65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 08:02 am
@Debra Law,
okie's creative mind has no bounds for imagination that goes beyond reality. He's a lost cause.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 08:53 am
Quote:
Your fear that undocumented aliens will get free healthcare through HR 3200 is wholly without merit.


So undocumented aliens will not get free healthcare under Obama's plan? That seems to be what you are saying, but I just want to make sure that is the claim you are making.

Because I don't believe that will be the case. Simply put, if an illegal alien shows up at a hospital in an emergency situation, does Obama's plan mean the hospital can refuse to treat them? Or what if, as I think I read elsewhere, the illegal alien has somehow purchased insurance through Obama's public option scenerio. Aren't we, as taxpayers, still paying for the medical service when the government pays out on the policy?

Now I could be all wrong because admittedly, like our Congressional representatives, I've not read the entire proposal. So please feel free to correct me if my above assuptions are incorrect because I would really like to know as much as possible about Obama's plan before jumping on or off the bandwagon.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:15 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
Your fear that undocumented aliens will get free healthcare through HR 3200 is wholly without merit.


So undocumented aliens will not get free healthcare under Obama's plan? That seems to be what you are saying, but I just want to make sure that is the claim you are making.


No, they won't receive free healthcare under Obama's plan.

Quote:

Because I don't believe that will be the case. Simply put, if an illegal alien shows up at a hospital in an emergency situation, does Obama's plan mean the hospital can refuse to treat them?


This will be, as it is now, entirely at the discretion of the hospital. But, just as it is right now, hospitals will CHARGE their walk-in clients. The illegal alien may choose not to pay later on (likely will) but that doesn't mean the service is offered for free.

Quote:
Or what if, as I think I read elsewhere, the illegal alien has somehow purchased insurance through Obama's public option scenerio. Aren't we, as taxpayers, still paying for the medical service when the government pays out on the policy?


This would be hard to imagine. The IA would likely need a real Social Security number and some other backup documentation in order to purchase insurance through the exchange. It would expose them to quite a bit of scrutiny and increase the likelihood that someone finds out they are there illegally by a lot. I don't see this happening on any regular basis.

Quote:
Now I could be all wrong because admittedly, like our Congressional representatives, I've not read the entire proposal. So please feel free to correct me if my above assuptions are incorrect because I would really like to know as much as possible about Obama's plan before jumping on or off the bandwagon.


Basically, illegal alien issues aren't materially changed under the new plan, from how they are right now.

Cycloptichorn
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:21 am
Quote:
Halfway to Where? Answering the Key Questions of Health Care Reform

Although neither the House nor the Senate passed a health care bill by President Obama's August deadline, various pieces of legislation have made it through committee, and they provide a concrete basis for analyzing what the proposed health care reform would and would not do. Looking at the various bills that are moving on Capitol Hill, we can determine the following:

* Contrary to the Obama administration's repeated assurances, millions of Americans who are happy with their current health insurance will not be able to keep it. As many as 89.5 million people may be dumped into a government-run plan.
* Some Americans may find themselves forced into a new insurance plan that no longer includes their current doctor.
* Americans will pay more than $820 billion in additional taxes over the next 10 years, and could see their insurance premiums rise as much as 95 percent.
* The current health care bills will increase the budget deficit by at least $239 billion over the next 10 years, and far more in the years beyond that. If the new health care entitlement were subject to the same 75-year actuarial standards as Social Security or Medicare, its unfunded liabilities would exceed $9.2 trillion.
* While the bills contain no direct provisions for rationing care, they nonetheless increase the likelihood of government rationing and interference with how doctors practice medicine.
* Contrary to assertions of some opponents, the bills contain no provision for euthanasia or mandatory end-of-life counseling. The bills' provisions on abortion coverage are far murkier.

In short, Americans will pay more and get less. Whatever the variation, however these bills are merged or compromised, this would be bad news for Americans.


Full text at link.

Pay more, get less... sounds exactly like our government.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:25 am
@revel,
revel wrote:
I know tort reform gets thrown out a lot, but from I have read, malpractice suits really don't account for the sheer cost of health care overall.



WellPoint Institute of Health Care Knowledge Releases Report on Health Care Costs

Quote:
According to the report the "key drivers" of spiraling U.S. health care costs
are:

-- Advances in medical technology and subsequent increases in
utilization.
-- Price inflation for medical services that exceeds inflation in other
sectors of the economy.
-- Cost-shifting from people who are uninsured and those receiving
Medicare
and Medicaid to the private sector.
-- High cost of regulatory compliance.
-- Patient lifestyles, such as physical inactivity and increases in
obesity.


Interesting report, but it is very unclear to me how HR3200 will resolve these issues. Obama champions covering the 30 odd million uninsured today by miraculously recoupling cost savings and increasing efficiencies throughout the medical industry. What he failed to do last night was indicate how he will perform this miracle. Clearly his staff has done a poor job of projecting both costs (Cash for clunkers) as well as potential for success (Jobs from Stimulus spending). So why should I believe what he says about this bill? I do like that he promised that "there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize." But again, he needs to explain how he will do this. I'm not convinced that he won't waffle the answer after the bill passes just as he's done with the "save or create jobs" position on the Stimulus bill.
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:44 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Thank you Cy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:44 am
@slkshock7,
Quote:

Interesting report, but it is very unclear to me how HR3200 will resolve these issues. Obama champions covering the 30 odd million uninsured today by miraculously recoupling cost savings and increasing efficiencies throughout the medical industry.


Well, that, AND raising taxes on the rich, AND taxing insurance companies, AND getting rid of Medicare advantage. There are many components to this plan, not just a couple.

I will say, that there does seem to be a considerable amount of savings possible from the digitization of medical records. Every single doctor's office in the country has a huge room full of paper records, and 2-3 people who manage them; heck of a lot of room for improvement there.

Cycloptichorn
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 09:55 am
@Cycloptichorn,
And taxing insurance companies will force them to raise rates, thus increasing insurance costs to all. In all my years of business, I have never known a company to pay a dime in taxes. Every company I have ever been associated with will pass any and all tax increases on to customers in order to maintain their desired level of net ROI for the owners/stockholders. This is one of my problems with what Obama is proposing. Of course, he also promises to keep insurance affordable, but I don't quite see it. The only way to do so would be for the public option to undercut insurance rates to drive down the private sector charges. But that would convince many to leave their private sector insurance for the public option, which would ultimately drive up the payouts on policies, thus creating more of a tax burden while driving some, if not many, private insurers out of business. The cycle continues as their customers then turn to the public option, putting an even greater burden of payouts on the taxpayer.

There are other issues I have, but again, I'm willing to withhold judgement until I see what a final bill looks like.
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:01 am
@CoastalRat,
CR -- My understanding is that you and I cannot choose the public option if we are already insured through our employer. Employers can't choose to dump their benefits packages if they have over a certain number of employees. So, it falls to the companies to decide if they're going to pass on any rates increases to their employees or pass them on to their customers but, you're right, they won't eat them. Therefore the real issue becomes one of reducing rates that insurers charge. I don't know yet, how a public option offered to those without insurance but not offered to those with insurance can accomplish that. Overall savings in the total cost of health care is what's needed, not just competition.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:04 am
@CoastalRat,
CoastalRat wrote:

And taxing insurance companies will force them to raise rates, thus increasing insurance costs to all.


They are to be taxed on their most profitable plans, according to the speech the Prez gave and various Democratic proposals. There is plenty of room for them to absorb these taxes without raising rates.

Quote:
In all my years of business, I have never known a company to pay a dime in taxes. Every company I have ever been associated with will pass any and all tax increases on to customers in order to maintain their desired level of net ROI for the owners/stockholders.


Yeah, this just reminds me of the question: why the hell do we even have for-profit insurance anyway? Health issues should not be subject to some Return on Investment for stockholders, it's the dumbest way to deal with these things.

Quote:
This is one of my problems with what Obama is proposing. Of course, he also promises to keep insurance affordable, but I don't quite see it. The only way to do so would be for the public option to undercut insurance rates to drive down the private sector charges.


I hope this is exactly what will happen.

Quote:
But that would convince many to leave their private sector insurance for the public option, which would ultimately drive up the payouts on policies, thus creating more of a tax burden while driving some, if not many, private insurers out of business.


I hope this is exactly what will happen. If the private insurers cannot show any added value from their existence, there's no reason to allow them to exist. If they can show added value, people will want their services, even if they are more expensive than the public option. It is a wonderful test of the validity of private, for-profit health insurance.

Quote:
The cycle continues as their customers then turn to the public option, putting an even greater burden of payouts on the taxpayer.


At the same time, it increases the pool of people paying premiums into the Public Option program; more money flows to the program which is currently flowing to private interests and profits. It's moving money around, not creating additional expenses for people.

Quote:
There are other issues I have, but again, I'm willing to withhold judgement until I see what a final bill looks like.


Probably a good call.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:07 am
@JPB,
I actually was not referring to people who had insurance through their employer, but I understand how my rambling may have led to that belief. Their are a great many people who have health insurance outside their employment. They currently pay through the nose for this and may well find the public option more to their liking. This could begin the cycle I rambled about.

And yes, the bottom line to savings in health expenditures for all is to reduce costs. I would submit that this is the only real way to do it.
Brand WTF
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:09 am
@CoastalRat,
Quote:
So undocumented aliens will not get free healthcare under Obama's plan? That seems to be what you are saying, but I just want to make sure that is the claim you are making.

Because I don't believe that will be the case. Simply put, if an illegal alien shows up at a hospital in an emergency situation, does Obama's plan mean the hospital can refuse to treat them? Or what if, as I think I read elsewhere, the illegal alien has somehow purchased insurance through Obama's public option scenerio. Aren't we, as taxpayers, still paying for the medical service when the government pays out on the policy?

Now I could be all wrong because admittedly, like our Congressional representatives, I've not read the entire proposal. So please feel free to correct me if my above assuptions are incorrect because I would really like to know as much as possible about Obama's plan before jumping on or off the bandwagon.



The problem as I see it in it's present language there is no provision for varification....it only bars illegal aliens from receiving affordability credits, as written, but contains no enforcement or compliance language whatsoever to prevent illegals from receiving the benefits/coverage.

But this by far won't be the first program that illegals are leeching off of. For example a study by the GAO found illegal aliens spawned the sharp rise in Earned Income Tax Credit disbursements despite the fact that illegal aliens are 'technically ineligible for the tax benefits'.

Also Obama has this grandiose 'path to citizenship' plan which will eventually give all the illegal aliens access...because...well.. they'll suddenly be legal. He doesn't seem to be doing much about illegal immigration though. But I digress.

Hopefully the IEVS and SAVE varification systems will make it into the final Bill....it's the responsible thing to do.

0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:10 am
@CoastalRat,
I have looked into the coverage you speak of, CR.

(thoroughly)

my thought is they charge a hella lot for very little.

this may be where the rubber starts to meet the road...
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:11 am
@CoastalRat,
Only 7% of the non-elderly population pay for their own insurance. And, yes, they pay through the nose. Why shouldn't they be able to form a "group" and get group rates like anyone else? If the only way for them to form such a group is through the public option then that's ok by me.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:15 am
@slkshock7,
I think you are right the bill don't address one of the problems stated in the report which a person's lifestyle of inactivity and obesity which has risen a lot in recent years. However, I am pretty sure it addressed preventive care. I am not sure a bill can be made to address the cost of inflation for services which exceed other sectors of the economy nor the one about more advances causing the cost to rise. I think the bill also deals with the problem of medicare and cost shifting.

On the stimulus, it is not clear at all that it hasn't worked, in fact links have been left which has shown areas in which because of stimulus funds certain areas benefited from it. As for the cash for clunkers, from what I can tell, it has gone off fairly well.

U.S Department of Transportation

Quote:
The CARS program came to a close Tuesday night with nearly 700,000 clunkers taken off the roads, replaced by far more fuel efficient vehicles. Rebate applications worth $2.877 billion were submitted by the 8 p.m. deadline, under the $3 billion provided by Congress to run the program.

Cars made in America topped the most-purchased list, from the Ford Focus to the Toyota Corolla to the Honda Civic.

“American consumers and workers were the clear winners thanks to the cash for clunkers program,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. “Manufacturing plants have added shifts and recalled workers. Moribund showrooms were brought back to life and consumers bought fuel efficient cars that will save them money and improve the environment.”

“This is one of the best economic news stories we’ve seen and I’m proud we were able to give consumers a helping hand,” Secretary LaHood said.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:17 am
@JPB,
I agree this is definately a problem. They should get something comparable to group rates. This is one reason that I certainly agree that we are in need of some form of health care reform. I just believe that from what has been proposed at this time goes too far.
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:21 am
@CoastalRat,
Interesting... I don't think it goes far enough in that it still doesn't adequately deal with end-of-life issues for an aging demographic with an increasing life expectancy supported by a smaller work force.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:21 am
Quote:
Number without health insurance at 46.3 million

WASHINGTON " The Census Bureau reports that the number of people lacking health insurance rose to 46.3 million in 2008.

That's up from 45.7 million in 2007, due to a continuing erosion of employer-provided insurance. Still, the level remained just below the peak of 47 million who were uninsured in 2006, because of the growth of government insurance programs such as Medicaid for the poor.

The nation's poverty rate increased to 13.2 percent, up from the 12.5 percent in 2007. That meant there were 39.8 million people living in poverty. It was the highest rate since 1997.

The statistics released Thursday cover the first full year of the current recession.

The median " or midpoint " household income declined slightly to $50,303.




source

Clearly the current system is not working for a whole lot of people and something needs to be done quickly. Instead of offering road blocks or red herrings, why don't republicans come up with their ways of insuring people without health insurance can get affordable coverage?
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:22 am
@CoastalRat,
I also don't think it goes far enough in providing tax credits to the working poor, but I'll withhold judgment on that until I see the final numbers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Sep, 2009 10:24 am
@revel,
revel, Republicans would rather spend taxpayer monies on wars, but not on the American People. They even approve of the increasing natiional debt to support wars, but not for the American People.

Go figure; they want to stop universal health care for Americans.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 07:58:25