RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 06:37 pm
@maporsche,
I think that is the whole point in raising the fine. If employers simply just pay the fine then workers never get insurance. Obama talks about subsidies in the bill to help small business that start immediately in the first year how much do these subsidies add up to?
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 06:44 pm
@RexRed,
Even $2000 is cheaper than most all polices, especially family policies. My employer pays almost $8,000 for my coverage, me alone.

I could see a significant number of employers simply pay the fine. Most will likely get their employees coverage though; but at the expense of raises and/or cost increases for goods/services they produce.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 06:53 pm
@RexRed,
I don't think you can expect any expanded dental coverage, RexReed

Quote:
Does Medicare Cover Dental Procedures?

Currently, Medicare coverage of dental services is very limited. Medicare does not cover routine dental care or most dental procedures such as cleanings, fillings, tooth extractions or dentures. Medicare does not pay for dental plates or other dental devices. In general, you pay for 100% of dental services.


Section 1862 (a)(12) of the Social Security Act states in partial that Medicare will not cover dental care, "where such expenses are for services in connection with the care, treatment, filling, removal, or replacement of teeth or structures directly supporting teeth.” Structures directly supporting the teeth means the periodontium, which includes the gingivae, periodontal membrane, dentogingival junction, cementum of the teeth, and the alveolar bone (i.e. alveolar process and tooth sockets).

The dental exclusion was included as part of the initial Medicare program. The principle being that Coverage is not determined by the value or the necessity of the dental care but by the type of service provided and the anatomical structure on which the procedure is performed.



Quote:
Overview
Currently, Medicare will pay for dental services that are an integral part either of a covered procedure (e.g., reconstruction of the jaw following accidental injury), or for extractions done in preparation for radiation treatment for neoplastic diseases involving the jaw. Medicare will also make payment for oral examinations, but not treatment, preceding kidney transplantation or heart valve replacement, under certain circumstances. Such examination would be covered under Part A if performed by a dentist on the hospital's staff or under Part B if performed by a physician.

Statutory Dental Exclusion

Section 1862 (a)(12) of the Social Security Act states, "where such expenses are for services in connection with the care, treatment, filling, removal, or replacement of teeth or structures directly supporting teeth, except that payment may be made under part A in the case of inpatient hospital services in connection with the provision of such dental services if the individual, because of his underlying medical condition and clinical status or because of the severity of the dental procedure, requires hospitalization in connection with the provision of such services."

Overview
Currently, Medicare will pay for dental services that are an integral part either of a covered procedure (e.g., reconstruction of the jaw following accidental injury), or for extractions done in preparation for radiation treatment for neoplastic diseases involving the jaw. Medicare will also make payment for oral examinations, but not treatment, preceding kidney transplantation or heart valve replacement, under certain circumstances. Such examination would be covered under Part A if performed by a dentist on the hospital's staff or under Part B if performed by a physician.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareDentalCoverage/


Some Medicare Advantage Plans, from private insurers, do currently offer some dental insurance as a benefit. It is not clear how this coverage might be affected by the proposed lower reimbursements to these Medicare Advantage plans, although the lower reimbursements will be gradually phased in to avoid disrupting current patients. Some patients may eventually see the premiums for their dental coverage raised, while some Medicare Advantage insurers may just drop the benefit.

Quote:
The reconciliation bill lowers payments to insurers through Medicare Advantage. In this program, instead of reimbursing healthcare providers directly, the government hires insurance companies to provide coverage for Medicare beneficiaries. These insurers sometimes provide benefits that are not normally part of Medicare, such as dental insurance. Currently the government pays about 14% more to these companies than it would have paid through conventional Medicare. The reconciliation bill would lower these payments to 95% of Medicare spending in areas where conventional Medicare payments are high and 115% where the payments are low.
http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.asp?sec=ser&sub=def&pag=dis&ItemID=304180


So I doubt that the Medicare Advantage plans will increase the cap on dental insurance, and some might not even offer dental coverage a few years from now. But these are decisions made by private insurance companies and not by the government.

The biggest benficiaries, in terms of dental care, in the new health care legislation, will be children. The bill aims to provide some dental coverage for every child in the country. That's a sweeping improvement.

gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 07:07 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
So where do I sign up?


If it's like most demoKKKrat programs, you don't sign up; you bend over...
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 07:12 pm
@RexRed,
Quote:
Would Jesus vote for the health care bill? YES...


I can't claim to speak for Jesus...

But I don't picture him being easily drafted into service to a gangland operation like the demoKKKrat party. He didn't seem to like gangsterism generally:

Quote:
12 And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

13 And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.


RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 07:24 pm
@firefly,
Thanks for the info on dental care Firefly Smile
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 07:58 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:

I can't claim to speak for Jesus...

But I don't picture him being easily drafted into service to a gangland operation like the demoKKKrat party. He didn't seem to like gangsterism generally:

It wasn't gangland operation when the repugs were ramming their big business get filthy stinking rich policies on the US? Your racist slant on the truth is oblivious to the fact that after you obstructionist tea bags are done using the n word, spitting on people and calling people fa&s, millions of citizens would still be without health care... And you believe Jesus thinks a rich man will get to heaven?

Luke 18:25 KJV
For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 08:38 pm
@RexRed,
I've looked for ways to love the republican party and have yet to find one; but I don't get this absolute sense of loathing from pubbies which I do from dems.

Pubbies generally represent the middle class, which is most of everybody shouldering the basic loads of the US, and there are generally three or four recognizable groups of pubbies i.e. an old money group which you seem to worry about, the religious right, a populist group which I relate to and with representatives like Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Bobby Jindal et. al., and then everybody else who can't stand the dems with their racism and gangsterism.
gungasnake
 
  2  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 09:45 pm
One thing which is easy to lose sight or or totally miss when making false comparisons between the US and other places, other times:

The economic activity of the rich could not drive an economy the size of ours; this is basically a middle class country. This latest goofball stunt of Oinkbama's is not an assault on the rich, it is an assault on the American middle class, which wanted no part of it. And the dems are going to start feeling some of the pain next November.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 09:46 pm
@gungasnake,

With me, its just that the GOP is the more libertarian, more pro-Individualist of the 2 parties.





David
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 09:53 pm
@gungasnake,
I don't see how you can equate health care for all as an assault. The radical right are the ones clinging to their guns... Libertarian visits to emergency rooms seem to take more out of the pockets of middle class via taxes than anything else.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 10:03 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
the dems are going to start feeling some of the pain next November.
I promise to vote against them as well as possible.





David
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 10:13 pm
Once again, David, single-payer health plan countries, based on fifty years of real world experience, have higher life expectancies, better public health metrics like infant mortality, better doctor-patient ratios, administrative costs around 75% lower, AND cost around half as much per pperson as the US system, and consume a smaller fraction of GDP, while covering EVERYONE. If you are so self-centered that you feel like screwing over your fellow citizens, David, go ahead and do so. Don't expect praise for it.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 10:53 pm
@MontereyJack,
Obvious problems...

First is the fact that all I ever read or hear about single payer systems is horror stories, particularly coming out of Canada and England.

Second is the fact that there is at least one elephant-in-living-room kind of problem in this picture which is the relationship between the dems and the trial lawyers; tort reform is clearly the biggest single thing anybody could do to reduce medical costs and which nobody talks about.

In fact nobody is talking about doing anything at all to reduce costs; all anybody seems to be talking about is govt. expropriation of the entire medical industry and taking more money from the middle class to provide not only for dem voting blocks but, as many fear, for illegal aliens as well, whom the US owes precisely nothing.

I say again, a rational health reform would be very simple and would resemble the present debacle in no way, shape, or manner and would almost certainly provide for everybody to a greater extent than the **** we've been hearing about. There would be only four main points:

1. Elimination of lawsuits against doctors and other medical providers. There would be a general fund to compensate victims of malpractice for actual damage and a non-inbred system for weeding out those guilty of malpractice.

2. Elimination of the artificial exclusivity of the medical system. In other words our medical schools could easily produce two or three times the number of doctors they do with no noticeable drop off in quality.

3. Elimination of the various games which drive the cost of medicines towards unaffordability.

4. Elimination of the outmoded WW-II notion of triage in favor of a system which took some rational account of who pays for the system and who doesn't. The horror stories I keep reading about the middle-class guy with an injured child having to fill out forms for three hours while an endless procession of illegal immigrants just walks in and are seen, would end, as would any possibility of that child waiting three hours for treatment while people were being seen for heroin overdoses.

MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 11:00 pm
Look at the numbers, gunga. There are a lot of them. Single-payer comes off better. Single-payer has higher patient satisfaction. Talk to some of the single-payer citizens on a2k. Pretty much all of them regard us with pity, not envy.

Malpractice suits have been steadily declining. Malpractice awards and malpractice insurance together account for much less than 1% of healthcare costs in the US. In this era of double digit increases in premiums each year, even completely doing away with malpractice suits just isn't going to do much.

Your points 2 and 3 are good ones (at least if I'm interpreting correctly what you mean by 3)
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 11:11 pm
4. Why did the dad have to fill out all those forms? Try the insurance companies, gunga. Any hospital I've ever been in would treat the girl simultaneously with the dad filling out the forms. ERs, also, are a special case, there are unpredictable periods when far more people come in than can be treated immediately, and you know you'd damn well bitch at the expense if there were a dozen doctors just sitting around all the time when three are enough,so that they'd be there during the two hours a month they might all be needed. We have no idea how the little girl was injured--for all you know she just fell off her bike. If someone is likely to die, even if they did it to themselves, like a heroin overdose, the humanitarian thing, not to mention the Hippocratic thing, is to treat them first before somebody who's not in imminent danger of death, if resources are limited. That's the danger of anecdotal examples, gunga, you have no idea of what a lot of the relevant facts are.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Mar, 2010 11:16 pm
-and further on 2, have you noticed, gunga, that single -payer countries have fewer patients per doctor than we do? They do, you know.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 04:51 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Once again, David, single-payer health plan countries, based on fifty years of real world experience, have higher life expectancies, better public health metrics like infant mortality, better doctor-patient ratios, administrative costs around 75% lower, AND cost around half as much per pperson as the US system, and consume a smaller fraction of GDP, while covering EVERYONE. If you are so self-centered that you feel like screwing over your fellow citizens, David, go ahead and do so. Don't expect praise for it.
Jack, during the entirety of my life,
I do not remember ever doing anything expecting "praise for it".
That has always been a matter of indifference, devoid of value.





David
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:19 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Look at the numbers, gunga. There are a lot of them.


Do your numbers include the costs of all the body bags and funerals?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article7052606.ece

Quote:
DAMNING reports on the state of the National Health Service, suppressed by the government, reveal how patients’ needs have been neglected.

They diagnose a blind pursuit of political and managerial targets as the root cause of a string of hospital scandals that have cost thousands of lives.

The harsh verdict on the state of the NHS, after a spending splurge under Labour between 2000 and 2008, raises worrying questions about the future quality of the health service as budgets are squeezed.

One report, based on the advice of almost 200 top managers and doctors, says hospitals ignored basic hygiene to cram in patients to meet waiting-time targets.

“Managers crowded in patients in order to meet waiting-time targets and, in the process, lost sight of the fundamental hygiene requirements for infection prevention,” the report stated.

There were subsequent failings at health trusts in Basildon in Essex, and Mid Staffordshire. Filthy wards and nurse shortages led to up to 1,200 deaths at Stafford hospital.

Lord Darzi, the former health minister, commissioned the three reports from international consultancies to assess the progress of the NHS as it approached its 60th anniversary in 2008. They have come to light after a freedom of information request.

The first report, by the Massachusetts-based Institute for Healthcare Improvements (IHI), identified the neglect of patients as a serious obstacle to improving the NHS. “The lack of a prominent focus on patients’ interests and needs ... represents a significant barrier to shifting the trajectory of quality improvement in the NHS.”

One heading in the report says: “The patient doesn’t seem to be in the picture.” It adds: “We were struck by the virtual absence of mention of patients and families ... whether we were discussing aims and ambition for improvement, measurement of progress or any other topic relevant to quality.

“Most targets and standards appear to be defined in professional, organisational and political terms, not in terms of patients’ experience of care.”

This weekend it emerged the recommendations of the reports, intended to help the NHS improve, have not even been circulated.

The stark assessments, collected from leading NHS clinicians and managers, include:

A damaging rift between doctors and managers: “The GP and consultant contracts are de-professionalising, and have had the peculiar effect of simultaneously demoralising and enriching doctors. We’ve lost the volitional work of the doctors and far too many of us are now just working to rule.”

Pointless new structures. “Stop the restructurings. The only thing they generate is redundancy payments.” One body responsible for improving standards reported to five different ministers and had three different names in the space of 30 months.

A culture of fear and slavish compliance. “The risk of consequences to managers is much greater for not meeting expectations from above than for not meeting expectations of patients and families.”

The IHI report, whose interviewees included Lord Crisp, chief executive of the NHS between 2000 and 2006, also described a system of self-assessment where only 4% of trusts are externally inspected.

A similar picture emerges in the second report, by the US-based Joint Commission International. It says the “quality and integrity of [NHS]performance data is suspect”.

Dennis O’Leary, its lead author and an international expert on patient safety and improvement, said it was not intended as an exposé but as a series of useful suggestions for change.

“Our instructions were to pull no punches and tell it like it was, but the report wasn’t overstated,” he said. “It was how we saw things based on interviews with more than 50 people.”

The third report, by the US-based Rand Corporation, expresses surprise at the lack of a requirement to identify the specific drug involved when patient accidents are reported.

In 2008 Darzi issued his own blueprint for the future of the NHS, High Quality Care for All, but resigned from the government last July to return to his surgical commitments.

Last week he said: “The NHS is continuing a journey of improvements, moving from a service that has rightly focused on increasing the quantity of care to one that focuses on improving the quality of care.

“High Quality Care for All has gone to every NHS organisation in the country where it is being implemented to ensure that the NHS delivers safe and effective treatment every time, with our patients being treated with compassion, dignity and respect when in our care." A Department of Health spokesman maintained that the three reports were never intended for “wider circulation” and said they were extensively discussed by experts advising Darzi on the production of his report.

However, Brian Jarman, emeritus professor at Imperial College London and an expert in hospital standards, said the findings should have been made available to Robert Francis QC, who led the inquiry into the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

He said: “These reports have never seen the light of day. We desperately need a better monitoring system for the NHS which actually works.”

0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Mar, 2010 07:23 am
Here's a case of a victim of NHS who would have been better off being killed by a lion or crocodile. Less painfull...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255858/Neglected-lazy-nurses-Kane-Gorny-22-dying-thirst-rang-police-beg-water.html

Quote:
A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital.

Kane Gorny was so desperate for a drink that he rang police to beg for their help.

They arrived on the ward only to be told by doctors that everything was under control.

The next day his mother Rita Cronin found him delirious and he died within hours.

She said nurses had failed to give him vital drugs which controlled fluid levels in his body. 'He was totally dependent on the nurses to help him and they totally betrayed him.'


0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 11:26:00