at about $8000 average cost per insured person in the US, means something like 3500 people are paying their premiums for nothing but his salary and bonuses. That case was a year or so ago. He's not the only guy slopping at the trough:

"How Can a $124.8 Million a Year CEO Make Health Care More Affordable?

An op-ed piece in the Providence Journal about huge pay packages for corporate CEOs mentioned the breath-taking $124.8 million total compensation of United Health Group (parent of United Healthcare) CEO William McGuire. This figure can also be found in the Forbes Special Report on CEO compensation. Here one can find that other managed care CEOs got less fabulous, but still formidable compensation, e.g., Howard Phanstiel, PacifiCare, 3.38 million; Edward Hanway, Cigna, $13.3 million; John Rowe, Aetna, $22.2 million; and Larry Glassrock, Wellpoint, $25.0 million.
McGuire's compensation was so large as to take a measurable part of this large company's net income (5%). "

You don't get those "administrative costs" in single-payer systems.

Just think of all the money insurance companies will save... They will have to pay considerably fewer employees to closely monitor people's health waiting to yank their insurance right before they need it.

Well, they don't have to remain so. I mean, why not just open up selling insurance across state lines (like Medicare) & eliminate the anti-trust exemption (which is by far the stupidest thing I learned over the last year).

I probably wouldn't bring you down to the administration costs of medicare (if the 5% figure is accurate), but it would put real downward pressure on insurance companies.

Selling insurance across state lines will probably happen, reform is a road not a wall.

I'm getting "book on tape" I'll listen to it while I'm at the gym or in the docs reception room.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/35997850#35994364

I see it that health insurance is not actually requiring citizens to "buy something" but more as a tax. A tax that collectively insures general health and welfare. Even though that tax takes on several forms it is still ultimately a tax. The states filing court cases against the bill will fail because the government does have a right to tax it citizens. If this health care premium is framed as a tax then it should fair in the courts. After all the government does have a right to tax its citizens.

I think most people are going to be happy with the current health reform legislation when they finally learn more about it, without some of the distortions and misinformation the floundering Republicans have been putting forth in an attempt to sway public opinion against it. It does have many benefits for consumers of medical care. Medicare recipients, for instance, will see an almost immediate improvement in their out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs because the "donut hole" in Medicare Part D coverage will be eliminated within the next year. Children with pre-existing medical conditions will be able to get health insurance. These are almost immediate gains which will affect significant numbers of people.

I think that getting some health care reform legislation passed was only the initial step, but it was a crucial step. As the public gets more comfortable with the idea of change in the health care system, I do think we will see some expansion of the government's role, which may well include a public option to compete with the private sector. I think that would be a necessary measure to hold down health care and premium costs. I also want Congress to give Medicare the authority to directly negotiate the prices of prescription drugs with the pharmaceutical companies--similar to what the V.A. currently does--because that would dramatically lower the cost of drugs, and this would ultimately affect all Americans, and not just Medicare recipients. The current, ever-rising prices for prescription drugs is nothing short of obscene. I agree with the idea of requiring insurance companies to spend at least 85% of what they collect in premiums on direct health care to patients. This will result in better health care and less denial of service. I agree with reimbursing physicians for delivering a specific treatment or comprehensive medical service, rather than requiring them to itemize every single component of an office visit. This will reduce costs and focus on actual treatment provided.

This bill is an initial step. I think most consumers will be happy with it. As time goes on, I think we may well see bolder steps and initiatives. Hopefully, we will arrive at a point where excellent health care is both affordable and available to everyone. I am more optimistic about that today than I was a week ago.

Can you really get the health care bill in audio form? If so where?

Does anyone know if dental fillings and crown work will be included in the medicare part of the bill? Currently I think medicare only pays for extractions. I personally find the best part of the bill that minorities will find health care more affordable and accessible. I am in hopes that was Obama's ulterior motive. Low income minorities often work in terrible jobs and are under insured. Yes I would like to see dental more affordable for myself but if minorities are given greater access to medical services then this is all worth it to me. In other words, minority access to health care is my main reason for supporting this bill.

As far as I know, the changes in Medicare will not include expanding dental care. It does include closing the prescription drug "donut hole", paying in full for preventive medical care, and limiting reimbursements to Medicare Advantage programs. Limiting the reimbursements to Medicare Advantage programs should result in substantial savings and cost effectiveness for the government.

Do you know firefly if the cap on dental insurance is raised in this bill? Many dental plans have a couple thousand dollars a year cap. Also one has to have the policy for X amount of months before one can use it.

Some predict this heath care issue is going to hurt democrats seeking reelection in November. Well, not from my perspective. It has solidified my commitment to vote for democrats in the November election and I was (as you all know) a staunch card carrying republican. I voted for McCain... Eeeek! Now I am literally sicked by the republicans and their bitter unpatriotic racist tea bag party. I am eager to see how my two republican senators from Maine vote on the upcoming revisions bill... This will decide if I will vote for them.

I sincerely wish now that I had supported Barrack Obama in his first election and I feel convinced for now that I will vote to reelect Obama for a second term.

For $2000 I'll read it and make an mp3 for you.

That would be one big mp3 file haha

No kidding.....probably a couple GBs. I'll split it up into chapters for you

Here in Maine Susan Collins writes:

“The new bill nearly triples the penalty " from $750 to $2,000 per employee-- on businesses that cannot afford to provide health coverage to their employees and applies the penalty to part-time as well as full-time workers. Worse, the penalty hits small businesses with 50 or more employees very hard " these businesses could face penalties of more than $40,000 if they add a single uncovered worker. This will not only discourage small businesses from hiring employees, but possibly encourage them to eliminate jobs. Even small businesses that provide coverage have to pay the $3000 penalty for each worker who declines coverage and purchases insurance through the exchange. This simply does not make sense. Here in Maine, more than 97 percent of employers are small businesses, and nearly 120,000 Mainers work for firms with fewer than 20 employees.

Comment: I think the purpose of the bill is to force employers to finally take care of their workers. If a company would pay 750 in fines, per worker, to deny a worker health care well then they should have enough money to buy them a plan...

It seems inconceivable that a company would opt to pay 750 in fines rather than simply care enough about their help to provide decent health care coverage. Also with 50 or more workers they should be able to get group rates too.

And what criteria would cause a worker to opt to buy their own insurance versus employer based insurance? Perhaps insurance that does not provide full coverage or family options?

Also, I would say that 40,000 dollars fines is certainly a deterrent to discourage a company from simply "fishing" for employees who already have health care. Am I missing something here?

You do realize that $750 in fines per year is a WHOLE lot less than what health insurance actually costs right? It'd be much much much cheaper to just pay the fine.