Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557069]it doesnt piss me off. but alot of times it seems that they play by a different set of rules[/quote]

How so? I here this a lot but I am never quite sure what it means.

Re: the new health care?
 

if you were one of Obama's nominations that didnt pay any of your taxes, what would happen to you?

Re: the new health care?
 

Please don't answer a question with a question. It doesn't actually answer the question. And I meant the question genuinely and not in a smart-ass way. I'd really like to hear the reasons for the frustration with the rich. I don't hold them but perhaps I should and just don't know it. I'd really like to understand it more. My uninformed opinion on it is that jealously plays a huge role but upon more reasoned thought I doubt that theory a lot.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557065]it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America[/quote]

I'm not pissed that we have poor people. It's the choices that SOME of the poor make that pisses me off.

And while many of the poor are making those annoying choices, it should be noted that not all do. Most do, but most should not be generalized into all. So I'll say that.

But getting back on topic, I can't stand how many of the poor decide to wait until the sniffles turns into bronchitis which turns into pneumonia before ever going to see a doctor. Hell, if you're going to abuse the ER and not see a primary doctor, at least do it before the illness turns into something serious. By the time it gets to pneumonia and they get off their ass to get to the hospital, they're in such bad shape that they need to stay in the hospital for 7 days. If they showed up at the ER during the bronchitis stage they could be sent home same day with antibiotics.

Happens here at our hospital all the damn time, and we have to write a lot of it off, and then jack up the rates we ask the insurance companies to reimburse us just to get by. So when the poor do that, it directly affects your insurance premium.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557090]if you were one of Obama's nominations that didnt pay any of your taxes, what would happen to you?[/quote]

I'd get the job? What, I give up?

Hmm, let me use the F Bill Gates thread logic. If I'm smart enough to evade my taxes and get away with it then I should get the job if the President nominates me. People shouldn't be so jealous of my success! I mean shit . . . . who likes paying their taxes anyway? Taxes are for the people who can't afford attorneys and accountants. If I have enough money I can buy enough influence to get the things / jobs that I want. So piss on all of the little people. :pimp:

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Schneed10;557105]I'm not pissed that we have poor people. It's the choices that SOME of the poor make that pisses me off.

And while many of the poor are making those annoying choices, it should be noted that not all do. Most do, but most should not be generalized into all. So I'll say that.

But getting back on topic, I can't stand how many of the poor decide to wait until the sniffles turns into bronchitis which turns into pneumonia before ever going to see a doctor. Hell, if you're going to abuse the ER and not see a primary doctor, at least do it before the illness turns into something serious. By the time it gets to pneumonia and they get off their ass to get to the hospital, they're in such bad shape that they need to stay in the hospital for 7 days. If they showed up at the ER during the bronchitis stage they could be sent home same day with antibiotics.

Happens here at our hospital all the damn time, and we have to write a lot of it off, and then jack up the rates we ask the insurance companies to reimburse us just to get by. So when the poor do that, it directly affects your insurance premium.[/quote]

Isn't it mandated by law that you can't refuse them service?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557065]it seems like some of you guys are pissed that we actually have poor people in this country. sometimes shit happens. even a nation as great as ours fails once in a while.some people genuinely need help. what are we to do with them? throw them to the curb? this is one major party difference. and why it seems to many the G.O.P is out of touch with main stream America[/quote]
You are totaly off. What we have now is a system that allows the lazy people to stay lazy and just get by on what the goverment provides them. The cycle is passed on to their children and then to their children. The problem they are never forced to take responsability for themself and they become dependent on the goverment for everything. What they really need is a hand up not a hand out and the dems. now have all these people dependent on the goverment so they know they have a hugh voting block as long as the Dems are there to protect their goverment programs. These programs have done nothing to help most of these people and their situation stays the same. The conservative approach is to slowly wing them off the programs and let them learn to become dependent on themself and learn some self pride in the process. I know there will always be people who need help but they also need to show a will to help themself. When the wellfair reform act was passed back in the 90's our local paper followed 10 single mothers with children who had always lived under goverment programs. It was pretty amazing how there attitude on life changed over the year they followed these ladies. Yes they had strugles but they learned to over come them and move on with life. After the year of following them I believe 7 ro 8 where living total on their own without any federal money. The biggest thing I took form keeping up with these ladies is their total attitude toward life and how much more positive they had become.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote]I'm not pissed that we have poor people. It's the choices that SOME of the poor make that pisses me off.

And while many of the poor are making those annoying choices, it should be noted that not all do. Most do, but most should not be generalized into all. So I'll say that.

But getting back on topic, I can't stand how many of the poor decide to wait until the sniffles turns into bronchitis which turns into pneumonia before ever going to see a doctor. Hell, if you're going to abuse the ER and not see a primary doctor, at least do it before the illness turns into something serious. By the time it gets to pneumonia and they get off their ass to get to the hospital, they're in such bad shape that they need to stay in the hospital for 7 days. If they showed up at the ER during the bronchitis stage they could be sent home same day with antibiotics.

Happens here at our hospital all the damn time, and we have to write a lot of it off, and then jack up the rates we ask the insurance companies to reimburse us just to get by. So when the poor do that, it directly affects your insurance premium.[/quote]

Schneed -- the current health care system not only works like this, it promotes it. I am not insured. There is no way I'm going to the doctor at the first hint of being sick like I may with insurance. A simple doctor's visit for us uninsured can easily cost 250 bucks just to get in the door.

I was uninsured and went through treatment for Lyme disease. Each blood test cost me out of pocket 550 bucks to get the labs necessary to tell if I had Lyme and how to treat it. How much does this exact same test cost for the insurance company? That's right, 225 bucks. That's not how much the insured person pays, it's how much the lab charges. How in the hell is this fair? A service should cost a set amount regardless of if a person is insured or not.

45 minutes in a hospital left me with a 9000 dollar bill. Not including the 900 dollars a week for medicine x 8 weeks.

People are petrified of getting these types of bills for a reason. Hospitals are ridiculously expensive, there's a reason why people don't come in when they're starting to feel bad. Granted it compounds the issue the longer you wait, but you have to understand that people sit down and have to weigh bankruptcy with getting fairly basic health care in this country. That is not okay, in my book.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;557107]Isn't it mandated by law that you can't refuse them service?[/quote]

If they show up to the ER, that's correct. By law you have to treat them.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Daseal;557122]Schneed -- the current health care system not only works like this, it promotes it. I am not insured. There is no way I'm going to the doctor at the first hint of being sick like I may with insurance. A simple doctor's visit for us uninsured can easily cost 250 bucks just to get in the door.

I was uninsured and went through treatment for Lyme disease. Each blood test cost me out of pocket 550 bucks to get the labs necessary to tell if I had Lyme and how to treat it. How much does this exact same test cost for the insurance company? That's right, 225 bucks. That's not how much the insured person pays, it's how much the lab charges. How in the hell is this fair? A service should cost a set amount regardless of if a person is insured or not.

45 minutes in a hospital left me with a 9000 dollar bill. Not including the 900 dollars a week for medicine x 8 weeks.

People are petrified of getting these types of bills for a reason. Hospitals are ridiculously expensive, there's a reason why people don't come in when they're starting to feel bad. Granted it compounds the issue the longer you wait, but you have to understand that people sit down and have to weigh bankruptcy with getting fairly basic health care in this country. That is not okay, in my book.[/quote]

Right but the difference between you and the "poor" I'm talking about is the poor qualify for Medicaid coverage, you do not. You are simply uninsured or underinsured, which is a totally different conversation. Which you are very right about.

But, that doesn't speak to how the poor handle their healthcare. They have coverage granted to them through the state Medicaid program, so they use the ER as a "frequent flier". They know if they show up to the ER they can't be refused treatment, so they use it for every little thing. Then you have other poor folks who refuse to get treatment until they're very sick, like the pneumonia thing I mentioned. I'm saying the Medicaid programs need to be tweaked to incent the poor to use the system wisely.

As for uninsured patients who make too much money to qualify for Medicaid, that's a totally different discussion. To make that fair, you're talking about a radical change to the way hospitals get reimbursed all throughout the country. Idealogically I 100% agree with your point, however knowing the business like I do, it seems like an unrealistic pipe dream.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Daseal;557122]Schneed -- the current health care system not only works like this, it promotes it. I am not insured. There is no way I'm going to the doctor at the first hint of being sick like I may with insurance. A simple doctor's visit for us uninsured can easily cost 250 bucks just to get in the door.

I was uninsured and went through treatment for Lyme disease. Each blood test cost me out of pocket 550 bucks to get the labs necessary to tell if I had Lyme and how to treat it. How much does this exact same test cost for the insurance company? That's right, 225 bucks. That's not how much the insured person pays, it's how much the lab charges. How in the hell is this fair? A service should cost a set amount regardless of if a person is insured or not.

45 minutes in a hospital left me with a 9000 dollar bill. Not including the 900 dollars a week for medicine x 8 weeks.

People are petrified of getting these types of bills for a reason. Hospitals are ridiculously expensive, there's a reason why people don't come in when they're starting to feel bad. Granted it compounds the issue the longer you wait, but you have to understand that people sit down and have to weigh bankruptcy with getting fairly basic health care in this country. That is not okay, in my book.[/quote]

Uninsured Unite!

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote]Uninsured Unite![/quote]
Nope, learned my lesson. Personal coverage will kick in sometime this month!

Schneed -- are you able to go into specifics as to why uninsured and insured patients don't pay the same price for the same procedure? I just don't understand what's so pipe dream-ish about thinking that a service should cost a certain amount regardless. A procedure costs X amount, then add in however much to cover overhead/equipment/staff/profit/etc. Come to a fair price, that's your price. I know insurance companies say we'll only pay X amount, but couldn't the hospitals say 'fine' which would lead to consumers fighting for a real change to the system?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Daseal;557138]Nope, learned my lesson. Personal coverage will kick in sometime this month![/quote]

You of little faith! Obama is going to take care of us.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Daseal;557122]I was uninsured and went through treatment for Lyme disease. Each blood test cost me out of pocket 550 bucks to get the labs necessary to tell if I had Lyme and how to treat it. How much does this exact same test cost for the insurance company? That's right, 225 bucks. That's not how much the insured person pays, it's how much the lab charges. How in the hell is this fair? A service should cost a set amount regardless of if a person is insured or not.[/quote]

The reason the insurance companies pay less than uninsured patients is that they negotiate bulk rates and ensure payment. The cost to you, an uninsured patient, reflects not just the cost of the service but, also, the expected returns and additional collection costs when extrapolated over a large population of patients. It's just good business.

Individuals w/out coverage get the same service, true. On average, however, the rate of collection for people w/o insurance is significantly lower. From ten insured patients, the hospital will [I]always[/I] collect (and collect relatively promptly) $2,250. From ten uninsured paitients, the hospital [I]may[/I] collect $5,500 but will likely collect significantly less [I]and[/I] will collect it over a longer time (so it is worth less - 1.00 today is worth more than 1.00 tomorrow) [I]and[/I] will incur additional costs in trying to collect it.

Universal insurance with good coverage, good care and cost effective solutions is a chimera. The current system is a Gordian's Knot of insurers, self-insurers, lawyers, doctors and multiple regulatory agencies. Health insurers are subject to regulation by each of the 50 states AND the federal govt. Additionally, doctors and insurers are regulated by different agencies. In the case of doctors, much of the regulation is self-regulation i.e. doctors regulating doctors. One of the reasons malpractice insurance and, thus fees, are so high is b/c bad doctors are allowed to continue practicing by other doctors.

Obama's stated desire to build on the current system sounds wonderful [I]except[/I] the idea that he will simply create a govt. "insurer of last resort" is extremely expensive. If it can refuse no one, then it will get all those people too expensive to insure through the traditional coverages.

A national health policy will also have a huge impact on the cost existing coverages. Currently, insurance is a giant ponzi scheme (shhhhhhhh!!) with the healthy funding treatment for the unhealthy. One of the effects of a national policy will be to remove the funding mechanism of traditional employer provided coverages because it allows people to "coverage dip" i.e. otherwise healthy people can dip into universal coverage for benefits but not provide the majority of its funding b/c they generally aren't taxed nearly enough to cover the costs. These large group consists, generally, of people who are young, healthy, w/out children or chronic health issues. If the govt. creates a universal catastrophic care system, then all those essentially healthy people will opt out of the already expensive coverages offered through their employers and rely on the universal national coverage. This then reduces the pool of people who pay premiums from the traditional coverages w/out really reducing the cost to provide for the remaining insureds. Guess who makes up the difference.

Ultimately, IMO, any national healthcare policy will end up being the world's biggest HMO with govt. bureaucrats as medical gatekeepers. To ensure the current number of uninsured for even just catastrophic coverage, I am betting that tax for "premium" would be significant and, further, as a side cost, the premiums for traditional insurance would increase for those who don't rely on the "National HMO".

So yes, universal coverage is absolutely possible. For the lower incomes it will provide minimal coverage where no coverage existed. For the vast number of middle incomes it will, IMO and in the long run, reduce coverage and quality of care and increase costs. For those with high incomes, their will be little or no effect other than to decrease their disposable income.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Daseal;557138]Nope, learned my lesson. Personal coverage will kick in sometime this month![/quote]

Demonstrating my point of coverage dipping. Daseal is now part of a larger insurance pool. Being young and of relatively sound body, the odds are that he will not need insurance again for some time. I am betting his personal coverage is extremely expensive. Thus, he is [I]exactly[/I] the type of person insurers need to be profitable and to make up for people like me. If Daseal, and others like him, are covered by a national policy, then people like me (married, kids) will simply have to pay more for insurance. In addition, we will be taxed to pay for Daseal's coverage and for those people my insurer rejected as being to expensive. Soon enough, people like me will not be able to afford our current coverages and have to drop into the national policy which, in turn, will just increase the cycle until the national policy is the only policy.

Is that a good thing? Not for me and those like me. Yes for the truly unisured or uninsurable - this would not include people like Daseal b/c he made the choice (either consciencely or not) to be uninsured. Eventually, under the current system, Daseal will likely reap its benefits. If it changes as Obama plans, then he will, basically, get the worst of both worlds.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557142]The reason the insurance companies pay less than uninsured patients is that they negotiate bulk rates and ensure payment. The cost to you, an uninsured patient, reflects not just the cost of the service but, also, the expected returns and additional collection costs when extrapolated over a large population of patients. It's just good business.

Individuals w/out coverage get the same service, true. On average, however, the rate of collection for people w/o insurance is significantly lower. From ten insured patients, the hospital will [I]always[/I] collect (and collect relatively promptly) $2,250. From ten uninsured paitients, the hospital [I]may[/I] collect $5,500 but will likely collect significantly less [I]and[/I] will collect it over a longer time (so it is worth less - 1.00 today is worth more than 1.00 tomorrow) [I]and[/I] will incur additional costs in trying to collect it.
[/quote]

Pretty good synopsis. Also, I'll add that assessing the cost of a certain procedure is incredibly difficult, even for financial wizards.

If you manufacture a widget, you know how much it cost to purchase supplies, how much you pay the people to make the widget, and how much overhead you need to cover. It's pretty easy.

But with hospitals and procedures, one knee replacement procedure for a 55 year old otherwise-healthy male may take 45 minutes in the OR and be fairly simple, requiring little in the way of resources. The same knee replacement for a 75 year old female with osteoperosis may be incredibly complicated, take 3 hours in the OR, and require more in the way of resources.

We have methods of averaging out costs for various procedures, but in the end they are just estimates. Hospitals have to cover their costs on patients who they can collect from to help subsidize the losses on patients who can't/won't pay a dime.

Re: the new health care?
 

After reading Joe's post I guess I'll ask this...

Is not our FUNDAMENTAL problem in this country something that has nothing to do with costs and insurance companies but more to do with our attitude about health care and about insurance?

The debate about whether health care is a right is one that I think really has no concrete answer but it seems to me we want to be able to provide everyone with Ferrari health care. At least philosophically. And to compound it we (massive generalization here) treat insurance not like real insurance but more like a sugar daddy. In a real economic market some people can afford Ferraris and some can afford Hondas. Both get you from place to another. In neither case do we pay in just a little over time to be able to get either of them. Shouldn't we change our mindsets to read insurance as simply disaster prevention? We should need to pay for basic medical care as we have to pay for basic groceries to live. I know this drives incentive to not go to the doctor but if we reduce demand on Medical care doesn't it lower the price? I knwo this is simplistic to the max but it just strikes me that we as a society rely on health insurance to just pay for everything and that drives everything out of whack right up the line.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=FRPLG;557157]After reading Joe's post I guess I'll ask this...

Is not our FUNDAMENTAL problem in this country something that has nothing to do with costs and insurance companies but more to do with our attitude about health care and about insurance?

The debate about whether health care is a right is one that I think really has no concrete answer but it seems to me we want to be able to provide everyone with Ferrari health care. At least philosophically. And to compound it we (massive generalization here) treat insurance not like real insurance but more like a sugar daddy. In a real economic market some people can afford Ferraris and some can afford Hondas. Both get you from place to another. In neither case do we pay in just a little over time to be able to get either of them. Shouldn't we change our mindsets to read insurance as simply disaster prevention? We should need to pay for basic medical care as we have to pay for basic groceries to live. I know this drives incentive to not go to the doctor but if we reduce demand on Medical care doesn't it lower the price? I knwo this is simplistic to the max but it just strikes me that we as a society rely on health insurance to just pay for everything and that drives everything out of whack right up the line.[/quote]

I think a Health Savings Account is just that. Small stuff (i.e.: basic medical) you pay for yourself, and big stuff (i.e.: non-basic medical) is covered by insurance. There is incentive to avoid unnecessary doctor visits, because you have to pay for it yourself. However, you don't have to worry about not being able to cover the big stuff.

Re: the new health care?
 

Obamaites can call me a naysayer if they please, but to me this statement is simply foolish:

"Our health care system is broken," Obama said. "We are not going to rest until we've delivered the kind of health care reform that's going [B]to bring down costs for families, improve quality, affordability, accessibility for all Americans.[/B]" [url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30722892/]Pelosi: House taking up health care by late July - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com[/url]

Sorry, you cannot decrease costs and increase quality of care and service. Do I hope I am wrong? Sure. Do I think this is a utopian statement that is either intentionally misleading or so incredibly naive as to be idiotic? Yes.

How does he intend to fund this pollyanish plan? Through a mix of tax increases and restrictions on current tax breaks. The biggest is repealling all or a portion of the tax-break for employer based health care payments. Essentially increasing premiums for this type of insurance (whether I am paying the insurer or the govt. or a combination thereof, the cost for insurance increases).

As FRPLG said, one of the fundamental problems is that people are looking for a Ferrari but seem to think they can get it at the cost of Hyundai. If we want top quality universal health care coverage, it comes with an incredible price. I don't see the vast majority of americans willing to pay [I]that[/I] price. In fact, I don't see the vast majority of insured Americans (82% or approximately 202 million) willing to increase their costs for what will result in a benefit to minority of americans (18%, approximately 46 million) and a likely detriment to themselves (i.e. more costs or worse, more costs and worse benefits).

Is reform necessary, sure - every system needs should be reviewed to ensure or try for improvement. Is creating a universal national health care policy funded by tax increases and restrictions on benefits the answer? Not in my opinion. Rather, focus on cutting medical costs by revamping doctor oversight which will help lower litigation cost and thus lower malpractice rates and payouts. Find ways to lower the costs to become a medical professional. Possilby create a workman's comp type system for malpractice awards (just throwing that one out there off the cuff)- i.e. get rid of the traditional defenses to malpractice and require only that an injury occurred to get a payout, in return, the payouts will be set up like worker's comp. no puni's. These two thing may help cut down the cost of malpractice insurance which, in turn, cut down fees which will cut down costs to insurers.

With costs lowered, insurance becomes more affordable and fewer people are uninsured.

The emphasis, of course, is [I]first[/I] to lower prices [I]then[/I] find ways to cover the remainder.

Personally, I just don't see any of it happening. Far too many vested interests in the current system. Much will be talked about but I doubt any real change will come.

Re: the new health care?
 

Your cynicism is dually noted. One thing I am fairly certain of is that the quality of care for 45 million people without coverage will improve. My employer still has the option of paying our HMO $$$ so I don't see how the quality of care will decrease. Maybe most employers decide to drop their HMO plans and rely on the government?

I guess having uninsured is good for the insured. Less competition is always good for the apex predator. Is anyone working a book titled "Universal Healthcare: Tragedy Waiting to Happen" yet?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;557209]Your cynicism is dually noted. One thing I am fairly certain of is that the quality of care for 45 million people without covrage will improve. My employer still has the option of paying our HMO $$$ so I don't see how the quality of care will decrease. Maybe they will all decide to drop their HMO plans and rely on the government. I having uninsured is good for the insured. I suppose less competition is always good for the apex predator.

Is anyone working a book titled "Universal Healthcare: Tragedy Waiting to Happen" yet?[/quote]
First off take that 45 million and cut that in half and thats closer to the number of people who cannot get or cannot afford health ins.

Re: the new health care?
 

Very well thought out posts , Mr. Joe Redskin !!

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557202]Obamaites can call me a naysayer if they please, but to me this statement is simply foolish:

"Our health care system is broken," Obama said. "We are not going to rest until we've delivered the kind of health care reform that's going [B]to bring down costs for families, improve quality, affordability, accessibility for all Americans.[/B]" [URL="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30722892/"]Pelosi: House taking up health care by late July - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com[/URL]

Sorry, you cannot decrease costs and increase quality of care and service. Do I hope I am wrong? Sure. Do I think this is a utopian statement that is either intentionally misleading or so incredibly naive as to be idiotic? Yes.

How does he intend to fund this pollyanish plan? Through a mix of tax increases and restrictions on current tax breaks. The biggest is repealling all or a portion of the tax-break for employer based health care payments. Essentially increasing premiums for this type of insurance (whether I am paying the insurer or the govt. or a combination thereof, the cost for insurance increases).

As FRPLG said, one of the fundamental problems is that people are looking for a Ferrari but seem to think they can get it at the cost of Hyundai. If we want top quality universal health care coverage, it comes with an incredible price. I don't see the vast majority of americans willing to pay [I]that[/I] price. In fact, I don't see the vast majority of insured Americans (82% or approximately 202 million) willing to increase their costs for what will result in a benefit to minority of americans (18%, approximately 46 million) and a likely detriment to themselves (i.e. more costs or worse, more costs and worse benefits).

Is reform necessary, sure - every system needs should be reviewed to ensure or try for improvement. Is creating a universal national health care policy funded by tax increases and restrictions on benefits the answer? Not in my opinion. Rather, focus on cutting medical costs by revamping doctor oversight which will help lower litigation cost and thus lower malpractice rates and payouts. Find ways to lower the costs to become a medical professional. Possilby create a workman's comp type system for malpractice awards (just throwing that one out there off the cuff)- i.e. get rid of the traditional defenses to malpractice and require only that an injury occurred to get a payout, in return, the payouts will be set up like worker's comp. no puni's. These two thing may help cut down the cost of malpractice insurance which, in turn, cut down fees which will cut down costs to insurers.

With costs lowered, insurance becomes more affordable and fewer people are uninsured.

The emphasis, of course, is [I]first[/I] to lower prices [I]then[/I] find ways to cover the remainder.

Personally, I just don't see any of it happening. Far too many vested interests in the current system. Much will be talked about but I doubt any real change will come.[/quote]

I can tell you that every single finance professional at my employer, the biggest Medicaid and under-insured provider in the state of Pennsylvania, agrees wholeheartedly with you.

From the chief financial officer down to the VP of finance down to the CFOs of the hospitals down to me as the manager of financial planning, we all think the same thing: wouldn't it be nice if Obama could get it done because it would mean a huge boost in funding for us. Quality would go up in the inner city hospitals who are currently underfunded, while quality would plummet at the suburban community hospitals in working class neighborhoods. And there are a lot more of them than there are of us.

It's an absurd pipe dream which shows how out of touch Obama can be with reality. He's a great leader, and strong on law and ethics, but his strength is not with financials. One look at the numbers tells you this: you can't cut the nation's overall healthcare bill without cutting quality. The only way he can make affordable healthcare happen is by having the rich subsidize it.

I named some areas in which expense savings could be realized earlier in this thread. But to accomplish what he wants (affordable healthcare for everyone), those savings would barely register as a drop in the bucket.

Someone just needs to do the math for him, and hopefully he'll come down to reality on this issue and get practical.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=saden1;557209]Your cynicism is dually noted. One thing I am fairly certain of is that the quality of care for 45 million people without coverage will improve. My employer still has the option of paying our HMO $$$ so I don't see how the quality of care will decrease. Maybe most employers decide to drop their HMO plans and rely on the government?

I guess having uninsured is good for the insured. Less competition is always good for the apex predator. Is anyone working a book titled "Universal Healthcare: Tragedy Waiting to Happen" yet?[/quote]

1. With a national health plan, your employer's HMO coverage will eventually become more expensive. Initially, your quality of care will not decrease. At some point, as more and more people become "uninsured" and rely on the national plan, your employer's HMO become more expensive and he will eventually drop it leaving you with the national plan.

2. In general, and as I have pointed out above, having uninsured is NOT good for the rest of the insurance pool. Rather, having a large number of healthy young people paying for insurance lowers costs for [I]all[/I] insureds.

3. I have not said that universal health care is a tragedy, rather, I suggest that to expect, in a nation of 250 million, high quality care at bargain basement prices is unrealistic. Clearly, universal healthcare improves coverage for the uninsured. I merely suggest that for a vast majority of americans, such changes will make their own insurance either more expensive or provide less insurance.

4. Wow!!! I get to be an apex predator?? Cool!! (usually, I am just some middle of the pack herd animal attempting to find todays veggies).

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;557278]1. With a national health plan, your employer's HMO coverage will eventually become more expensive. Initially, your quality of care will not decrease. At some point, as more and more people become "uninsured" and rely on the national plan, your employer's HMO become more expensive and he will eventually drop it leaving you with the national plan.

2. In general, and as I have pointed out above, having uninsured is NOT good for the rest of the insurance pool. Rather, having a large number of healthy young people paying for insurance lowers costs for [I]all[/I] insureds.

3. I have not said that universal health care is a tragedy, rather,[COLOR=red] I suggest that to expect, in a nation of 250 million, high quality care at bargain basement prices is unrealistic.[/COLOR] Clearly, universal healthcare improves coverage for the uninsured. I merely suggest that for a vast majority of americans, such changes will make their own insurance either more expensive or provide less insurance.

4. Wow!!! I get to be an apex predator?? Cool!! (usually, I am just some middle of the pack herd animal attempting to find todays veggies).[/quote]

I think that is probably the case. How have the Cannucks and the Brits faired with similar idea's in mind. From the people I know that live or have lived in those countries, They have it........but it.......ain't great. Hard to see anyone for an appointment....marginal quality. I do not believe as you have stated it can be done "GOOD AND CHEAP". It will require a....shocking financial commitment. And finally "Apex predator"? That's sweet. Wil;l we be seeing you on the next episode of "the Cougar"?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=firstdown;557212]First off take that 45 million and cut that in half and thats closer to the number of people who cannot get or cannot afford health ins.[/quote]
link? and anyway, isn't 22 million people without insurance enough?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557316]link? and anyway, isn't 22 million people without insurance enough?[/quote]
22 million is not enough in the big picture to tear apart our complete health care system. I'm too lazy to look up the numbers but in that 45 million that encludes people who loose their coverage for a short period of time, young adults who feel they dont need coverage, people who could afford coverage but decide to buy other things, ect.... Heck, if our goverment cannot run Medicare or Social Security right why do would we want them to run our health care which will be a much larger task? Medicare and Social Security are both in trouble now and have been in the pass so the goverment has had to cut the coverage, raise deductibles, tax SS, etc... and that's the same thing that will happen to goverment provided health coverage. Heck, even with the cuts they have made in those programs both are still in trouble.

Re: the new health care?
 

What about eliminating the employer/health insurance link alltogether?

Make a total overhaul and allow people to join associations (or something of that ilk) that provide health insurance. Then people can pick and choose what association they'd like to be a part of...the association can more precisely manage membership demographics to provide a good balance. The associations should be non-profit orgs driven to balanced budgets. Just an idea that needs a lot more thought to it but maybe it could at least remove the barrier of needing employment to even have a chance to afford insurance. Even lower income folks could find an association that provides basic major medical at a low cost because of the group insurance rates and that would be a plus.

Re: the new health care?
 

so we let the insurance/ medical field control the costs of managed health care? that seems to working just fine( not) i have an idea. lets try something new! oh my god, i said it. the dreaded change word, that petrifies many

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557364]so we let the insurance/ medical field control the costs of managed health care? that seems to working just fine( not) i have an idea. lets try something new! oh my god, i said it. the dreaded change word, that petrifies many[/quote]
As Ecclesiastes says: "there is nothing new under the sun"

Most ways of involving the government in health care have been tried in other countries. Every one, including ours, leaves something to be desired. I hope HSA's are the wave that the country goes forward with, as they seem to offer the best incentive to keep costs down and service quality up.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557364]so we let the insurance/ medical field control the costs of managed health care? that seems to working just fine( not) i have an idea. lets try something new! oh my god, i said it. the dreaded change word, that petrifies many[/quote]
The goverment allready has a failin health system but you wnat them to start another system that will have the same problems. Heck even the post office is running in the red of around 3 billion a year.

Re: the new health care?
 

The Post office is loosing money.
[url=http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2009/03/postal_service_could_run_out_o.html]Postal Service could run out of money this year, postmaster general says - Business – cleveland.com[/url]
Social Security is going bankrupt
[url=http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/wm1429.cfm]2007 Social Security Trustees Report Shows the Urgency of Reform[/url]
Medicare in in bad financial trouble
[url=http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html]Trustees Report Summary[/url]
Oh, by the way the US is running in the negative already.
[url=http://brillig.com/debt_clock/]U.S. National Debt Clock[/url]
So why the heck would we even want the goverment to take on even a bigger task? For the sake of "Change"?

We also saw how good the govermant worked bailing out the banks, GMC, Chrysler, AIG they really have their act together.

Re: the new health care?
 

OK, then what do we do? just let things go on the way they are? pretty soon no one will make a decent wage, because of employers rising health care costs. and that's very hypocritical of you to all of a sudden worry about the national debt. where were you the last 8 years? right now, every U.S. business is feeling the bad economy. i promise, things will get better

Re: the new health care?
 

Is there any sector that is running things in the green right now?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=Mattyk72;557383]Is there any sector that is running things in the green right now?[/quote]
My office has grown in the past year.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557376]OK, then what do we do? just let things go on the way they are? pretty soon no one will make a decent wage, because of employers rising health care costs. and that's very hypocritical of you to all of a sudden worry about the national debt. where were you the last 8 years? right now, every U.S. business is feeling the bad economy. i promise, things will get better[/quote]

The Democrats have been in control of Congress since 2006. No one liked it when the Republicans spent a lot of money. Why would we like it when the Dems spend double that amount?

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557376]OK, then what do we do? just let things go on the way they are? pretty soon no one will make a decent wage, because of employers rising health care costs. and [B]that's very hypocritical of you to all of a sudden worry about the national deb[/B]t. where were you the last 8 years? right now, every U.S. business is feeling the bad economy. i promise, things will get better[/quote]

What alot of people don't seem to understand is how disgusted fiscal conservatives were with Bush about the debt. Doesn't mean they suddenly wanted Democrats in office, but they were not cheering Bush on as the country went on an ever larger spending spree.

Personally, i grew up a Republican, held a lot of ideals as a Republican, but after they had their chance and ended up going on spending sprees for the rich, at the country's expense, I could not vote for Republicans. Didn't want to vote Democratic either, cuz we know they will spend out of control, so that leaves me, and people like me, who want the government's roll to be minimal, and within a fixed budget, left without any useful voice. It is sad to see our country go down this road, and I speak of the out of control spending road, not Obama personally or even anti Democrat road. Just a road, where every single thing needs government assistance, or else somehow, we won't survive.
I hope I am wrong, I hope that Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans all realize that unrestrained spending, even on good and noble pursuits, can not be had at the expense of everyone's childrens' futures.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=dmek25;557376]OK, then what do we do? just let things go on the way they are? pretty soon no one will make a decent wage, because of employers rising health care costs. and that's very hypocritical of you to all of a sudden worry about the national debt. where were you the last 8 years? right now, every U.S. business is feeling the bad economy. i promise, things will get better[/quote]
The problem is that goverment has shown time and time again that they cannot do things effecient and without tons of red tape. From your statement you act as if when the goverment takes over health ins that the hugh cost will go away and I say it will only increase. This will cause higher taxes on business and tax payers. If I was forced to provide health coverage for all my employees I would have to let someone go.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=firstdown;557386]My office has grown in the past year.[/quote]

My bad, I wasn't aware your office was it's own sector.

Re: the new health care?
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;557388]What alot of people don't seem to understand is how disgusted fiscal conservatives were with Bush about the debt. Doesn't mean they suddenly wanted Democrats in office, but they were not cheering Bush on as the country went on an ever larger spending spree.

Personally, i grew up a Republican, held a lot of ideals as a Republican, but after they had their chance and ended up going on spending sprees for the rich, at the country's expense, I could not vote for Republicans. Didn't want to vote Democratic either, cuz we know they will spend out of control, so that leaves me, and people like me, who want the government's roll to be minimal, and within a fixed budget, left without any useful voice. It is sad to see our country go down this road, and I speak of the out of control spending road, not Obama personally or even anti Democrat road. Just a road, where every single thing needs government assistance, or else somehow, we won't survive.
I hope I am wrong, I hope that Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans all realize that unrestrained spending, even on good and noble pursuits, can not be had at the expense of everyone's childrens' futures.[/quote]

I am a disenfranchised fiscal conservative as well my friend. So i lean Republican, but god do they make some very crucial mistakes. We need a GNP(Grand New Party), with smart, charasmatic leaders that arent tied to the right so fastly. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult it is to be a pro-choice, fiscal conservative.