Not a flame war. I'm looking for info. I'm ignorant.
Anybody know how much of this is true?
Not a flame war. I'm looking for info. I'm ignorant.
Anybody know how much of this is true?
I don't know what to believe but given how confusing legislation is I doubt it is cut and dry like the video makes it out to be and probably a lot of it is taken out of context much like the "death panels" thing.
First one is more of a "study."
Second applies to "cost sharing."
Third the committee will recommend covered benefits. Doesn't read as on a case-by-case basis, though.
Fourth also reads broadly.
5th reads very, very suspiciously.
6th reads "‘‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real- time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;"
Ok somebody else take over. This is just pissing me off that this even has a chance of passing.
I work in a hospital - used to write insurance plans for health insurers so I feel like I have a little perspective...
My first thought is anything that starts out "the truth about..." probably isn't - although there may be elements that are taken out of context. Second thought is that people are getting torqued up about "rationed" healthcare or cost-sharing - hate to break it to you, but insurers have been doing this for years, not to mention medicare/medicaid. Lots of procedures/treatments require precertification from insurers' case managers - that's pretty much real-time determination of coverages.
Things are messed up in healthcare - compared to about any other industry, the quality is crap - way too many errors - ridiculous amounts of waste, unfair insurance rules that screw the insured. Something should be done - but I have no faith the gubment can manage an improvement. One side wants a govt run program - the other side leans to the business world. We're screwed. Actually, the whole premise behind insurance is that they take in more in premiums than paid out in claims. Statistically speaking, if you skipped buying insurance and banked it, you'd be better off - unless your outside the bell curve healthwise.
Not saying that its not true, just saying that the video probably isn't all that credible... Take a look at that guys other uploads. Not to mention that the second recommended video is "Obama admits he is a Muslim"
I agree. The presentation wreaks of extremism.
Which is why I asked.
But are the facts even close?
I don't know anything about that but I did find this (SFW) in the 'related' and found it to be more catchy.
Here is the text posted on the whitehouse's site. You can draw your own conclusions although language actually in the legislation will be different than language in the proposal. If you really want to understand what's being proposed, ultimately, you gotta see the language in the bill and give a go at interpreting it.
In reply to oldtin:
Here's a link to a Washington-based reporter that actually takes the time to analyze the proposed bills:
http://wsbradio.com/dupree/
Dupree is a daily contributor on the Boortz radio show, but is truly an unbiased source. The things he investigates and reports are worth checking.
Oldsaw:
Thanks for the link. Are you saying Dupree analyzed the proposed health care bill, or that he analyzes in general? I couldn't find any commentary on his site about this bill.
oldtin wrote: ....people are getting torqued up about "rationed" healthcare or cost-sharing - hate to break it to you, but insurers have been doing this for years, not to mention medicare/medicaid....
I always found this amazing also.
I guess what is needed to point this out is some semi-informed politician needs to make some emotional speeches about how the private health insurance companies are rationing your healthcare and have Death Panels that are trying to kill your grandmother!!! The truth is, they have been doing it for years, that's just the way the business works, and will have to be fundamentally the same in a universal system.
I mean, do people really believe that the current system is somehow unlimited?! If it is not rationed, it has to be unlimited, right?
.
.
"Those darn private-run type healthcare type people are trying to kill your grandmother!.. and want to ration you healthcare!, don't you know!." "How's all that free-markety stuff workin' out for ya?"
aircooled wrote:oldtin wrote: ....people are getting torqued up about "rationed" healthcare or cost-sharing - hate to break it to you, but insurers have been doing this for years, not to mention medicare/medicaid....I always found this amazing also. I guess what is needed to point this out is some semi-informed politician needs to make some emotional speeches about how the private health insurance companies are rationing your healthcare and have Death Panels that are trying to kill your grandmother!!! The truth is, they have been doing it for years, that's just the way the business works, and will have to be fundamentally the same in a universal system. I mean, do people really believe that the current system is somehow unlimited?! If it is not rationed, it has to be unlimited, right? . .
lol
In reply to SVreX:
He is a reporter far more inclined to analyze proposed legislation than most any other I've come across, regardless of the issue(s) addressed within the bill.
His blog may be remiss on some of the details, but his daily (and non-partisan) updates on the Boortz radio show are quite illuminating. If you're interested and can take the time, I believe his segments usually occur aroung 10:30AM and NOON - EST. Boortz often tries to tweak the atmosphere with his opinions, but Dupree steadfastly sticks to his solid journalistic roots.
I've heard Dupree explicitly state that he hasn't and won't move into visual media because he loves his relative anonymity and his freedom to actually research and report instead of catering to "other" influences.
aircooled wrote:oldtin wrote: ....people are getting torqued up about "rationed" healthcare or cost-sharing - hate to break it to you, but insurers have been doing this for years, not to mention medicare/medicaid....I always found this amazing also. I guess what is needed to point this out is some semi-informed politician needs to make some emotional speeches about how the private health insurance companies are rationing your healthcare and have Death Panels that are trying to kill your grandmother!!! The truth is, they have been doing it for years, that's just the way the business works, and will have to be fundamentally the same in a universal system. I mean, do people really believe that the current system is somehow unlimited?! If it is not rationed, it has to be unlimited, right? . .
Some may argue that with the current system, there is at least the illusion that one can pursue justice through government, i.s., the court system.
Should government be the sole arbiter of health care and justice, that illusion is erased - forever.
Just sayin......
oldsaw wrote: Some may argue that with the current system, there is at least the illusion that one can pursue justice through government, i.s., the court system. Should government be the sole arbiter of health care and justice, that illusion is erased - forever. Just sayin......
Good point. What make me really sad about your statement though... I have never heard that argument before. All I seem to hear is screaming about Rationing!!, Killing You Grandmother!!, and Socialism!!!
The logical argument is VERY MUCH a lost art.
Take a look at this site:
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/
I bet you could make check list of the fallacies shown there and within a few hours of watching some of those "opinionews" shows and some politicians speaking, you could have all the marks ticked.... ....very sad.
oldsaw wrote:aircooled wrote:Some may argue that with the current system, there is at least the illusion that one can pursue justice through government, i.s., the court system. Should government be the sole arbiter of health care and justice, that illusion is erased - forever. Just sayin......oldtin wrote: ....people are getting torqued up about "rationed" healthcare or cost-sharing - hate to break it to you, but insurers have been doing this for years, not to mention medicare/medicaid....I always found this amazing also. I guess what is needed to point this out is some semi-informed politician needs to make some emotional speeches about how the private health insurance companies are rationing your healthcare and have Death Panels that are trying to kill your grandmother!!! The truth is, they have been doing it for years, that's just the way the business works, and will have to be fundamentally the same in a universal system. I mean, do people really believe that the current system is somehow unlimited?! If it is not rationed, it has to be unlimited, right? . .
Was the plan ever to put the government in charge of hospitals or were they going to be another insurer?
Unless the government was going to take over a bunch of privately run hospitals this argument doesn’t follow.
edit: or were you refering to sueing your insurer? I was thinking about lawsuits resulting from bad healthcare like a botched operation.
GlennS wrote: Was the plan ever to put the government in charge of hospitals or were they going to be another insurer? Unless they were going to take over a bunch of privately run hospitals this argument doesn’t follow.
Are you implying Oldsaw had made a fallacy of division? (inferences from the fact that a whole has a property to the conclusion that a part of the whole also has that property) - A government run health care system implies that they must control the hospitals.
...just practicing my logic...
you can read it here.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
The video says:
" Page 59 lines 21-24; the government WILL have direct access to your bank accounts for elective fund transfers"
Page 59 lines 21-24 of the bill cut and paste:
21 ‘‘(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad
24 vice
The video is paranoid idiocy or cynical manipulation or both. If one bothers to read the context of the lines in question it is arcane legaleses language pertaining to managing the use of electronic payments. Much of it is to do with transparency and consumer protection. Like when you buy beer with your bank card.
Mayby it is the worst bill in the universe but the video linked is trash.
oldtin wrote: My first thought is anything that starts out "the truth about..." probably isn't - although there may be elements that are taken out of context. Second thought is that people are getting torqued up about "rationed" healthcare or cost-sharing - hate to break it to you, but insurers have been doing this for years, not to mention medicare/medicaid. Lots of procedures/treatments require precertification from insurers' case managers - that's pretty much real-time determination of coverages.
This is a good point. health care is already being rationed.
GlennS wrote:
Was the plan ever to put the government in charge of hospitals or were they going to be another insurer?
Unless the government was going to take over a bunch of privately run hospitals this argument doesn’t follow.
edit: or were you refering to sueing your insurer? I was thinking about lawsuits resulting from bad healthcare like a botched operation.
I'm extrapolating on the premises of those who advocate a single-payer health-care system. A very vocal portion of the President's base is berating him for not pushing the public-option, which is the "camel's nose in the tent" for achieving a nationalized health system.
Should the government become the sponsor (or supplier) of an alternate insurance source, there is still the concern that rates will be set artificially low. If companies that offer employee coverage cannot compete with private insurer rates, or are penalized if they can, the incentive to drop private coverage only increases. That forces the uninsured and under-insured to turn to the government-funded alternative and ultimately creates a monopoly, a monopoly controlled by government.
As far as government taking over privately run hospitals, well any such facility working within the Medicare/Medicaid programs are already under the thumb of government. The re-imbursements are controlled and subject to constant reductions, all mandated by government.
The argument towards "rationing" fails for both sides, because (as already noted in this thread) rationing already exists within the private and public sector. Intervention by government into the health-care sector certainly guarantees ever more rationing as insurer's profits will be further squeezed-out through various penalties. Rationing in the public realm will have to increase as costs will skyrocket because of the huge numbers of new participants.
A real solution (IMO) is to address the root causes of rising costs, costs that have far exceeded the rate of inflation. I humbly suggest that government intervention and over-regulation has a much bigger role in sky-rocketing costs than the profiteers of insurance companies. To believe government will perform better than the private sector, to me, is just madness.
Just out of curiousity, who on this forum buys their own health insurance and what does it cost you? I'm retired and mine is subsidized, but I haven't got the amount readily at hand. What I do know is that my share is $946.72 monthly. Now, I'm fortunate that I can actually pay that, but I know a lot of people who haven't got the means to do it. Honestly, the whole arguement didn't concern me while I was working and my employer was footing the bill. We constantly hear about American jobs going elsewhere. Well, a health care cost of $12,000 a year might be an incentive for a company to move jobs elsewhere.
I have bought it at times. It is prohibitively expensive, and therefore my family and I have usually gone without.
But that's not the point. I'm gonna have to agree with oldsaw on the issue of addressing health costs, not health care.
Without any attempt to control rising costs, any healthcare plan is completely and utterly unsustainable.
As an uninsured family, my wife and I had a child in 2000. We heard the hospital would negotiate the cost if we paid in advance. We went and discussed it with them. They told us the cost of a normal no complications delivery was $3200, but if we paid in advance they would accept $2000. It struck me that this implied the red tape associated with insurance and the cost of the bad debts and collections accounted for an increase of more than 50%. We paid in advance.
2 years later, another child. Same scenario. They told us the cost had risen to $4600, but they would again accept $2000 if we paid in advance. Again, we paid.
3 years later, another child. Same scenario. This time they told us the cost of a normal no complications delivery was $8400. They couldn't do it for $2000 any more, but if we paid in advance, they would do it for $3200.
That's cost increases of 263% in only 5 years. Anyone ever get a pay raise that kept pace with that? Anyone work in another industry that has had 5 year cost increases comparable?
At that rate, a $10,000 procedure in 2010 will cost $26,300 in 2015, and it will cost $69,169 in 2015. Multiply that by 300 million citizens (plus any non-citizens who are going to be covered), and you will get some idea of the unsustainability of the whole deal.
Healthcare is a shame without holding health costs.
Some kind of berkeleyed up government controlled healthcare system>paying 3600 for another kidney stone, mostly for the CT scan the doctor insisted I have...
Joey
Oldsaw, your expanded arguement makes more sense to me now. Yes, bad policy down the road that piggy backs on what they are suggesting now could lead to bad things down the road.
oldsaw wrote: A real solution (IMO) is to address the root causes of rising costs, costs that have far exceeded the rate of inflation. I humbly suggest that government intervention and over-regulation has a much bigger role in sky-rocketing costs than the profiteers of insurance companies. To believe government will perform better than the private sector, to me, is just madness.
What are some examples of government causing sky rocketing insurance costs?
Canadas government seems to be out performing our private sector, at least cost wise. Their country spends about half as much per person as ours does.
You'll need to log in to post.
