Government health care

[tiger]

I was in the medical diagnostic imaging business for 27 years, sales, service, installs, and planning. Working with 3 companys, they all tought me one common message. (10% of the population makes up 90% of the hospital business.) I retired 5 years ago and know the demografics are changing,with our aging population. My aunt had hip surgury 2 years ago, she was 96. She said then that this was her 3rd. time in the hospital, twice for the birth of her children and now for the hip surgury. She is the NORM!
Having worked in most military and VA hospitals, University hospitals, state run public hospitals, and hundreds of clincs on the west coast, and Europe, I will say this. (Every State or Federal run Instituion I went to and my coworkers went to was morebound!(spell). My coworkers covered Asia, MidEast, ect. Morbound, my definition So overwhelmed by regulation they could not function to serve thier patients. That is the problem that needs addressing and it is not even on the table.

[LowGear]

I wrote a couple of long paragraphs on the use of the word "Luck" and decided to spare you.  Ain't you lucky?

Oh!

Amen Murph.

[mkdutchman]

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts.  Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose.  Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:

http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job.  Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html

Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html

Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes

Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline

The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction

Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html

The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
    

LMAO, anyone that believes that spinning piece of horsecr*p deserves the worse that the government HC bill would give them!!

ok, I'll try to be civil now 

have you actually read the monstrosity? I have, (until my eyes started glazing over) and once you get past the mind-boggling gobble-de-gook and legal speak, things start looking ominous. It's not just about health, it has to do with CONTROL

[mkdutchman]

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

Ends Disc

snip

Insurance companies will be out of the picture completely. Government will end up BEING the insurance company. And BTW if the gov screws up you don't get to appeal.

Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

I don't believe that for one second. If going to a doctor will no longer cost you anything, why wouldn't you be going to a doctor for every little thing? with doctors leaving the system now already why wouldn't they leave even faster with all the additional pressure they would surely be put under?

We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

wow, that one is so full of holes I scarce know where to begin. "reform will bust the budget" check out the CBO's report on that. It was sound enough that even obama couldn't spin it away. Cost=$1,000,000,000.00 (1 trillion) according to CBO, and would increase our debt by $239,000,000.00 (239 billion).

"the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs" well Mr. President that's cool, but why do we need to wait until we need to pay for another program that's even bigger, even more prone to fraud and even more invasive? Why not just cut the waste right away? And BTW those "agencies" he was talking about? Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid

"ending big subsidies to insurance companies" again, why do we need to wait until we pass another big bill? do it now, you don't need a thousand plus page bill to do that. I say gov has been in bed with business too long to start with. (GM and TARP anyone?) that's not the american way, that's facism.

"and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork" by creating over a hundred new agencies/bureaucracies? I fail to see the logic in that.


"In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis." No argument there, true reform, and not this bloated monstrosity we have now would probably help a lot, how about starting with tort reform

running out of time, be back later

[SteveU.]

This whole issue is SPIN, SPIN, by both sides.
It is true - 10% of the people require 90% of the services.
I see this in my family, friends and neighbors.
The simple solutions will always be unpalatable and lobby blocked.

Full preventive and wellness care until of age.
Then voluntary risk grouped (lifestyle choices only - all other factors averaged out) privately paid for insurance.
And a national safety net program financed by diverting all of our current "sin" taxes out of general fund diversion directly in treatment programs like they were supposed to go. In fact anything determined to be a negative health factor slap on enough tax to pay for the full social cost of tobacco, alcohol, drug usage, gambling, fast foods, convenience mealing, X style adventuring, etc. Virtually nothing illegal, just very expensive.
In the US we do currently pay a federal "sporting goods tax", model after this.
'Course we know this ain't gonna happen. Too many toes to step on.
In the mean time my wife and I will contiue to pay $7000-9000. a year in private health insurance for our annual wellness check and once every three years. actual needs visit. Damn spiders.
All my own opinions
SteveU.

[apogee_man]

The sad part is, they laid out a plan and everyone is criticizing it. 

At least it's an attempt; laid out in anticipation that they wouldn't get everything they were hoping for.

Here's a challenge; come up with something better, more workable, efficient, cheaper and legal.

Now apply the litmous test of whether or not it will please everybody or even anybody.  I would submit that no matter what you come up with, it would receive a similar misinformation campaign as they are now experiencing.

Why?  Because it's a game changer for the richest scam industry in the world, and they know it.

The bottom line is the existing system is broken and getting worse.

Figure out a better way to fix it!

It's very easy to tear any new idea apart without offering legit, workable solutions.  Listen to Rush Limbaugh, he's the king of that.

I, for one, have NO sympathy for the insurance industry.  Anyone who defends them, and the status quo, must be smoking something that is REALLY, REALLY good.

Steve

PS - And no, I don't think Obama is the be all and end all.  HOWEVER, after 8 years of the right creating the biggest govt in US history, stripping us of our rights, and running up the largest deficit ever, I am willing to give the new guy a chance.  Based on the reaction from the right, you'd think he was the anti-christ.  He's only been in office for 7 months!  I would submit that we should cut the guy a bit of slack as he was handed the worst mess any President has ever been handed in the history of the country.

[AdeV73]

PS - And no, I don't think Obama is the be all and end all.  HOWEVER, after 8 years of the right creating the biggest govt in US history, stripping us of our rights, and running up the largest deficit ever, I am willing to give the new guy a chance.

If the US left & right more or less matches the UK left & right (differing degrees, I know: Your left is like our right), then expect to lose even more rights and gain an even bigger government than you already have, probably with an even bigger deficit still...

There's an old saying - which I am almost certainly misquoting badly, but here goes: If you don't vote Labour (left-wing) when you're young, you've got no heart. If you don't vote Tory (right-wing) when you're older, you've got no brain...

The problem with left-wingers (and it's more of a problem the further left they go), is they believe in redistribution. Like Marx (IIRC) - from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. The problem is, there's no incentive to produce more, if you're going to have it all taken away. In fact, why work at all when - if you don't work - the state will give you what you need? That's why communism always, eventually, fails - even when it's run with ruthless authoritarianism. Actually, the same is true of facism (far-right), but then, the whole left/right thing is a gross oversimplification anyway.

The real irony is, it's only thanks to what Liberals would call "nasty unregulated capitalism", and other right-wing stuff, that they (those same Liberals) can actually afford to be Liberal! In a further irony, it's the industrial revolution - i.e. unbridled unregulated capitalism - which created the towns & factories which gave rise to the unions which birthed the Labour party (I assume something relatively similar happened in the US).... which simply wouldn't exist if Governments around the C18th/C19th had regulated the mill owners... An irony which is entirely lost on most of "the left"...

[apogee_man]

Ade,

While I agree with most of what you have written, the simple fact is, unchecked capitalism is no better than the opposite socialist extreme.  Further, the entire trickle-down economics theory is nothing but a farce.

I would contend that stronger growth actually occurs with uniform wealth distribution, thereby allowing people the means to not only increase their standard of living, but also to innovate and start new businesses, which then continues to drive the cycle.

That having been said, it still requires people to be motivated and that will not occur if their every need is supplied by sucking on the govt tit.

I counter with this from today's news.  Please consider the following while also viewing it in light of the current economic situation.  My point is, either extreme is unworkable and doomed to failure:

"Saez calculates that in 2007 the top .01 percent of American earners took home 6 percent of total U.S. wages, a figure that has nearly doubled since 2000."

"As of 2007, the top decile (10%) of American earners, Saez writes, pulled in 49.7 percent of total wages, a level that's "higher than any other year since 1917 and even surpasses 1928, the peak of stock market bubble in the 'roaring" 1920s.'"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html

Steve

[LowGear]

Lefty Loosie - Righty Tightie.

I got this government grant.  It pays us  back 75 cents for every dollar that we spend up to an agreed contract amount for water system improvements on our farm.

First:  Thank you all us US tax payers.

Second:  To get the $22,000 we had to spend around $29,333.  So our local markets got a $29,333 boost to their sales.  (No complaints from the Rotary Club on this part.)

Third:  We had to pay 15% of the $22,000 as income tax.  (Not really but we could have if we didn't know how to capitalize asset investments.)

Fourth:  The people that got our $29,000 had to pay at least 15% of that amount that was profit as income tax and over and over again as in the next explanation.

Fifth:  The rest of $29,000 that wasn’t profit to our vendors was either profit or wages to others and taxes were paid on that.

Conclusion:  Well this could almost sound like the government might be making money on their grant program until you realize that all of the money that was spent by businesses became a write-off.  But the wage earners don’t get this benefit.  So how much does it really cost the federal government to give out a $22,000 grant?  I don’t know, but not $22,000 and it was pretty nice for us two US citizens and the two part time people that help us here on the farm.  It’s also pretty nice for the community because our demand for public water will go way down over the next year and should relieve the already rather old county water program for many years into the future.  I’m already looking for another tank that won’t be subsidized just to make those dry times not seem quite so desperate.  You see, the government has planted a seed on our farm and I think it’s going to grow.

Don’t you wish all these liberal vs. conservative answers were this simple.  Now what was that question about health care?

And again, Thanks,

Casey

Update:  The $22,000 is going back into the farm as well so the local economy will enjoy almost a $50,000 stimulus package for only $22,000.

[SHIPCHIEF]

I believe the issue was a socialized health care bill that has a lot of control language and not very much health care language.

[LowGear]

I thought the issue was fear of a malignant federal government that screws up everything it touches.  I’m pretty impressed with most programs I’ve actually dealt with.  Perfection does not exist.  We, the people, pay for everything directly or indirectly.  We’ve got a pretty effective Department of Defense, Postal Service, Social Security is OK with me and Medicare is good too.  I have a couple of $200 toilet seat like purchases hidden out in the garage as well so I don’t get quite as excited as some people over some slick jerk or incompetent clerk screwing things up every once in a while.  I just don’t want to do business with organizations that pay some of their employees millions of dollars a year.  That’s just too sloppy of a ship for me.  Either give me a better product or lower your price but I'm not leaving that much money on the table when given the choice.

Casey

[AdeV73]

So how much does it really cost the federal government to give out a $22,000 grant?  I don’t know, but not $22,000

Apologies for homing in on just one small aspect of your multi-point post, but I think you've gone the wrong way with this one...

Let's assume that the Govt gets back 15% - in the form of income tax - on each element of the grant, i.e. the bit they provided & the bit you provided. We'll ignore capital taxation because, as you said, that gets written off if you do the paperwork right... So, the tax on $51K is $7,650. So that $22k grant now costs $14,350. However, that doesn't take into account costs. How many people did it take to do the paperwork at the government end? How many inspectors had to come out & how often, to make sure you were spending the money in the right place & not just buying cold beer with it? Did the grant have to be carefully accounted for when you come to do your tax return?

I'd be willing to bet that the $7650 "saved" in taxes - and possibly a significant chunk of extra - is actually well spent in administrivia, compliance and the taxation department. Remember, the government is buying something for someone else with someone else's money: Value for money is simply not on their radar...

[LowGear]

Hi AdeV,

Let's all remember nothing is perfect.

I got caught up in marginal costs vs. fixed costs a few years ago.  How much does this product or service cost to be put in my hands.  Now it's kind of fuzzy logic but an interesting way to look at costs.  Did you hire someone to do the work or did you just keep someone busy(ier)?  Did your rent change because I bought this product from you?  Yes I know we have to cover those fixed costs but let's not worship them when pricing.  Marginal cost for an NSF check is less than a dollar including postage.  Throw in fixed costs is another dollar.  So why do some banks charge $35 for a NSF check?  To make a profit.  That's why they are eager to open $100 accounts - they're more likely to have NSF checks.  How many $27 bad checks does it take to change a landing light on a private jet?  Landing lights can eat the bottom out of your P&L but that's better than showing obscene profits on the sicknesses of children.

Back on topic: 
USDA agency hours – inspections, support, audits probably come out to 20 hours @ $50/hr=$1,000.  All the other processes are included in the grant.  Some of my time isn’t covered but that’s not a dollar cost and I had to pay for the building permit fees out of my pocket.  (Somehow I don’t think they put anyone new on at the building department to process my paperwork and do the two on-site inspections.)  Remember the USDA and county employees pay taxes on their wages too. 

Politicians call it the multiplier effect.  Retailers call it turns.  I call it spins.   How many transactions or times will this money change hands and collect taxes in the next year.  The state doesn’t mind the 4% sales tax nor the 8% state income tax.

The point of all this is that pretty much the same people wrote the rules and regulations for this program are writing the health care insurance program.  Will there be waste?  Of course.  I think the corporate jets down at the Kona airport for Christmas is a kind of waste too.  Will there be problems?  Of course.  You don’t know anyone that’s been screwed over by their health insurance provider?  (To be honest I’ve always gotten very good service from my insurance covered medical services and I actually like both of the HMOs I’ve worked with.)  Controlling language?  When’s the last time you applied for a house loan?  Ok, you didn’t have to say “Aaahhh” nor cough but they inspected a whole bunch of stuff and you were made to know who the lender was and where you sat.

I think I’m more influenced by the staggering lies than the momentary peeks at the truth (both sides).  Some planning and orderliness in our lives is a good thing and should be there for our nations' children. 

Casey

[MikeyT]

Politicians call it the multiplier effect.  Retailers call it turns.  I call it spins. ...

Sounds like trickle down economics at work to me...

[LowGear]

Sounds like trickle down economics at work to me...

It does, doesn’t it?  Unfortunately the $22,000 actually starts with the taxes collected from most everyone.  The eternal struggle.  Trickle down vs. Trickle up.  Where does the power begin? 

I call it spins. ...

The good news is that many Americans are taking a greater interest in their government.  These town meetings do have the odor of democracy about them.  Now what will our representative form of government do with all the information flow?  And please keep the notion in mind of "Loyal Opposition".

Casey