I am attending the Obama Town Hall Meeting here in my community tomorrow. I am going to try to ask a question. Does anyone have any ideas? Any questions you would like to ask?Here's a question:
For something so huge and so far-reaching as healthcare reform and universal coverage, why are our "leaders" rushing to get this pushed through so fast? Why not give our elected officials time to go back to their own communities and speak to their own constituents to see what the American people really think of this... instead of these made-for-TV "town hall" meetings.
If reform is such a priority why hasn't he hasn't put out the "Obama Plan"? Why has he left this entirely to Congress? There is a claim there will be no medicare cuts however part of the plan to pay for the new plan is to take medicare "savings" If there are savings to be found in Medicare why isn't that money being pushed back into Medicare especially since Medicare is going bankrupt?
I'm not very political and don't know if, when or how a bill can be revoked, so this may not even be something that can happen, but since any health care reform that is passed won't go into effect until 2013 or 2014, if there is a change in party majority or backlash on the passed reform, is it possible that the decision on health care can be overturned before it even goes into effect?
Here's a question....why did he feel it necessary to stack the deck with democrats at the New Hampshire town hall meeting?I think our "leaders" thought their "followers" wouldn't be doing much thinking.
People care more about American Idle than they do about the goon squad we send to DC.A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.
/2:07Health reform and youvidConfig.push({videoArray: ["/video/news/2009/07/22/n_brkdn_0722_health_reform.cnnmoney.json"], collapsed:false});Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just 0 a year to insure is forced to pay ,500, a 62-year-old who costs ,500 would pay no more than ,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over ,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.
But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.
The best solution is to move
to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating,
no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another
market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose
my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com.
For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have
our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms.
[QUOTE=Linncn]Me too.[/QUOTE]
I think our "leaders" thought their "followers" wouldn't be doing much thinking. been trying to post an article over and over... I will break it up cause the site keeps timing out: [QUOTE=lorster]From Jas: In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction. Here you go lorster... read it for yourself: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/president-obama-continues-questionable-you-can-keep-your-health-care-promise.html President Obama Continues Questionable “You Can Keep Your Health Care” Promise July 16, 2009 5:48 PM President Obama Continues Questionable “You Can Keep Your Health Care” Promise July 16, 2009 5:48 PM
abcNewsShare.render(false,false,false,'http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/index.rdf',false,'addthis');
ABC News' Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report: At a rally in “Let me be exactly clear about what health care reform means to you,” the president told residents of the But last month, as the president acknowledged during a press conference, he doesn’t literally mean that you are guaranteed to be able to keep your health care plan, and your doctor, if and when health care reform passes. “When I say ‘If you have your plan and you like it,… or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans,’” the president said after we asked him about this, “what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.” In the audience was John Sheils, senior vice president of The Lewin Group, a health care policy research and management consulting firm, who estimated that up to 70 percent of those with private insurance would end up on the public plan. "There are a whole series of ways that we could design this," the president responded, arguing that employers would be given a "disincentive" to shift their employees to the public plan.
I do not need a governmental based watchdog nor do I need a babysitter. I am perfectly able to make my own choices and in doing so generate my own way-to-pay.
I would appreciate health care costs being universally proportioned. Why should I be forced to pay more than insurances, private and governmental, have contracted with providers? Make the payments "fair and equitable" and allow everyone to make their own decisions regarding how/why/where to expend my own $$ for health care. Why must our decisions be surmounted by the government's interests?
Oh, my...that is certainly more than one question and/or one concern.
Excellent points, Spelunker.
There's not just one version either.
[QUOTE=JasmineRain]
There's not just one version either.[/QUOTE]
Each couched in that wonderfully arcane Beltway bureaucratic Doublespeak that requires someone well-versed in DC to Standard English interpretation to begin to unlock the facts from the myths.
I wonder what Professor Irwin Corey is doing these days.
Has anyone read here read all 1000+ pages of the House Bill, H.R. 3200? I admit that I haven't, I have tried but failed repeatedly. Thus, I am dependent on analysts to untangle the Gordian knot of the bill. I thinking knowing that most newspapers and magazines have agendas, whether or not I agree with them, provides an opportunity to come to a personal understanding of what the bill means beyond the rhetoric and hyperbole.
However, that is opinion rather than "fact", so I must excuse myself from discussion at this point.
Edited to delete a 'd' from and to make it an and clarify my thought.
Lets start here. Buckeye, where did you read or hear that medicare savings would be used to pay for the new plan? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying? There is not medicare savings, in fact, medicare is in serious trouble and needs serious reform or it will be in the red in just a few short years. This is what we were told today. Please explain this to me. CathyMN "I'm not very political and don't know if, when or how a bill can be revoked, so this may not even be something that can happen, but since any health care reform that is passed won't go into effect until 2013 or 2014, if there is a change in party majority or backlash on the passed reform, is it possible that the decision on health care can be overturned before it even goes into effect? "
Where is it written that it will take effect in 2013 or 14? I mean, I have no idea but I sure would like to know if this is true. And will it be overturned? I just want to know if this is stated in the passages of the bills.
Debrakay "Here's a question....why did he feel it necessary to stack the deck with democrats at the New Hampshire town hall meeting?
He's in a rush to jam his healthcare reform down our throats...why? How about the 3 billion he spent for cash for klunkers? No one handed me any money when I bought our cars.....Not a fan of Obama."
Did he in fact, stack the deck? Is this a fact? He didn't do that here. There were no planted questions. Please support this claim with factual info. I'm curious. [QUOTE=Linncn] It bothers me that many of our congressmen admit to not having read the bill in it's entirity(sp? that just doesn't look right). When asked by a local radio host this week if he had read the whole bill, our own Senator Carl Levin replyed, "No. Have you?". He went on to say that that's ok because basically he knows what it says. ??? Really? How?[/QUOTE]
Linncn. Many bills never get read by dems and reps alike. This is nothing new. But this has not bothered any of you before now. Why does this surprise you? Think about it. I have read parts of the bills, not all, way too long and way too complicated in their language. I wish a human would print a copy that most americans could understand. [QUOTE=Linncn]
Well Linda, in the past, many of us haven't. That goes for most of us. [QUOTE=JasmineRain]
[QUOTE=Linncn]Sad huh? What do you think will happen with this? Think it'll go through as is?[/QUOTE]I hope and pray not. What a load of crap.[/QUOTE]
Specifically, what is the load of crap? Specifics, please state. I hear these statements all the time. I want to hear exactly what it is that is crap, and where you get your info. I want to read it for myself so that I better understand where you are coming from. From Jas: In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
This is not what I was told today. I was told I would keep my existing health coverage, nothing would change. Where did you read this? Please state a source. I'm very curious. Is this in the bill?
[QUOTE=lorster]From Jas: In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.
This is not what I was told today. I was told I would keep my existing health coverage, nothing would change. Where did you read this? Please state a source. I'm very curious. Is this in the bill?
[/QUOTE]
The federal government, with this bill, will be deciding what your policy must include. It will also be setting limits on co-payments and deductibles ("cost-sharing"). A "bare-bones" health insurance policy will not be an option. Perhaps when I get time later this weekend I'll post lines and page numbers from the bill, but I'm too tired right now.
If you want to peruse and comment on HB3200 here it is:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text
This is not what I was told today. I was told I would keep my existing health coverage, nothing would change. Where did you read this? Please state a source. I'm very curious. Is this in the bill?
[/QUOTE]
Jas, I'm in the process of reading both 3200 and 676. They are very difficult to get through. I would love to find a version out there that a real human can read. I don't have a law degree and this, I believe is what it takes to get through these documents.
I was not trying to create a stir here. i just want people to be able to back their information with facts. Not rely on what people tell you. Much of it is not entirely true. Some of it is. I want to be able to separate fact from fiction so that the public is not misinformed and afraid of the changes coming to all of us. And yes, change is going to happen. And we can all work together to make it better, or we can continue to be divided and fight about it. Regardless, it will happen. I like most of you, don't want to stand in line, or be refused a life saving treatment, because I am standing in line and simply cannot get it. Many of us basically stand in line now, waiting months and months to see a rhemy. But the waste that currently exists, must end. I see it every day. One person getting 4 MRI's in a 5 day period, on the same body area, ordered by 3 different docs who for whatever reason, refuse to communicate with eachother.
Today an article came out in the NYT, asking if fat people should pay more for their health care insurance. What do you guys think of that? I'm overweight...and I think they should. I'd love some feedback.
These are just some of my thoughts of today. Would love some healthy debate of these issues without it becoming ugly. I know we can all do that. [QUOTE=babs10] <P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 1.5pt 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-: EN">But last month, <SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt">as the president acknowledged during a press conference</SPAN>, he doesn’t literally mean that you are guaranteed to be able to keep your health care plan, and your doctor, if and when health care reform passes.<?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>
<P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 1.5pt 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-: EN"> “When I say ‘If you have your plan and you like it,… or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans,’” the president said after we asked him about this, “what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform.”
<o:p>
<P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 1.5pt 0pt; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 9pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; mso-ansi-: EN"><o:p></o:p></SPAN> </o:p></SPAN>[/QUOTE]
Babs, this is interesting. I read the article. If the government were to impose a rule that the employer must keep your health insurance intact, that would be more government control. This is not what we want is it? I can sort of see though how if the government were to make a cheaper plan, that employers would be encouraged to take part of it. My concern would be..Is it a better plan? I would hope the government option would be the best option out there. We will see. Babs said, "bottom line is: if you have private insurance... and you like you're private insurance.. you are the mercy of your employer to decide to continue to keep a plan.. and make it available at a rate YOU can afford. "
[/QUOTE]
A funny story babs. I friends grandson went out and stood in front of Target last fall...had a sign that read...Don't need food or beer. Just a poor college student and tuition has gone up. The kid recieved 600 dollars in donations that afternoon from passersby. True story. Our friend, his grandfather was furious at him. These people are rich. Kid didn't need the money. Family paid his tuition every year. Anyway. Goes to show that these people do make money doing this. Its an idea, LOL. [QUOTE=babs10] pre-existing info by state: http://healthinsurance.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=healthinsurance&cdn=health&tm=102&gps=218_530_1259_520&f=20&tt=12&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.healthinsuranceinfo.net/
IF you have a 63 lag in insurance coverage, you will have to contend w/ your pre-existing condition.... contract a position with a company that does NOT permit 63 days of uncovered time, and you have NO pre-existing contentions. (in PA and many other states) I've not had a job whereby I had any time lag between leaving one job and taking another and being insured from date of hire with no lapse. [/QUOTE]
If and when reform passes, this will no longer be allowed. There will be no such thing as lack of coverage due to pre existing conditions.
[QUOTE=lorster] If and when reform passes, this will no longer be allowed. There will be no such thing as lack of coverage due to pre existing conditions. [/QUOTE]
Can you please point the page and line number in the bill out for us?
[QUOTE=lorster]Babs. I don't know about anyone else, but the thing that bothers me right now is that my husband and I are tied to our jobs for health insurance. I have this lovely RA attached to my records...can't seem to shake it off...so I'm basically uninsurable on my own. My husband has great insurance and a great job but if him and I were to decide to take off, you know, become street people, LOL. we would not have an option right now of just getting a health care plan because of my issues. Now, my husband has pre diabetes and so that puts him at increased risk even though we are taking measures to keep it from progressing through life style changes. So, on our own, without our employer insurance, neither of us are insurable. I do not want to work for a company, for their health insurance. It is not right. That is my big reason for supporting a public option, in case we decide to retire before age 65.
[/QUOTE]
My husband and I are in the same boat - he's got major cardiac issues and I've got the RA thing. That being said, I am NOT in favor of the government telling me that I must have insurance, and worse, what that insurance policy must cover. It's like going to a restaurant and being handed a limited menu, with the understanding that most of your meal has already been selected by the government... and you can't, for instance, throw out the broccoli (or the cheesecake...) they've placed on your plate.
agreed, Jas.
[QUOTE=lorster], I'm in the process of reading both 3200 and 676. They are very difficult to get through. I would love to find a version out there that a real human can read. I don't have a law degree and this, I believe is what it takes to get through these documents.[/quote]
No, I disagree. A law degree is of little to no benefit in reading and understanding either of these bills. That advantage only comes via a familiarity with Beltway Doublespeak. Beltway Doublespeak is imbued with arcane, esoteric, and good-ole bureaucracy, piled atop an amazing amount of unnecessary and overwhelming red tape and the insistence on unnecessary procedure that rapidly becomes legendary.
If your desire is to back information with facts, then it becomes you, Lorster, to do so. I seems that you are depending on what President Obama and his cadre have told you.
Point out the sections of the bills that support "your facts", just as you have requested.
[quote]Today an article came out in the NYT, asking if fat people should pay
more for their health care insurance. What do you guys think of that?
I'm overweight...and I think they should. I'd love some feedback.[/quote]
How and who is going to set those premiums/conjunction? Me? You? Congress? The President? The "death" panels?
Should folks who overeat, smoke cigarettes, indulge in illicit drugs, do not exercise in a concise/adequate way, have co-morbidities, suffer from medical/medication side-effects, are affected in various and sundry ways by chronic disease or the medications used to treat those disease, be banned from health care, segregated to "sickness camps", barred from society, or banished from human interaction?
On a wholly personal level I have been forced by a progressive medical condition to retire before the age of 65. If either of the bills in consideration are passed, I believe from a dedicated study and from seeking various analysts input that I will be less than adequately insured and subjected to more and more "red-tape" in my search for adequate and appropriate care for my specific conditions and necessities.
[QUOTE=Spelunker]
[QUOTE=lorster] If and when reform passes, this will no longer be allowed. There will be no such thing as lack of coverage due to pre existing conditions. [/QUOTE]Can you please point the page and line number in the bill out for us?[/QUOTE]
Subtitle B, Section 111. HB 3200
edited to identify document.
[QUOTE=lorster]Babs. I don't know about anyone else, but the thing that bothers me right now is that my husband and I are tied to our jobs for health insurance. I have this lovely RA attached to my records...can't seem to shake it off...so I'm basically uninsurable on my own. My husband has great insurance and a great job but if him and I were to decide to take off, you know, become street people, LOL. we would not have an option right now of just getting a health care plan because of my issues. Now, my husband has pre diabetes and so that puts him at increased risk even though we are taking measures to keep it from progressing through life style changes. So, on our own, without our employer insurance, neither of us are insurable. I do not want to work for a company, for their health insurance. It is not right. That is my big reason for supporting a public option, in case we decide to retire before age 65.
[/QUOTE]My husband and I are in the same boat - he's got major cardiac issues and I've got the RA thing. That being said, I am NOT in favor of the government telling me that I must have insurance, and worse, what that insurance policy must cover. It's like going to a restaurant and being handed a limited menu, with the understanding that most of your meal has already been selected by the government... and you can't, for instance, throw out the broccoli (or the cheesecake...) they've placed on your plate.[/QUOTE]
Jas. Last month, my doctor prescribed me, Kapadex. After all other PPI's have failed, this is the last resort as far as meds go. I took the Rx to the pharmacy, and they came back to me and said, your insurance company is refusing to cover this. So, BCBS called my physician, and after a lengthy discussion between the two of them, they still refused, telling him I could take prevacid or nexium which has already been deemed, ineffective. So, my GI doctor basically told me, Too, bad, so sad, your insurance company wins. Now, tell me, how is this any different that the government controlling me life. My insurance company is telling my doctor what is best for me....and his hands are tied. This does not even get into the fact that it is a huge waste of his time, to have to spend time on the phone with insurance companies trying to hash this crap out. but, my point is....this is ridiculous. My insurance company has the final say....they know more than my dr does. [QUOTE=Spelunker]
[QUOTE=lorster], I'm in the process of reading both 3200 and 676. They are very difficult to get through. I would love to find a version out there that a real human can read. I don't have a law degree and this, I believe is what it takes to get through these documents.[/quote]No, I disagree. A law degree is of little to no benefit in reading and understanding either of these bills. That advantage only comes via a familiarity with Beltway Doublespeak. Beltway Doublespeak is imbued with arcane, esoteric, and good-ole bureaucracy, piled atop an amazing amount of unnecessary and overwhelming red tape and the insistence on unnecessary procedure that rapidly becomes legendary.If your desire is to back information with facts, then it becomes you, Lorster, to do so. I seems that you are depending on what President Obama and his cadre have told you.Point out the sections of the bills that support "your facts", just as you have requested.[quote]Today an article came out in the NYT, asking if fat people should pay
more for their health care insurance. What do you guys think of that?
I'm overweight...and I think they should. I'd love some feedback.[/quote]How and who is going to set those premiums/conjunction? Me? You? Congress? The President? The "death" panels?Should folks who overeat, smoke cigarettes, indulge in illicit drugs, do not exercise in a concise/adequate way, have co-morbidities, suffer from medical/medication side-effects, are affected in various and sundry ways by chronic disease or the medications used to treat those disease, be banned from health care, segregated to "sickness camps", barred from society, or banished from human interaction?On a wholly personal level I have been forced by a progressive medical condition to retire before the age of 65. If either of the bills in consideration are passed, I believe from a dedicated study and from seeking various analysts input that I will be less than adequately insured and subjected to more and more "red-tape" in my search for adequate and appropriate care for my specific conditions and necessities.[/QUOTE]
Its really no different than asking a fat person to pay for two seats on an airplane. Lets face it. Obesity is running up the cost of health care. I'll own my part in it. Why should the general public pay for those of us that do not want to take the necessary steps to keep health care costs down? This can be discussed until the cows come home, however, we will have to take what they offer....like it or not.
[QUOTE=lorster]
Its really no different than asking a fat person to pay for two seats on an airplane. Lets face it. Obesity is running up the cost of health care. I'll own my part in it. Why should the general public pay for those of us that do not want to take the necessary steps to keep health care costs down? [/QUOTE]
I am not obese nor am I asking the general public, nor the government, to pay for the complications of RA nor for the comorbidities that RA has laid on my plate. I am not only willing but ready and able to pay for the health care I need. Let's face it, not everyone is in favour of having the government's hand any deeper into our collective pockets than it already is.
However, I am willing to recognize that many people are all in favour of the President's "affordable health care" proposals. I also recognize that many people have been waiting a very long time for governmental sponsored health care.
I do not see anything in either of the bills that speaks to personal responsibility in doling out health care via governmental guidelines. You are absolutely right, obesity is costly in terms of health, just as smoking is, and illicit drugs and alcohol are. Each of these costly behaviours are high on the list of governmental 'campaigns' yet intervention does not, at least to the best of my knowledge, slim folks down, take the cigarette out of their hands, not the drugs out of their systems--whether those drugs are legal such as alcohol or illegal such as heroine--. Unfortunately, like morality, self responsibility and common sense cannot be legislated. We will have to wait and see if health care can be.
Spelunker, I'm not sure I understand how you place obesity and RA in the same category. People with RA have no responsibility in getting this disease. However people who are obese, smoke, drink, recreational drug use, all play a role in the problem. You say you are able to pay for your health care. That is great. I hope this continues way into your old age. However, many cannot afford to and actually go bankrupt in the process. [QUOTE=lorster]CathyMN "I'm not very political and don't know if, when or how a bill can be revoked, so this may not even be something that can happen, but since any health care reform that is passed won't go into effect until 2013 or 2014, if there is a change in party majority or backlash on the passed reform, is it possible that the decision on health care can be overturned before it even goes into effect? "
Where is it written that it will take effect in 2013 or 14? I mean, I have no idea but I sure would like to know if this is true. And will it be overturned? I just want to know if this is stated in the passages of the bills.
[/QUOTE]
If anyone is interested the text of the most recent town hall meetings are available at the LA Times
http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/1162-Debunking-Health-Care-Lies-by-Reading-the-BillReferences to or from certain analysts in certain newspapers and magazines are not acceptable in this topic secondary to their prejudices and agendas, but a blog, also obviously with an agenda, is recommended...
I applaud John Mackey's approach: fiscally responsible and sensible.
I'm going to put your full article on here, Shug...... too often people don't click the link. and THIS needs to be heard!!
OPINION AUGUST 11, 2009, 7:30 P.M. ET The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare
Eight things we can do to improve health care without adding to the deficit.
By JOHN MACKEY
"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out
of other people's money."
—Margaret Thatcher
With a projected .8 trillion deficit for 2009, several trillions more in deficits projected over the next decade, and with both Medicare and Social Security entitlement spending about to ratchet up several notches over the next 15 years as Baby Boomers become eligible for both, we are rapidly running out of other people's money. These deficits are simply not sustainable. They are either going to result in unprecedented new taxes and inflation, or they will bankrupt us.
While we clearly need health-care reform, the last thing our country needs is a massive new health-care entitlement that will create hundreds of billions of dollars of new unfunded deficits and move us much closer to a government takeover of our health-care system. Instead, we should be trying to achieve reforms by moving in the opposite direction—toward less government control and more individual empowerment. Here are eight reforms that would greatly lower the cost of health care for everyone:
View Full Image
Chad Crowe
• Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts (HSAs). The combination of high-deductible health insurance and HSAs is one solution that could solve many of our health-care problems. For example, Whole Foods Market pays 100% of the premiums for all our team members who work 30 hours or more per week (about 89% of all team members) for our high-deductible health-insurance plan. We also provide up to ,800 per year in additional health-care dollars through deposits into employees' Personal Wellness Accounts to spend as they choose on their own health and wellness.
Money not spent in one year rolls over to the next and grows over time. Our team members therefore spend their own health-care dollars until the annual deductible is covered (about ,500) and the insurance plan kicks in. This creates incentives to spend the first ,500 more carefully. Our plan's costs are much lower than typical health insurance, while providing a very high degree of worker satisfaction.
• Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits. Now employer health insurance benefits are fully tax deductible, but individual health insurance is not. This is unfair.
• Repeal all state laws which prevent insurance companies from competing across state lines. We should all have the legal right to purchase health insurance from any insurance company in any state and we should be able use that insurance wherever we live. Health insurance should be portable.
• Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover. These mandates have increased the cost of health insurance by billions of dollars. What is insured and what is not insured should be determined by individual customer preferences and not through special-interest lobbying.
• Enact tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits that force doctors to pay insurance costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. These costs are passed back to us through much higher prices for health care.
• Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what health-care treatments cost. How many people know the total cost of their last doctor's visit and how that total breaks down? What other goods or services do we buy without knowing how much they will cost us?
• Enact Medicare reform. We need to face up to the actuarial fact that Medicare is heading towards bankruptcy and enact reforms that create greater patient empowerment, choice and responsibility.
• Finally, revise tax forms to make it easier for individuals to make a voluntary, tax-deductible donation to help the millions of people who have no insurance and aren't covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
Many promoters of health-care reform believe that people have an intrinsic ethical right to health care—to equal access to doctors, medicines and hospitals. While all of us empathize with those who are sick, how can we say that all people have more of an intrinsic right to health care than they have to food or shelter?
Health care is a service that we all need, but just like food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic right to health care, food or shelter. That's because there isn't any. This "right" has never existed in America
Even in countries like Canada and the U.K., there is no intrinsic right to health care. Rather, citizens in these countries are told by government bureaucrats what health-care treatments they are eligible to receive and when they can receive them. All countries with socialized medicine ration health care by forcing their citizens to wait in lines to receive scarce treatments.
Although Canada has a population smaller than California, 830,000 Canadians are currently waiting to be admitted to a hospital or to get treatment, according to a report last month in Investor's Business Daily. In England, the waiting list is 1.8 million.
At Whole Foods we allow our team members to vote on what benefits they most want the company to fund. Our Canadian and British employees express their benefit preferences very clearly—they want supplemental health-care dollars that they can control and spend themselves without permission from their governments. Why would they want such additional health-care benefit dollars if they already have an "intrinsic right to health care"? The answer is clear—no such right truly exists in either Canada or the U.K.—or in any other country.
Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health.
Unfortunately many of our health-care problems are self-inflicted: two-thirds of Americans are now overweight and one-third are obese. Most of the diseases that kill us and account for about 70% of all health-care spending—heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and obesity—are mostly preventable through proper diet, exercise, not smoking, minimal alcohol consumption and other healthy lifestyle choices.
Recent scientific and medical evidence shows that a diet consisting of foods that are plant-based, nutrient dense and low-fat will help prevent and often reverse most degenerative diseases that kill us and are expensive to treat. We should be able to live largely disease-free lives until we ar