I could live without healthcare reform! How about you?

Formerly Healthy Young Woman Dies Due to Lack of Insurance

Blue Cross praised employees who dropped sick policyholders

"insurance companies Cigna and Humana routinely drop seriously ill policyholders so they can meet "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."
~Former Cigna senior executive Wendell Potter

Just like Kaiser, it's fine until you get sick or hurt.

Actually, I was surprised at agarcia's experience there. Mine has been quite the opposite. One chronic ache that I finally complained about lead to CAT scans and other tests immediately once I brought it up. One test coincidentally revealed some kidney stones. Again, I was immediately scheduled for surgery.

Kaiser cured my mother's breast cancer 30 years ago. They delivered both my son's via C-section(sp?). Repaired one of their broken arms later in the middle of the night. My only complaint in these many years was the way one surgeon handled a minor surgery for my wife, and his follow-up. He's in SoCal now, so I guess he's someone else's problem.

The Dems are not interested in sensible market reforms where people can shop for insurance across state lines.

And how is this idea exclusive of insurance mandates? It seems to me they are complimentary.

They aren't interested in a bare-bones healthcare plan that is unemcumbered by mandates for elective procedures such as homeopathic medicine, accupuncture,hair transplants, up to and including sex-change operations.

Actually I would hope that elective procedures would be excluded. However, the right is very vocal in criticizing Canada and it's waits for elective procedures. So which is it? Long wait is bad, no coverage is better?

So are you suggesting that the solution to our health care problems amounts to tort reform, allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines and refusing to provide service to illegals? This will make insurance affordable for the 30Million who can't afford it now and the 45,000 who die annually for lack of care will shrink to near 0?

Many on this thread are reluctant to give any type of market reform a chance and think only the govt can do it right.

My position is that the medical market promised reforms 16 years ago when the last attempt was made at universal care. Quite the opposite occurred. Why do you believe it's different now?  It's not that I think that "only the government can do it right", it's that I think the market simply isn't able to do it right and that leaves the government to pick up the pieces.

I talk about the last 16 years, but the reality is that universal health care has been debated for about 70 years. And during that time the rest of the world has pulled it off rather nicely.


And Ocean

Oh please how come you never address any of the issues

Being wrongly denied coverage by your insurance co is very much an issue.


Ben

Just like Kaiser, it's fine until you get sick or hurt.

Actually, I was surprised at agarcia's experience there. Mine has been quite the opposite. One chronic ache that I finally complained about lead to CAT scans and other tests immediately once I brought it up. One test coincidentally revealed some kidney stones. Again, I was immediately scheduled for surgery.

Kaiser cured my mother's breast cancer 30 years ago. They delivered both my son's via C-section(sp?). Repaired one of their broken arms later in the middle of the night. My only complaint in these many years was the way one surgeon handled a minor surgery for my wife, and his follow-up. He's in SoCal now, so I guess he's someone else's problem.

The Dems are not interested in sensible market reforms where people can shop for insurance across state lines.

And how is this idea exclusive of insurance mandates? It seems to me they are complimentary.

They aren't interested in a bare-bones healthcare plan that is unemcumbered by mandates for elective procedures such as homeopathic medicine, accupuncture,hair transplants, up to and including sex-change operations.

Actually I would hope that elective procedures would be excluded. However, the right is very vocal in criticizing Canada and it's waits for elective procedures. So which is it? Long wait is bad, no coverage is better?

So are you suggesting that the solution to our health care problems amounts to tort reform, allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines and refusing to provide service to illegals? This will make insurance affordable for the 30Million who can't afford it now and the 45,000 who die annually for lack of care will shrink to near 0?

Many on this thread are reluctant to give any type of market reform a chance and think only the govt can do it right.

My position is that the medical market promised reforms 16 years ago when the last attempt was made at universal care. Quite the opposite occurred. Why do you believe it's different now?  It's not that I think that "only the government can do it right", it's that I think the market simply isn't able to do it right and that leaves the government to pick up the pieces.

I talk about the last 16 years, but the reality is that universal health care has been debated for about 70 years. And during that time the rest of the world has pulled it off rather nicely.


And Ocean

Oh please how come you never address any of the issues

Being wrongly denied coverage by your insurance co is very much an issue.


Ben

All of our babies where born and vaccinated at Kasier and we only experenced the best of care.

What is not metioned in your post is tha the goverment has casued many of the problems that have caused our healthcare to go through the roof.

Its the goverment thats has made the laws preventing the insurance companies from crossing state lines.

Its the goverment that forced private hospitals to accept anyone into thier ER.

Its the goverment that is underfunding medicare reimbursement.

Its the goverment that listed obesity as a disablity preventing comapnies from offering incentives to get their empolyers healthy.

Its the goverment that has created Affermative Action that has put completely unqualified judges on the bench for life only because of the color of their skin, turning our legal system in high stakes gambling.

The goverment has caused most of the porblems in healthcare that is driving up the cost. The goverment is the problem.

You liberals need to get off your ass into the real world, get involved in medicene volenteer at a food bank or ER and see whats going on and how many people are taking advantage of the system.

You crack me up...you have no idea whether i spend my holidays, thanksgivings, or my entire worked-my-ass-off-for-it 6 year + college career volunteering. Luckily Tucson Az doesn't have any "mexicans"
Neither do you have any idea whether i have started and/or then sold any businesses....

You liberals need to get off your ass into the real world, get involved in medicene volenteer at a food bank or ER and see whats going on and how many people are taking advantage of the system.

You crack me up...you have no idea whether i spend my holidays, thanksgivings, or my entire worked-my-ass-off-for-it 6 year + college career volunteering. Luckily Tucson Az doesn't have any "mexicans"
Neither do you have any idea whether i have started and/or then sold any businesses....

If you had your own business and had to deal with all the goverment bull, regualtions and unions you would be just like me, wanting to keep as much as the money you  busted your  ass for. And you would be disgusted by everyone wanting everything free or for the mimual amount of effort, thinking they are entitled becasue they are alive.

The mandates on insurance companies are the cause of high insurance costs and you're not being intellectually honest with yourself or are so obtuse you won't even consider it.

Why is it that only the right is critical of the wait time for elective procedures, meaning joint replacement,cardio procedures and diagnostic procedures. Not tummy tucks and hair replacement? It would seem to me that all people needing those procedures would be critical of the wait time. Does the left seem to think it's to be expected and have a que sera attitude about that? Hardly. The Canadian Supreme Court agrees those waits are unacceptable and Canadians can opt out of their single payer, govt controlled plan.

Somehow my stated opinions are edited and not quoted in their entirety.
I was pretty clear in my statements regarding illegals receiving medical care. They're entitled to receive care at a hospital when needed. They are not entitled to govt (taxpayer) subsidized insurance. The Dems have done plenty in that regard by giving Social Security and Medicare to immigrants that never paid into the system.

Additionally, the opening of state lines to purchase insurance and the bare-bones mandate free plan will increase competition and lower costs. Any reforms that were supposed to have occurred 16 years ago but didn't is obviously the fault of the govt. They make the rules that allow insurance companies to operate by their regulations and mandates.

And what about cost? Nobody seems to think that should be an area of concern. Apparently the "rich" are going to pay for all of this and nobody else will be affected. I liked McCain's paln much better than the mess we have coming out of the Dem congress.
Do all of the things I mentioned, let people have a tax deduction for the purchase of insurance,allow people of lower incomes to be subsidized but make them pay something and otherwise keep the govt mitts out of it.

Do make an attempt to look at the site I posted. In case you forgot, it's  www.usdebtclock.org.

After you do that make some more comments about how well govt can run anything in a fiscally responsible manner.

If anybody watched the Obama address to congress you'll remember a couple of instances when Stretch Pelosi reacted with her infamous stank eye.
The first was when Obama said he was willing to meet with the Republicans to hear their plans and the R's held up sheafs of paper to demonstrate there were plans to be discussed. If you . . . no meetings scheduled at the White House between Obama and R's regarding healthcare.....ever.
The Dems are not interested in sensible market reforms where people can shop for insurance across state lines. They aren't interested in a bare-bones healthcare plan that is unemcumbered by mandates for elective procedures such as homeopathic medicine, accupuncture,hair transplants, up to and including sex-change operations.
They certainly don't want Tort reform because the trial lawyers give them billions of dollars so that they won't consider it. I know Obama said they would investigate it but all they have to do is look at the states where they already have it, CA for example.
. . . and the Dems are resisting any legislation be posted for 72 hours before a vote.
We can piss and moan about it now. We can call each other ignorant,racist and all manner of names. It doesn't make any sense to do so until we see the final legislation. I am virtually certain though that there will be elements of the bill I don't like, just as there will be those that don't tickle your fancy either.

So many good points, and not just owned by the Dems.  The GOP has had plenty of opportunity to make this right.  None of them want tort reform, because they are all lawyers to begin with and have too much to lose - definitely bipartisan on that count.

Insurance across state lines would be fair to us consumers, and not to the insurance companies.  I'm guessing they would prefer it to public plans, though, they will fight to keep it all.  Capitalism requires competition, or it is simply a monopoly.

Bottom line is that the country is ours to keep or let someone else be the guardians.  Write your representatives, congress, and senators and let them know how you feel.  They can only ignore us for so long, or the next election.

Health insurers discourage organ donation

Insurance company attempts to raid brain damaged woman’s long term care trust fund

Insurers deny, deny, deny until frail patients give up or die

Regulators find violations in 100%  of randomly selected cases of policy cancellations

Rescission Scandal Hits Home for Insurers.

Health Insurer to Be Charged With Teen's Murder

Firm cancels health insurance coverage for girl, 17, after celiac disease diagnosis

It's pretty easy to find articles that are negative for ins. companies. The media prints up reams of them every day because they want a single payer plan.
What they don't print are any of the stories of the 85% of the people that are happy with their insurance or any of the stories that are critical of Medicare or those that are unhappy with the plan Canada has in place.
It's selective news reporting and it's biased.
Does anyone read any science articles that don't go along with the failed Al Gore theory of human-caused climate change? Of course not because the media won't print them.

"CEOs at the big health care companies make two-thirds more than their counterparts in finance and are the highest paid of any industry.

The health care industry’s total annual profit has grown to an estimated $200 billion, and it doled out nearly $170 million in campaign contributions in 2007 and 2008. It now spends more than any other industry lobbying the federal government—$3.5 billion over the past decade and a record $263 million in the first six months of this year. That’s six lobbyists and nearly half a million dollars for each member of Congress. It’s been a good year on K Street too"

-----------------------------------------------

The survey conducted by the American College of Physician Executives (ACPE), the survey found high percentages of physician leaders are either "very concerned" or "moderately concerned" about:

- Physicians refusing to accept calls on patients who don't have insurance (79%)

- Influence exerted by medical device manufacturers (79%)

- Over-treating patients to boost income (78%)

- Influence by pharmaceutical companies (76%)

- Board members with conflicts of interest (66%)

- Non-physician executive leaders with conflicts of interest (66%)

I work in the medical field and have never even heard of the ACPE. I would imagine that they are just another of the myriad organizations like the AMA that have next to zero members that are actual doctors.
The trial lawyers association has given nearly the same amount of money over the same period of time as healthcare insurance companies. So what? Does that change your mind about Tort reform?
I think the profit margins for health insurance companies run around 2.5%. That puts them at about 35 on the list of companies for the purpose of return on the dollar in comparison to other industries. If they make a profit at all it's because of volume. Like the oil companies.
Keep trotting out your figures and I'll keep posting rebuttals.

The mandates on insurance companies are the cause of high insurance costs and you're not being intellectually honest with yourself or are so obtuse you won't even consider it.

My. Where did that bit of vitriol come from?

Yes mandates raise the cost of insurance. Yes, some mandates are positively stupid. Conversely, many mandates set a floor for coverage that you would have otherwise thought would be included by virtue of common sense. My reading leads me to understand 25% of insurance premiums can be traced back to mandates. For the sake of conversation let's say half are stupid. So, if we could perfect required coverage we'd save 12% -- or more personally, my premiums would fall to a mere $10,500 from $12,000.

I was pretty clear in my statements regarding illegals receiving medical care. They're entitled to receive care at a hospital when needed. They are not entitled to govt (taxpayer) subsidized insurance.

No one has said that they are. The president has said specifically they will not be. As to the clarity of your message, it would be much easier w/o all the political hack commentary blended in. For each Dem/Liberal slur you can muster it is very easy, especially after the past 8 years, to counter with an example R/conservative idiocy/graft, so just let it go.

Additionally, the opening of state lines to purchase insurance and the bare-bones mandate free plan will increase competition and lower costs.

Actually there is no assurance of that. There is a general consensus that it would lower costs for the young and healthy, but generally higher risk groups are not expected to benefit and may end up paying more. If you are "intellectually honest with yourself" you can see exactly how the market works to produce that effect. Further, this only truly applies to individual policies while the great majority of insurance is negotiated by large groups, so this isn't the panacea you make it out to be.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that prevents an insurance company from selling in another state and competing as you would like. Kaiser is in 4 that I know of. The rub is that they must agree to be regulated by each state. Life is hard.

Any reforms that were supposed to have occurred 16 years ago but didn't is obviously the fault of the govt. They make the rules that allow insurance companies to operate by their regulations and mandates.

"Obviously the fault of the government?" Now who is being obtuse?

And what about cost? Nobody seems to think that should be an area of concern.

Everyone is concerned with cost. What is it with you and the obvious anyway?

Apparently the "rich" are going to pay for all of this and nobody else will be affected.

From what I've gathered so far cost is being addressed from a number of angles.

I liked McCain's paln much better

Now there's a surprise. Me too, to a point. But I just don't see the majority of Americans agreeing to having their health care benefits taxed.

Do all of the things I mentioned, let people have a tax deduction for the purchase of insurance,allow people of lower incomes to be subsidized but make them pay something and otherwise keep the govt mitts out of it.

Tax deductions in this context are truely weird in how little they will accomplish. If you work for someone else you already get your health insurance tax free. If you are self employed you can already deduct health insurance. Who, exactly, are you proposing these deductions for?

So "all the things you mentioned" would amount to something like a 12% savings do to reductions in mandates, a reduction in insurance costs for the young and healthy by virtue of inter-state competition, and a new tax deduction for, presumably, the unemployed who don't have a tax liability.

Does that about sum it up?


Ben

I work in the medical field

You never have said in what capacity?

and have never even heard of the ACPE.

Google is your friend

ACPE

Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE) is the national agency for the accreditation of professional degree programs in pharmacy and providers of continuing pharmacy education. ACPE was established in 1932 for the accreditation of pre-service education, and in 1975 its scope of activity was broadened to include accreditation of providers of continuing pharmacy education.

ACPE is an autonomous and independent agency whose Board of Directors is derived through the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP) (three appointments each), and the American Council on Education (ACE) (one appointment).

In a previous post I said it would be best to allow individuals to pool with others to form a large group, thus getting the same low volume rate as a large business purchasing a plan.

How did you arrive at your magical 12% figure?

Apparently nobody is concerned with cost because otherwise you would question how it would be fiscally prudent to add additional debt. There is no scenario,plan or idea that I have seen where this is not the case. Once again: www.usdebtclock.org.

How did you arrive at your magical 12% figure?

You could at least read the post.