US Health Reform - DPChallenge Forums

03/10/2010 02:45:26 PM · #101

From what I understand the current plan has subsidies for the poor so they can afford it. The devil is, of course, in the details, but I don't think your complaint is one that nobody has thought of.

The current plan has tax credits which means that you get more at tax time - which is their answer to everything, "Tax credits!" I personally don't give a rat's ass about tax time if I don't have enough money to live the other 11 months of the year.

03/10/2010 02:50:45 PM · #102

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

Couldn't you withhold less then so your tax credit is effectively spread out over 12 months?

03/10/2010 03:16:17 PM · #103

Don't think so.

citymars

Nikon D700

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/10/2010 04:14:21 PM · #104

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But the public doesn't put people into office to spend 80% of their time working on getting re-elected. The beast is out of control and this is why the public has such a low opinion of congress as a whole (no matter who happens to be in charge). The machine only operates one way and even the best intentioned elected official will be stymied by it.

That's right. Nor did we put people into office to do the bidding of the highest bidder. The amount spent on "influence" (lobbying) is astounding, and I'm sure there are ways to exceed campaign contribution limits -- or are limits entirely a thing of the past since the recent Supreme Court debacle?

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/10/2010 04:27:47 PM · #105

I thought I read that the tax credit went directly to the insurance company in the current senate plan? I could be wrong. Ironically, that is what McCain proposed and Obama bashed at the time, but oh well...

There is a lot of things that could/should be done to fix healthcare, very few of them are in the senate plan. Taking more from the haves and giving it to the have nots is not always the only solution to a problem.

citymars

Nikon D700

03/10/2010 04:55:43 PM · #106

OK, so there's really not much of a story once you get past the headlines, but it was a promising headline: Sarah Palin's family sought health care in Canada

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/11/2010 12:03:45 PM · #107

Originally posted by alans_world:

I just cant understand why some Americans donâ��t need to worry about insurance because they already have the illusion of a pre-existing illness, they donâ��t work due to laziness and as a result live a no effort life with little or no hope of getting cured.

Juliet, your case, working with children no problem. But you living in southern AZ know exactly where my problem is, you have seen it.

Are you talking about illegal immigrants in your statement to Julia?

I can't think who the heck you're talking about in the first statement. Have I seen a certain percentage of my client base that's just deterimined to not work? Absolutely. Though, they're surprisingly not lazy. I told one of them that for the amount of effort they expend trying to not work it would be easier to just get a damn job. But, those folks are in the minority. They're like maybe 1%. The majority of our people don't work honestly can't - due to either physical or mental disability. Then, in Virginia they have a double whammy/disinsentive to work - an adult with an income can't get medicaid. So, I've got this whole little subset of clients that would like to be able to work - and as long as they get the medical treatment they need probably could work (at least part-time) - who don't work because as soon as they start a job, they lose their health care.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/11/2010 01:43:27 PM · #108

Editorial cartoon

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/11/2010 03:19:04 PM · #109

An interesting article that highlights another problem.

NIH Panel: End bans on vaginal delivery after C-section

C-sections are expensive compared to normal births. Vaginal births after a C-section carry a small, but real increase in serious complications like death. The NIH is urging the docs to stop making C-sections automatic after a previous C-section, but without serious tort reform, who in their right mind is going to do this? Do you think the OB, who is already paying six figures a year for malpractice insurance, has any interest in increasing their risk (real or perceived) just because the NIH says it would be a good idea for healthcare? It's pretty laughable.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

03/11/2010 03:51:08 PM · #110

Last I heard malpractice claims accounted for about 2% of the health care budget -- could well be different today. Most of the tort "reforms" I've heard about go way too far in the other direction in their limitations, and would just end up another windfall for insurance companies.

You look for "waste" in the system ... I just heard about one practice when it took three office workers just to handle the various insurance billings for one doctor. Now, I'm all in favor of creating jobs for office workers, but perhaps we can find them work fulfilling orders for gallery photographs instead ... ;-)

03/11/2010 04:21:35 PM · #111

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/11/2010 04:51:50 PM · #112

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I wouldn't think so, since he said "malpractice claims". And I'm not sure what budget he is referring to since those claims would be paid by insurance companies (mostly to lawyers) - it isn't paid for by the government. And if malpractice claims are considered a small or insignificant portion of Healthcare costs, then NOT implementing some significant tort reform is actually what allows insurance companies to justify keeping malpractice premiums high and gain "windfall" profits.

edit: And I agree that the cost of defensive medicine is not factored in (but should be) because it is somewhat hard to quantify.

Message edited by author 2010-03-11 16:53:25.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

03/11/2010 05:18:07 PM · #113

Note the lawsuit thing is an industry in itself! Doctors have to have Malpractice insurance. The Malpractice insurance companies make a profit overcharging the doctors to pay the lawyers, if doctors get to expensive they drop the doctor or raise their rates putting them out of business...

What about drug companies advertising on TV? Why are they allowed to talk people into needing their drugs? How much insurance money goes to overpriced antidepressants people ask for because they saw a commercial, when in reality they have been proven to be little more effective then a placebo?

Why are our drugs so much more expensive then in Canada and Mexico (mabe because insurance pays it?)? Why can't we buy them over the internet (like contact lens) from out of country?

What percentage of the healthcare costs are drugs?

03/11/2010 10:04:51 PM · #114

2% is 20 billion dollars. I know, chump change. But does that 2% include the practice of "defensive medicine"? Docs order a ton of CYA labs and procedures "just in case". The C-section instead of a VBAC is a prime example.

That's not CYA - it's make as much money as you can. Last spring I had my appendix removed. But, when I first went to the hospital I was experiencing extreme pain in the area of my gallbladder. They ordered all these tests to look in the area of my gallbladder. During the last one, the tech accidently pressed in the area of my appendix and I gasped. I suggested she ultrasound the area of my appendix, and she couldn't because the doctor hadn't ordered it. So, then, when she told the doctor what happened he ordered a scan to see if it was my appendix - making it into two separate tests, so they could bill my insurance more. Thousands of dollars could have been saved if they'd just done a full abdominal scan at the beginning. Even in the case of C-sections - they say many (if not most) are done for convenience - of the mother and/or the doctor. But, I'd bet anything that cost is also a motivating factor. They want to make more money. It's not that they're worried about getting sued - they want that money, honey! They have life styles to maintain!

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/11/2010 11:17:12 PM · #115

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

While I appreciate your cynical attitude, there is lots in your post that betrays your lack of understanding how things really work.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/12/2010 09:01:02 PM · #116

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

I have worked with the homeless population for several years now. When I was working at the Salvation Army shelter we had three families stay with us in a six month time span who lost their homes because they got garnished for medical bills. These were people who got up and went to work every day, and they lost their homes because of medical expenses. Say that outloud to yourself a couple of times. That shouldn't even be possible. That was six years ago. Does anyone think it has gotten better?

[...]Since I am frequently in the court house for my job, I sometimes have occassion to look at the civil docket - almost all of it is the hospital taking people to court to be able to garnish their wages.

You seem to be informed about the latest details of the health care bill, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it contain a provision that would limit the amount any individual/family will be required to pay out-of-pocket for health care in one calendar year; and also a provision that will abolish yearly and lifetime caps that insurance companies now apply to policies? Don't you think those two provisions together will reduce substantially, if not almost entirely, the number of bankruptcies due to medical expenses and/or folks losing their homes due to medical expenses? My understanding is that that's what these provisions are aiming to accomplish.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/12/2010 11:31:12 PM · #117

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
I have worked with the homeless population for several years now. When I was working at the Salvation Army shelter we had three families stay with us in a six month time span who lost their homes because they got garnished for medical bills. These were people who got up and went to work every day, and they lost their homes because of medical expenses. Say that outloud to yourself a couple of times. That shouldn't even be possible. That was six years ago. Does anyone think it has gotten better?

[...]Since I am frequently in the court house for my job, I sometimes have occassion to look at the civil docket - almost all of it is the hospital taking people to court to be able to garnish their wages.

You seem to be informed about the latest details of the health care bill, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it contain a provision that would limit the amount any individual/family will be required to pay out-of-pocket for health care in one calendar year; and also a provision that will abolish yearly and lifetime caps that insurance companies now apply to policies? Don't you think those two provisions together will reduce substantially, if not almost entirely, the number of bankruptcies due to medical expenses and/or folks losing their homes due to medical expenses? My understanding is that that's what these provisions are aiming to accomplish.

Those are the provisions that seem to have disappeared from the bill as it works it's way through the senate.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/13/2010 09:05:11 AM · #118

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:
I have worked with the homeless population for several years now. When I was working at the Salvation Army shelter we had three families stay with us in a six month time span who lost their homes because they got garnished for medical bills. These were people who got up and went to work every day, and they lost their homes because of medical expenses. Say that outloud to yourself a couple of times. That shouldn't even be possible. That was six years ago. Does anyone think it has gotten better?

[...]Since I am frequently in the court house for my job, I sometimes have occassion to look at the civil docket - almost all of it is the hospital taking people to court to be able to garnish their wages.

You seem to be informed about the latest details of the health care bill, so correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't it contain a provision that would limit the amount any individual/family will be required to pay out-of-pocket for health care in one calendar year; and also a provision that will abolish yearly and lifetime caps that insurance companies now apply to policies? Don't you think those two provisions together will reduce substantially, if not almost entirely, the number of bankruptcies due to medical expenses and/or folks losing their homes due to medical expenses? My understanding is that that's what these provisions are aiming to accomplish.

Those are the provisions that seem to have disappeared from the bill as it works it's way through the senate.

Okay, I looked it up and you're correct, they had disappeared from the bill but are now part of Obama's "fixes" and will be added back as part of what gets passed through the reconciliation process... let's hope.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

03/13/2010 01:00:28 PM · #119

I'm not holding my breath.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

03/20/2010 07:50:21 PM · #120

Here's a very good lecture on health care reform by a health care economist, one of the architects of the current Senate bill.

citymars

Nikon D700

Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM

03/21/2010 12:49:07 AM · #121

Disappointing -- to put it mildly -- that protesters of the health bill spit on a congressman today, called black congressmen the n-word and made anti-gay slurs to representative Barney Frank. This is what comes of irresponsible "journalists" whipping people into a hateful frenzy.

cowboy221977

Canon EOS-60D

03/21/2010 01:20:46 AM · #122

OK for all the brits in here....How much do you pay in taxes to cover this healthcare cost that you love so much...I have already looked it up online and it is astronomical. The U.S. has a problem with people that want something for nothing. There is a large population of people that don't want to work...so they get on welfare, food stamps, and any other govmt assistance program that they can, however they are driving around in a Cadillac Escillade and own a big screen TV. This govmt healthcare overhaul will now give them 100 % free healthcare even though they already have govmt assistance for healthcare....This policy / plan , if passed, will bankrupt the US. Obama is already succeding in doing that anyway. I am highly against this policy..

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800