Proposed Health care reform bill.

[Junebug]

What are your opinions? I honestly don't want the govn't messing around with my healthcare and telling me how and what my healthcare will be.
I already have good insurance, (far better than the ins. was that we recently dropped 2 mos. ago,) and don't want to be told what options I have when there really isn't any options that will work.

FYI, not trying to start anything, just getting opinions so if this gets ugly then by all means plz lock the thread.

[majormana]

[Nakamova]

From what I understand, the federal government will offer a health insurance plan, but only as an alternative to existing plans. There will be no requirement to leave your existing health insurer or to sign up for the government health insurance.

At this point it's hard to know how the federal plan will measure up. Plenty of private insurers already dictate "how and what my healthcare will be", so I'm willing to see if the feds do any better. I'm self-employed, and required by law to carry health insurance (I'm in Massachusetts) so it would be great if the federal plan was cheaper, or limited annual rate increases (mine just jumped by $600/year).

[dfwtexas]

Wow, I think giving up our privacy rights and looking to the government for health care after looking how all other government programs are screw-ups is not the answer.
Yes, I gripe about my health insurance company, but I would rather have my current coverage then to be forced to take the government...and let see, what experience do they have, nope...not me.
The program is being proposed as that if you have current coverage, you can keep it but what isn't being held out in the open is, there are strings. If your coverage is with employer, if the employer chooses not to make required changes...they can opt to give up the current coverage and employees would then have to go to government health care. The main requirement relates to them paying most of the health care cost from the insurance company. The program makes it more advantageous for employers to let everyone go to government plan. And if you think that the coverage you have will be the same...it's not. Some conditions will be classified as not covered and diagnostic test will not be as readily available.
I can already see the next big bailout will be insurance companies. Insurance companies invest heavily in bonds, mortgages and stocks.

[epileric]

I'm in Canada with a government plan & despite room for improvement I don't see how the medical system infringes on our privacy rights.

[Junebug]

Wow, I think giving up our privacy rights and looking to the government for health care after looking how all other government programs are screw-ups is not the answer.
Yes, I gripe about my health insurance company, but I would rather have my current coverage then to be forced to take the government...and let see, what experience do they have, nope...not me.
The program is being proposed as that if you have current coverage, you can keep it but what isn't being held out in the open is, there are strings. If your coverage is with employer, if the employer chooses not to make required changes...they can opt to give up the current coverage and employees would then have to go to government health care. The main requirement relates to them paying most of the health care cost from the insurance company. The program makes it more advantageous for employers to let everyone go to government plan. And if you think that the coverage you have will be the same...it's not. Some conditions will be classified as not covered and diagnostic test will not be as readily available.
I can already see the next big bailout will be insurance companies. Insurance companies invest heavily in bonds, mortgages and stocks.

Totally 100% agree!
I'm wondering too about how great will the economy be if the gov't starts 'selling' insurance. How about all those thousands of employees who's jobs will be lost because of the gov't?

[RobinN]

Very very scary, and a direction we should not be going in.

The WHO just ranked America as #1 in cancer survival rate as well as quality of care and innovation.

Social Security and Medicare are going bankrupt, and you wanna do WHAT with our health care?

[BuckeyeFan]

I sure would like to here more input on this issue from our members outside of the US. They have more experience with this than I do. Thanks Eric.

I agree that one of the hidden costs will be employers dropping coverage. However, this may happen anyway. My company offers less coverage each year, while our portion of the cost increases every year. I currently pay over $2750 a year for coverage. I know that isn't awful, but I foresee huge increases for the future.

One of my biggest issues with the plan is that it doesn't even come close to covering all of those they claim are uninsured. The last figure I heard was it is only covering about 1/4 of those folks. What about the other 3/4 of 45+ million who they say are without insurance.

This plan could be a real fiasco, though something needs to be done with the system before it collapses in on itself. I am lucky with the coverage I have, but one of my daughters has no coverage and another will be off mine within a few months.

The privacy factor will be going away no matter what else they do with the coverage. They have insured that with the program to computerize all health care data. They have provisions that will allow the government to mine this data for a wide range of reasons. This process was already taking place privately and their was no need for the government to step in on this one.

All done.

[Nakamova]

It's true that the U.S. has excellent cancer care, but it's also true that we lag behind most other western countries in infant mortality and in overall patient satisfaction. England and Canada represent one kind of government-sponsored care, but there are health coverage systems in other countries (like France and Denmark) that don't involve full government involvement, but do represent well-functioning health care delivery systems.

Believe me, I'm cynical about the federal government's ability to manage anything as cumbersome as a national health coverage system, but I haven't seen anything in the private sector that puts the patient first (unless you are fabulously wealthy). Almost 30% of an average doctor's current expenses go to dealing with insurance paperwork. For-profit health insurance systems will pay for certain tests, but won't pay for longer medical visits, or coordinated care among specialists, or longer-but-less profitable treatments (like neurofeedback). The doctor has no incentive to spend more time with you, but has every incentive to fit as many patients as possible into their day, to order many tests, and to prescribe many drugs. Those are very important parts of health care, but there should also be incentives for preventive care and a holistic approach to patient quality of life.

The U.S. now spends a huge and unsustainable amount on health care, without commensurate results in overall patient health. In the counties in the U.S. with the highest per capita health care spending, patient health is below average. The problem is that our current system currently rewards services (tests, prescriptions) without also rewarding actual improvement in patient health. The system won't fix itself -- private insurers don't have any incentive to change the status quo. A government plan (or government regulation) could start to correct the imbalances and inequities that currently exist.

I expect whatever plan is enacted will be transitional, with many, many bugs to be ironed out, including those related to privacy and coverage. But the current system can't continue -- the spiraling cost of private insurance will eventually bankrupt individuals and employers.

Okay, I'm stepping off the soapbox now....

Nakamova

[Bernard]

From what I understand, the federal government will offer a health insurance plan, but only as an alternative to existing plans. There will be no requirement to leave your existing health insurer or to sign up for the government health insurance.

It's my understanding that if you don't have private insurance, the government will fine you under the new proposal if don't sign up for the government plan. Quibble with the definition of "requirement", but it's definitely coercion.

As to the merits of the broader plan, I honestly haven't investigated it at all. I'm more than neck deep in a few projects for work right now and struggling with my time management for other things.

In general though, I prefer that government do as little as possible and let the free market work (and there is no free market at work in health care at the moment). I don't believe that health care is a right. It's a service/business. I'm leery of government turning it into an entitlement, even if the current proposal is just the first baby step in that direction.

[RobinN]

I prefer that government do as little as possible and let the free market work (and there is no free market at work in health care at the moment). I don't believe that health care is a right. It's a service/business. I'm leery of government turning it into an entitlement, even if the current proposal is just the first baby step in that direction.

[RobinN]

With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President, especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.ph...u=H0dIr&ref=nf

[RobinN]

Heritage commissioned The Lewin Group, a highly respected health care policy and management consulting firm, to examine the impact the House health reform bill would have on private insurance when a government-run health plan is introduced in the marketplace.

The study found that 88.1 million Americans could be transitioned out of their current plan as employers opt out of continuing their existing coverage. These Americans would lose the employer coverage they now have. The study also found that nationwide 103.4 million Americans would end up on the new government-run public plan.

"This flies in the face of the current promises that if you like your health insurance coverage, you will keep it," said Heritage Vice President Stuart Butler. "If the public plan is implemented as detailed in this House bill, people with private insurance will be moved on a public plan, regardless of what they want, because their employers will make that decision because of the financial incentives in the bill."

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.ph...u=qeBi4&ref=nf

[dfwtexas]

I'm in Canada with a government plan & despite room for improvement I don't see how the medical system infringes on our privacy rights.

The US plan is requiring all medical records be on computer system....same system that North Korea hacked into two weeks ago. There is no option to opt out of this part of the program.
I think Canada has a pretty good system...but the amount of people in all of Canada is equal to the population of the state of CA. If Canada had the population of US, it would be a different system.
I am always shocked when I see people on here, from other countries, waiting months and months to get EEG or see specialists.
This is what we are going to?
Meanwhile...illegal aliens get free medical care....if the government addressed this problem, we could afford to provide medical care for the uninsured. I do not understand why illegals are given totally free medical care, but the government will not do the same for our citizens.

[RobinN]

Although there are some positive provisions in the current House Tri-Committee bill – including insurance for all and payment reform demonstration projects – the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite.

In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. Lawmakers have failed to use a fundamental lever – a change in Medicare payment policy – to help drive necessary improvements in American health care. Unless legislators create payment systems that pay for good patient results at reasonable costs, the promise of transformation in American health care will wither. The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.

http://healthpolicyblog.mayoclinic.o...ommittee-bill/

[RobinN]

ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada! - YouTube

ObamaCare Yay Or Nay? The Truth About Canada! - YouTube

Worth the time to watch

[Nakamova]

I agree that health care is a service/business. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a role for government to play in it. Once something reaches a certain chunk of the national budget, it affects the entire economy (c.f. the stock market/investment banks/credit industry).

If health care isn't a right or entitlement, does that mean it shouldn't be available to those who can't afford it? I agree in principle that health insurance shouldn't be mandatory -- but then what happens to those who who choose not to have it because they can't afford it? Either they go without care entirely, and/or end up at the emergency room, and/or go into debt paying out of pocket. So it becomes a government (and taxpayer) expense sooner or later. If health care costs weren't so crazy, maybe there would actually be a real choice involved. But there isn't. I think the government has a role to play in bringing those costs down. Currently the government plays a role in funding the state-of-the-art medical care and research the U.S. is known for. In a truly free-market system, that funding wouldn't exist.

Okay, a few philosophical questions: Does it matter if a health care plan is "public" or "private," if it works well and costs less? (I realize this may not happen under the currently proposed plan). If everyone has access to quality healthcare (as an "entitlement") what are the downsides for individuals?

[dfwtexas]

I think there is need for reform in the insurance and drug industry. I don't think my insurance company should be able to tell my doctor how to treat me or how my prescriptions can be filled, ie generic seizure meds.
You may not have illegal alien problems in Mass...but in Texas, it is a HUGE problem and very costly to citizens. Out of my annual taxes on my house, 60% go to fund county hospital. The county hospital should be treating those without insurance....but 90% of those treated by county are illegal aliens. We cannot deny treatment for them...and only recourse to get money back is to bill their country. Mexico has paid $0 out of millions they have been billed.
When I had trauma and was in danger of losing my arm...my insurance company gave me a few doctors to see and none of them wanted to treat me outside what the insurance company wanted to pay....which is why they all told me I had to amputed my arm. I went to a doc outside network that did 10 surgeries and so much more and saved my arm. He told me that he refused to let me be a victim of my insurance company and took only what the insurance company paid...which was about $40,000 on bill that was over $400,000! I have my arm and I know if I was in a governmental health plan that I would not be saying the same thing.
The truth of the matter is only those that have individual insurance will have any options when it comes to healthcare under Obama. He admitted he would not have his family on the plan. If this is all so great, I would say require all the politicians to be on the national health plan and see how long it would exist.

[Nakamova]

I think there is need for reform in the insurance and drug industry. I don't think my insurance company should be able to tell my doctor how to treat me or how my prescriptions can be filled, ie generic seizure meds.
You may not have illegal alien problems in Mass...but in Texas, it is a HUGE problem and very costly to citizens. Out of my annual taxes on my house, 60% go to fund county hospital. The county hospital should be treating those without insurance....but 90% of those treated by county are illegal aliens. We cannot deny treatment for them...and only recourse to get money back is to bill their country. Mexico has paid $0 out of millions they have been billed.
When I had trauma and was in danger of losing my arm...my insurance company gave me a few doctors to see and none of them wanted to treat me outside what the insurance company wanted to pay....which is why they all told me I had to amputed my arm. I went to a doc outside network that did 10 surgeries and so much more and saved my arm. He told me that he refused to let me be a victim of my insurance company and took only what the insurance company paid...which was about $40,000 on bill that was over $400,000! I have my arm and I know if I was in a governmental health plan that I would not be saying the same thing.
The truth of the matter is only those that have individual insurance will have any options when it comes to healthcare under Obama. He admitted he would not have his family on the plan. If this is all so great, I would say require all the politicians to be on the national health plan and see how long it would exist.

I agree that illegal immigration is another costly issue that needs to be fixed. No easy answers there -- it's obviously way too costly under the current arrangement.

I agree -- Put all the politicians on the national health plan BEFORE it's foisted on the public. Let them be the guinea pigs. Once it's working smoothly they can offer it to everyone else. (If it doesn't work, then we might lose a few politicians. A bonus!).

[RanMan]

I'm in Canada with a government plan & despite room for improvement I don't see how the medical system infringes on our privacy rights.

I am Canadian also and yes, all systems have pros and cons but at leaste with the Government system:

1) You have to have a health card which prooves you are Canadian (no illegal immigrants will be treated)

2) You still have the right to obtain private health care ( if you can pay for it)

3) In most cases, treatment that is not covered by Government health care can be covered by your private insurance (if you have it) or if the Government will only partially pay a bill, your private insurance(usually provided by your employer) will pay the difference.

4) The wait times arn't as long as previously mentioned, it all depends on the urgency.

Randy