healthcare

[greg334]

Rlent,
I agree with you on tort reform but that alone won't do a thing until we get insurance mandates harmonized across the country and the idea that medicine is a right out of the minds of everyone.

Most of these problems, like the $32k bill OVM memtions has less to do with insurance companies and more to do with how the hospitals have to cover their a** and pay for things that they should be made to collect. I think we need to start refusing services to some who can't prove who they are but that's another issue altogether.

The insurance end of things, like high premiums has to do with the mandates that the states force on them and the stupid laws that prevent the people from getting access to real competition. The former has to do with stupid procedures that the insurance covers - many times I use tattoo removal and sex change operations which should not be covered for any reason.

The other thing that if we want to reduce the cost, it has to come down to our need to be involved. We should be the payer for the services, not the insurance company and work with the doctors - but that's not always possible with the assembly line offices. We should be the one's who keep the cost down, not the insurance companies.

The last item that needs to be seriously changed is how we as a country handle our pharma industry. Start with forbidding the advertising of drugs and reinforcing our laws and regulations through the FDA - the rejection rate for drugs is almost nil.

 

[RLENT]

This was uncalled for, I was just asking.

No, it really wasn't:

"Still don't see RLENT's ideas on how to fix this problem."

... after only 33 minutes had elapsed, and I had failed to post a response to your initial question regarding what I would do. It was certainly no more uncalled for than your comment

(FWIW, as of last night, our furnace is on the fritz and is not working - and I was messing with diagnosing that during that 33 minutes ... in between hauling in wood, and feeding the woodstove)

As to the rest I tend to agree, I don't believe that we really understand all, or even part, of the reasons why health care is like it is. I would have to gather far more information than what we have now.

Exactly - as with any complex problem, it requires gathering all relevant data in order to analyze the situation, and gain a true understanding of the problem.

I am all for outlawing health insurance all together, at least, that is how I feel right now.

Excellent !

Part of the issue is to what degree does insurance distort the normal market practice of offering a service (medical care) for consideration (a fee).

Obviously the amount of overhead within the (insurance) industry is significant and cannot help but to add to the cost of medical care. There is never a free lunch - and the monstrosity that health care has evolved into is the price that we are paying.

The Congress, rushing off half ****ed the way they are, just about proves to me that health care reform is not their ultimate goal. If it were they would be looking at the problems first. You cannot fix a problem if you don't know what the problem is. There are multiple problems and it is going to take multiple fixes to straighten it out.

You got it.

One thing should be obvious, based on passed and present performance, government should not be involved.

You would think .......

 

[layoutshooter]

"(FWIW, as of last night, our furnace is on the fritz and is not working - and I was messing with diagnosing that during that 33 minutes ... in between hauling in wood, and feeding the woodstove)"

Sorry to hear about your furnace, at least you had a woodstove backup.

We too have a woodstove. We use it to keep gas bills down when home and know it's there if we have to use it. I always worry about the furnace quitting while we are on the road. It's only 18 months old so it's not a huge worry. We did lose a sump pump summer of '08, that cost us a fortune. Good luck with the furnace.

 

[RLENT]

Sorry to hear about your furnace, at least you had a woodstove backup.

Thanks layout - yup, we consider ourselves fortunate to have had a secondary source of heat - it would have been fairly uncomfortable had we not had it - not to mention we would have had to have someone come out over the weekend (which undoubtedly would have been more expensive)

This unit is actually a medium-sized wood furnace that I picked up secondhand for fairly cheap and then refurbished ... sure wish I had gotten around to finishing the ductwork to tie it into the central HVAC tho' ....

We've been able to keep it around 60 to 63 degrees in the house, which is tolerable ..... if not exactly pleasant.

We too have a woodstove. We use it to keep gas bills down when home and know it's there if we have to use it.

Yeah - now that's the kind of insurance that I like

There's nothing like wood heat .. although the older I get, the less enthusiastic I get about it.

I always worry about the furnace quitting while we are on the road. It's only 18 months old so it's not a huge worry.

Yeah - you should be good for at least another 15 years or 20 years .... or more .... I would think

We did lose a sump pump summer of '08, that cost us a fortune.

Sorry to hear it - I can imagine that could have been a real mess.

We had a house up the street from us ..... young couple ..... they went thru a divorce after only a year or two there ..... bank got the house back and didn't keep the electric turned on. It wound up with around 4' or 5' of water in the basement ...... they ended up gutting the entire house - had to pull all the drywall to rehab it .... was a real mess.

Good luck with the furnace.

Thanks - they are due out today between 14:00 and 16:00 .... hopefully it will something simple ..... like a switch or igniter ... although it is 20 years old at this point (knock on wood)

 

[greg334]

Obviously the amount of overhead within the (insurance) industry is significant and cannot help but to add to the cost of medical care.

But that's not true by any means and to prove this as a truth in the industry, then that would mean they (the insurance providers) are primary medical providers not third party payers of the services preformed.

The overhead in insurance is not the issue when it comes to the hospital billing OVM at $32k, it is the hospital and their overhead that caused the bill to be created by a lot of different (and unethical) ways to bill a patient to cover the costs of caring for all the patients. The biggest offender in this entire program is no where near the insurance provider or the primary care provider but the government through Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Those two programs put serious strains on the system and providers reacted inorder to keep cost down when billking Medicare and Medicaid for services. It is not a case where a hospital can charge medicaid the same amount that they can charge a normal patient but rather have to accept the amount they get while offsetting the costs through higher charges to the normal patient. The dirty secret here is that the hospital charges say BCBS a higher amount and then accepts what they can get without further secondary adjudication of the claim. Many of the times the patient is stuck with the balance but without their involvement, they end up paying in the long run.

The issue of health care reform wasn't originally based on insurance reform but access. Now it evolved through political posturing to find an easy route to control it. The steps needed to 'fix' the problem like access have more to do with the people and their inability to deal with issues on their own than it has to do with anything outside of the lives.

 

[Darmstadter]

I know it wouldn't be possible for emergencies, but it would be helpful to be able to get an approximate out of pocket cost before accepting treatment---particularly when there are multiple treatment options. When I take the van in to the shop, they at least tell me what it's going to cost before they start doing any work. I've made it a point to ask our family doctor about prescriptions---does he know if a generic is offered, are there any other cheaper medications that would work?

Tort reform is the biggest thing that needs to be addressed.

Grandpa was right---if you don't have your health, you don't have anything. Cuz if you get really sick nowadays--you'll be left with nothing.

 

[layoutshooter]

Let 'em have all my money, losing all $.18 ain't gonna hurt me none!! Then I can go out just as I came in, naked with no money!!

 

[jaminjim]

If ya can't beat em cheatem

Seating Mass. Senate winner could be delayed - washingtonpost.com


BOSTON -- Massachusetts' top election official says it could take weeks to certify the results of next week's Senate special election, a delay that could help President Barack Obama pass his health care bill if the Republican wins.

Obama's health overhaul needs 60 Senate votes to pass, including 58 Democrats and two Independents. Interim Massachusetts Sen. Paul Kirk, a Democrat, would vote for the overhaul. Republican Scott Brown has said he would vote to kill it. Democrat Martha Coakley and independent candidate Joseph L. Kennedy are also running in Tuesday's election.

Secretary of State William Galvin says state law gives cities and towns up to 15 days to certify their results.

Democrats hope to get the overhaul passed before Obama's State of the Union address, perhaps in early February.

 

[chefdennis]

Yes indeed, and the Dems are trying to "Fix" it so that no future Congress or House can change, modify or repeal any or all of this thing they call "healthcare reform"......

CNSNews.com - Senate Health-Care Bill Provision Would Make it Impossible for Future Congresses to Repeal Parts of Bill

Senate Health-Care Bill Provision Would Make it Impossible for Future Congresses to Repeal Parts of Bill
Tuesday, January 05, 2010

(CNSNews.com) – A provision deep within the Senate’s 2,000-page health-care overhaul bill would make it impossible, once approved, for the legislation to be repealed or changed by future Congresses -- a provision that a Senate Republican and a conservative analyst say is unconstitutional.

Read the whole article at the link above, it is worth the read....

 

[chefdennis]

As if anyone had any doubt that barry would make a deal with the Unions......

Unions Tentatively Strike A Deal Regarding Excise Tax

Wednesday, Jan. 13, 2010

CongressDaily - Unions Tentatively Strike A Deal Regarding Excise Tax

Unions tentatively struck a deal Tuesday to exempt collectively bargained healthcare plans from a tax on high-cost plans expected to be used to help raise revenue for the healthcare overhaul.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, Service Employees International Union President Andy Stern and United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger met with House Speaker Pelosi Tuesday, a day after labor leaders met at the White House to express their opposition to the excise tax.

House and Senate Democratic leaders are to meet with President Obama this morning at the White House to discuss health care. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel said he hopes there could be an agreement on the excise tax as early as today after the White House meeting, but then conceded: "That's stretching the word `hope.' "

Exempting collectively bargained plans would appease unions that often offer expensive health plans in lieu of higher wages. The deal could also help Obama avoid breaking his promise not to tax those earning less than $200,000. Obama recently expressed a preference for the excise tax.

The excise tax could further be tweaked to ensure Obama's promise is kept for non-union workers as well.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., said she plans to hold a briefing today to remind negotiators that CEOs of non-union companies also are against the tax.

Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said the deal was not enough to bring him on board to support the excise tax on high-cost plans.

"It's setting up a divide-and-conquer situation here where some people are going to feel they're paying for other people, and they're all working," Grijalva said. "That politically is possibly the most dangerous thing Democrats can do is create that division."

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter indicated leadership was already working on a compromise with the Senate on its excise tax language.

"Even before today when they all met, we were talking about some kind of way we can come to an agreement on changes and maybe somehow we can pay for it other ways," Slaughter said.

Leaders have discussed raising the threshold on the Senate's excise tax to affect higher cost plans -- and potentially make up the revenue gap with an expanded Medicare payroll tax, beyond what is already in the Senate overhaul bill, that could increase the rate and for the first time apply to investment income as well as wages.

Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., said leadership has talked about an expanded Medicare payroll tax.

"But it was only mentioned in the context of these are some of the things that are on the table," he said. "And there was this evolving idea of making the tax only apply to non-earned income," such as dividends.

Slaughter said she did not expect to reach a deal on a final overhaul bill this month. "It will probably be February now when we get finished with it," she said.

Meanwhile, Republicans who say they are upset over the continuing closed-door nature of the talks are planning to file a discharge petition today to force a House vote on a resolution requiring public access to the House-Senate negotiations on the health reform bill.

The "Sunshine Resolution" was introduced by Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., in October. He and Minority Leader Boehner will file the petition.

"With so much at stake, any conference committee or meetings held to determine the content of sweeping national health care legislation should be held in full public view, not behind closed doors," Buchanan said in a statement Tuesday.

by Anna Edney, with Billy House contributing