Shall we try this again: health care Bill

[Mermaid Mama]

Why do ordinary folks w/o insurance have to pay crazy rates for health care services? Insurance companies pay alarmingly discounted rates. I had blood tests done that were billed at $1,000 and my ins. co. paid the contract rate of less than $100. :001_huh: I recently heard of a doc who wanted to offer the uninsured the same rate for a visit as the insurance company reimbursed him. The ins. co. told him he could not do that. He had to charge those w/o insurance the full rate. What is that about?

 

 

 

WOW! That is soooooo sad.

Since when can't a doc charge what he wants?

It used to be a chicken or a bag of apples.....

[Mrs Mungo]

But I don't think this country had the unemployment problem yesterday that we do today!!!! I see plenty of work go to those who will work for A LOT LESS (and under the table, and not legally here) because they live 12 to a house and so they get the job over the person who can't afford to work for so little.

 

If there is a path to citizenship, working under the table becomes a lot more risky for employers v. employees. Right now, most of the risk is on the employees.

[cdrumm4448]

I didn't see the previous thread, but tend to think all politicians are dirty. I was a lifelong straight-party Republican (what a surprise!) until this past year. Now, I am affiliated with no party.

 

I do really love the idea of the hometown doctor, without all the trappings of insurance and the rest of the mess. I am actually friends with my OBs wife and she told me recently that medical malpractice has skyrocketed (again), and since overhead is going up so much, their income has been going down. The insurance companies set the prices they will pay doctors, so essentially they have very litte control over how much they earn (unless they see a patient every five minutes). Doctors are forced to order many, many tests and procedures they probably wouldn't if they weren't worried about being sued. Her real problem is with trial lawyers.

[Lightly Salted]

I am not opposed to everyone being eligible for health insurance, but I do take issue with everyone being forced to purchase something they may not want.

 

But as I understand it, people have every right to refuse to purchase it and pay the fine instead

[monk17]

But that's just it. We do pay for people now, for the elderly with medicare and the poor with medicaid, for veterans with VA. There are problems and fraud with those (not so much fraud with VA). Why are these issues ignored? The homeless and illegal immigrants aren't turned away when they show up at ERs and clinics for care. Why weren't any of these issues targetted for reform in a way that will be economically feasible and take less than 5 years?

 

Because this isn't really about health care insurance reform at all. It's about a sweeping transformation to bring in larger government and greater control of all of our lives in the form of "care" for us.

 

Soon we will all be forced to buy health insurance or pay steep fines or risk jail. There's nothing free or constitutional about that. You'd better believe that when these things take effect there will be lots more legislation trying to regulate what we eat/drink/do/watch/etc. in ways we would find unimaginable today.

 

With the economic situation the way it is, is this really the answer to devastate our economy even more? How much will we the middle class (not to mention rich) be able to help everyone out then?

 

And weren't these last couple months supposed to be all about jobs anyway?

 

My dealings with the health care system are from a couple of sources: first my wife is a nurse that's worked for almost 35 years in about every capacity you can imagine from ER to Cardiac care and all points in between. I worked for 3 different large technology companies and had rural hospitals during the first part of my career, larger regional hospitals and then later in my career some large hospital chains. I also spent a year marketing a non-invasive cardiac output monitor (that's a book).

 

The first myth that I feel should be exploded is that you receive health care when you visit an ER as an indigent person. From anecdotal evidence and from statistical studies you do not. On occasion you might get decent care but on a whole it is not good preventative medicine. I believe it was 1985 when they passed the law that required ER's to "Stabilize" anyone that showed up at there doorstep that was sick or if a woman was in labor to help her deliver. That law has a two fold affect; it denies preventative care but when the person is at end stage the hospital is obligated to perform all the expensive heroic procedures. That's real expensive and we all end up paying for that one way or another.

 

One other major problem that this bill address's are all the private contractors out there who can't get group coverage rates or if they have a prior condition can't get coverage at all. That adds money to the overall insurance pool when they are brought into the tribe.

 

There's lots this bill doesn't address: General Practioners still at the low end of reimbursements, DRG's still being the driving force behind compensating doctors. That means he who lobbies the hardest gets the most for thre speciality.

 

It's late and I'm going to bed, But I'd suggest reding TR Reid's book on healing America, it gives lots of goood ideas on how to lower our expenditures on medicine, improve care and cover everyone with basic care. For a cliff notes version of his book Google him at NPR he gave an interview a few months back.

 

Thanks everyone for not going to balistic!

[Krista in LA]

Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. The 11th dropped out, but I'm not sure who it was - Virgina?

 

Louisiana is looking into joining them or starting their own suit too. Bobby Jindal is very against this healthcare plan.

[Mermaid Mama]

Just wondering where you got that statistic, please.

My own educated guess on all the research I have read regarding toxins in our environment and their affect of developing babies, children, adults, and the elderly. That's why I said "probably."

[Mrs Mungo]

Just wondering where you got that statistic, please.

 

Did you know 73% of statistics are made up?

 

I just made that up. It's an educated guess.

[Perry]

Did you know 73% of statistics are made up?

 

I just made that up. It's an educated guess.

:lol::lol::lol:

[lovemyboys]

All right. So, I have a question. Is this correct?

Under $75K per year, one is eligible for this new gov't healthcare.

If one seeks a job over $75k, the employer will be responsible for offering healthcare coverage?

And if so, what if the job provider is a small business owner?

How will they afford to meet the new standards and requirements for what business owners will be required to pay?

 

I'm afraid if my assessment is correct, the small business owner (and all of his employees) who depend on work from the larger business owners will be out of business, as the larger business owners will take thier business over seas to get around spending more money than they have allotted for healthcare (which means all of the large business owners will be out of work, too). Resulting in a whole lot more people out of work.

 

And, if we make over $280k, we will be taxed wickedly. So, where is the challenge to earn more than $75K in the first place?

 

:confused1: :sad: Who knows what's all going on and how far it will go now that it's started, like the taxes. The door is opened and it will just expand.

 

People making up to $88K will get subsidized health insurance. This will not be good for small businesses, one way or another.

[stormy weather]

But as I understand it, people have every right to refuse to purchase it and pay the fine instead

If I can't/don't want to afford insurance how will I pay a fine? I'm not being snarky, this is the situation I find myself in.

My G-ma left me a modest amount of money when she died, I am in the process of building a tiny home, and was hoping to have a little left over when I was done to save for my very far off retirement or to buy me a year or two at home with my kids, since I am single. She also left my kids a start to college, not any where near enough to go to college but was hoping to add to it. I have had my kids on state/health ins. before but I had to take their money out of their names and put it in mine or else they wouldn't have qualified. We are all reasonably healthy and I pay as I go, for what health care I use. So what I am looking at is using up money I need for our future on ins. or fines. That's not much of a choice. I can't even think straight right now, I am so upset I want to cry.

[Mrs Mungo]

So what I am looking at is using up money I need for our future on ins. or fines. That's not much of a choice. I can't even think straight right now, I am so upset I want to cry.

 

 

1. Not all of this will come into full being until 2014.

 

2. The government is going to help in a couple of different ways: insurance marketplaces, not allowing insurers to charge you more if you have poor health, tax credits to help pay premiums and subsidies for lower income families. Families of four making up to $88,000 will be eligible for assistance. The lower your income, the more help you will be eligible to receive.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

If I can't/don't want to afford insurance how will I pay a fine? I'm not being snarky, this is the situation I find myself in.

My G-ma left me a modest amount of money when she died, I am in the process of building a tiny home, and was hoping to have a little left over when I was done to save for my very far off retirement or to buy me a year or two at home with my kids, since I am single. She also left my kids a start to college, not any where near enough to go to college but was hoping to add to it. I have had my kids on state/health ins. before but I had to take their money out of their names and put it in mine or else they wouldn't have qualified. We are all reasonably healthy and I pay as I go, for what health care I use. So what I am looking at is using up money I need for our future on ins. or fines. That's not much of a choice. I can't even think straight right now, I am so upset I want to cry.

I would try to find out the facts first before taking action. You also risk losing everything without health insurance as well if one of you ends up with a severe illness or accident:(. From what I understand they plan on offering subsidies for those under a certain income which is fairly substantial, but again I would research the facts from a reliable source:)

[mommyrooch]

Did you know 73% of statistics are made up?

 

I just made that up. It's an educated guess.

 

:smilielol5:

[Catherine]

When the weather is bad they all show up. Our tax dollars at work.

[KidsHappen]

Alabama, Florida, Nebraska, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Washington. The 11th dropped out, but I'm not sure who it was - Virgina?

 

I would not be surprised to see TN jump into the fray. A whole lot of people not happy here.

[Catherine]

otherwise young and healthy people who have unplanned medical disasters. It happens: serious car accidents, cancer or other major, costly illnesses-a child born with a major, unanticipated medical need. As a physician, I know that it's an outrage that people who get sick are considered by some to be to blame for that. And tax dollars pay for a huge amount of this care. As a taxpayer I think it's perfectly legitimate to force people to buy insurance.

[mommaduck]

1. Not all of this will come into full being until 2014.

 

2. The government is going to help in a couple of different ways: insurance marketplaces, not allowing insurers to charge you more if you have poor health, tax credits to help pay premiums and subsidies for lower income families. Families of four making up to $88,000 will be eligible for assistance. The lower your income, the more help you will be eligible to receive.

 

Could you address the accusation earlier in this thread that stated that the IRS would put liens on property, take tax returns, and such by those that receive such assistance.

[mommaduck]

otherwise young and healthy people who have unplanned medical disasters. It happens: serious car accidents, cancer or other major, costly illnesses-a child born with a major, unanticipated medical need. As a physician, I know that it's an outrage that people who get sick are considered by some to be to blame for that. And tax dollars pay for a huge amount of this care. As a taxpayer I think it's perfectly legitimate to force people to buy insurance.

 

And if they can't afford it? It's not like a car where you say that they can't drive. How is fining ppl that can't afford something supposed to "help" them?

[Mrs Mungo]

Could you address the accusation earlier in this thread that stated that the IRS would put liens on property, take tax returns, and such by those that receive such assistance.

 

I haven't read anything like that. I'm not sure where it's coming from. I'm guessing it's someone's slippery slope theory? eta: I found stories about this but they are all from partisan sources. So, that makes it hard. I'll do more investigation and get back to you. edited AGAIN to add: even partisan sources are quoting the Joint Committee on Taxation as saying that liens and garnishing tax refunds would not be possible under current law.

 

I posted links to both of the Congressional bills in another thread but here they are again (let's see if copy and paste will work):

 

house bill

 

Senate bill

Edited March 23, 2010 by Mrs Mungo

[Slartibartfast]

And if they can't afford it? It's not like a car where you say that they can't drive. How is fining ppl that can't afford something supposed to "help" them?

 

Well...I can't afford other's medical care and I have been paying for it.

[lovemyboys]

The facts just line up: 17% of GDP spent on health care, more then anybody in the world, 37th best health care system in the world, infant mortality triple the developed world, outcome on major operations usually in the teens, life expectancy 67th or so, 45,000 people die every year from not having health coverage, 900,000 people file bankruptcy because of medical bills, pay gaps among doctors, DRG's bought and paid for by loby persons etc. This would be the easy part.

..........

The reality of course is that there are only a few socialized medicine systems in the world. The biggest are right here, the VA system and the American Indian System, Cuba might be the only country that comes to mine.

 

 

 

An actual well-formed debate might've been nice to see on this important issue.

 

A couple of points on your stats: we're not comparing apples-to-apples here. For instance, the infant mortality rate for the US is based on actual births including the earliest of the preemies (26-27 weeks old) vs. full-term live births reported for most countries. When you adjust for those stats, the US stats are much more in line with developed nations.

 

In addition, when you take into consideration that the US medical community is much more likely to deliver preemies in the first place, then bring those babies to full health and development within their first year, it puts those statistics in a vastly different light.

 

I have come to be very skeptical of statistics such as those that portray the US health care as being significantly less than many other developed countries.

 

Medicare turns down a higher percentage of cases than any of the private insurers which causes doctors to adjust their reimbursements. It also causes doctors to limit the number of M. patients they'll see.

 

Also, I'm not sure that I would hold up the VA and Indian health care systems as being models of socialized medicine that most Americans would be content with. In the past year, about 100 men had the wrong operation performed and in another case, dozens were exposed when contaminated needles were used for vaccinations. I wish this were not the case, our vets deserve better. Much better.

 

Good to have a healthy discussion on these issues.

[mommaduck]

Well...I can't afford other's medical care and I have been paying for it.

 

That's not answering the question. Explain to me how those that live at bare minimum, work their tail ends off to pay their bills, but literally have nothing left in their account for either insurance or fines are supposed to come up with it? These are the ppl that are paying the same taxes as you are.

[6packofun]

:iagree: I would also state that you can be against this legislation and still think revisions and reforms are needed in the way health care is handled in this country. You can be against this legislation and still like to see solutions for those who are underinsured, ways to prevent families being devastated financially with a major illness, and preventing companies from not allowing pre-existing conditions.

 

I don't believe this health care bill was handled in the correct manner. What is the problem w/bipartisan and open debate of all the issues? Why cannot each member of Congress not be allowed to read the bill or the public and allow time for debate? Why did this have to be rushed? Because there is a lot to hide from the American people. Because the majority were against it and they don't care. The whole process was such a travesty of democracy!

 

Where are the details of the bill? Is it available to the public????

 

Yes, yes, yes, I completely agree. So many of us did not like the *process* but by all means think health care needs an overhaul! But not after such huge spending like the stimulus bill and not in this economy and not in this WAY. If Obama had said that he promised a bipartisan process toward health reform but felt it was better to wait until the economy had bounced back a bit, he'd have had time to really prove his "post partisan" stance on getting things done, earned some needed respect--maybe then he'd have had more support and time to really do this right. Instead, the wishes of the American people were mostly disregarded on this one. Shame.

[6packofun]

Right. We just don't want the government mandating our generosity.

[Slartibartfast]

That's not answering the question. Explain to me how those that live at bare minimum, work their tail ends off to pay their bills, but literally have nothing left in their account for either insurance or fines are supposed to come up with it? These are the ppl that are paying the same taxes as you are.

 

I don't just pay for healthcare with my tax dollars, I pay for it with my insurance and whenever I write a check to the hospital.

 

People not having insurance drives up the costs.

 

It is in the bill that people will receive assistance paying for it right?

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis

[LauraGB]

Could you address the accusation earlier in this thread that stated that the IRS would put liens on property, take tax returns, and such by those that receive such assistance.

 

The only thing I can find has to do with the percentage of taxes added to your year end taxes if you do not have the appropriate mandated insurance amts:

 

"Mandates for Individuals:*Individuals must purchase insurance or pay a penalty that would be the greater of $750 or 2% of income by 2016."

 

I'm not willing to provide a link because I don't want to get this thread deleted - google it.

 

The percentage is 1% of your income until 2014. While I don't see any direct threat to put liens on property, etc, it will be included in year end taxes, so if not paid, the results will be the same as any unpaid tax. This begins Jan 2010, according to the bill itself.

[Slartibartfast]

An actual well-formed debate might've been nice to see on this important issue.

 

A couple of points on your stats: we're not comparing apples-to-apples here. For instance, the infant mortality rate for the US is based on actual births including the earliest of the preemies (26-27 weeks old) vs. full-term live births reported for most countries. When you adjust for those stats, the US stats are much more in line with developed nations.

 

In addition, when you take into consideration that the US medical community is much more likely to deliver preemies in the first place, then bring those babies to full health and development within their first year, it puts those statistics in a vastly different light.

 

I have come to be very skeptical of statistics such as those that portray the US health care as being significantly less than many other developed countries.

 

Medicare turns down a higher percentage of cases than any of the private insurers which causes doctors to adjust their reimbursements. It also causes doctors to limit the number of M. patients they'll see.

 

Also, I'm not sure that I would hold up the VA and Indian health care systems as being models of socialized medicine that most Americans would be content with. In the past year, about 100 men had the wrong operation performed and in another case, dozens were exposed when contaminated needles were used for vaccinations. I wish this were not the case, our vets deserve better. Much better.

 

Good to have a healthy discussion on these issues.

 

Even with making that argument in relating to the infant mortality rate, it doesn't account for the maternal mortality rate.

 

 

The report, titled "Deadly Delivery," notes that the likelihood of a woman's dying in childbirth in the U.S. is five times as great as in Greece, four times as great as in Germany and three times as great as in Spain. Every day in the U.S., more than two women die of pregnancy-related causes, with the maternal mortality ratio doubling from 6.6 deaths per 100,000 births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 births in 2006. (And as shocking as these figures are, Amnesty notes that the actual number of maternal deaths in the U.S. may be a lot higher, since there are no federal requirements to report these outcomes and since data collection at the state and local levels needs to be improved.) "In the U.S., we spend more than any country on health care, yet American women are at greater risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes than in 40 other countries," says Nan Strauss, the report's co-author, who spent two years investigating the issue of maternal mortality worldwide. "We thought that was scandalous."

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis
removing links, you can find at amnesty usa website

[lovemyboys]

The first myth that I feel should be exploded is that you receive health care when you visit an ER as an indigent person. From anecdotal evidence and from statistical studies you do not. On occasion you might get decent care but on a whole it is not good preventative medicine. I believe it was 1985 when they passed the law that required ER's to "Stabilize" anyone that showed up at there doorstep that was sick or if a woman was in labor to help her deliver. That law has a two fold affect; it denies preventative care but when the person is at end stage the hospital is obligated to perform all the expensive heroic procedures. That's real expensive and we all end up paying for that one way or another.

 

One other major problem that this bill address's are all the private contractors out there who can't get group coverage rates or if they have a prior condition can't get coverage at all. That adds money to the overall insurance pool when they are brought into the tribe.

 

 

That's true. I posted elsewhere in this thread that some urban hospitals have started separate clinics nearby the ER that funnels off the indigent, uninsured, frequent fliers and other chronic ER visitors that don't present with emergencies. They keep the ER clear for true emergencies and are able to give care and social intervention to those who need it -- getting people to shelters, rehab, etc., while developing relationships with them and giving treatment. It's a great solution and didn't require a federal bureaucracy to implement.

 

 

I fully support having "pre-existing conditions" covered. The problem with the way the gov't is structuring the insurance coverage now with this bill is that it will be unsustainable. It's not truly insurance, it becomes a health care payment system. I'm also frustrated with the wide range of mandates that have been mentioned in coverage that you and I may each have to purchase regardless of whether I would ever want these things -- including elective surgery and procedures, alternative therapies, etc. Making me purchase health care coverage is one thing, making me buy a whole package of things that I have no use for just so other people can use them seems to really infringe on me. kwim?

[mommaduck]

I don't just pay for healthcare with my tax dollars, I pay for it with my insurance and whenever I write a bill to the hospital.

 

People not having insurance drives up the costs.

 

It is in the bill that people will receive assistance paying for it right?

 

Actually, I beg to differ. INSURANCE drives up costs. Insurance doesn't always pay or pay in a timely manner and there is overhead in both insurance companies as well as places having to deal with insurance companies. I've lived in an area where insurance was a huge thing. It was more difficult to afford a doctor out of pocket because the prices were through the roof and a lot of waste. I currently live in an area where a lot of people do not use insurance, some because they cannot afford it and others because they have a religious and/or social objection to it, and pay out of pocket. Some of us have insurance, but in our case the insurance is cr@p. It literally does not pay for anything. Everything still comes out of our pocket. But the costs to see a doctor are lower, you are offered discounts for paying out of pocket, and payments are workable.

[lovemyboys]

Even with making that argument in relating to the infant mortality rate, it doesn't account for the maternal mortality rate.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100313/hl_time/08599197163300

 

 

 

http://www.amnestyusa.org/dignity/pdf/DeadlyDelivery.pdf

 

Without doing some research, I wonder if it has to do with the at-risk pregnancies here and the overall higher birthrates here compared to much of Europe......

[Slartibartfast]

Without doing some research, I wonder if it has to do with the at-risk pregnancies here and the overall higher birthrates here compared to much of Europe......

 

I linked the report

 

The US government has a responsibility to ensure equal access to quality health care

services for all, without discrimination. However, gender, race, ethnicity, immigration

status, Indigenous status or income level can affect a woman’s access to health care

and the quality of health care she receives. The intersection of multiple forms of

discrimination can further adversely affect a woman’s access to adequate health care

services in the USA. These disparities in access to maternal health care violate

women’s right to non-discrimination.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis

[TravelingChris]

No, your employer will not be covering you. In fact, many of you will be losing your coverage. That is because the fine for companies have over 50 employees for not having insurance is 2000 per employee. The cost of insurance is more that 2K per employee. It will pay for them to drop employee's coverage, add pay to management, keep pay at the same rate for regular workers, and what will happen is the employees will have to get their own insurance or pay up to 2.5% of their income as a fine. Oh, and if you had high medical expenses and were taking deductions for that from your income tax, well now those high medical expenses have to be over 10% of your income versus 7.5% before this bill. This is not simply my analysis tht employees will lose coverage. This is the analysis of the Congressional Budget Office.

 

Oh, and as I said, as a person with pre-existing conditions and having three kids all with pre-existing conditions, our coverage does cost more than a healthy persons. SO by having everyone pay the same, you have the healthy pay for people like me. That will raise premiums.

 

Now another thing about this bill is that while the bill expects to add 30 million people to the health care system, it adds no funding for training more doctors, nurses, etc. or building more facilities. Yet it does add 17,000 new IRS agents. That seems to me that they are interested in money, not in health care.

[mommaduck]

...they are interested in money, not in health care.

 

Agree with you there!

[Slartibartfast]

Now another thing about this bill is that while the bill expects to add 30 million people to the health care system, it adds no funding for training more doctors, nurses, etc. or building more facilities. Yet it does add 17,000 new IRS agents. That seems to me that they are interested in money, not in health care.

 

It doesn't actually add people out of nowhere to the health care system. It increases the number of people with insurance. Those people were already here getting care without insurance.

 

Everyone should be able to see the Dr.

[Lovedtodeath]

So choosing not to carry health ins is like...flying w/out a parachute or sailing w/out a lifeboat. Maybe those who (choose to) do so figure it's their own life to lose. BUT the guy who has the lifeboat doesn't want to watch you drown. So he drags you up into his boat & paddles the two of you to shore. Only, if there are more w/out lifeboats than w/ them, the boats sink. People drown. It's not pretty.

 

So in the sense that the law says, "Dude. Get a lifeboat." I'm with them. In the sense that they're telling people what to buy, I'm suspicious & angry & feeling rebellious right along w/ the best of them.

 

See, that's where I have a problem--I don't think everybody's lifeboat should look the same necessarily, just that every sea-faring vessle should be equipped w/ some manner of life-saving device.

:iagree:

 

I cannot tell you how often our supposedly great insurance plan didn't cover something or covered after months of arguing or only covered 3rd rate care.

 

Like I said, if insurance were the answer, america woudl be in a lot better shape than it is and I think more people would be for this bill.

 

Truth is there's a lot of people who already feel scr*wed by insurance, whether it be private or gov't and they aren't looking forward to getting a lot more of the same.

:iagree:

 

I do really love the idea of the hometown doctor, without all the trappings of insurance and the rest of the mess. I am actually friends with my OBs wife and she told me recently that medical malpractice has skyrocketed (again), and since overhead is going up so much, their income has been going down. The insurance companies set the prices they will pay doctors, so essentially they have very litte control over how much they earn (unless they see a patient every five minutes). Doctors are forced to order many, many tests and procedures they probably wouldn't if they weren't worried about being sued. Her real problem is with trial lawyers.

This makes no sense. I have one friend who was near death and suffered permanent damage due to negligence of her doctor. Her doctor had her medical license removed. Lawyers said that there was no chance of a malpractice suit. I have another whose daughter was near death due to the ER. She wasn't able to sue either. It is nearly impossible to sue for malpractice. Edited March 23, 2010 by Lovedtodeath

[Lovedtodeath]

2. The government is going to help in a couple of different ways: insurance marketplaces, not allowing insurers to charge you more if you have poor health, tax credits to help pay premiums and subsidies for lower income families. Families of four making up to $88,000 will be eligible for assistance. The lower your income, the more help you will be eligible to receive.

 

That's not answering the question. Explain to me how those that live at bare minimum, work their tail ends off to pay their bills, but literally have nothing left in their account for either insurance or fines are supposed to come up with it? These are the ppl that are paying the same taxes as you are.

 

I am so confused. If we make less than $88,000 are we going to get helped or are we going to be penalized?

[mommaduck]

It doesn't actually add people out of nowhere to the health care system. It increases the number of people with insurance. Those people were already here getting care without insurance.

 

Everyone should be able to see the Dr.

 

I agree with the last part, but forcing insurance on ppl is not necessarily the way to go. There are those that have no insurance, whether intentionally or not, that pay out of pocket and see a dr. In fact, some receive discounts for doing just that. Many times, the amount put into insurance is more than the person uses in a year.

 

 

(btw, I can see the issue from both sides, think the bill is screwy, and personally believe that insurance companies and frivolous lawsuits are two of the roots of the actual problem)

[Slartibartfast]

I agree with the last part, but forcing insurance on ppl is not necessarily the way to go. There are those that have no insurance, whether intentionally or not, that pay out of pocket and see a dr. In fact, some receive discounts for doing just that. Many times, the amount put into insurance is more than the person uses in a year.

 

 

(btw, I can see the issue from both sides, think the bill is screwy, and personally believe that insurance companies and frivolous lawsuits are two of the roots of the actual problem)

 

I don't disagree I just believe we are being stuck because people won't work together.

 

The baby boomers are getting older, health care overhaul has to happen. That is just how it is.

 

 

This isn't the bill I would have chosen either but it is inevitable, we are going to be paying a ton of medical bills either way.

[yinne]

I read it in a report that came out of the House Ways and Means Committee. We are not suppose to include links to outside websites, but you can search for 'expanded role of IRS in Health Care' or I also read it in a blog of Elizabeth Macdonald, a stocks editor for Fox Business (EMac's Stock Watch).

 

Yvonne in NE

[Slartibartfast]

I read it in a report that came out of the House Ways and Means Committee. We are not suppose to include links to outside websites, but you can search for 'expanded role of IRS in Health Care' or I also read it in a blog of Elizabeth Macdonald, a stocks editor for Fox Business (EMac's Stock Watch).

 

Yvonne in NE

 

I think it said "partisan" websites didn't it? Government websites were specifically permitted.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis

[Slartibartfast]

Actually, I beg to differ. INSURANCE drives up costs. Insurance doesn't always pay or pay in a timely manner and there is overhead in both insurance companies as well as places having to deal with insurance companies. I've lived in an area where insurance was a huge thing. It was more difficult to afford a doctor out of pocket because the prices were through the roof and a lot of waste. I currently live in an area where a lot of people do not use insurance, some because they cannot afford it and others because they have a religious and/or social objection to it, and pay out of pocket. Some of us have insurance, but in our case the insurance is cr@p. It literally does not pay for anything. Everything still comes out of our pocket. But the costs to see a doctor are lower, you are offered discounts for paying out of pocket, and payments are workable.

 

I have pretty good insurance through my husband's employer. I am satisfied with it.

 

I could not afford my medical bills if I had to pay them nor could I pay my son's. Insurance is the only thing that prevented us from going bankrupt when I had a high risk pregnancy followed by a NICU stay. The FIRST bill we received for my son when he was a newborn was over $50,000

 

We are not low income and we both work.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Sis

[yinne]

I don't want to cause the thread to be deleted, but if you search for "committe on ways and means wrong prescription", it should be one of the first links.

 

Yvonne in NE

[Slartibartfast]

I don't want to cause the thread to be deleted, but if you search for "committe on ways and means wrong prescription", it should be one of the first links.

 

Yvonne in NE

 

It is a Republican report, not non-partisan.

[wapiti]

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to quote this much, but I noticed this on a news website a few minutes ago. It might help this discussion.

 

"The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty," according to the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation. "Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner."

..."In other words, if you're due a refund or some other federal benefit, and you didn't obtain qualified insurance, your refund or benefit will be tapped for your fee,” said Bill Ahearn, director of policy and communications for the Tax Foundation.

“People who aren't due any refunds or federal benefits will apparently face no collection action, as the IRS's hands will be effectively tied and it will be a truly voluntary tax."

 

(ETA, in my mind this only adds to the consitutionality issues re: the mandate)

(ETA again, if this is true, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The same news article reported that the legislation did not cover the expense of the IRS, which perhaps - my guess - was because they didn't want the additional cost in the bill)

Edited March 23, 2010 by wapiti

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I am so confused. If we make less than $88,000 are we going to get helped or are we going to be penalized?

:confused:

[StephanieZ]

Oh geez. I keep hearing that some idiots are using the ER like a drs office but I have never ever met them while there or had anyone say they were going for that reason. Most people including myself would rather wait until they were at deaths door before going to a nasty wait with who knows what sickness floating about to be poked by whatever dr clocked in ER.

 

The closest I've ever heard are people who go to the ER bc it is the only place open when they got off work and they would've lost their job if they'd gone during their shift.

 

A primary reason that poor people use the ER for non-emergent illness is that ERs are generally required to treat any/all patients who are emergent, to the extent that they are stabilized.

 

So, if you have little/no $$ and/or no insurance, the only way to get medical care is typically to show up at an ER where there are ethical and legal obligations for the ER to treat you. Of course, you must WAIT until you are sick enough to be "emergent". So, a mild UTI might be self-treated at home for a few days. . . until it had kicked up to a bladder infection. . . then maybe a kidney infection by the time the poor, sick, person was sick enough to face the unpleasantness of an ER visit. So, the person is both sicker and more expensive to treat than he would have been a few days earlier if affordable routine health care were available. Expand this thought process to vaccine-preventable illness, etc, etc and you can get one picture of how and why ER case loads are so out of control. I don't have the ##s but I'd imagine that a UTI could be treated out-patient at a family dr for under 200, including meds. A kidney infection at an ER -- gosh, I am sure it'd be at least $1000 if treating out-patient and ofcourse thousands a day if hospitalized. Yikes.

 

On the other hand, normal private doctors do not have any obligation to give anyone an appointment, or to treat them . . . An ethical obligation might kick in ONCE THE PATIENT IS EXAMINED. . . But, good luck getting an appointment or past the front desk without insurance and an ability to pay. Doctors could not stay out of bankruptcy for long if they did not have a staff to effectively screen non-payers from making it to their exam tables.

 

Personally, I've always had insurance. . . But many folks we have employed had no insurance prior to getting on our insurance. None of them saw doctors routinely and they all went to Urgent Care and/or ER more than I would have. They would all put off treating things much too long, and end up with complicated illnesses by the time they bit the bullet and paid for Urgent Care. Observing that was one of the things that helped us prioritize making health insurance an affordable benefit for all our staff.

 

I believe that this bill will make it easier for us to both continue to offer insurance in general, and especially will help us in the event any of our staff gets sick. As it is, I know for a fact that if we employed any one over 50 or anyone sick at all (or with a sick family member), we would have had to drop our group coverage completely under the old rules. I am hopeful this reform will help us keep coverage.

 

Personally, I am ecstatic that this bill passed. I know it is not ideal, but it is a huge step in the right direction, IMHO.

[ciyates]

I do not have the time to read all the post but would like to point out a few things.

 

My father has diabetes and a heart condition that required a quintuple bypass. He was able to find insurance with these pre existing conditions.

 

A young man that I tutor was born with a kidney disease that will require a kidney transplant by the time he is 30. He was able to find insurance.

 

My father in law has a heart condition and bone condition that required 3 hip replacements (no he isn't a freak one hip has been replaced twice). He was able to find insurance.

 

The difference in all of these cases is that they pay premium prices. My father in law was a wall paper hanger, my dad works a menial job and the young man I tutor is a college student.

 

It is not the governments right to force me to pay for them.

 

I have read the bill. I was apart of a group who over 6 weeks read the entire 2000+ page bill. Between doctors, lawyers and politicians we figured it out.

 

Mrs. Mugo while this does not immediately effect Tricare, you can guarantee it will be impacted. Military personal and veterans are covered in Section 17. Guess who was left out...survivors. Those people who elected for survivor benefits and have been paying into the system all along will be forced to buy the government insurance because that plan does not qualify.

 

America will continue to teeter down this dangerous path as long as people think the government owes them something. It is not the governments responsibility to take care of my family members.

 

If someone would like to respond to me directly please send it a private message.

 

Thank you.

[monk17]

A primary reason that poor people use the ER for non-emergent illness is that ERs are generally required to treat any/all patients who are emergent, to the extent that they are stabilized.

 

So, if you have little/no $$ and/or no insurance, the only way to get medical care is typically to show up at an ER where there are ethical and legal obligations for the ER to treat you. Of course, you must WAIT until you are sick enough to be "emergent". So, a mild UTI might be self-treated at home for a few days. . . until it had kicked up to a bladder infection. . . then maybe a kidney infection by the time the poor, sick, person was sick enough to face the unpleasantness of an ER visit. So, the person is both sicker and more expensive to treat than he would have been a few days earlier if affordable routine health care were available. Expand this thought process to vaccine-preventable illness, etc, etc and you can get one picture of how and why ER case loads are so out of control. I don't have the ##s but I'd imagine that a UTI could be treated out-patient at a family dr for under 200, including meds. A kidney infection at an ER -- gosh, I am sure it'd be at least $1000 if treating out-patient and ofcourse thousands a day if hospitalized. Yikes.

 

 

 

 

Very informative post and well written, but I'd like to clear up one misconception: ER are legally bound to "Stabilize" your condition if it's life threatening or you're in labor. That's a Federal mandate passed in the mid 80's, local ordinances can make difference, for instance if the local government agrees to pay the community hospital sums of money for uninsured. Still the goal of an ER is stabilization not long term treatment. It's a huge difference as you point out in your post.

[monk17]

Could you address the accusation earlier in this thread that stated that the IRS would put liens on property, take tax returns, and such by those that receive such assistance.

 

The words IRS are not listed anywhere in he billl.