American's think we all should be able to do whatever we want without any concern for anyone else, anything else, without any concern for the future, etc. "Free markets" will supply what is needed, etc.
LB, I think your view is a bit biased but I'll bite. America is a country that was founded on the principle of </i>Liberty</i> or freedom from government rule. At the time of the revolution that was foreign gov't rule and the constitution was clearly written to limit the powers of the federal government.
People confuse "capatilism" as being a foundation of the American constitution. It is not. People on both sides of the debate get it wrong all the time. I'm not going to argue that "free markets" will always save the day, but I will protest the erosion of liberty under a powerful central government. Federal mandates are an attack on liberty in the simplest sense. I'll agree it's not all black and white in this day and age, but I think it should be extremely difficult to change the constitution, given long and healthy debate and doneso very rarely.
All that said, I'm not against a social saftey net but would side with Puddles that this should be accomplished on the state level, i.e. similar to what Canada does, although I wouldn't condone any federal controls or funding. The Constitution says nothing about a "right" to health care, but it does grant liberty to each individual and the freedom from restraint. If one does not like the system in one state they have the freedom to move. Additionally, there's nothing saying a state cannot adopt a very socialst form of gov't. There is a history in this country of political factions trying to populate a state enough to win elections and assert their agenda. However, moving more power to a central authority, i.e. federal gov't, runs the risk of eventually leading to complete central power ~ fascism.
Just to clarify the point, Medicare and medicaid cover poor children and seniors as well as poor pregnant women and certain disabilities. Also by law, a hospital cannot deny you emergency care based on your inability to pay. The uninsured in the US are primarily white, full-time employees working in a company with 10 or less employees, and make less than the official poverty level in the US.
It is also worth noting that not having medical insurance doesn't mean you aren't insured for an accident. Car policies in many states require medical riders, most home insurance policies also have accident/injury for the owner and visitors.
I would like to see congress addressing the problem areas, lets extend medicaid (which is administered by the states) to anyone who wants it . It is already structured to charge premiums based on income, extend the chart and open it to the general public, schip should be available to all children, and medicare should cover all catastrophic illness in the country. Without the burden of the free services they are mandated to provide or the cost of catastrophic care, private insurance might actually become affordable again. Let the private insurers carve out specialties for ongoing/preventative care.
I am all for a government backstop for its citizens, I don't see a real advantage to remaking the whole health system in the US. Most of the arguements here is that it wont be any worse with the federal plan, but no one can show how it will be any better either.
In the end I agree with Puddles and Aqua, I'm against centralization and consolidation of power in general, local control has continually been eroded, distancing the "people" from the "government". And the end result of that is never good imo.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
On pre-existing conditions-
I can only speak for California, which provides Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (MRMIP) which is available to anyone who was denied insurance based on a pre-existing condition. Also, at least in California, a group plan through work can not deny you coverage or charge you more due to a pre-existing condition. And the longest they can make you wait to use your coverage is 6 months, not perfect, but not outright denial either.
Also, as a correction to above, my math is wrong and more minorities are uninsured than whites. Mea Culpa.
"do you really want to trust this information to the same handful of people who so brutally managed to consolidate wall street in just the past year alone? have you considered the implications of a firm like goldman sachs to further manipulate markets if they had direct access to the health data of nearly every american?"
this is another way of stating the main point I've been after -- nice job, puddles.
Let's not drink the Kool Aid too quickly, friends.
Other than people with pre-existing conditions being locked out, the other huge problem with the current system is the dampening effect placed upon businesses. I know I'd be much more willing to strike out on my own as a freelancer or to open a small studio if I wasn't faced with the prospect of my health insurance costs doubling or tripling. We need to disconnect health insurance from employment.
People with pre-existing condition are guaranteed insurance, but the insurance companies get to decide what that costs. As someone in this group, I can assure you that it is not fun. There is one set cost, which the co's max out to the legal limit, regardless of anyone's health, age, etc.
Why would you compare a health care db to GS? That doesn't make any sense to me. GS and other has manipulated the financial world to make money, period, besides black mail I don't see making billions by having access to health records.
Then everyone should be paranoid that our SS numbers are in the hands of GS or similar entity? I dunno, I understand and don't like anyone having access to sensitive information, but it is also a simple fact of a growing world (like street cams, Google Earth, etc., etc.).
if i could insert myself onto every street on google street view would be totally awesome. i have nothing to hide and lot of clothes so i could look like a hippy in one shot and a doctor in another. i could even be a nudist!
ok, all fantasies aside, what LB says is best point of all. why is this a question about insurance and not care? wow , no brainer, but there it is. The corporations have got america talking bullshit about the wrong topic entirely.
maybe puddles is right to be paranoid.
because i am canadian i am naturally happy (its built into the universal health care system - some kind of injection at birth or something similar), but even if i was an angry man i gotta say healthcare in canada is very good, and while there can be waiting there is never refusal. room for improvement, but better than what this is all about which is working out a way to claw some authority from the insurance companies re who gets to control access to healthcare.
i don't care if its bush or even cheney in charge, or clinton or obama, hell even nixon would be fine. all of those people in charge of healthcare? no problem, because USA is democracy and at some point those politicos are required to answer to the public. there is a lever and it is in the hands of the people.
with healthcare corporations the lever is in the hands of the CEO's, and they think it is a big stick.
who is in control matters because it means the motivation for holding onto that big stick changes how it is used.
puddles thinks govt will use lever as stick too, but i don't think so. accountability counts for something. if you don't think so just look at who won last election and why.
"ok, i've given this a little more thought and the nuance of my opposition to "universal" health care in america has less to do with any ideals about free-markets than it does with a supreme distrust of anything mandated at a federal gov level within the united states."
No one is mandating anything.
There's an option, that's all.
Many things are already mandated like taxes and obeying the laws. We're talking about something that works in every other industrialized nation. Can we afford NOT to have it?
The alternative is having health care eat 20% of our GDP by 2013 or sooner to cover 60% of the people. What would that do to our economy when our competition like Japan is spending half as much to cover everyone?
The industry has already accomplished its main goal of at least curbing, and maybe blocking altogether, any new publicly administered insurance program that could grab market share from the corporations that dominate the business. UnitedHealth has distinguished itself by more deftly and aggressively feeding sophisticated pricing and actuarial data to information-starved congressional staff members. With its rivals, the carrier has also achieved a secondary aim of constraining the new benefits that will become available to tens of millions of people who are currently uninsured. That will make the new customers more lucrative to the industry.
Matheson, whose Blue Dogs command 52 votes in the House, can't offer enough praise for UnitedHealth, the largest company of its kind. "The tried and true message of their advocacy," he says, "is making sure the information they provide is accurate and considered."
Make, you've answered no questions for anyone who disagrees with you, so save your little two-part questionairre until you learn to respond directly and honestly to those who disagree.
Josh made many great points, and you respond with a non-sequitur.
Try these two, for starters:
"The legislation is flawed. It doesn't decrease cost, it doesn't improve care, it only expands who is covered by forcing everyone to buy health insurance."
and:
"If what Make is saying is true about the gross inefficiency of the private health care industry, then the more efficient federal program could easily compete without subsidizing the plan from the public coffers, offering the same level of service at less cost OR better service at the same cost to consumers."
Great points. Please, make -- impress us with your health care wisdom. The floor is yours...
ya'll remember when archinect had threads on theory and people would spout deleuze and heidegger for a couple hundred posts? those threads have been replaced by these political threads which are all equally obtuse and convoluted.
Make,
Are you going to admit you haven't read a single one of the 4 bills (let alone my previous post that includes my insurance position)? If you get some extra time check out section 301 "Individual Responsibility" which refers you to section 59b of the irs tax code as amended in section 401 of the current act which states: Ways and Means Committee Version
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
- ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of..."
You can read the exact terms at the link above.
(The wording is similar in the Education and Labor version as well.)
So, if you don't get a health insurance plan that meets the requirements of the legislation, you are taxed 2.5% up to the average national annual premium for an acceptable health insurance plan.
Exactly how is that not a mandate? It mandates what a minimum "acceptable" amount of health insurance is and how much your "tax" is for not having it.(I am sure if I had an extra ten hours I could find where they put the loopholes so that I can claim conscientious objector or something, but I haven't found it yet.)
READ THE BILL, preferably before you make ridiculously final statements, "NONE of them", honestly.
Out.
Josh
they either aren't big enough to provide adequate savings/coverage, or they are too big, crowd out competition and don't provide adequate savings/coverage.
mine sucks ass.
the only system that hasn't been a failure for me is single payer.
on a darkly humorous note, paul krugman pointed out how very uninformed many americans are in an op-ed recently. the funniest bit goes like this
There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.
Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.
illegit, so you are saying that obama framed the entire business this way? really? just for fun, to stir things up maybe?
who is responsible for american healthcare being in hands of insurers not doctors it is not very impt in any case. i don't think this is about obama however.
the bills making way through system don't seem to be as effective as they should be based on what i have read in news. still it is amazing to me the goal is not health care but how to provide insurance for everyone. two very very different things.a
that is great opening for companies to start gaming system and as we saw above they are indeed working like hell to make sure they make more money, not save lives. there is something incredibly wrong about that. i do fault obama for not plainly telling everyone this is about who has power over the system, but republicans seem to be making it seem like everyone will live longer if corporations get to choose your lifespan instead of medical practitioners. very sad.
krugman says this is about race. i think it is about greed.
The current plan(s) being considered mandate that everyone must buy health insurance. That is a mandate. Over 11% of the uninsured make over 500% of the poverty level(over $100,000 in CA). It seems as if they are choosing to not have insurance as they would rather use there money elsewhere, possibly concierge or pay for services options. The proposed plans insure that they must now buy health insurance. So everyone is forced to buy health insurance, they can only choose whom to buy it from. This is why the health insurance lobby is still lobbying for universal coverage, just not a public option. The legislation is flawed. It doesn't decrease cost, it doesn't improve care, it only expands who is covered by forcing everyone to buy health insurance.
If what the legislators (and Make) are saying is true, why doesn't the government launch a health insurance program that is self-sufficient? If the private companies are making such a huge killing with their tremendous profits and overhead, payed completely by their customers premiums, then why can't the government simply launch a competing plan, not funded from tax revenues, that is more efficient and thus a cheaper option for the American people? If what Make is saying is true about the gross inefficiency of the private health care industry, then the more efficient federal program could easily compete without subsidizing the plan from the public coffers, offering the same level of service at less cost OR better service at the same cost to consumers.
really, just like everyone has to have car insurance? look at how that hurts people...what an imposition.
whadda you wanna hear josh, that we're fucked either way (private health or government health) ok, we're probably fucked eiter way, but how much worse could it get that a world ranking below Morocco, Cyprus, and Costa Rica and two above Cuba....fucking two above Cuba, for fuck's sake. I'm so sick of this vomit about how the government fucks everything up when they step in that if I hear it one more time I'm going to a desert island and never coming back. I could make an endless list here on historical cases where private industry or corporations killed or made sick a whole bunch of people until the government finally stepped in: processed meat, DDT and various other pollutants, seat-belts AND air bags, water that lit on fire, the list can go on and on. If I have to take the lesser of two evils overseeing something that has to do with my wellbeing, I'll take the government over private business anytime, thank you.
Emilio is right corporatism only serves their own interests to profit
so long as elected representatives allow this, fascism lives whether reagon bush obama clinton or whom ever, inability to stand up for life against the lifeless they cog for.
Jump, I said that obama has himself framed what he is attempting as insurance reform -- not care reform. The extrapolation outward toward conspiracy is yours.
You're getting a bit condescending, jump.
Plus, you seem almost looney partisan on this issue, without much substance or tolerance for opinions on the other side. Your quotes and links citing how ridiculous those who disagree with you are not particularly engaging -- and they make you seem a little self-important. Your last "darkly humorous" example is not so much the pithy final word you seem to think it is, but instead is mostly sweeping generalization.
Anwyay, Josh has outlined a few very spot-on points that you -- like most others here -- are likely to continue avoiding. Perhaps you might try actually answering to one:
Josh: "If what Make is saying is true about the gross inefficiency of the private health care industry, then the more efficient federal program could easily compete without subsidizing the plan from the public coffers, offering the same level of service at less cost OR better service at the same cost to consumers."
oh, but "this oughta be good" is not self important and condescending.
If you ask the wrong question then of course you can sit around and be smugly proud of yourself. Why is the question whether it should be one or the other? (a totally government run system or a totally privately run system). I could sit here and list countries that do a combination of both very successfull without dropping 45 million people throught the cracks...but I won't, the New Yorker did it very well in an intelligent and well researched article a little while back, look it up).
The focus SHOULD at the very least be bringing all the people that are right now out in the cold back inside, and that's what BOTH parties should be focusing on, instead of disseminating misinformation and sending goon squads to town hall meetings. They should be sitting down and working out a compromise solution.
But let's be honest here: health reform ain't never gonna happen, for one main reason- and not only because the Pols don't really give a fuck about those people out in the cold and the entrenched private parties don't want it to happen - no, the main reason is that they'll NEVER, EVER, not till hell freezes fuckin' over, let Obama get the political capital and feather in his cap that would come from actually passing even a mediocre plan to fix the system. And that goes for both parties: they're more interested in sabotaging the other party as a prelude to the next election than actually helping their fellow citizens (although, strangely enough, both attempts at health care reform have been tried during a Democratic administration...but don't worry, the Dems would block some equally important thing by the Republicans, like the defense of marriage bill or ending legal abortion or ending the government forever and replacing it with a corporation).
Ok, I got that out of my system, carry on with the misinformation.
There are a few federal programs not funded by "tax" money.
I do not know any specific examples but a lot of National Parks are funded by mineral rights leasing and by "daily use fees."
There is a quite impressive federal campground in the White Mountains in Arizona that's quite like a small city. The entire thing is funded by camping permits.
I do know from my old government classes is that there's quite a few major US cities that are almost completely funded by pay parking and tickets. The rest of their operating budgets use real estate tax for excessive policing (which is almost worthless) and "better" schools.
Mostly, people in the private sector don't like it when the government produces competitive products at wholesale to retail prices. In fact, a lot of the politics over the last 100 years have been trying to get away from the government being able to do anything "business-like."
I personally would like to see subsidized real estate for upper class businesses and residents-- ie, the government contracts, builds and leases property at slightly above cost versus for a profit.
It would definitely help to centralize monied individuals.
Thank you, Emilio. You hit the nail on the head with your fourth paragraph in your last post.
This is a political battle more than it is about making America a better place. When Jim De Mint said that health care would be "Obama's Waterloo" a dim light bulb went off in the collective heads of the conservative movement. "If we oppose this en masse, we can ruin Obama's poll numbers," they thought. "And if health care is allowed to pass, Obama's poll numbers will go up." Ergo: mob the town halls.
The opposition to health care reform is mainly a way of resisting Obama's presidency, more than it is a level-headed retort to health reform debate. Otherwise, why would people (read:astroturfers) be shouting things like "40 million illegals!" and comparing Obama to Hitler and so on in the town halls.
Most of these people don't understand the health care debate. But they've been told by conservative organizers (mostly paid by corporations) that Obama will euthanize the elderly, take away their doctors, create mile-long lines for essential surgeries, and in general fuck them over. If you weren't too bright, and some guy with shiny teeth and a slick suit, representing something called Conservatives for Patients' Rights, told you that Obama would euthanize your baby, you'd probably show up at a town hall too.)
I'm not saying that I fully understand the debate—it's a lot of intricate information. But what I do know is that 45 million Americans don't have health insurance. Many of those people use the emergency room as their doctor, even for very serious things—my wife is a doctor, and she's dealt with many, many poor families who have no coverage.
Coverage costs are going up. Deductibles are going up. Coverage is becoming more limited. Insurers are more willing to drop people from rolls even for ever more minor health issues.
Our medical system sucks. Maybe not for me personally, or for some of you, but for many many Americans. For every anecdote about someone who was able to pay for a procedure they couldn't have easily received in France, there are ten from people who were denied health insurance, bankrupted by massive bills, or suffered real pain because of the failures of our medical system.
Meanwhile, in these rankings, the US looks pretty bad. And most of the countries at the top of the list have single-payer, or mixed public/private systems. 123
This is why, to me, the resistance to health care reform looks not only heartless, but stupid.
"LB -- josh is pointing out the error in the espoused efficiency of the plan Obama is proposing."
Illegit, there's waste and inefficiency that could be cut out of both private health insurance and medicare. Would the premiums cover the cost? I don't think anyone knows. The overall percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare will go down if the government can control it. There will be fewer bankruptcies and more entrepreneurs will be willing to work for themselves. People will have confidence in a system that will not drop them.
According the non-profit Annenberg foundation:
Also not included in Litow’s calculations is the likely effect of a new federal health insurance plan. Based on the House bill as introduced, the Lewin Group analysis said that the federal plan would offer premiums that are 20 percent to 25 percent less than comparable private insurance, since the plan would pay doctors and hospitals much less than their private insurance rates. It would pay providers what Medicare does, plus 5 percent. However, on July 31, the House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the bill to say that the federal plan would negotiate rates with health care providers. That mirrors the set-up in the Senate bill from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. A federal plan structured in that way wouldn’t have such a big effect on premium costs: The Lewin Group found that such a payment structure would result in premiums that are about 10 percent less than those offered by private insurance (see Figure 4). These details, and many others in the House and Senate bills, are still in flux. The House is working to bring together the versions of its bill that have passed three committees.
republicans know with the economy no longer in free fall, and with any success in health care reform, they will no longer just be in 'the last throes' but will be finished as a legitimate party. they'll be split into different factions such as:
moderate (snowe)
christian right (palin)
c.t. wingnuts (larouche/ron paul)
Make, gotta be done with you on this one. You're not only not acknowledging anyone else's points, you're not even keeping up. Your last "response" to me made no sense given what I and others posted previously. Plus you're making generally nutty speculations: "The overall percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare will go down if the government can control it." Uh, OK. Like all those other efficient government-controlled programs, which are so know for their money-saving frugality? Not quite, history proves the opposite is true.
Farwest, you've made a few wild statements yourself:
"The opposition to health care reform is mainly a way of resisting Obama's presidency, more than it is a level-headed retort to health reform debate." So, let me get this straight, all who disagree are probably just Obama haters? Wow.
And then your depiction of some ignorant, misinformed, gullible dolt as generally representative of Obama's opposition on this issue is itself a pretty "astonishing display of smugness" on your part.
""The overall percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare will go down if the government can control it." Uh, OK. Like all those other efficient government-controlled programs, which are so know for their money-saving frugality? Not quite, history proves the opposite is true. "
It's simple. Doctors and hospitals will be paid less. That's one of the plans in Congress right now. It's the Medicare payment plus 5%.
You're talking in generalities that are free from specifics. This bill was amended in the Energy and Commerce committee for "negotiated" rates. My guess it will be amended back to ensure the savings are there.
As for not keeping up... I am reading a couple of the bills and it's quite interesting. I don't care if you are telling people that up is down. I want to know what is in Congress and what people like Annenberg, the AMA and the CBO have to say about it. Your dime store Republican talking points are much like the communist ones in 1989... they have been discredited by financial collapse. Economies are much complicated than the views you espouse.
"You're talking in generalities that are free from specifics"
That is hilarious. Most opponents of this "health care reform" you love so much are simply asking FOR SPECIFICS. So, essentially, you're running a "no you are" argument. What "specifics" could you possibly be lacking from me?
You've made quite a habit of quoting some partisan articles and presenting them as indisputable. There is another side to the argument.
Also, when you make a statement like this:
"It's simple. Doctors and hospitals will be paid less. That's one of the plans in Congress right now. It's the Medicare payment plus 5%."
If you have no idea why people are up in arms about all this, then you have little understanding of most folks' thinking. That "simple" statement undermines foundational beliefs. And, if that statement is representative of the "plan" you are supporting, then get ready for a giant disappointment. It simply ain't gonna fly. Obama will fail.
By the way, make, I think some guy in the House is currently writing legislation to control architect's salaries -- gonna cap 'em for the good of the people, I'm sure you'll be wholeheartedly supportive of that bill as well.
So, let me get this straight, all who disagree are probably just Obama haters? Wow.
No. In fact that's not what I said. I said that I believe most of the people showing up at town halls to shout down their congresspeople are doing less because of health care, and more because of political partisan fervor.
Say what you want, I think this particular partisan line of attack will backfire in the end. The shouters and astroturfers are just too obviously crazy for it to work—comparing Obama to Hitler, shouting down the opposition like they're in third grade.
In the same way that people thought the right-wing wackadoos would somehow sway the presidential election, only to find that it didn't, I'm pretty sure this will only hurt the Republicans.
Architect's salaries were capped for many many years -- or at least, their rate structures were -- and actually there were many positive attributes to that system.
Anyway, make and others keep responding to you and you are not even attempting to engage them in a real debate, which is unfortunate. I have truly appreciated joshcookie's and others' responses here which deviate from the archinect status quo in a thoughtful, non-talking-point way and actually further the discussion / make me think.
Last note : part of Obama's call for health care reform is a specific call to reduce any waste / fraud in medicare/medicaid. So, sure, that's always something we need to watch out for (no different here than in any other situation, and no different than in private business either) and at least Obama has made it a goal. Not sure what the bills say, am still attempting to read them.
"By the way, make, I think some guy in the House is currently writing legislation to control architect's salaries -- gonna cap 'em for the good of the people, I'm sure you'll be wholeheartedly supportive of that bill as well. "
Actually that happened back in 1988 when the AIA tried to get its members to charge minimum fees.
There is a lot of competition amongst Architects for jobs and fees are lower than they have ever been. The thing with Doctors is much different. Large insurance companies and local practices operate as monopolies that keep costs high. Check out the Dartmouth study that was mentioned in the New Yorker.
The partisan talking points are getting our country no where. We need reform and join the rest of the industrialized world before 20 cents of every dollar spent here in the USA is on health care. That's a disaster that no one, Republican or Democrat can afford.
-- In October 2008, Michael Napientak, a doorman from Clarendon Hills, Ill., went to the hospital for surgery to relieve agonizing back pain. His wife's employer's insurance provider, a subsidiary of UnitedHealthCare, had issued a pre-authorization for the operation. The operation went well. But in April, the insurer started sending notices that it wouldn't pay for the surgery, after all; the family, not the insurance provider, would be on the hook for the $148,000 the hospital charged for the procedure. Pre-authorization, the insurance company explained, didn't necessarily guarantee payment on a claim would be forthcoming. The company offered shifting explanations for why it wouldn't pay -- first, demanding proof that Napientak had tried less expensive measures to relieve his pain, and then, when he provided it, insisting that it lacked documentation for why the surgery was medically necessary. Napientak's wife, Sandie, asked her boss to help out, but with no luck. Fortunately for the Napientaks, they were able to attract the attention of a Chicago Tribune columnist before they had to figure out how to pay the six-figure bill -- once the newspaper started asking questions, the insurer suddenly decided, "based on additional information submitted," to cover the tab, after all.
Everyone's missing the point here. Both sides. My cat had a kidney tumor and it cost $8,000 to sedate and remove it. It was a 3 hour surgery and the cat went through a battery of tests. Now I know a cat isn’t a person but physiological they are similar. Id argue it might be harder to operate on a small mammal than a large one. I think we really do put doctors on way too high a pedestal. Its a trade like what we do for a living. After a while you get pretty good at it.
Why is this product so expensive to begin with? Well, congressional panels dictate medical costs. So somewhere someone is getting the price artificially raised. Then factor in liability do in small part from the trial lawyers association of which I believe a certain Democratic President is an avid supporter and will veto any tort reform legislation. Add to that the estimated 30% premium that medical offices spend on each claim filling and you start to see the reason for the product price inflation.
Are you covered by health insurance from (or not)? How much does it cost?
LB, I think your view is a bit biased but I'll bite. America is a country that was founded on the principle of </i>Liberty</i> or freedom from government rule. At the time of the revolution that was foreign gov't rule and the constitution was clearly written to limit the powers of the federal government.
People confuse "capatilism" as being a foundation of the American constitution. It is not. People on both sides of the debate get it wrong all the time. I'm not going to argue that "free markets" will always save the day, but I will protest the erosion of liberty under a powerful central government. Federal mandates are an attack on liberty in the simplest sense. I'll agree it's not all black and white in this day and age, but I think it should be extremely difficult to change the constitution, given long and healthy debate and doneso very rarely.
All that said, I'm not against a social saftey net but would side with Puddles that this should be accomplished on the state level, i.e. similar to what Canada does, although I wouldn't condone any federal controls or funding. The Constitution says nothing about a "right" to health care, but it does grant liberty to each individual and the freedom from restraint. If one does not like the system in one state they have the freedom to move. Additionally, there's nothing saying a state cannot adopt a very socialst form of gov't. There is a history in this country of political factions trying to populate a state enough to win elections and assert their agenda. However, moving more power to a central authority, i.e. federal gov't, runs the risk of eventually leading to complete central power ~ fascism.
Just to clarify the point, Medicare and medicaid cover poor children and seniors as well as poor pregnant women and certain disabilities. Also by law, a hospital cannot deny you emergency care based on your inability to pay. The uninsured in the US are primarily white, full-time employees working in a company with 10 or less employees, and make less than the official poverty level in the US.
It is also worth noting that not having medical insurance doesn't mean you aren't insured for an accident. Car policies in many states require medical riders, most home insurance policies also have accident/injury for the owner and visitors.
I would like to see congress addressing the problem areas, lets extend medicaid (which is administered by the states) to anyone who wants it . It is already structured to charge premiums based on income, extend the chart and open it to the general public, schip should be available to all children, and medicare should cover all catastrophic illness in the country. Without the burden of the free services they are mandated to provide or the cost of catastrophic care, private insurance might actually become affordable again. Let the private insurers carve out specialties for ongoing/preventative care.
I am all for a government backstop for its citizens, I don't see a real advantage to remaking the whole health system in the US. Most of the arguements here is that it wont be any worse with the federal plan, but no one can show how it will be any better either.
In the end I agree with Puddles and Aqua, I'm against centralization and consolidation of power in general, local control has continually been eroded, distancing the "people" from the "government". And the end result of that is never good imo.
What about pre-existing conditions? This is the single area that private insurance completely neglect.
Aqua,
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The government does, in fact, guarantee health.
On pre-existing conditions-
I can only speak for California, which provides Major Risk Medical Insurance Program (MRMIP) which is available to anyone who was denied insurance based on a pre-existing condition. Also, at least in California, a group plan through work can not deny you coverage or charge you more due to a pre-existing condition. And the longest they can make you wait to use your coverage is 6 months, not perfect, but not outright denial either.
Also, as a correction to above, my math is wrong and more minorities are uninsured than whites. Mea Culpa.
"do you really want to trust this information to the same handful of people who so brutally managed to consolidate wall street in just the past year alone? have you considered the implications of a firm like goldman sachs to further manipulate markets if they had direct access to the health data of nearly every american?"
this is another way of stating the main point I've been after -- nice job, puddles.
Let's not drink the Kool Aid too quickly, friends.
not any more since lay off and it was 500$ a month
cobra would have been 240
access(g0v) is free
Other than people with pre-existing conditions being locked out, the other huge problem with the current system is the dampening effect placed upon businesses. I know I'd be much more willing to strike out on my own as a freelancer or to open a small studio if I wasn't faced with the prospect of my health insurance costs doubling or tripling. We need to disconnect health insurance from employment.
People with pre-existing condition are guaranteed insurance, but the insurance companies get to decide what that costs. As someone in this group, I can assure you that it is not fun. There is one set cost, which the co's max out to the legal limit, regardless of anyone's health, age, etc.
Why would you compare a health care db to GS? That doesn't make any sense to me. GS and other has manipulated the financial world to make money, period, besides black mail I don't see making billions by having access to health records.
Then everyone should be paranoid that our SS numbers are in the hands of GS or similar entity? I dunno, I understand and don't like anyone having access to sensitive information, but it is also a simple fact of a growing world (like street cams, Google Earth, etc., etc.).
if i could insert myself onto every street on google street view would be totally awesome. i have nothing to hide and lot of clothes so i could look like a hippy in one shot and a doctor in another. i could even be a nudist!
ok, all fantasies aside, what LB says is best point of all. why is this a question about insurance and not care? wow , no brainer, but there it is. The corporations have got america talking bullshit about the wrong topic entirely.
maybe puddles is right to be paranoid.
because i am canadian i am naturally happy (its built into the universal health care system - some kind of injection at birth or something similar), but even if i was an angry man i gotta say healthcare in canada is very good, and while there can be waiting there is never refusal. room for improvement, but better than what this is all about which is working out a way to claw some authority from the insurance companies re who gets to control access to healthcare.
i don't care if its bush or even cheney in charge, or clinton or obama, hell even nixon would be fine. all of those people in charge of healthcare? no problem, because USA is democracy and at some point those politicos are required to answer to the public. there is a lever and it is in the hands of the people.
with healthcare corporations the lever is in the hands of the CEO's, and they think it is a big stick.
who is in control matters because it means the motivation for holding onto that big stick changes how it is used.
puddles thinks govt will use lever as stick too, but i don't think so. accountability counts for something. if you don't think so just look at who won last election and why.
"ok, i've given this a little more thought and the nuance of my opposition to "universal" health care in america has less to do with any ideals about free-markets than it does with a supreme distrust of anything mandated at a federal gov level within the united states."
No one is mandating anything.
There's an option, that's all.
Many things are already mandated like taxes and obeying the laws. We're talking about something that works in every other industrialized nation. Can we afford NOT to have it?
The alternative is having health care eat 20% of our GDP by 2013 or sooner to cover 60% of the people. What would that do to our economy when our competition like Japan is spending half as much to cover everyone?
The industry has already accomplished its main goal of at least curbing, and maybe blocking altogether, any new publicly administered insurance program that could grab market share from the corporations that dominate the business. UnitedHealth has distinguished itself by more deftly and aggressively feeding sophisticated pricing and actuarial data to information-starved congressional staff members. With its rivals, the carrier has also achieved a secondary aim of constraining the new benefits that will become available to tens of millions of people who are currently uninsured. That will make the new customers more lucrative to the industry.
Matheson, whose Blue Dogs command 52 votes in the House, can't offer enough praise for UnitedHealth, the largest company of its kind. "The tried and true message of their advocacy," he says, "is making sure the information they provide is accurate and considered."
"why is this a question about insurance and not care?"
Well, Obama has framed it that way. Didn't start with the corporations, as you've stated.
"No one is mandating anything"
Really. So who pays for the "option"?
Just so you all know, my above question to make points out a fundamental difference in world views.
Enjoy your free healthcare.
Now that is what I am talking about. Locally controlled Healthcare Co-Ops. Much more up my alley.
Josh,
There are 3 or 4 bills right now and NONE of them has a mandate.
Do you have health insurance? Have you ever gotten sick.
josh, your above post is the most to-the-point post on this entire thread.
I'll not doubt that your comments as well as most of mine will soon be reported to the Obama Administration as "fishy".
Make, you've answered no questions for anyone who disagrees with you, so save your little two-part questionairre until you learn to respond directly and honestly to those who disagree.
Josh made many great points, and you respond with a non-sequitur.
Try these two, for starters:
"The legislation is flawed. It doesn't decrease cost, it doesn't improve care, it only expands who is covered by forcing everyone to buy health insurance."
and:
"If what Make is saying is true about the gross inefficiency of the private health care industry, then the more efficient federal program could easily compete without subsidizing the plan from the public coffers, offering the same level of service at less cost OR better service at the same cost to consumers."
Great points. Please, make -- impress us with your health care wisdom. The floor is yours...
ya'll remember when archinect had threads on theory and people would spout deleuze and heidegger for a couple hundred posts? those threads have been replaced by these political threads which are all equally obtuse and convoluted.
jafidler,
Except these issues make a difference in people's lives.
Do you have health insurance?
Illegit,
Which bill are you talking about? The first item isn't in any bill that I know of.
Make,
Are you going to admit you haven't read a single one of the 4 bills (let alone my previous post that includes my insurance position)? If you get some extra time check out section 301 "Individual Responsibility" which refers you to section 59b of the irs tax code as amended in section 401 of the current act which states:
Ways and Means Committee Version
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
- ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of..."
You can read the exact terms at the link above.
(The wording is similar in the Education and Labor version as well.)
So, if you don't get a health insurance plan that meets the requirements of the legislation, you are taxed 2.5% up to the average national annual premium for an acceptable health insurance plan.
Exactly how is that not a mandate? It mandates what a minimum "acceptable" amount of health insurance is and how much your "tax" is for not having it.(I am sure if I had an extra ten hours I could find where they put the loopholes so that I can claim conscientious objector or something, but I haven't found it yet.)
READ THE BILL, preferably before you make ridiculously final statements, "NONE of them", honestly.
Out.
Josh
Oh there it is, sub-section 5-"Religious Conscience Exemption". Guess I'm good.
Locally controlled Co-Ops suck.
i should know, i've been a member of 3.
they either aren't big enough to provide adequate savings/coverage, or they are too big, crowd out competition and don't provide adequate savings/coverage.
mine sucks ass.
the only system that hasn't been a failure for me is single payer.
on a darkly humorous note, paul krugman pointed out how very uninformed many americans are in an op-ed recently. the funniest bit goes like this
There was a telling incident at a town hall held by Representative Gene Green, D-Tex. An activist turned to his fellow attendees and asked if they “oppose any form of socialized or government-run health care.” Nearly all did. Then Representative Green asked how many of those present were on Medicare. Almost half raised their hands.
Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.
illegit, so you are saying that obama framed the entire business this way? really? just for fun, to stir things up maybe?
who is responsible for american healthcare being in hands of insurers not doctors it is not very impt in any case. i don't think this is about obama however.
the bills making way through system don't seem to be as effective as they should be based on what i have read in news. still it is amazing to me the goal is not health care but how to provide insurance for everyone. two very very different things.a
that is great opening for companies to start gaming system and as we saw above they are indeed working like hell to make sure they make more money, not save lives. there is something incredibly wrong about that. i do fault obama for not plainly telling everyone this is about who has power over the system, but republicans seem to be making it seem like everyone will live longer if corporations get to choose your lifespan instead of medical practitioners. very sad.
krugman says this is about race. i think it is about greed.
The current plan(s) being considered mandate that everyone must buy health insurance. That is a mandate. Over 11% of the uninsured make over 500% of the poverty level(over $100,000 in CA). It seems as if they are choosing to not have insurance as they would rather use there money elsewhere, possibly concierge or pay for services options. The proposed plans insure that they must now buy health insurance. So everyone is forced to buy health insurance, they can only choose whom to buy it from. This is why the health insurance lobby is still lobbying for universal coverage, just not a public option. The legislation is flawed. It doesn't decrease cost, it doesn't improve care, it only expands who is covered by forcing everyone to buy health insurance.
If what the legislators (and Make) are saying is true, why doesn't the government launch a health insurance program that is self-sufficient? If the private companies are making such a huge killing with their tremendous profits and overhead, payed completely by their customers premiums, then why can't the government simply launch a competing plan, not funded from tax revenues, that is more efficient and thus a cheaper option for the American people? If what Make is saying is true about the gross inefficiency of the private health care industry, then the more efficient federal program could easily compete without subsidizing the plan from the public coffers, offering the same level of service at less cost OR better service at the same cost to consumers.
really, just like everyone has to have car insurance? look at how that hurts people...what an imposition.
whadda you wanna hear josh, that we're fucked either way (private health or government health) ok, we're probably fucked eiter way, but how much worse could it get that a world ranking below Morocco, Cyprus, and Costa Rica and two above Cuba....fucking two above Cuba, for fuck's sake. I'm so sick of this vomit about how the government fucks everything up when they step in that if I hear it one more time I'm going to a desert island and never coming back. I could make an endless list here on historical cases where private industry or corporations killed or made sick a whole bunch of people until the government finally stepped in: processed meat, DDT and various other pollutants, seat-belts AND air bags, water that lit on fire, the list can go on and on. If I have to take the lesser of two evils overseeing something that has to do with my wellbeing, I'll take the government over private business anytime, thank you.
[i]than[i/] a world ranking
Emilio is right corporatism only serves their own interests to profit
so long as elected representatives allow this, fascism lives whether reagon bush obama clinton or whom ever, inability to stand up for life against the lifeless they cog for.
Jump, I said that obama has himself framed what he is attempting as insurance reform -- not care reform. The extrapolation outward toward conspiracy is yours.
You're getting a bit condescending, jump.
Plus, you seem almost looney partisan on this issue, without much substance or tolerance for opinions on the other side. Your quotes and links citing how ridiculous those who disagree with you are not particularly engaging -- and they make you seem a little self-important. Your last "darkly humorous" example is not so much the pithy final word you seem to think it is, but instead is mostly sweeping generalization.
Anwyay, Josh has outlined a few very spot-on points that you -- like most others here -- are likely to continue avoiding. Perhaps you might try actually answering to one:
Josh: "If what Make is saying is true about the gross inefficiency of the private health care industry, then the more efficient federal program could easily compete without subsidizing the plan from the public coffers, offering the same level of service at less cost OR better service at the same cost to consumers."
This oughta be good.
I actually don't understand this statement. What federal program is NOT funded from the coffers, i.e. taxes? Or is that not what you mean?
oh, but "this oughta be good" is not self important and condescending.
If you ask the wrong question then of course you can sit around and be smugly proud of yourself. Why is the question whether it should be one or the other? (a totally government run system or a totally privately run system). I could sit here and list countries that do a combination of both very successfull without dropping 45 million people throught the cracks...but I won't, the New Yorker did it very well in an intelligent and well researched article a little while back, look it up).
The focus SHOULD at the very least be bringing all the people that are right now out in the cold back inside, and that's what BOTH parties should be focusing on, instead of disseminating misinformation and sending goon squads to town hall meetings. They should be sitting down and working out a compromise solution.
But let's be honest here: health reform ain't never gonna happen, for one main reason- and not only because the Pols don't really give a fuck about those people out in the cold and the entrenched private parties don't want it to happen - no, the main reason is that they'll NEVER, EVER, not till hell freezes fuckin' over, let Obama get the political capital and feather in his cap that would come from actually passing even a mediocre plan to fix the system. And that goes for both parties: they're more interested in sabotaging the other party as a prelude to the next election than actually helping their fellow citizens (although, strangely enough, both attempts at health care reform have been tried during a Democratic administration...but don't worry, the Dems would block some equally important thing by the Republicans, like the defense of marriage bill or ending legal abortion or ending the government forever and replacing it with a corporation).
Ok, I got that out of my system, carry on with the misinformation.
There are a few federal programs not funded by "tax" money.
I do not know any specific examples but a lot of National Parks are funded by mineral rights leasing and by "daily use fees."
There is a quite impressive federal campground in the White Mountains in Arizona that's quite like a small city. The entire thing is funded by camping permits.
I do know from my old government classes is that there's quite a few major US cities that are almost completely funded by pay parking and tickets. The rest of their operating budgets use real estate tax for excessive policing (which is almost worthless) and "better" schools.
Mostly, people in the private sector don't like it when the government produces competitive products at wholesale to retail prices. In fact, a lot of the politics over the last 100 years have been trying to get away from the government being able to do anything "business-like."
I personally would like to see subsidized real estate for upper class businesses and residents-- ie, the government contracts, builds and leases property at slightly above cost versus for a profit.
It would definitely help to centralize monied individuals.
emilio, are all of josh points equivalent to "the wrong question"? Is all disagreement "misinformation"?
LB -- josh is pointing out the error in the espoused efficiency of the plan Obama is proposing.
Thank you, Emilio. You hit the nail on the head with your fourth paragraph in your last post.
This is a political battle more than it is about making America a better place. When Jim De Mint said that health care would be "Obama's Waterloo" a dim light bulb went off in the collective heads of the conservative movement. "If we oppose this en masse, we can ruin Obama's poll numbers," they thought. "And if health care is allowed to pass, Obama's poll numbers will go up." Ergo: mob the town halls.
The opposition to health care reform is mainly a way of resisting Obama's presidency, more than it is a level-headed retort to health reform debate. Otherwise, why would people (read:astroturfers) be shouting things like "40 million illegals!" and comparing Obama to Hitler and so on in the town halls.
Most of these people don't understand the health care debate. But they've been told by conservative organizers (mostly paid by corporations) that Obama will euthanize the elderly, take away their doctors, create mile-long lines for essential surgeries, and in general fuck them over. If you weren't too bright, and some guy with shiny teeth and a slick suit, representing something called Conservatives for Patients' Rights, told you that Obama would euthanize your baby, you'd probably show up at a town hall too.)
I'm not saying that I fully understand the debate—it's a lot of intricate information. But what I do know is that 45 million Americans don't have health insurance. Many of those people use the emergency room as their doctor, even for very serious things—my wife is a doctor, and she's dealt with many, many poor families who have no coverage.
Coverage costs are going up. Deductibles are going up. Coverage is becoming more limited. Insurers are more willing to drop people from rolls even for ever more minor health issues.
Our medical system sucks. Maybe not for me personally, or for some of you, but for many many Americans. For every anecdote about someone who was able to pay for a procedure they couldn't have easily received in France, there are ten from people who were denied health insurance, bankrupted by massive bills, or suffered real pain because of the failures of our medical system.
Meanwhile, in these rankings, the US looks pretty bad. And most of the countries at the top of the list have single-payer, or mixed public/private systems. 1 2 3
This is why, to me, the resistance to health care reform looks not only heartless, but stupid.
column by Steven Pearlstein explains the debate brilliantly.
"LB -- josh is pointing out the error in the espoused efficiency of the plan Obama is proposing."
Illegit, there's waste and inefficiency that could be cut out of both private health insurance and medicare. Would the premiums cover the cost? I don't think anyone knows. The overall percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare will go down if the government can control it. There will be fewer bankruptcies and more entrepreneurs will be willing to work for themselves. People will have confidence in a system that will not drop them.
According the non-profit Annenberg foundation:
Also not included in Litow’s calculations is the likely effect of a new federal health insurance plan. Based on the House bill as introduced, the Lewin Group analysis said that the federal plan would offer premiums that are 20 percent to 25 percent less than comparable private insurance, since the plan would pay doctors and hospitals much less than their private insurance rates. It would pay providers what Medicare does, plus 5 percent. However, on July 31, the House Energy and Commerce Committee amended the bill to say that the federal plan would negotiate rates with health care providers. That mirrors the set-up in the Senate bill from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. A federal plan structured in that way wouldn’t have such a big effect on premium costs: The Lewin Group found that such a payment structure would result in premiums that are about 10 percent less than those offered by private insurance (see Figure 4). These details, and many others in the House and Senate bills, are still in flux. The House is working to bring together the versions of its bill that have passed three committees.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/cpr-administers-bad-facts-again/
republicans know with the economy no longer in free fall, and with any success in health care reform, they will no longer just be in 'the last throes' but will be finished as a legitimate party. they'll be split into different factions such as:
moderate (snowe)
christian right (palin)
c.t. wingnuts (larouche/ron paul)
the same rick scott that defrauded the taxpayers out of billions of dollars?
we used to have gallows for a**hats like that.
now they become lobbyists and double down on the fraud. christ...
Wanna see an astonishing display of smugness from someone who should be in prison?
Watch this.
Make, gotta be done with you on this one. You're not only not acknowledging anyone else's points, you're not even keeping up. Your last "response" to me made no sense given what I and others posted previously. Plus you're making generally nutty speculations: "The overall percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare will go down if the government can control it." Uh, OK. Like all those other efficient government-controlled programs, which are so know for their money-saving frugality? Not quite, history proves the opposite is true.
Farwest, you've made a few wild statements yourself:
"The opposition to health care reform is mainly a way of resisting Obama's presidency, more than it is a level-headed retort to health reform debate." So, let me get this straight, all who disagree are probably just Obama haters? Wow.
And then your depiction of some ignorant, misinformed, gullible dolt as generally representative of Obama's opposition on this issue is itself a pretty "astonishing display of smugness" on your part.
""The overall percentage of the GDP spent on healthcare will go down if the government can control it." Uh, OK. Like all those other efficient government-controlled programs, which are so know for their money-saving frugality? Not quite, history proves the opposite is true. "
It's simple. Doctors and hospitals will be paid less. That's one of the plans in Congress right now. It's the Medicare payment plus 5%.
You're talking in generalities that are free from specifics. This bill was amended in the Energy and Commerce committee for "negotiated" rates. My guess it will be amended back to ensure the savings are there.
As for not keeping up... I am reading a couple of the bills and it's quite interesting. I don't care if you are telling people that up is down. I want to know what is in Congress and what people like Annenberg, the AMA and the CBO have to say about it. Your dime store Republican talking points are much like the communist ones in 1989... they have been discredited by financial collapse. Economies are much complicated than the views you espouse.
"You're talking in generalities that are free from specifics"
That is hilarious. Most opponents of this "health care reform" you love so much are simply asking FOR SPECIFICS. So, essentially, you're running a "no you are" argument. What "specifics" could you possibly be lacking from me?
You've made quite a habit of quoting some partisan articles and presenting them as indisputable. There is another side to the argument.
Also, when you make a statement like this:
"It's simple. Doctors and hospitals will be paid less. That's one of the plans in Congress right now. It's the Medicare payment plus 5%."
If you have no idea why people are up in arms about all this, then you have little understanding of most folks' thinking. That "simple" statement undermines foundational beliefs. And, if that statement is representative of the "plan" you are supporting, then get ready for a giant disappointment. It simply ain't gonna fly. Obama will fail.
By the way, make, I think some guy in the House is currently writing legislation to control architect's salaries -- gonna cap 'em for the good of the people, I'm sure you'll be wholeheartedly supportive of that bill as well.
No. In fact that's not what I said. I said that I believe most of the people showing up at town halls to shout down their congresspeople are doing less because of health care, and more because of political partisan fervor.
Say what you want, I think this particular partisan line of attack will backfire in the end. The shouters and astroturfers are just too obviously crazy for it to work—comparing Obama to Hitler, shouting down the opposition like they're in third grade.
In the same way that people thought the right-wing wackadoos would somehow sway the presidential election, only to find that it didn't, I'm pretty sure this will only hurt the Republicans.
Architect's salaries were capped for many many years -- or at least, their rate structures were -- and actually there were many positive attributes to that system.
Anyway, make and others keep responding to you and you are not even attempting to engage them in a real debate, which is unfortunate. I have truly appreciated joshcookie's and others' responses here which deviate from the archinect status quo in a thoughtful, non-talking-point way and actually further the discussion / make me think.
Last note : part of Obama's call for health care reform is a specific call to reduce any waste / fraud in medicare/medicaid. So, sure, that's always something we need to watch out for (no different here than in any other situation, and no different than in private business either) and at least Obama has made it a goal. Not sure what the bills say, am still attempting to read them.
"By the way, make, I think some guy in the House is currently writing legislation to control architect's salaries -- gonna cap 'em for the good of the people, I'm sure you'll be wholeheartedly supportive of that bill as well. "
Actually that happened back in 1988 when the AIA tried to get its members to charge minimum fees.
There is a lot of competition amongst Architects for jobs and fees are lower than they have ever been. The thing with Doctors is much different. Large insurance companies and local practices operate as monopolies that keep costs high. Check out the Dartmouth study that was mentioned in the New Yorker.
The partisan talking points are getting our country no where. We need reform and join the rest of the industrialized world before 20 cents of every dollar spent here in the USA is on health care. That's a disaster that no one, Republican or Democrat can afford.
-- In October 2008, Michael Napientak, a doorman from Clarendon Hills, Ill., went to the hospital for surgery to relieve agonizing back pain. His wife's employer's insurance provider, a subsidiary of UnitedHealthCare, had issued a pre-authorization for the operation. The operation went well. But in April, the insurer started sending notices that it wouldn't pay for the surgery, after all; the family, not the insurance provider, would be on the hook for the $148,000 the hospital charged for the procedure. Pre-authorization, the insurance company explained, didn't necessarily guarantee payment on a claim would be forthcoming. The company offered shifting explanations for why it wouldn't pay -- first, demanding proof that Napientak had tried less expensive measures to relieve his pain, and then, when he provided it, insisting that it lacked documentation for why the surgery was medically necessary. Napientak's wife, Sandie, asked her boss to help out, but with no luck. Fortunately for the Napientaks, they were able to attract the attention of a Chicago Tribune columnist before they had to figure out how to pay the six-figure bill -- once the newspaper started asking questions, the insurer suddenly decided, "based on additional information submitted," to cover the tab, after all.
And THAT ^ is why your system needs to change, plain and simple.
Everyone's missing the point here. Both sides. My cat had a kidney tumor and it cost $8,000 to sedate and remove it. It was a 3 hour surgery and the cat went through a battery of tests. Now I know a cat isn’t a person but physiological they are similar. Id argue it might be harder to operate on a small mammal than a large one. I think we really do put doctors on way too high a pedestal. Its a trade like what we do for a living. After a while you get pretty good at it.
Why is this product so expensive to begin with? Well, congressional panels dictate medical costs. So somewhere someone is getting the price artificially raised. Then factor in liability do in small part from the trial lawyers association of which I believe a certain Democratic President is an avid supporter and will veto any tort reform legislation. Add to that the estimated 30% premium that medical offices spend on each claim filling and you start to see the reason for the product price inflation.
jack,
in states where tort reform was enacted, medical costs didn't go down, via harvard
it's right wing(nut) urban legend and faux talking points. one of the reasons we can't have a legitimate debate on health care
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.