What's in the Healthcare Bill for You?

[qjosea]

kilopy wrote:

"What are you? ... some parrot that broke free from FOX NOISE.

I don't agree with or support the bill either but the least you can do is think for yourself. Geeze"

The above is the typical response of a liberal - I am entitled to my misguided opinion but you can't have yours.

kilopy, want a cracker. The parrot isyou, write something that original, the liberal left attack the same, I have a brain of my own. You took the bait. Do you have a point of view or was that it. The truth hurts sometimes.

[Kilopy]

If you must know I receive my news from a variety of sources and can actually read. It would appear that mine were some of the only original thoughts in this chat room. Too bad (for you) that most of you are not capable of understasnding what I said.

Based on what I see from most of your posts you get your news from comic books and reading Obama propaganda.

[JohnBFisher]

... Based on what I see from most of your posts you get your news from comic books and reading Obama propaganda. ...

I repeat... Do you really need to attack others to prove yourself correct? It does not lead to better understanding. It only antagonizes other readers. We do better if we TRY to reach out and understand one another.

Likewise, you have no idea the road I (or others) have travelled. That I hold more moderate views does not make me evil, stupid or someone who follows propoganda. I am a very complicated person who has gone through a medical journey that you may (or may not) understand. But the beliefs of others are valid. I am willing to listen to their point of view. I am also willing to listen to your point of view. Why not try the same?

[Jay K]

you should go back and read in my OP what I reported the socialtists are saying about the bill

Rooster, I am going to decline your invitation because I am not interested in the least what Socialists say about the bill. However, if in the future you care to quote Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Moderates, or Conservatives, I would be happy to take a look.

[TWW]

My favorite in this discussion was the sig line of a regular poster saying that we need free health care, and we need it now.

It is not free! It is taking money from some citizens and giving it to others.

Same goes for the assertion of "affordable" health care for one's niece: It is suddenly "affordable" because she is taking the money from me.

Oh, sorry. Harry Reid is taking the money from me and giving it to her. That makes it all right.

[roster]

... About the message of Jesus, I assure you that there is absolutely nothing imploring us to organize governments to help others. ...

Rooster, I think you will find that we are closer in thought than you might believe.

There is no doubt that we are encouraged to care for one another - as individuals and as a community of believers. In fact I heard the Bible described as a lengthy answer to the very first question posed in the Bible: "Am I my brother's keeper?" As you know, the answer is a resounding "Yes!"

... according to what I read it will help the “hungry, the thirsty, the sick” much less than it will help the warm, well-fed, well-clothed insurance companies. ...

I agree. That is why I want to see some stratagy or stratagies that increase competition. My preference is to encourage the companies to compete our business. That's the advantage of the approach used to provide healthcare for federal employees. It's not perfect, but the increased competition helps improve the service they provide.

Lacking that approach I would endorse a "public" option. But I tend to want to avoid that, since I think such government systems tend to lead to far more graft and mismanagement than a competitive insurance environment.

... That is why I hope (foolish as it might be) the final legislation will help improve the lot of all citizens. Will it? I certainly don't know.

You offer very little hope in those words and we know that this very little hope comes at a huge cost to all of our society.

Again, I see a big picture. From what I can see, no action will eventually cost us more (individually and as a society) than this bill will cost. But I do not think it is the "be all and end all" to solve our healthcare problems. More on that later.

But doing nothing is not acceptable as a responsible citizen of this country and as a person of faith.

Now we agree on something! Doing nothing is not acceptable. But doing the horribly wrong thing is also not acceptable.

Again, I think we are closer in thought than you might imagine.

I am a moderate Republican, which the current Republican Party seems to dispise. I want to find reasonable, workable solutions. No action (as the Republican party appears to have proposed) is unacceptable to me. It is unacceptable as a citizen who SHOULD care about other citizens. The Republican party was not founded on the principles of Big Business and "Me First". (Nor am I saying you embrace that view. If anything, I see you as someone who cares deeply about others and worries about the consequence of this bill.)

The Republican Party was built shortly before the Civil War when we were concerned about the concequences of failing to meet the obligations we have to one another. We should remain united. ALL members of the society should have an equal opportunity. Not have it handed too them on a plate. But all should have the chance to reach for the stars!

I also firmly believe we as individuals are called to care for one another. But how many people really do that? This is not a new problem. I do not endorse a "nanny" state, but we can not rely on the good will of individuals. Several years ago, UnitedHeath Care proved we can not do that. They gave a bonus to their outgoing CEO at the same time they started to deny coverage to people they insured. Suddenly none of the hospitals or doctors in my county were covered. My wife was undergoing medical treatments at the time. I had to eat thousands of dollars of cost. But their CEO walked away with a retirement bonus of almost $1,000,000,000. No, that's not a typo. He got almost one BILLION dollars. We can not rely on the good will of individuals, because people can be very evil.

Regardless of all the politics, none of this will get better unless we as individuals and as a society change how we approach healthcare. Right now the system only works by trying to treat a disease. If we encourage doctors to only test and only pay them by the number of tests they request, then costs will continue to escalate.

We (as individuals and a society) must assume responsibility for ourselves. My doctors do not manage my healthcare. I do. I challenge tests that are requested. If they don't make sense, I say "NO!". Let me provide two recent examples:

My neurologist / sleep specialist wanted to run lots of test to rule out causes of my neurological condition. I asked "Will it change anything in how we manage it?" The answer: No. So, why do more testing? No, thank you.

My neurologist / sleep specialist wanted me to redo my BiPAP titration sleep study. I asked "Since I had a horrible time falling asleep and staying asleep due to central apneas, what would the second test prove?" The answer: Oh, nothing. So why repeat that test? Ah, we started to address some of the fundamental problems. A new sleep test was ordered with an ASV unit. It was another expensive test, but had a higher chance of helping.

My doctors either accept that they act as a consultant to help me manage my health, or I find another doctor. DME's either act as my agent to help me manage my health, or I find another DME. I have very high standards and I expect them to adhere to MY approach. My approach does not violate any laws, but puts me squarely in charge of my health. And I fear few will accept that level of responsibility, because it means each of us are responsible for what happens to our health (good or bad). And all too often, people just want someone else to blame.

Okay. Sorry for pulling out the soapbox. I will put it away and try to stay away from these posts for a while.

John, That is the best post I have seen on the subject on this forum. With everything you say is fundamental to your beliefs, I am surprised you support the bill. Certainly a big part of it is frustration with the current state of affairs, which you know I will argue is caused by improper government interference and political fraud of both parties at the federal and state government levels.

I don't believe businessmen are any less sinful than politicians. They are the other side of the coin of political fraud. Businessmen do not believe in free markets and robust competition. They will gladly seek political favors to stifle their competition.

I do want businesses subject to free market competition and government regulations that protect individual rights, particularly regulations against fraud. In this type of competitive environment businessmen will still be evil but they will tend to be caught and driven out of business quickly. But bad governments continue for long periods of time.

In the noncompetive environment our government has created for large insurance companies, it becomes difficult for the consumer to get what he wants at a decent price. That is really what we all want – a reasonable insurance policy at a decent price. Then we can address how the people in our society who don’t fend well for themselves can be accomodated.

As far as the ad hominem attacks, are you aware of the “Foes List” feature? Put a member on your foes list and you no longer see his posts. I don’t like doing that, but I have three on there now who only post emotional personal attacks and add nothing to the debate. Every few months, I will clear the list and if they are still making nonsense attacks, I just put them on again.

Finally, assuming the bill is enacted into law, our next subject should be “unintended consequences”.

[no_more_headaches]

My favorite in this discussion was the sig line of a regular poster saying that we need free health care, and we need it now.

It is not free! It is taking money from some citizens and giving it to others.

Same goes for the assertion of "affordable" health care for one's niece: It is suddenly "affordable" because she is taking the money from me.

Oh, sorry. Harry Reid is taking the money from me and giving it to her. That makes it all right.

I think you should sign off with the phrase "I got mine FU". This is what it seems to devolving to. Insurance and taxes by their nature take from one segment and give it to another.
So what. I may lose out with the reforms. So what there are times when I believe we need the government to help set a level playing field. The problem we have in this case is that the republican side simply is more interested stopping the democratic side than they are in improving the situation. IE it's not their bill. as a result they are preventing reforms that will help level the playing field by causing the 60-40 scenario where any one vote could cause it to fail. I believe if they supported it we could get tougher stuff through but since they won't allow anything the democrats do through, we are getting more earmarks added to buy votes.

What's in it for me. I suppose pre-existing like everybody else. I am more angered by the republican attitude during this whole debate than anything else. It' cant be about deficits because they have run that up more than the democrats by doing the war off the books.

[DreamStalker]

.....

I do want businesses subject to free market competition and government regulations that protect individual rights, particularly regulations against fraud. In this type of competitive environment businessmen will still be evil but they will tend to be caught and driven out of business quickly. But bad governments continue for long periods of time.

Is he evolving right before our very monitors?

In the noncompetive environment our government has created for large insurance companies, it becomes difficult for the consumer to get what he wants at a decent price. That is really what we all want – a reasonable insurance policy at a decent price. Then we can address how the people in our society who don’t fend well for themselves can be accomodated.

If you want to gamble, go to Las Vegas ... they have the quarter slot machines, can't get much more reasonable than that. Healthcare should be to accommodate those in society (still can't figure out how you have a society without socialism?) who are unable to fend for themselves during catastrophic life events ... not to gamble for a decent price.

As far as the ad hominem attacks, are you aware of the “Foes List” feature? Put a member on your foes list and you no longer see his posts. I don’t like doing that, but I have three on there now who only post emotional personal attacks and add nothing to the debate. Every few months, I will clear the list and if they are still making nonsense attacks, I just put them on again.

Uh huh, kind'a like sticking your head in the sand and poof! ... they be all gone and everyone is happy again

I guess I'll be back in a few months.

Finally, assuming the bill is enacted into law, our next subject should be “unintended consequences”.

Who started this mess (err em ... thread) anyway?

[CiresWrossed]

Eventually we as a society will need to ask ourselves. Are we comfortable with health insurance being managed in a market oriented environment. Is there innovation being derived from this? Is the innovation at the expense and harm of the populace. Especially those weakened by sickness. When there can be no further innovation -- is that the point at which an industry should become a public utility? Managed by experts who we entrust with controlling the resources required to keep our society healthy. Perhaps it sounds ridiculous but is actually quite obvious when you stop to think.

Now the standard rejection of turning insurance into a public utility is that the government cannot operate efficiently. But that assumes that the inefficiency cannot be measured, projected and resolved. To this we should not blindly give up -- but ask why and look to those who can fix these problems; and reject those who say the solution is to abandon the ship.

The current health care bills are not perfect. They don't address the hyper-inflating costs and they don't address tort reform. But they do attempt to open new paths for resource sharing and close immoral practices like pre-existing conditions. These bills cost too much and do too little but doing nothing will cost more and do less. I am not proud of the Democrats and Republicans. They have spent millions to inch forward and millions more to stifle progress. They are consumed with jealousy and back-bitting when we need practical solutions. They complain about reading an 800 page bill when they have large staffs and frankly -- reading bills is their job. A job that many of them seem to constantly complain about having to do.

If this latest quagmire is what we can expect in the future we all should be concerned that the scope of the task of governing our nation is too large for these institutions. I often wonder if those who founded this nation would look at us now in disgust; wishing they had not suffered so much to have this age be the result.

[Gerryk]

A lot of what I have heard on this board, not necessarily this string is that people think this is something great because it guarantees them insurance if they lose theirs from job loss or for some other reason. This is one of the big things I hear people outside this board talking about.

Where have the people of the country been since 1996 when Congress passed HIPAA? Hipaa is not something you have to sign when you go to your doctor. What you have to sign when you go to your doctor is becaue of Hipaa. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Hipaa limits restrictions on preexisting conditions with group plans.

I have seen a lot of good points on insurance posted on these boards. I have also seen some individual basically attack others because they don't agree with them. Those people usually just stop posting. I am not saying we should not disagree. No, this is healthy if it is done in a civil matter.

The biggest problem I have is that many people just don't care about insurance or don't want to pay for it until they need it then they whine and want it handed to them.
An even bigger problem is people who have worked hard for years, then had their benefits ripped out of their hands by the government who lets their companies go bankrupt. Those companies went bankrupt because of greedy corporate officers and grossly over paid executives. We have seen over the past year how messed up our government is offering bailouts while allowing CEO's to take more money home in bonuses than the combined income of most communities.

Gerry

[bearded_two]

Thanks to whoever pointed out the "friends and foes" capability -- it works quite well.

I have several other sites I could go to if I want to hear political bickering.

[DreamStalker]

I agree with you Gerry. I too am one of those who have forfeited higher wages for years in return for guaranteed health and pension benefits.

And I repeat to all those who continue to bash government in general. Government employees are people just like everyone else ... with the same financial and health issues and they too pay taxes just like everyone else (well except for those who are wealthy enough to stash their money away at UBS and hire accountants to weasel their way out of paying).

Government is not the problem as Regan once said ... rather, mega-corporate influence on legislative politicians is the problem ... the two-party DEM/GOP system is the problem (after all, we are only one party away from being a one party system like they have in the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea).

As for the bailouts ... US politicians have been selling bailouts for campaign funding for years (not just in the last year) ... to big Agra, big Oil, big Pharma, big Banks, Big Auto, and just about all the too-big-to fail-mega corporations that run this country and most of the world for that matter. What we need is another era of trust/corporate busting and laws that prohibit corporate lobbying and campaign donations ... a new amendment for the separation of corporations and state if you will.

As for healthcare, make everyone pay just like we make everyone pay for military defense and public education even though people will still whine about paying for it ... at least they won't whine about having it handed to them (well ok, some will cuz that is what they like to do).

[TWW]

I think you should sign off with the phrase "I got mine FU".

Nice try, but an inaccurate description of my character.

(1) My wife and I give, and not just to family members. This includes food, medical help, and services. It's also different from having our money taken by a politician who wants, um, you to love him because "he" is giving you something.

(2) In the 1980s, with two kids and a high-skill low-pay job, we chose not to pursue food stamps because we thought it inappropriate, despite the fact that we were at poverty level.

And by the way, I had no intent to toot my own horn -- but the disparagement of my motivations was, unfortunately, a typical liberal argument: "You don't want to do this because you're evil."

No, little one, I don't want it because I'm honest.

[Jay K]

It is very unclear whether the taxes on what has incorrectly been labeled "Cadillac health plans" is going to survive into the final bill. So, although those potentially affected have a reason to be concerned, the object of their concern may or may not come to pass.

If it does, there is nothing from preventing the unions from shifting their future negotiation demands from so-called Cadillac health plans (which I imagine were largely negotiated as a way to get a tax-free benefit) back to higher wages and more moderate health plans.

But there is another aspect to all this that needs some comment. I personally find the present bill from the Senate a bit too watered down in terms of controlling health care costs to consumers, and so forth. It should be noted though there is one provision that in an indirect way may have that effect, and that is the provision that insurance companies have to pay out 80 to 85 percent of their revenues in actual health care. Assuming this can be policed, it would likely have some effect on controlling prices. However, one can also expect as time goes on there will be modifications and improvements to the laws on health care. One of the problems with the current bill is that because the Republicans have essentially made the decision to unanimously oppose any bill, passage of the Democratic bill essentially requires unanimity among Democrats and Lieberman. This gives every member of the caucus veto power over the bill. Accordingly, if Sen. Nelson does not want to undo the antitrust exemption for health care insurers, for example, he gets his will. If one or more Democratic Senators oppose allowing prescription drugs to be reimported, they get their will. Any provision that has a single objection to it is deleted.

Why is this important? Once the basic bill is passed, one can expect some of these "orphan" issues to re-emerge in single focused bills. In many cases, Republican unanimous opposition would not follow in the same manner as it does for the omnibus bill. It is easy for the Republicans to unanimously oppose a bill that the great majority of the American public do not understand very well owing to its many facets and complications. However, it is not going to be so easy to maintain complete Republican opposition to narrow legislation designed to add aspects to our health care system that are not included in the omnibus bill. For example, is it going to be so easy for the Republicans to unanimously oppose re-importation of drugs--something a majority of Americans basically understand and support? I doubt it and therefore even if there is a smathering of Democratic Senators opposed to such legislation, it would likely pass. It is possible such a scenario would also play out with regard to the antitrust exemption and other important issues.

My point is even to the extent the currently proposed legislation may be lacking, or even misguided to an extent, there is a good chance this would be corrected later. Maybe I have greater faith in this than others, and perhaps I also view the current state of health care in the United States as worse than some others do (thereby allowing me to "forgive" some of the less than perfect aspects of the current legislation) but on balance passing something along the lines of what is currently being proposed puts us in a better place than the status quo, or so I believe.

[sthnreb]

Ok Rooster... we get it, you don't like the new bill. However, has it occurred to you at all that it might not have been written for you, but for all the millions of people who don't have ANY health care at all? Who literally have to declare bankruptcy if someone gets sick? Is it really OK with you that all those people just have no decent care (most of the time through no fault of their own), and that they include millions of kids? I guess just as long as you're ok, the heck with them?

A good friend of mine is in the hospital here with a severe stroke. While I was in the lobby waiting for them to move him from emergency to and ICU room, I read a sign hanging over the desk. It stated the hospital could not discriminate against anyone for race, religion or whatever. It even included persons without any money. It stated they had to treat them equally regardless. If anyone has a problem with the hospital concering this please contact xxxxxxxxxx. Now, here, who has to have a paid policy health care under the current system? People who do pay also pay for the ones who don't. What's wrong with the way it is? How can someone say there are millions without healthcare when anyone can get healthcare regardless of money, race or religion?