Healthcare Reform - Obama

[Blrfl]

(EDIT: Burton71 beat me to it, but there's some useful information in this...)

if this is such a great idea why are you not paying out of your pocket medical bills foe someone who cannot afford it?

I already am paying the medical bills for those people. So are you.

The uninsured don't get any kind of basic care unless they pay for it out-of-pocket. Most don't and wind up in the ER when their problems get out of hand. Somebody with a simple infection that could have been treated early with an $80 visit to a GP and $20 worth of antibiotics ends up requiring emergency care that costs tens of thousands of dollars. (I have a friend who works ER at a large hospital in the southeast, and she says close to half of the cases they see fall into that category.) Clearly, if that person couldn't afford health insurance, there's no way they can afford to pay that bill, either.

If you have no insurance and you get into this kind of a jam, your bacon gets saved by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act , which is a law enacted as part of the infamous Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. That's great if you're the patient but not so much f you're the hospital, because EMTALA forces hospitals to care for those patients and eat the cost. They don't exactly eat it, either. The only way the hospital is going to recoup those costs and not go bankrupt is to increase what they charge everyone else who shows up with an insurance card or cash on the barrelhead. The insurers aren't going to eat those costs either, and they raise premiums. Guess who pays those? I do, or my employer does.

As premiums increase, more people drop out of the risk pool because they can no longer afford it, making them part of a growing segment of the population that's eventually going to need "free" ER care. That, of course, drives costs and premiums up even more. It's magnified even more by the fact that people who know they need the insurance don't bail out, leaving the pool full of insureds who are a worse-than-average risk. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Please note that the foregoing is neither an endorsement or rejection of the new health care law.

--Mark

 

[toasty]

if this is such a great idea why are you not paying out of your pocket medical bills foe someone who cannot afford it? maybe someone in your neighborhood needs a transplant operation, chemo, physical therapy? how about you going down there and let them know you will be picking up the cost for them, ask them how much it will be, open up your checkbook and write the check. If all you people who thought this was such a great idea, then healthcare cots would be lower for us. But, you are not, and you won't. So, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Hmmmm?

And no your argument of "would you rather continue to do it this way, or put something in place where doctors are actually being reimbursed for the care they provide and costs can be better predicted and, accordingly, controlled?" will not fly either. First of all, i and i alone am responsible for my family. Not you, not my neighbor, not the government. Who are you and who is the gov to be telling me that i should be responsible for anyone else?

Until you open up your checkbook and pay medical expenses for someone else out of your pocket first, don't lecture me or anyone else how do we want to do it.

Another point, when will this stop? how much and to whom are we supposedly responsible for here? Retirement, medicaide, medicare, auto industry, financial industry, now the health care industry, where and when will it stop? will it stop? ever?

Next they will be harping on the environment crap, cause its waiting in the wings to be addressed by the liberals next., which will mean only one thing, more money out of my pocket.

Listen, you can feel free to live in your little ideological haven, but I live in the real world, and in the real world, there is a cost that society bears when people don't have access to health care. One component of that cost is that the rest of us pay more for health care to account for those that get treatment and don't pay. It sucks, but it's reality. In addition to the other good reasons for people to have access to some basic level of health care, we all ought to want it to give the health care providers some assurance that they're going to get paid so that they don't need to build a cushion into their pricing.

Everyone that has health insurance is and has been paying for all these people without insurance for a long time. It is why premiums are so high and part of the reason the current system is so f'ed up. If you are so against your money going to other peoples health care then you would think you would be all for this bill since it actually makes people pay (or at least partially pay) their own way.

Bingo.

 

[toasty]

OK, so I live near my Congressman -- who voted in favor of the HCR bill -- and someone left a COFFIN on his LAWN. If you want to picket the guy's office or do other similar things, hey, that's certainly your right, but IMO this transcends free expression and starts to look more like a threat, let alone the fact that it disrupts the lives of the people that have done nothing more than having the misfortune of living near the guy.

W.T.F.

Edit:
OK, so having looked into this a bit more, the people behind this are defending it on the basis that it was a peaceful protest and not intended to be a threat. Small comfort, IMO, because, you know, they left a COFFIN on his LAWN.

Let your voice be heard, by all means, but how about a little respect for a person's family and neighbors? Reminds me of a wedding I attended a few years ago where the event space was being picketed by anti-abortion protesters on the night of my wife's friend's reception because the facility was also hosting an event for someone related to the pro-choice movement (I'm assuming). For all I know, the bride could be the most strident anti-abortion advocate out there, but neither the service nor the reception suggested that she wanted that to be the theme for the evening. We all had to walk past blown up photos of aborted fetuses to attend the reception. Really uncomfortable. Time and place, you know?

As an aside, I'm well aware that there are whackjobs on the left that pull this sort of crap without regard to those that may not have a dog in the fight as well, so it's not my intention to suggest that this is just a wingnut thing.

 

[edge]

No that doesn't sum anything up. The picture incorrectly associates Rebuplicans alone with unnecessary wars. You do realize that all of your fanboy Democrats voted for this never ending war right? And lets not forget that Obama has no intentions of bringing our troops home. He never has. He is running for 4 more years of Bush. Same shit, different day.

It's mind baffling that people actually believe Obama has good intentions and is actually different than his predecessor. Republicrats are one in the same, and the only way for this country to succeed, is for this government to fail.

Obama should be focused on fixing our economy, rather than coming up with a bill that is sure to bankrupt our country. And yes, this will bankrupt our country. You can't spend money you don't have. Simple economics.

Both wars havent even cost a trillion yet.. get your figures straight

 

[edge]

1. You are young and don't want http://www.topix.com/forum/city/dyersburg-tn/TRVODOTOC7G76316E#? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status.(Section 2701).

3. You would like to in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer.(Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants.(Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn't allow your employers' slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough.(Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You're a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You're a woman who can't have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You're a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment.(Add your own violation of personal freedom here.)(Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a "Bronze plan," which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough.(Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group market and you'd like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough.(Section 1302 (c)(2)(A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can't do that.(Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don't want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It's not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients' care. Of course not.(Section 3003 (i))
12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a "Medicare provider agreement" by Feb. 1, 2010.(Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn't have those by then, you are out of luck.(Section 6001 (i)(1)(A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can't (Section 6001 (i)(1)(B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i)(3)( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200%(Section 6001 (i)(3)(C)).
14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed "unreasonable" by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied.(Section 1003)
15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000.(Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough.(Section 9008 (b)).
16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough.(Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough.(Section 1405).
17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014,$11.3 billion in 2015,$1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b)(1)(A and B).)
18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in http://www.topix.com/forum/city/dyersburg-tn/TRVODOTOC7G76316E#? Tough.(Section 9014).
19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough.(Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask.(Section 1402).
20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough.(Section 9017).

 

[edge]

O and that preexisting condition part.. excludes children

 

[edge]

OK, so I live near my Congressman -- who voted in favor of the HCR bill -- and someone left a COFFIN on his LAWN. If you want to picket the guy's office or do other similar things, hey, that's certainly your right, but IMO this transcends free expression and starts to look more like a threat, let alone the fact that it disrupts the lives of the people that have done nothing more than having the misfortune of living near the guy.

W.T.F.

Although death threats are extreme, he went against the majority of people and voted for an unconstitutional bill furthering federal government control. I hope that no violence occurs from this because they will turn traditional Americans into radicals. I hope they all get vote out..

 

[toasty]

1. You are young and don't want ? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

Good lord, people, how many times do you intend to post this? This is twice on this very page.

 

[edge]

Please take a min and listen to this if you are upset at our government about this bill
http://mfile.akamai.com/6713/wma/glennbeck.download.akamai.com/6713/preview/10/03/032410free.asx

 

[toasty]

OK, this statement:

I hope that no violence occurs from this because they will turn traditional Americans into radicals.

is totally inconsistent with this statement:

Although death threats are extreme, he went against the majority of people and voted for an unconstitutional bill furthering federal government control.

Offering a justification for threats of violence on account of political disagreement makes it tough for you to wash your hands of this when someone follows through on those threats.

 

[edge]

I'm not justifying their actions. Let me be clearer. I was just trying to state how upset people are and that is the wrong way to go about it. The correct way is to rally people together and speak with your votes come next election.

 

[edge]

That is the great thing about our country. We have the ability to change things, without firing a shot. Jefferson thought for sure that we would have numerous revolutions. When really the only war we have had since was the civil war.. We as a country have spoken with our votes since. Hopefully it stays that way. I would hate to see martial law.

 

[burton71]

O and that preexisting condition part.. excludes children

No it doesn't. Children are the first ones that will benefit from not being able to excluded because of preexisting conditions. Get your facts straight.

 

[burton71]

Please take a min and listen to this if you are upset at our government about this bill
http://mfile.akamai.com/6713/wma/glennbeck.download.akamai.com/6713/preview/10/03/032410free.asx

I found your problem. You listen to and actually believe stuff that comes out of Glenn Beck's mouth.

 

[stevbl01]

Although death threats are extreme, he went against the majority of people and voted for an unconstitutional bill furthering federal government control. I hope that no violence occurs from this because they will turn traditional Americans into radicals. I hope they all get vote out..

The majority of people in what country? I know some people aren't going to like this comment but if anyone gets violent and it seems that it already started its because of the ignorance of those individual people being easily persuaded by rhetoric used by John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh.

If all it takes is a bill to get passed for people to become violent then whats that say about those people?

You want a reason to get violent? how about being called a racial slur and having someone spit in your face because they don't like the color of your skin, sexual orientation or religion.

Some Americans just don't get it. As long as other peoples rights are violated its ok with you as long as they aren't your rights being violated. I wonder how many of you would have spoken up for black peoples rights during slavery, womens rights when they couldn't vote or gay and lesbians rights now so they can fight for their country and be able to be open without fear of getting kicked out or picked on for being gay.. America isn't a country about me, me, me its about us WE The People.

By far the most ridiculous argument that I have seen posted is that I don't want to pay for someone else's healthcare.. Believe it or not you already pay state taxes that fund healthcare for uninsured people and when you pay for your car insurance guess what you are paying for uninsured motorist. I haven't heard anybody complain about paying for uninsured motorists insurance. Oh yeah an when you pay for your cell phone bill so you can enjoy your android service guess what you are paying for someones health insurance.. When you bought your phone you paid for someones health insurance.

 

[IOWA]

Well well. So some of you thought people weren't going to revolt? Well 10 minutes ago, on fox news, democrat congressmen and sentors are under attack. Including being shot at, sent fake anthrax, and thousands of threat letters. Am I so crazy now? Buy your guns and food now. Its gonna get ugly.

 

[Crude]

Unless I missed something I haven't seen anyone violence yet? And that's amazing with the amount of wack jobs in this country. On the other hand when the people voted against prop8 in cali there was church vandalism and I didn't hear nearly this amount of noise then.

So lets stop accusing the right of doing anything until it's done. Secondly freedom of speech is a two sided sword. The left is experiencing this for the time being.

Lastly, stop saying this is the same thing the republicans wanted/did as a.) two wrongs don't make a right and b.) there are plenty of people upset at the republicans which is where the tea party movement and the libertarians come in. Just because we are against Obama doesn't mean we are for McCain (or whatever) This is the problem with politics, too many assumptions being made.

This bill is only saving what? 1.8 billion? what's that to the 2 trillion we have gone in debt in the last year? And the only reason this bill is saving money is because it's 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefits. What happens in 10 years? Has anyone though that one through?

Oh and one more thing. Did you know that our government officials are subjected to the rules of the bill? Yup, they exempted themselves. If this is so good....

 

[IOWA]

It was just reported on wgn news, sorry not fox. Wgntv.com should be something on the site. And I didn't say people on the right did it, its just people tired of getting their freedoms stepped on. Noone has been hurt, but this is only the beginning I feel.

 

[Crude]

Well well. So some of you thought people weren't going to revolt? Well 10 minutes ago, on fox news, democrat congressmen and sentors are under attack. Including being shot at, sent fake anthrax, and thousands of threat letters. Am I so crazy now? Buy your guns and food now. Its gonna get ugly.

I don't know if this is who you were talking about....but it seems the congress man that was shot at was Eric Cantor R-va the shooting is done by the left as is their MO.

FOXNews.com - Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats

 

[toasty]

Unless I missed something I haven't seen anyone violence yet? ...
So lets stop accusing the right of doing anything until it's done.

Yeah, good point, because, you know, actual violence is verboten, but threats of violence are a critical and acceptable part of modern political discourse.

 

[Outatime]

You tyrannophiles do realize that when you read 1984 you're supposed to be rooting for Winston, not O'Brien.

 

[Crude]

Yeah, good point, because, you know, actual violence is verboten, but threats of violence are a critical and acceptable part of modern political discourse.

You are putting words in my mouth.

 

[burton71]

I don't know if this is who you were talking about....but it seems the congress man that was shot at was Eric Cantor R-va the shooting is done by the left as is their MO.

FOXNews.com - Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats

Shocked you would link to FauxNews. Try getting your news from real news outlets and you would see that windows were smashed out at Dem offices in 3 states. A coffin was placed on on a D lawmakers lawn. A gas line was cut at the brother of a Democrat lawmaker. Fake anthrax was sent to Anthony Weiner a Dem from New York, etc... but yeah violence is the MO of the left.

 

[FireChief]

Listen,
You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

And when half the people get the idea they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, then the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that friends, is the death knell for a nation.

death knell - an omen of destruction

Empires fall. We are naive to think we can sustain a socialist direction, combined with a declining sense of responsibility, and increasing sense of entitlement.

Margaret Thatcher said it well: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

The blind lead the blind...

 

[toasty]

there are plenty of people upset at the republicans which is where the tea party movement and the libertarians come in. Just because we are against Obama doesn't mean we are for McCain (or whatever) This is the problem with politics, too many assumptions being made.

I don't know if this is who you were talking about....but it seems the congress man that was shot at was Eric Cantor R-va the shooting is done by the left as is their MO.

FOXNews.com - Cantor Says Campaign Office Was Shot At, Accuses Dems of Exploiting Threats

Interesting juxtaposition of quotes here, because while you chastise people for making assumptions, you assume the left is responsible for the Cantor incident, notwithstansding that you acknowledge, in the very same paragraph, that tea partiers and libertarians are upset at the GOP. Frankly, I haven't got the foggiest why anyone on the left would have an axe to grind with Cantor right now.