Health Care Options

[cmac]

Can someone explain to me in retard terms what we have now, what is being proposed, and what the consequences and benefits of each side are? The news web sites no longer report actual news.
Thanks in advance.

[woody]

www.google.com

[Hartmann]

Can someone explain to me in retard terms what we have now, what is being proposed, and what the consequences and benefits of each side are? The news web sites no longer report actual news.
Thanks in advance.

You could always read HR3200. Everyone in the House did

[THECHICKEN]

lol someone that feels the same way as i do.


I know i don't want debt going way up, and i know we don't need government taking over yet another industry.... but im not sure what is even being proposed.

[impala454]

Right now we have privatized healthcare. I.e. private companies offer health insurance, you pay them. Most people who work a full time job have some form of health insurance made available to them, and for a good price due to them getting a group rate and/or your employer paying for part or all of the premiums (monthly fee). We also have medicare which is government run for old and/or disabled people, paid for by tax money.

Right now, if you do not have a job and want health insurance, you simply go to a company and enroll, and pay the full premiums yourself (very good insurance can be had for $200-300/month. I've seen some claim as low as $100/month, but surely the coverage is different, etc etc. Just think of it like how car insurance works, except for yourself and much more complicated. I know mine is something like $300/month and my company pays something like $190 of it.

If you do not wish to have health insurance, that is your own prerogative.

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

What was originally proposed by Obama was to completely remove privatized healthcare, and make it completely government run and paid for (hello huge tax hike). Everyone would recieve the same level of care automatically simply by living here. I heard rumblings of options to still be able to buy your own plan on top of that, but either way, it would be mandatory and would be paid for by taxes.

So many people were up in arms over this idea, that Obama removed it. He claimed that removing privatized healthcare was only a "small" portion of his bill, but I don't see what the rest of it is, so in that part I have no idea.

Also I believe with his current plan, health insurance still becomes mandatory for all.

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

Hope that helps. I think our healthcare system is great as is. People come from all over the world to use it. Just look at current govt run healthcare industries like Canada. People up there wait months just to get an MRI, or routine surgery. Their taxes up there are unbelievable, but then they talk about how healthcare is "free" up there... Keeping it privatized helps keep competition, keeps prices down, and keeps incentives for doctors to be good at what they do. Hell, it also encourages people to actually get healthy and/or get whatever care they need. I know if it had taken several months to get an MRI on my knee, I probably wouldn't have even bothered with it.

What you need to think about when you're forming an opinion is this: The average person probably pays between $100-300/month right now, through their employer, for good health insurance. It comes out of their check pre-taxes, and covers their entire immediate family. Do you think the government can do better than that? IMHO, no friggin way.

[FORSAKENR320]

i agree with impala, thats the gist of what i understand so far. it's just so hard to get the truth right now because it's really hard to pin these policies down in hard facts. due to horrible (and purposely so, i believe) wording of these bills, they are very difficult to understand. everytime one of obama's ideas comes in contact with opposition because people have began to decipher it a bit and caught a clue to his intentions, he blurts out "i didn't say that!" and tries to change everything all over again.

yea, yea... gimmie a tin foil hat. but i think this fuck obama isn't even american born and is going to send all of us back to the stone age

[cmac]

cool. thanks dude.

[cmac]

i know i pay roughly $700 a month for health insurance through my employer. i get injured a lot. a whole lot, so i chose an awesome package.
it would be cool if a large percentage of my paycheck didn't disappear for something that i may or may not use. but because i get hurt a lot, this seems to be the best way for me, because paying a company, or the government on my own would cost more.
correct?

[Psykopath]

i agree with impala, thats the gist of what i understand so far. it's just so hard to get the truth right now because it's really hard to pin these policies down in hard facts. due to horrible (and purposely so, i believe) wording of these bills, they are very difficult to understand. everytime one of obama's ideas comes in contact with opposition because people have began to decipher it a bit and caught a clue to his intentions, he blurts out "i didn't say that!" and tries to change everything all over again.

yea, yea... gimmie a tin foil hat. but i think this fuck obama isn't even american born and is going to send all of us back to the stone age

I know you're slightly on the whack job conservative side, Brandon...but please tell me you're not THAT dense.
/end side track rant.

[impala454]

i know i pay roughly $700 a month for health insurance through my employer. i get injured a lot. a whole lot, so i chose an awesome package.
it would be cool if a large percentage of my paycheck didn't disappear for something that i may or may not use. but because i get hurt a lot, this seems to be the best way for me, because paying a company, or the government on my own would cost more.
correct?

bingo

and re-read this that you posted one more time:

it would be cool if a large percentage of my paycheck didn't disappear for something that i may or may not use

remind you of any other large percentages that come out of your paycheck??

$700 still sounds like a ton... how many injuries have you had?? I have had three surgeries in the past five years or so and I am paying like $190/month. pretty good coverage too... have gone to some of the best specialists around the houston area.

[chook]

Problem is that the same coverage for health care keeps going up faster than inflation. It has come from all the excess management (HMOs)/ Lawsuits / and providing emergency services at a loss (can't deny emergency services). Something has to be done cause its getting worse. I don't think public health care in the answer, but it needs to have an overhaul on the rules.

[FORSAKENR320]

I know you're slightly on the whack job conservative side, Brandon...but please tell me you're not THAT dense.
/end side track rant.

he's a fucking alien if nothing else.... he's certainly doing his best to probe americas ass

[impala454]

Problem is that the same coverage for health care keeps going up faster than inflation. It has come from all the excess management (HMOs)/ Lawsuits / and providing emergency services at a loss (can't deny emergency services). Something has to be done cause its getting worse. I don't think public health care in the answer, but it needs to have an overhaul on the rules.

I haven't noticed it going up faster than inflation...

[Hartmann]

My problem is that the wording is off on both sides. This isn't a fight for "healthcare for everyone", because everyone already has the ability to get healthcare, it's a fight for "insurance for everyone". The government option isn't very appealing to me because on its face, it isn't competitive, it's monopolistic. How do you compete with someone who doesn't have to make a profit? There is also nothing keeping employers from making a mass exodus away from their current healthcare provider and turning their employees over to the government. Sure, they'll save money on health insurance, but the federal government won't be able to sustain it and will eventually raise taxes.

Everyone in favor of the government option seems to tout Medicare, leaving out the fact that Medicare is a hybrid system and barely works as it is. And, let's not forget that one proposed way to pay for the government option is to cut some of the Medicare spending.

I had an open mind with the Obama administration coming in to office, but I think the left and right are being pushed farther and farther away from each other, when in reality our fundamentals are the same, it's just the method of carrying out those fundamentals that are different.

[Inferia]

I'm not sure I agree with the part about everyone is able to get healthcare. I hear from my friend that when she was young, she couldn't go see the doctor cuz her parents job didn't cover health care, and they couldn't afford it either. I hear from my hospital friends that people who don't have health care go to emergency room for any old reason, they would then have to treat them, which is more costly than having a primary physician treat them. Also, it's not a returnable visit for aliments that require multiple visits to the doctors, this also increase the wait time and decrease the level of care for people who are there for actually emergencies.

[Hartmann]

I'm not sure I agree with the part about everyone is able to get healthcare. I hear from my friend that when she was young, she couldn't go see the doctor cuz her parents job didn't cover health care, and they couldn't afford it either. I hear from my hospital friends that people who don't have health care go to emergency room for any old reason, they would then have to treat them, which is more costly than having a primary physician treat them. Also, it's not a returnable visit for aliments that require multiple visits to the doctors, this also increase the wait time and decrease the level of care for people who are there for actually emergencies.

But that's exactly the point, a person can go to an emergency room for healthcare. Your friend could go to the emergency room and would get treated. Also, we can quote "one-offs" everyday. I have a former co-worker who's wife worked as a nurse in Canada and said the emergency rooms there were just like they are here. She tells stories of waste in the system. It's a one-off though and I can't take it as a generalized truth for the entire system.

The flip side of that is that it fills emergency rooms to capacity and creates long lines for people without life threatening injuries.

What I don't understand is people who do not budget for health insurance. There are cheap plans out there that allow you to visit the doctor and get basic tests done. It may not be the greatest, but I had it for a year and paid $40/month for it and it worked for me.

Just because something is expensive doesn't make it wrong. Someone has to pay for new drugs to be developed, doctors to have their malpractice insurance, etc. and personally, I'd rather pay for it in my premiums than have more of my income eroded by taxes.

[impala454]

I'm not sure I agree with the part about everyone is able to get healthcare. I hear from my friend that when she was young, she couldn't go see the doctor cuz her parents job didn't cover health care, and they couldn't afford it either.

Not being able to afford it doesn't mean it's unavailable. And rarely do employers pay for the full premiums, you still have to pay some portion out of your own paycheck. If she had two parents that both had jobs, then I guarantee they could afford it, probably just didn't want to or were sorry with their budget.

[Inferia]

Well, it's not very effective to go to the emergency room for your kid who has asthma or other conditions they may have develop along the way if they don't have regular doctors check up.

For some people, putting food on the table is hard, $40/month may be a lot of money to put aside. Plus, if your kid is born with a diseases, $40/month may be out of the question.

[cmac]

$700 still sounds like a ton... how many injuries have you had?? I have had three surgeries in the past five years or so and I am paying like $190/month. pretty good coverage too... have gone to some of the best specialists around the houston area.

two rotator cuff surgeries and an acl repair in the last three years, and then several one offs, broken ribs, wrists, dislocated elbows, concussions, etc.
all the surgeries were virtually free out of pocket and done by the best joint doc in the country out of Vail. their pro athlete list is impressive. they did arods big offseason hip surgery, bode miller, ronaldo, elway, rod woodson, greg norman, priest holmes, mario lemieux, joe montana, marino. i've always had the opinion that if i want to play hard that i need to go to the best place to get my body put back together. yeah it's expensive, but i use it. no sense half-assing it i guess.

remind you of any other large percentages that come out of your paycheck??

what are you getting at? high taxes?

[Hartmann]

Well, it's not very effective to go to the emergency room for your kid who has asthma or other conditions they may have develop along the way if they don't have regular doctors check up.

For some people, putting food on the table is hard, $40/month may be a lot of money to put aside. Plus, if your kid is born with a diseases, $40/month may be out of the question.

Sure, there are people who have hardships and in some cases, when your child is born with a disease, you receive Medicaid. There are also people out there who just choose to spend their money on booze.

This country has plenty of people who are genuinely suffering and need help and then there are those that milk the system for every penny that it's worth. I want those that need help to get it and those that are fraudulently receiving help to have it taken away. In the past, the federal government has not been able to do those two things.

[impala454]

Well, it's not very effective to go to the emergency room for your kid who has asthma or other conditions they may have develop along the way if they don't have regular doctors check up.

this is completely irrelevant. we're not talking about how the care is given, we're talking about who pays for the insurance.

For some people, putting food on the table is hard, $40/month may be a lot of money to put aside. Plus, if your kid is born with a diseases, $40/month may be out of the question.

1. If $40/month is a stretch for a young couple, they have no business having kids
2. Would it be easier to pay for insurance yourself, or have your taxes massively increased in order to pay for government health insurance? You seem to think the way a lot of liberals do on this subject, that this govt health insurance would be free. FAR from it. Not to mention, someone like me who does the responsible thing and makes sure I have health insurance doesn't want my taxes increased to pay for someone else's poor money management and decisions.

[impala454]

two rotator cuff surgeries and an acl repair in the last three years, and then several one offs, broken ribs, wrists, dislocated elbows, concussions, etc.
all the surgeries were virtually free out of pocket and done by the best joint doc in the country out of Vail. their pro athlete list is impressive. they did arods big offseason hip surgery, bode miller, ronaldo, elway, rod woodson, greg norman, priest holmes, mario lemieux, joe montana, marino. i've always had the opinion that if i want to play hard that i need to go to the best place to get my body put back together. yeah it's expensive, but i use it. no sense half-assing it i guess.

ouch, but yeah I can see why you're so expensive . Now imagine some govt employed doctor chosen for you performing all of those surgeries instead of the one you wanted to go to.

what are you getting at? high taxes?

yeap

[Spectatrix]

I read an interesting article the other day on San Francisco's public health care program that went into effect last year. I've been meaning to do some more research into it, but haven't gotten a chance to yet. Here's the article if anyone cares to take a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/opinion/22dow.html

[cmac]

I read an interesting article the other day on San Francisco's public health care program that went into effect last year. I've been meaning to do some more research into it, but haven't gotten a chance to yet. Here's the article if anyone cares to take a read: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/opinion/22dow.html

cause registering at the nyt sucks.

TWO burning questions are at the center of America's health care debate. First, should employers be required to pay for their employees' health insurance? And second, should there be a "public option" that competes with private insurance? Answers might be found in San Francisco, where ambitious health care legislation went into effect early last year. San Francisco and Massachusetts now offer the only near-universal health care programs in the United States.

The early results are in. Today, almost all residents in the city have affordable access to a comprehensive health care delivery system through the Healthy San Francisco program. Covered services include the use of a so-called "medical home" that coordinates care at approved clinics and hospitals within San Francisco, with both public and private facilities. Although not formally insurance, the program is tantamount to a public option of comprehensive health insurance, with the caveat that services are covered only in the city of San Francisco. Enrollees with incomes under 300 percent of the federal poverty level have heavily subsidized access, and those with higher incomes may buy into the public program at rates substantially lower than what they would pay for an individual policy in the private-insurance market.

To pay for this, San Francisco put into effect an employer-health-spending requirement, akin to the "pay or play" employer insurance mandates being considered in Congress. Businesses with 100 or more employees must spend $1.85 an hour toward health care for each employee. Businesses with 20 to 99 employees pay $1.23 an hour, and businesses with 19 or fewer employees are exempt. These are much higher spending levels than mandated in Massachusetts, and more stringent than any of the plans currently under consideration in Congress. Businesses can meet the requirement by paying for private insurance, by paying into medical-reimbursement accounts or by paying into the city's Healthy San Francisco public option.

There has been great demand for this plan. Thus far, around 45,000 adults have enrolled, compared to an estimated 60,000 who were previously uninsured. Among covered businesses, roughly 20 percent have chosen to use the city's public option for at least some of their employees. But interestingly, in a recent survey of the city's businesses, very few (less than 5 percent) of the employers who chose the public option are thinking about dropping existing (private market) insurance coverage. The public option has been used largely to cover previously uninsured workers and to supplement private-coverage options.

Through our experience working on health-care-reform efforts in California and Washington (one of us worked for President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers), we have seen how concern over employer costs can be a sticking point in the health care debate, even in the absence of persuasive evidence that increased costs would seriously harm businesses. San Francisco's example should put some of those fears to rest. Many businesses there had to raise their health spending substantially to meet the new requirements, but so far the plan has not hurt jobs.

As of December 2008, there was no indication that San Francisco's employment grew more slowly after the enactment of the employer-spending requirement than did employment in surrounding areas in San Mateo and Alameda counties. If anything, employment trends were slightly better in San Francisco. This is true whether you consider overall employment or employment in sectors most affected by the employer mandate, like retail businesses and restaurants.

So how have employers adjusted to the higher costs, if not by cutting jobs? More than 25 percent of restaurants, for example, have instituted a "surcharge" — about 4 percent of the bill for most establishments — to pay for the additional costs. Local service businesses can add this surcharge (or raise prices) without risking their competitive position, since their competitors will be required to take similar measures. Furthermore, some of the costs may be passed on to employees in the form of smaller pay raises, which could help ward off the possibility of job losses. Over the longer term, if more widespread coverage allows people to choose jobs based on their skills and not out of fear of losing health insurance from one specific employer, increased productivity will help pay for some of the costs of the mandate.

The San Francisco experiment has demonstrated that requiring a shared-responsibility model — in which employers pay to help achieve universal coverage — has not led to the kind of job losses many fear. The public option has also passed the market test, while not crowding out private options. The positive changes in San Francisco provide a glimpse of what the future might look like if Washington passes substantial health reform this year.

William H. Dow, who was a senior economist for President George W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, is a professor of health economics at the University of California, Berkeley, where Arindrajit Dube is an economist at the Institute for Research on Labor and Employment and Carrie Hoverman Colla is a doctoral student in health economics.

[THECHICKEN]

Here is my question.... what constitutional provision is this legislation being passed under? Commerce clause? Insurance is in the steam of commerce between states so can be regulated? Seriously, how is uncle sam sticking his nose into state business constitutionally?

[Hartmann]

Here is my question.... what constitutional provision is this legislation being passed under? Commerce clause? Insurance is in the steam of commerce between states so can be regulated? Seriously, how is uncle sam sticking his nose into state business constitutionally?

I'm not sure if the Commerce clause applies because insurance stays within a state, meaning people in Pennsylvania can't buy insurance from New Jersey. There have been mentions that the 10th Amendment may be used to attempt to quash any bill.

[THECHICKEN]

I'm not sure if the Commerce clause applies because insurance stays within a state, meaning people in Pennsylvania can't buy insurance from New Jersey. There have been mentions that the 10th Amendment may be used to attempt to quash any bill.

Yeah, but if you get insurance in NJ and crash in Penn, insurance is paying across state lines.... that may be the argument i guess.

[Hartmann]

The NYTimes has an article today about one of the reasons that this legislation has fell somewhat apart, the fact that Obama has let Congress handle it, rather than laying out exactly what he wants.

[impala454]

I'm not sure if the Commerce clause applies because insurance stays within a state, meaning people in Pennsylvania can't buy insurance from New Jersey. There have been mentions that the 10th Amendment may be used to attempt to quash any bill.

This may be true but indivuals buying insurance is a very small portion of the whole. Large companies often buy the insurance in other states, or the state where their headquarters is. I know mine is currently BCBS Tennessee (as my company's headquartered out of Tennessee), though it is universally accepted.