This Disgusts Me in a Way that Leaves Me Without Words

[Magox]

Fear and scare, fear and scare... the greatest political tactic. I am not sure what you mean by taken over nor what they mean by it either.

If this "public option" does go through, and they do significantly bring down health care costs, then the only way they will be able to achieve that is by subsidizing the losses. Sort of like what is happening with Medicare, it's virtually bankrupt, but we will continue this Government entitlement program because senior citizens have been conditioned to rely upon it.

 

So what will happen yellow is simple, government steps in, they "compete" (hardly fair to call it competion considering the government doesn't have to produce profits and have unlimited pockets to sustain losses") against private insurers, they sustain huge losses, but bring down costs, competing health insurers go out of business, simply because they have to produce a profit and don't have the capital to sustain losses. Then ultimately the only health insurers that stay afloat are the one's that provide the "cadillac" plans, who taylor their coverage to those who want quality insurance.

 

That my friend is what we call "crowding out" the private sector. So yes, it is a takeover. It is sold as a "competing" insurer, but ultimately that's not what will happen.

 

Then when the government realizes that they are losing tremendous amount of money by covering everyone, by subsidizing the losses with taxpayer money, that is when you will see a serious rationing of care. They will have to cut costs, sure efficiency in some areas will improve, but ultimately quality of coverage will go down.

 

It's just simple economic common sense.

[StupidNation]

The government is not going to own the hospitals. The doctors and nurses are not going to be government employees.

 

IF that were the case, I'd be against it too.

 

They are going to control how the doctor cares for you, control wages, but don't worry, they won't "own" it.

[IDBillzFan]

Fear and scare, fear and scare... the greatest political tactic. I am not sure what you mean by taken over nor what they mean by it either.

I'm just curious about something from those of you who seem so sure that the health care reform bills currently working their way through DC will somehow be successful: if you have so much confidence in what DC is doing, are you not even the LEAST bit curious why only ONE Democrat agrees to a 72-hour review of the bill and its costs before they vote on it? How can you not see this as one of THE biggest red flags to come out of the current debate?

[Magox]

I'm just curious about something from those of you who seem so sure that the health care reform bills currently working their way through DC will somehow be successful: if you have so much confidence in what DC is doing, are you not even the LEAST bit curious why only ONE Democrat agrees to a 72-hour review of the bill and its costs before they vote on it? How can you not see this as one of THE biggest red flags to come out of the current debate?

That !@#$ing pisses me off to no end!! There is no rational argument that you can make to not allow that review, not one.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

If this "public option" does go through, and they do significantly bring down health care costs, then the only way they will be able to achieve that is by subsidizing the losses. Sort of like what is happening with Medicare, it's virtually bankrupt, but we will continue this Government entitlement program because senior citizens have been conditioned to rely upon it.

 

Is there any chance that Medicare is "virtually bankrupt" due to the fact that people are living longer, medical costs are rising twice the rate of inflation, and most beneficiaries only pay $87 a month for this coverage?

 

Or do you think that private insurers would agree to cover these people for $87 a month?

 

The Medicare program is unsustainable. Either costs need to be reduced by reforming the program or revenues need to increase by charging beneficiaries more or taxing the rest of us to keep it afloat. Sorry, but doing nothing is not an option.

[Chef Jim]

The government is not going to own the hospitals. The doctors and nurses are not going to be government employees.

 

IF that were the case, I'd be against it too.

 

Who will they be reporting to? Where will most if not all of their paperwork be funneled through?

[Alaska Darin]

Is there any chance that Medicare is "virtually bankrupt" due to the fact that people are living longer, medical costs are rising twice the rate of inflation, and most beneficiaries only pay $87 a month for this coverage?

 

Or do you think that private insurers would agree to cover these people for $87 a month?

 

The Medicare program is unsustainable. Either costs need to be reduced by reforming the program or revenues need to increase by charging beneficiaries more or taxing the rest of us to keep it afloat. Sorry, but doing nothing is not an option.

Making the government an option is the same as doing nothing. For whatever reason, no one is willing to actually alleviate the symptoms of what is going on.

[Chef Jim]

Making the government an option is the same as doing nothing. For whatever reason, no one is willing to actually alleviate the symptoms of what is going on.

 

Great point because the public option only shifts the responsibility of the costs but doesn't do much to address the the costs and why they're so high. And we all know that just going to add another layer that always reduces costs, right?

[Magox]

Is there any chance that Medicare is "virtually bankrupt" due to the fact that people are living longer, medical costs are rising twice the rate of inflation, and most beneficiaries only pay $87 a month for this coverage?

 

Or do you think that private insurers would agree to cover these people for $87 a month?

 

The Medicare program is unsustainable. Either costs need to be reduced by reforming the program or revenues need to increase by charging beneficiaries more or taxing the rest of us to keep it afloat. Sorry, but doing nothing is not an option.

Who says doing nothing is an option? Having a piss poor answer isn't the solution as well. The "public option" doesn't address the underlying problem of rising health care costs. It's sort of like a doctor diagnosing a patient with a brain aneurysm and then performing triple bypass heart surgery to heal him. It's not the answer to lowering health care costs. So spare me the "doing nothing isn't an option" bullsh*t, we're past that.

[IDBillzFan]

Sorry, but doing nothing is not an option.

This argument would make sense if simply doing anything would be an improvement over doing nothing. But believe it or not, it is very possible that the government could provide an option that would actually be worse than doing nothing.

 

I appreciate your echoing Obama's "the status quo is not acceptable" routine, or the "some people are just satisfied with the status quo" story, but you can only repeat your empty slogans so many times before even your most staunch supporters realize how little value you bring to the table when it comes to true leadership.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

That'll be taken care of by the "Old farts are no longer allowed to play hockey" rider in the health care bill, I'm sure.

Seriously... but he was one of the young kids...

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

That'll be taken care of by the "Old farts are no longer allowed to play hockey" rider in the health care bill, I'm sure.

 

Is that part of the state restrictions or national??? Got to know who I need to write to oppose that as a pre-existing condition.

[Alaska Darin]

Who says doing nothing is an option? Having a piss poor answer isn't the solution as well. The "public option" doesn't address the underlying problem of rising health care costs. It's sort of like a doctor diagnosing a patient with a brain aneurysm and then performing triple bypass heart surgery to heal him. It's not the answer to lowering health care costs. So spare me the "doing nothing isn't an option" bullsh*t, we're past that.

That seems to be an American business model. If I had a nickle for every time I told a decision maker "if you don't have enough money to do this right the first time, when are you going to have the money to fix it?", I'd be a ridiculously rich man.

[DC Tom]

That seems to be an American business model. If I had a nickle for every time I told a decision maker "if you don't have enough money to do this right the first time, when are you going to have the money to fix it?", I'd be a ridiculously rich man.

 

I've had that conversation three times today.

[Steely Dan]

The VA manages the largest U.S. health care system, with more than 1,400 medical facilities. If it cannot handle the challenge of caring for 8 million veterans, how will a government bureaucracy manage a system dealing with 300 million Americans? The same way. By rationing and denying.

 

The "Challenge" is in funding, not the care provided. If they do it right, and that's a HUGE IF, it will be funded adequately and if not they'll increase the premiums if necessary. The worst thing they can do is to put the money received into the general fund of taxes. I've heard some pundits say that if the SS money had been set aside and used exclusively for the SS system. it would have zero trouble funding itself.

 

Private insurance companies ration and deny. So I guess I don't understand your point. I believe there will be a lot less rationing and denying by the government run health care. Congressmen and Senators are elected offices. If a patient is denied a kidney transplant in their district they'd better get their asses in gear and fight for that patient.

 

When I was first diagnosed with cancer I was, fortunately, working for an international company that took care of me very well. One of the nurses told me that if a person is working for a small business and they get cancer the business will fire them because they can't afford the insurance. What do you think happens when people's bills are way above their ability to pay?

 

This is from the article I linked above;

 

Doctors, hospitals join Blue Cross suit

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

 

April 20, 2007

 

The largest organizations representing California physicians and hospitals joined a lawsuit against Blue Cross of California on Thursday, accusing the state's largest health plan of illegally and routinely refusing to pay them millions of dollars for medical care provided to enrollees whose policies were later canceled.

 

The move puts the doctors and hospitals on the side of patients, regulators and consumer advocates who have criticized Blue Cross and its competitors for canceling individuals' policies after they incur costly treatment. Such cancellations have left some patients with significant financial or medical hardships.

_____________________________________________________

 

"Blue Cross' pre-authorization for healthcare services is an advance determination of the medical necessity of a proposed procedure only; it is not a guarantee of payment," she said, adding that the caveat is "stated expressly" when the pre-authorization request is made.

 

"Our authorizations for care, based on medical necessity, include express statements that they are not guarantees of payment," she said.

 

 

If this "public option" does go through, and they do significantly bring down health care costs, then the only way they will be able to achieve that is by subsidizing the losses. Sort of like what is happening with Medicare, it's virtually bankrupt, but we will continue this Government entitlement program because senior citizens have been conditioned to rely upon it.

 

So what will happen yellow is simple, government steps in, they "compete" (hardly fair to call it competion considering the government doesn't have to produce profits and have unlimited pockets to sustain losses") against private insurers, they sustain huge losses, but bring down costs, competing health insurers go out of business, simply because they have to produce a profit and don't have the capital to sustain losses. Then ultimately the only health insurers that stay afloat are the one's that provide the "cadillac" plans, who taylor their coverage to those who want quality insurance.

That my friend is what we call "crowding out" the private sector. So yes, it is a takeover. It is sold as a "competing" insurer, but ultimately that's not what will happen.

 

Then when the government realizes that they are losing tremendous amount of money by covering everyone, by subsidizing the losses with taxpayer money, that is when you will see a serious rationing of care. They will have to cut costs, sure efficiency in some areas will improve, but ultimately quality of coverage will go down.

 

It's just simple economic common sense.

 

What psychic told you that?

 

What's common sense is that hospitals and doctors will need a certain amount of money to keep operating. The government plan cannot go below that number. They have to provide enough money and enough profit for these institutions to keep operating. Private health plans will have to do the same thing. The competition won't make Blue Cross go bankrupt. There will still be the necessity of offering private insurance by corporations. Every job I've been hired for has given me a choice of plans to choose from. The government plan will, most likely, be one of the choices, not the only choice.

 

When I worked at Strong there was a ton of wasted money being spent on unnecessary things. Making them tighten their belt would be a very good thing. IMO.

 

They are going to control how the doctor cares for you, control wages, but don't worry, they won't "own" it.

 

How will that be done?

 

 

I'm just curious about something from those of you who seem so sure that the health care reform bills currently working their way through DC will somehow be successful: if you have so much confidence in what DC is doing, are you not even the LEAST bit curious why only ONE Democrat agrees to a 72-hour review of the bill and its costs before they vote on it? How can you not see this as one of THE biggest red flags to come out of the current debate?

 

Kinda like the Patriot Bill but that was almost an overnight thing.

 

 

Who will they be reporting to? Where will most if not all of their paperwork be funneled through?

 

Who do Medicaid and Medicare report to now? Where is all of their paperwork funneled through now?

 

I worked for a small business pharmacy when I was in high school and my early college years. The owner had the worst time trying to get private insurers to pay up and no problem from Medicare and Medicaid. He even told one person from, I believe it was Preferred Care, that the company should spend less money advertising and more money paying up.

[Alaska Darin]

The "Challenge" is in funding, not the care provided. If they do it right, and that's a HUGE IF, it will be funded adequately and if not they'll increase the premiums if necessary. The worst thing they can do is to put the money received into the general fund of taxes. I've heard some pundits say that if the SS money had been set aside and used exclusively for the SS system. it would have zero trouble funding itself.

 

Private insurance companies ration and deny. So I guess I don't understand your point. I believe there will be a lot less rationing and denying by the government run health care. Congressmen and Senators are elected offices. If a patient is denied a kidney transplant in their district they'd better get their asses in gear and fight for that patient.

 

When I was first diagnosed with cancer I was, fortunately, working for an international company that took care of me very well. One of the nurses told me that if a person is working for a small business and they get cancer the business will fire them because they can't afford the insurance. What do you think happens when people's bills are way above their ability to pay?

 

This is from the article I linked above;

 

Doctors, hospitals join Blue Cross suit

Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

 

April 20, 2007

 

The largest organizations representing California physicians and hospitals joined a lawsuit against Blue Cross of California on Thursday, accusing the state's largest health plan of illegally and routinely refusing to pay them millions of dollars for medical care provided to enrollees whose policies were later canceled.

 

The move puts the doctors and hospitals on the side of patients, regulators and consumer advocates who have criticized Blue Cross and its competitors for canceling individuals' policies after they incur costly treatment. Such cancellations have left some patients with significant financial or medical hardships.

_____________________________________________________

 

"Blue Cross' pre-authorization for healthcare services is an advance determination of the medical necessity of a proposed procedure only; it is not a guarantee of payment," she said, adding that the caveat is "stated expressly" when the pre-authorization request is made.

 

"Our authorizations for care, based on medical necessity, include express statements that they are not guarantees of payment," she said.

 

 

 

 

What psychic told you that?

 

What's common sense is that hospitals and doctors will need a certain amount of money to keep operating. The government plan cannot go below that number. They have to provide enough money and enough profit for these institutions to keep operating. Private health plans will have to do the same thing. The competition won't make Blue Cross go bankrupt. There will still be the necessity of offering private insurance by corporations. Every job I've been hired for has given me a choice of plans to choose from. The government plan will, most likely, be one of the choices, not the only choice.

 

When I worked at Strong there was a ton of wasted money being spent on unnecessary things. Making them tighten their belt would be a very good thing. IMO.

 

 

 

How will that be done?

 

 

 

 

Kinda like the Patriot Bill but that was almost an overnight thing.

 

 

 

 

Who do Medicaid and Medicare report to now? Where is all of their paperwork funneled through now?

 

I worked for a small business pharmacy when I was in high school and my early college years. The owner had the worst time trying to get private insurers to pay up and no problem from Medicare and Medicaid. He even told one person from, I believe it was Preferred Care, that the company should spend less money advertising and more money paying up.

So in other words the government has basically ignored simple problems that could easily be cured with legislation and the only answer is to now give them the keys to the entire kingdom.

 

That's some brilliant lahjik right there.

[Steely Dan]

So in other words the government has basically ignored simple problems that could easily be cured with legislation and the only answer is to now give them the keys to the entire kingdom.

 

That's some brilliant lahjik right there.

 

How do they legislate skyrocketing healthcare costs? Tell BC/BS how much money they can make?

 

What's your solution? What legislation would you propose?

[Magox]

What psychic told you that?

 

What's common sense is that hospitals and doctors will need a certain amount of money to keep operating. The government plan cannot go below that number. They have to provide enough money and enough profit for these institutions to keep operating. Private health plans will have to do the same thing. The competition won't make Blue Cross go bankrupt. There will still be the necessity of offering private insurance by corporations. Every job I've been hired for has given me a choice of plans to choose from. The government plan will, most likely, be one of the choices, not the only choice.

Steely, if you don't understand the concept of the government "crowding out" the business sector, then what more can be said?

 

I will give it one more try with you, If the government significantly brings down health insurance costs to the public, then many private insurers will go out of business. Don't need a psychic to tell me that, that's just plain common sense. Considering profit margins are low relative to most US business industries, if the government does bring down costs in a meaningful way, then the only way they will be able to do that is by subsidizing the losses, which will be partially masked by cuts in medicare and higher taxes. Either way, the government can sustain heavy losses, and private insurers can not compete with the government.

 

WIthout a doubt, if this bill passes with a "public option", private insurers will go under. No doubt about it. One by one, they will be falling to the way side, and when the government continues to keep taking heavy losses, the cuts in health care coverage will begin in an attempt to try to reign in this terrifying national deficit that we have.

 

This plan sucks, and doesn't address the underlying issue of rising health care costs. The public doesn't want it, new Rasmussen poll came out today and shows that 59% of the American Public is against the plan and that only 33% of Senior citizens are for it.

[Alaska Darin]

How do they legislate skyrocketing healthcare costs? Tell BC/BS how much money they can make?

 

What's your solution? What legislation would you propose?

I've outlined them a number of times and to be quite honest, I'm tired of repeating it. Use the search function. Or use google. There are plenty of pretty smart people out there who've spent a ton of time and effort outlining what is really wrong with the health care system and real reforms that would make a difference. Not this ridiculous socialist nonsense that won't change a damn thing. Of course they're being ignored because they're not well funded special interest groups who keep people in power.

 

The U.S. spends more on health care than any country in the world, yet we get less for our money. More government involvement in the system is THE reason it's the way it is today, not the fix.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

I've outlined them a number of times and to be quite honest, I'm tired of repeating it. Use the search function. Or use google. There are plenty of pretty smart people out there who've spent a ton of time and effort outlining what is really wrong with the health care system and real reforms that would make a difference. Not this ridiculous socialist nonsense that won't change a damn thing. Of course they're being ignored because they're not well funded special interest groups who keep people in power.

 

The U.S. spends more on health care than any country in the world, yet we get less for our money. More government involvement in the system is THE reason it's the way it is today, not the fix.

 

 

Okay so we all agree that problem is the cost we are paying. We do disagree somewhat on the cause. I would argue the oligopoly of insurance companies are the reason for the problem and the idea of insurance itself without strict regs. I do not think the problem is government involvement necessarily. But the current gov't involvement aggravates the problem and should be changed.

 

The argument against gov't involvement is that it can never provide the right kind because it is too bureaucratic for lack of more descriptive word, but that still doesn't solve the problem of private insurance and its collusionary tendencies forcing costs up and prescriptive tendencies of coverage.

 

And if you got rid of both, then Doctors and their natural tendency to go where the money is would naturally become prescriptive (capitalism and the laws of diminishing returns and profit optimization). So in order to spread out services to everyone, some government sponsored support for medical care is necessary. Say, a government reinsurance program with risk pooling and a strong AG to go after WFA.