Soph the Vet, how's the reading of the bill coming?

[Peek a Boo]

In regards to free markets, do mean where health insurance companies are free to cancel you policy for frivolous reasons, exclude you from coverage because you are too sick, or jack up your rates whenever they like despite their overwhelming profits? As it stands now many private health insurance companies are free to do this and are making money hand over fist on the backs of individuals.

 

no --that's not what a free market is.

 

you might want to read up on all the gvt regulations and lawsuits that are imposed on the "free market" that help lead to the problems you pointed out.

 

so again: where did we have a real "free market" in healthcare???:confused:

[Supertechmom]

Actually, from what I understand 240,000 more efficient cars have been purchased through this program. I call that a success for car dealers, car makers, and consumers. They only set aside a set amount of money.

 

We are in car sales and the dealers were told to sell the clunker program from July 1st and wait until July 27th to report the sales to the gov web site program.:confused: Then, the rules were changed the DAY OF THE REPORTING and several dealers are caught with deals that are no longer covered because of the change in policy. :confused:The gov said "Go ahead start the program, We'll work out the details later" :glare:They are doing the same thing with health care.

 

The program has been suspended because the back log from July 1 to July 27 is HUGE! And it is there strictly because of the stupidity of gov officials who approved the start of the program before actually working out the program and waiting on the official start. By waiting, the deals would have been logged online like they were supposed to and we would have exact details of what had been sold.

 

And the efficiency isn't all that is cracked up to be either. A lot of people just purchased vehicles that were what they had before just newer. The efficiency wasn't much more than a mile to 4 miles better than what you had. So there are now NEW cars with 15, 18, or 22 mpg compared to old cars with 14, 16, or 18 mpg. Yea, some people bought really efficient cars but a lot didn't. Not much more efficiency than what we had.

 

It did stimulate people to buy and banks to finally start lending money again. :D But it is a huge example of how our gov can't seem to run even the simple things without creating a mess. How can they run things as complicated as health care?

[pixelroper]

Thanks for the links.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

By peek a boo no --that's not what a free market is.

 

 

I know that is not a free market. My point was that the private health insurance companies are quite free to trample all over us as it now stands. Do you really want to give them more freedom:confused:?

[Peek a Boo]

I know that is not a free market. My point was that the private health insurance companies are quite free to trample all over us as it now stands. Do you really want to give them more freedom:confused:?

 

i want to give them more freedom from gvt intrusion and ridiculous lawsuits so they can focus on helping more people. The bigger your FREE market, the better your chances of being able to help MORE people. The gvt is tying their hands, just like the gvt ties the hands of even the best teachers in "great" public schools.

 

So yeah --i want to give them REAL freedom.

 

eta: don't forget that with a REAL free market there will be more businesses that can compete: do you really want to limit the available choices to the big guys we have already??

[8circles]

start with killing children against parent's wishes in Belgium.

 

http://www.parentalrights.org/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={AE104423-1DC5-4E7C-B34A-765BD172BE56}

 

and then with parental consent:

http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000006962.cfm

 

then look at what is being seriously considered in other areas, even here in the US.

 

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/noa.htm

 

but if you want to dismiss the serious issue of euthanasia with a snide comment about neighbors with mini-bikes and no concept of peace and quiet then go right ahead. :001_huh:

 

OMG, Peek! I had no idea about the infants... I'm just so tired of people ignoring this trend of life having no value. & the motivation? Power & greed. It's sickening.

I can't even be coherent I'm so disgusted.

This healthcare bill is frightening & there are so many people turning a blind eye & screaming "You have no compassion". Governments of supposedly civilised, compassionate countries are killing babies with or without the parents' consent. Where's the compassion there?

Edited July 31, 2009 by momoflaw
spelling.

[Peek a Boo]

OMG, Peek! I had no idea about the infants... I'm just so tired of people ignoring this trend of life having no value. & the motivation? Power & greed. It's sickening.

I can't even be coherent I'm so disgusted.

This healthcare bill is frightening & there are so many people turning a blind eye & screaming "You have to compassion". Governments of supposedly civilised, compassionate countries are killing babies with or without the parents' consent. Where's the compassion there?

 

ayup.

[Supertechmom]

I know that is not a free market. My point was that the private health insurance companies are quite free to trample all over us as it now stands. Do you really want to give them more freedom:confused:?

 

 

But yet, they can trample over us because fed regulations do not allow us to shop for health insurance. We are limited to what we have in our state. Change states, change policies, change rates, change rules even if you have the same insurancer. Change jobs same scenario. We changed from one job to another and had the same insurance company. But a $200 increase in premiums with a higher deductible and less coverage and a preexisting condition to deal with. EVEN THOUGH IT WAS THE SAME COMPANY. Fed regulations created that problem. Not the insurance company. DO they like it? Yea buddy they do!! OF course they do. Would they like it if feds relaxed regulations and allowed you to buy insurance from any company in America? What if we had a market where you could shop for any company that gave you the best deal, best rate, and best coverage regardless of your job or your state? Prices would go down. Companies that practiced crappy policies like you've stated wouldn't have many customers and would shape up. Just like companies that sell crappy stuff don't last long.

 

And what if we had regulations that didn't require drs to charge the same amount per charge for every customer? What if you could negotiate with each dr for charges? What if there were not built in rules that favored the insurance company's cut throat payment policies and contracts over market demand rates? I hate seeing my charge of $480 for a well check visit when I know the dr will only get 100 from the person beside me who had insurance negotiated contract rates that I am denied by LAW to have access to. The rate is 480. Everyone gets charged the same and only certain groups get to negotiate charges.

 

Many of the regs in place now and during the 80's allow the insurance companies to do the crap they are doing now. Get rid of some of those and let's see what happens while the gov straightens up medicare, medicaid, and the VA.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

None of the health care reform proposals are advocating or legislating euthanasia of our elders or children. These sort of arguments are designed to inflict fear and are the talking points of powerful vested interests.

 

The goverment run program of Medicare has been in existence for about 40 years and has not led to euthanasia of our elders.

 

Also today, a proposal was voted on in the House of Representatives to cancel Medicare altogether. Not one member voted for to cancel Medicare, including both Democrats and Republicans. So I guess both parties feel that Medicare is a good thing. Also, I do not know of any seniors that would willingly give up their Medicare insurance. Do you? I think the seniors who would be willing to give up Medicare are probably independently very, very wealthy or have a private plan payed for via a pension plan IMHO.

[Supertechmom]

Also, I do not know of any seniors that would willingly give up their Medicare insurance. Do you? I think the seniors who would be willing to give up Medicare are probably independently very, very wealthy or have a private plan payed for via a pension plan IMHO.

 

I'm not positive but I believe they don't give it up because they have no choice. Private companies normally don't have policies for this age group unless they won't qualify for Medicare. When my mom lost her insurance from a pension, there wasn't anything at any price to sign her on. She had no choice but to accept Medicare. Another reason people site that public options will eventually force out the private option.

[NicksMama-Zack's Mama Too]

We are in car sales and the dealers were told to sell the clunker program from July 1st and wait until July 27th to report the sales to the gov web site program.:confused: Then, the rules were changed the DAY OF THE REPORTING and several dealers are caught with deals that are no longer covered because of the change in policy. :confused:The gov said "Go ahead start the program, We'll work out the details later" :glare:They are doing the same thing with health care.

 

The program has been suspended because the back log from July 1 to July 27 is HUGE! And it is there strictly because of the stupidity of gov officials who approved the start of the program before actually working out the program and waiting on the official start. By waiting, the deals would have been logged online like they were supposed to and we would have exact details of what had been sold.

 

And the efficiency isn't all that is cracked up to be either. A lot of people just purchased vehicles that were what they had before just newer. The efficiency wasn't much more than a mile to 4 miles better than what you had. So there are now NEW cars with 15, 18, or 22 mpg compared to old cars with 14, 16, or 18 mpg. Yea, some people bought really efficient cars but a lot didn't. Not much more efficiency than what we had.

 

It did stimulate people to buy and banks to finally start lending money again. :D But it is a huge example of how our gov can't seem to run even the simple things without creating a mess. How can they run things as complicated as health care?

 

:iagree: My dh works for a dealership and the GM has had corporate lawyers draw up a document that he has customers sign. It basically says "If the government rejects your application to the program -- you owe us the $3500/4500 incentive money." How the scrapped vehicles are affecting the steel industry (saturating the market w/ recycled steel) and the recycled parts industry (a drain on rebuilt engine parts to make remanufactured engines) has yet to be determined. I just don't think the government has thought very far into the future on this (or the healthcare) and they have very little understanding of the industry (same for healthcare).

[theresatwist]

If the government would stay out of healthcare and let the free market decide costs, it may just be that more "have-nots" would be able to afford care. Look at Lasik surgery (not covered by insurance, must pay out of pocket), over time clinics have become more cost-competitive and quality of the procedure has gone up. The "haves" are the ones building private hospitals, creating jobs, donating wings onto children's clinics, etc. etc. Charity is a wonderful thing and should be exercised by all who can do it. Look at the Shriners hospitals, I don't think they turn anyone away, do they? And for things just like you are describing dialysis, etc. If we allow the government to takeover healthcare (unconstitutional) and pay for it by either heavily taxing the "haves" or printing fiat money = hyperinflation, we are allowing them to just create more "have-nots". They can't even run the cash for clunker program and we expect them to get our healthcare right?:lol:

 

Lasik surgery is actually a bad example. I have a friend who is an ophthalmologist and she was telling me that these Lasik surgery centers will give absolutely anybody a cataracts operation when in fact not everybody is eligible (because of varying eye structures). However, these centers do no deny treatment to anyone as long as the patient can afford to pay. All they are concerned about is making money. If they give you that operation and you actually should not have that operation because of your eye structure you will experience lifelong reprecussions.

 

Bottom line? The surgery is not cheaper because of medical advancements. It's cheaper because they have expanded the pool by operating on people who should not be operated on. In other words, they are looking out first and foremost for their botton line, not their patients' well-being. My friend told me to never get treatment at any of those centers.

Edited July 31, 2009 by theresatwist

[MeanestMomInMidwest]

I'm not positive but I believe they don't give it up because they have no choice. Private companies normally don't have policies for this age group unless they won't qualify for Medicare. When my mom lost her insurance from a pension, there wasn't anything at any price to sign her on. She had no choice but to accept Medicare. Another reason people site that public options will eventually force out the private option.

 

I think they do have a choice. My MIL worked until age 74 and had health insurance through her job even after qualifying for Medicare.

 

And private companies have emerged to fill the gaps left by Medicare, which will probably happen if some sort of gov't sponsored health insurance is passed.

 

My personal opinion: healthcare will not be "fixed" by government mandate or so-called free market reforms. I admire those who try, and hope it will change, but that is not the same as believing it will change.

[Audrey]

I think they do have a choice. My MIL worked until age 74 and had health insurance through her job even after qualifying for Medicare.

 

And private companies have emerged to fill the gaps left by Medicare, which will probably happen if some sort of gov't sponsored health insurance is passed.

 

My personal opinion: healthcare will not be "fixed" by government mandate or so-called free market reforms. I admire those who try, and hope it will change, but that is not the same as believing it will change.

 

 

There are insurance companies here who also fill 'gaps' not covered by provincial plans. They have to be very competitive to get people's money, especially in our infamously tightwad frugal province. ;)

[My3Boys]

Letting the free market decide costs is part of what got us into this mess to begin with. Research managed care.

 

And the Obama plan isn't a form a managed care?

[My3Boys]

In regards to free markets, do mean where health insurance companies are free to cancel you policy for frivolous reasons, exclude you from coverage because you are too sick, or jack up your rates whenever they like despite their overwhelming profits? As it stands now many private health insurance companies are free to do this and are making money hand over fist on the backs of individuals.

 

Then how about passing a bill to deal with problems like this along with the other major complaints about insurance companies, like portability, instead of radically changing our entire healthcare system, which is the best in the world?

[theresatwist]

Then how about passing a bill to deal with problems like this along with the other major complaints about insurance companies, like portability, instead of radically changing our entire healthcare system, which is the best in the world?

 

I think there are quite a few of us here who would argue that we do not have the best health care in the world. Perhaps we do for the rich. I know my doctor believes the best care is available in France (never a popular comment to make, I know).

 

Did anyone else catch Obama's former doctor (from Chicago) of 20 years on CNN the other night criticizing his health care plan? It was pretty interesting. He said what we need is a single payer system. He believes under the current plan people with preexisting conditions and sick folk are going to flock to the government plan because it's the only coverage they can get and the system will become overburdened and unable to give people adequate care (too many people, too few resources). Basically, if I understood him correctly, he sounded like he was saying we need a much bigger pool.

[Melissa in FL]

 

Also today, a proposal was voted on in the House of Representatives to cancel Medicare altogether. Not one member voted for to cancel Medicare, including both Democrats and Republicans. So I guess both parties feel that Medicare is a good thing. Also, I do not know of any seniors that would willingly give up their Medicare insurance. Do you? I think the seniors who would be willing to give up Medicare are probably independently very, very wealthy or have a private plan payed for via a pension plan IMHO.

 

Medicare's so good that my mom pays 1/4 of her monthly social security check to pay for supplemental insurance from a private insurance company. Medicare will only pay for so much.

Melissa

[Annabelle's Mom]

"I don't think that being sick gives you the right to steal someone else's money. It certainly gives you the right to approach people and organizations for help.

 

I'm not seeing how taking money from person A to give to person B is "civilized.""

 

What do you think insurance does? Everybody pays in and those that need medical care can then draw from the "pot". You have some people that pay into insurance plans for years and never need to use it. There are others that use the insurance for medical care well in excess of what they have ever paid in. Some with this insurance run to the Dr. for every little thing because their insurance will pay for it.

 

I don't see a real difference. Yes, I know--government control. But I'm not convinced that government control would be any worse than hundreds of insurance companies with their own varying standards as to what they will pay for, or where you get treated.

[Cricket]

IMO' date=' denial of payment IS denial of treatment. If one is financially very well off, yes, they can opt to pay themselves. But if one is already paying for insurance (which in itself if outrageously expensive), one is assuming that medical expenses will be paid.

 

Have you checked out how expensive medical care is now? Until last May, I hadn't. About 10 years ago I spent several hours in the ER with a passing kidney stone. It cost about $1000 for a 4 hour stay. I figured "well, ok, that's not too bad." Well, in May, dh had a bowel resection due to cancer. He has insurance on himself through his employer. Thank goodness! That 7 day stay (hospital only, not counting the various doctors' fees) cost $20,000. All told, it probably came close to $30,000. That is not something that most people can "opt" to pay.

 

I do not have medical coverage, although I hope to get on his insurance the next time they have open enrollment. It will cost an arm and a leg, and will be struggle to pay the premiums, but after his experience, I realize that we will not be able to afford medical care for me if I need it, and odds are I will need something. Right now, if I needed the care he had, and said up front that I had no insurance, most likely I wouldn't get it.

 

Dh and I are at odds with this. He always listens to Limbaugh, Beck and Ingram who always spout off against government health care. Notice they all could pay their entire medical bill even without insurance. It's easy to take that position if you can afford it. They don't seem to understand that there are millions of Americans that can't possibly afford $500 a month in medical insurance premiums, much less to pay the entire medical bill. Of course, dh does have medical insurance partially paid by his employer, and at the time of his surgery had just qualified (by age) for Medicare, so his perspective is also skewed. I'm in constant pain and feel crappy and can't afford to go the Dr, because when I finally get on his insurance (if I do) I don't want to be denied payment because of pre-existing conditions, so I just grit my teeth and drag myself through the day. It sucks not to be able to get help.[/quote']

 

We have been without health insurance for about 8 years. For one year during that time we had Medicaid because dd developed chronic kidney infections. Her doctor sat down with us and said that she will need some tests and it could mean surgery down the road and that if we thought we had any chance at getting Medicaid, we better apply. I happened to see her chart at her urologist's office and her bill for that year just for office visits was near $8000. I can't imagine what her two stays in the children's hospital would have cost us. She was in once for a kidney stone and another time for surgery. I don't think a government-run health care plan is the answer but that is what we will end up with. I really wish we could just afford to pay the doctor the same way we pay for everything else! Unfortunately, I think this new plan will just make the cost of care rise.

[LizzyBee]

Also, I do not know of any seniors that would willingly give up their Medicare insurance. Do you? I think the seniors who would be willing to give up Medicare are probably independently very, very wealthy or have a private plan payed for via a pension plan IMHO.

 

Many seniors have no other choice. My mom has medicare, but she's not fond of it. Where she lives (in the boonies), there are not even any supplemental plans available, so medicare is all she's got.

Edited August 1, 2009 by LizzyBee

[theresatwist]

I saw a report today on the news about an anti-health care reform rally (in one of the Carolinas, I believe) where some man was screaming "I don't want the government screwing with my Medicare!" One of the politicians there was calmly trying to explain to him that the government RUNS Medicare, but he wouldn't hear it. :lol:

[theresatwist]

Many seniors have no other choice. My mom has medicare, but she's not fond of it. Where she lives (in the boonies), there are not even any supplemental plans available, so medicare is all she's got.

 

I agree that Medicare does not do enough in many cases, but can you imagine where most of the seniors on Medicare would be without that option??? My grandmother has had cancer multiple times. No private insurance company would even consider covering her. Without Medicare, I dare say she'd be dead.

[Mommyof4ks]

If the government would stay out of healthcare and let the free market decide costs, it may just be that more "have-nots" would be able to afford care. Look at Lasik surgery (not covered by insurance, must pay out of pocket), over time clinics have become more cost-competitive and quality of the procedure has gone up. The "haves" are the ones building private hospitals, creating jobs, donating wings onto children's clinics, etc. etc. Charity is a wonderful thing and should be exercised by all who can do it. Look at the Shriners hospitals, I don't think they turn anyone away, do they? And for things just like you are describing dialysis, etc. If we allow the government to takeover healthcare (unconstitutional) and pay for it by either heavily taxing the "haves" or printing fiat money = hyperinflation, we are allowing them to just create more "have-nots". They can't even run the cash for clunker program and we expect them to get our healthcare right?:lol:

 

Yep! The Shriner's hospitals offer some amazing care too!

 

:lol: That last line is exactly what I said to my dh at lunch today.

[OHGrandma]

Currently, many private health insurance companies will try to find a reason such as inadvertant mistakes on your application so they can drop you like a hot potato once you become ill. The proposals being discussed would prevent this and would be a great improvement in my book.

 

On poor woman had her insurance policy cancelled on the Friday before a scheduled Monday morning mastectomy for breat cancer. The reason given is that she failed to tell the insurance company that she was treated for acne in the past.:001_huh: There are thousands and thousands of people who have experienced this injustice.

 

Recently, congress asked a group of health insurance excecutives if they would stop cancelling (rescinding) insurance policies for inadvertent mistakes or ommissions. They all said no.:001_huh:

 

No, I mean what happens to the people who refuse to pay for insurance? Think about the number of self-employed who purchase their own insurance or decide they'll take the risk and pay for medical bills out of pocket. So, will these people be uninsured under Obama-care?

[LizzyBee]

I saw a report today on the news about an anti-health care reform rally (in one of the Carolinas, I believe) where some man was screaming "I don't want the government screwing with my Medicare!" One of the politicians there was calmly trying to explain to him that the government RUNS Medicare, but he wouldn't hear it. :lol:

 

Oh my, that's funny!

[Peek a Boo]

"I don't think that being sick gives you the right to steal someone else's money. It certainly gives you the right to approach people and organizations for help.

 

I'm not seeing how taking money from person A to give to person B is "civilized.""

What do you think insurance does? Everybody pays in and those that need medical care can then draw from the "pot". You have some people that pay into insurance plans for years and never need to use it. There are others that use the insurance for medical care well in excess of what they have ever paid in. Some with this insurance run to the Dr. for every little thing because their insurance will pay for it.

 

I don't see a real difference. Yes' date=' I know--government control.[/u'] But I'm not convinced that government control would be any worse than hundreds of insurance companies with their own varying standards as to what they will pay for, or where you get treated.

 

yes!! --the real answer [as you noted] is the difference in gvt control.

Under a real free market, insurance companies are paid into voluntarily.

 

I have said that I would support a gvt-run program that was voluntarily funded only by those who choose to participate. I will not support a gvtrun program that is funded by taxing everyone.