Now For the Reality of Healthcare Reform

[Toronado3800]

You do realize that the OP is a press release from AT&T don't you? You do realize that when companies take billion dollar hits, the shit rolls down hill don't you? You do realize that 2+2 still equals 4 don't you? Do you think AT&T will be giving big fat bonuses to all the employees and hiring more people?

The missing fact is what Healthcare actually cost the AT&T collective as a whole. The employees and the business.

IF every employee of AT&T has access to decent medical treatment it should cost the AT&T/employee entity less.

Its not like we're not all paying for socialized medicine now. Joe Bob gets shot and shows up at the hospital. They treat him even if he has no money. ! ! ! ! ! Does the money for this magically appear? No, you and I flip the bill through taxes. (subsidies on "lost income to the hospital" state funded payments to the hospital, whatever)

Sounds like if Joe Bob is an AT&T employee next year he'll be flippin part of the bill also.

More fair to me.

Extrapolate that from AT&T down to ZZZZ Cleaners and their 50+ employees and you have a bit of savings nation wide.

A permanent answer? No. Doesn't solve the larger problem of increasing cost of treatments exceeding GDP growth. Start exporting more or figuring out ways to make MRIs and AZT cheaper while maintaining the safety standards we have.

 

[jreeves]

You do realize that the OP is a press release from AT&T don't you? You do realize that when companies take billion dollar hits, the shit rolls down hill don't you? You do realize that 2+2 still equals 4 don't you? Do you think AT&T will be giving big fat bonuses to all the employees and hiring more people?

The missing fact is what Healthcare actually cost the AT&T collective as a whole. The employees and the business.

IF every employee of AT&T has access to decent medical treatment it should cost the AT&T/employee entity less.

Its not like we're not all paying for socialized medicine now. Joe Bob gets shot and shows up at the hospital. They treat him even if he has no money. ! ! ! ! ! Does the money for this magically appear? No, you and I flip the bill through taxes. (subsidies on "lost income to the hospital" state funded payments to the hospital, whatever)

Sounds like if Joe Bob is an AT&T employee next year he'll be flippin part of the bill also.

More fair to me.

Extrapolate that from AT&T down to ZZZZ Cleaners and their 50+ employees and you have a bit of savings nation wide.

A permanent answer? No. Doesn't solve the larger problem of increasing cost of treatments exceeding GDP growth. Start exporting more or figuring out ways to make MRIs and AZT cheaper while maintaining the safety standards we have.

Yep and covering 30 million more people will make the deficit magically decrease....really

 

[Toronado3800]

Yep and covering 30 million more people will make the deficit magically decrease....really

Maybe.

Lets say one of them folks is a gal named Trina. She has a lingering liver disease which will kill her in her 40's and screws with her ability to hold down a decent job. So she bounces around different Pepsi-Co type jobs sometimes having insurance, sometimes going over the medical coverage limit for the year real quickly.

When she's over the coverage limit does she stop going to doctors? No, just stops going to the good ones that demand payment. She still shows up at urgent cares which will "bill her". You and I pay for that through the system of socialized healthcare we've had for decades.

IF this health bill actually forces every "franchise-ette" of Pepsi-Co to pay their money to insure her (taking the money effectively from her wallet through lower wages and ours through more expensive fried chicken), she gets regular medical treatment and works more, paying more taxes and helping the GDP.

 

[jreeves]

Yep and covering 30 million more people will make the deficit magically decrease....really

Maybe.

Lets say one of them folks is a gal named Trina. She has a lingering liver disease which will kill her in her 40's and screws with her ability to hold down a decent job. So she bounces around different Pepsi-Co type jobs sometimes having insurance, sometimes going over the medical coverage limit for the year real quickly.

When she's over the coverage limit does she stop going to doctors? No, just stops going to the good ones that demand payment. She still shows up at urgent cares which will "bill her". You and I pay for that through the system of socialized healthcare we've had for decades.

IF this health bill actually forces every "franchise-ette" of Pepsi-Co to pay their money to insure her (taking the money effectively from her wallet through lower wages and ours through more expensive fried chicken), she gets regular medical treatment and works more, paying more taxes and helping the GDP.

Want to make a bet? People on public insurance plans use the medical system(spend more) per capita than people on private insurance plans?

 

[Toronado3800]

For example, our friend Trina who might qualify for early disability someday. She has a heck of a lot higher medical cost than I do even though I have private insurance.

Imagine my decreased ability to pay for private insurance if I suddenly catch lung cancer. Eventually I get sick enough I can't afford $202 cash a month to Alliance and poof, I'm suddenly VERY sick and costing public insurance tons of money.

 

[jreeves]

For example, our friend Trina who might qualify for early disability someday. She has a heck of a lot higher medical cost than I do even though I have private insurance.

Imagine my decreased ability to pay for private insurance if I suddenly catch lung cancer. Eventually I get sick enough I can't afford $202 cash a month to Alliance and poof, I'm suddenly VERY sick and costing public insurance tons of money.

Imagine if you will I have a friend his name 'John Crackhead'. He has never held a job for more than a day, therefore never paying a penny in income taxes. He suddenly thinks his nose is running excessively. He immediately goes to his doctor and demands extensive medical testing, threatening his doctor with legal action if the tests are not performed. The doctor fearing litigation, due to the failure of Congress to include tort reform in the health reform law, hesitantly agrees to perform the testing. $$$ with no premiums paid by John Crackhead only government subsidies to cover his excessive medical treatment.....now repeat this 30 million times do you see a problem?

 

[Toronado3800]

You bring up a valid problem with abuses of the system and I agree the power of Big Government should be brought on through tort reform and by Americans reading and throwing out whatever Judges allow ridiculous cases to proceed.

Then again I only spend about an hour every election cycle reading up on which Judges to retain so I feel somewhat hypocritical. Perhaps I should get a better cell phone and make myself a note on it whenever I read a case involving a ridiculous settlement which isn't over-ruled on the local level.

So not only do public options have to cover those who are too sick to pay for private insurance, they have to cover idiot crack heads also.

 

[jreeves]

You bring up a valid problem with abuses of the system and I agree the power of Big Government should be brought on through tort reform and by Americans reading and throwing out whatever Judges allow ridiculous cases to proceed.

Then again I only spend about an hour every election cycle reading up on which Judges to retain so I feel somewhat hypocritical. Perhaps I should get a better cell phone and make myself a note on it whenever I read a case involving a ridiculous settlement which isn't over-ruled on the local level.

So not only do public options have to cover those who are too sick to pay for private insurance, they have to cover idiot crack heads also.

Now imagine if you will rapid expansion of HHS and the taxes that will be needed to finance all the new positions created by this reform law. Not to mention the all the new administrative legal costs associated with this reform law. There is a way to help people that are too sick without mandating coverage for all.

 

[Toronado3800]

There is a way to help people that are too sick without mandating coverage for all.

I'm all ears.

On a side note, I don't care if my $202 a month is going to Alliance (private insurance) or Government employees. Its like splitting hairs between the Post Office and UPS. The Post Office makes sure everyone gets their mail, even if its unprofitable to take a letter from my house to a serviceman in Gnome Alaska. UPS has better customer service.

 

[jreeves]

There is a way to help people that are too sick without mandating coverage for all.

I'm all ears.

On a side note, I don't care if my $202 a month is going to Alliance (private insurance) or Government employees. Its like splitting hairs between the Post Office and UPS. The Post Office makes sure everyone gets their mail, even if its unprofitable to take a letter from my house to a serviceman in Gnome Alaska. UPS has better customer service.

How about optional national catastrophic health care coverage? You pay in, you receive the coverage...

 

[Toronado3800]

Is there a "You don't pay in and we leave your sick self on the street corner dying if you don't pay or don't have coverage" option?

That's too big of a loophole.

Sounds like the system we already have. Even decent folks like Trina won't pay instead of buying tires for her car because they know we won't leave them dying in the street. Much less some crackhead. Not to mention the folks who are just idiots who think they're healthy and are going to cost you and I money.

 

[Toronado3800]

I have a really, really low view of ppl and their ability to take care of themselves.

 

[jreeves]

Is there a "You don't pay in and we leave your sick self on the street corner dying if you don't pay or don't have coverage" option?

That's too big of a loophole.

Sounds like the system we already have. Even decent folks like Trina won't pay instead of buying tires for her car because they know we won't leave them dying in the street. Much less some crackhead. Not to mention the folks who are just idiots who think they're healthy and are going to cost you and I money.

So do we provide home insurance for people who's house already burned down or do they have to purchase insurance before they have a fire? Isn't it the same thing?

 

[jreeves]

There is a way to help people that are too sick without mandating coverage for all.

I'm all ears.

On a side note, I don't care if my $202 a month is going to Alliance (private insurance) or Government employees. Its like splitting hairs between the Post Office and UPS. The Post Office makes sure everyone gets their mail, even if its unprofitable to take a letter from my house to a serviceman in Gnome Alaska. UPS has better customer service.

By the way if the government and Alliance is getting a cut of your paycheck. Wouldn't it stand to reason that your going to be paying more or you'll be getting less medical services?

 

[kwc57]

I see predictions. I don't see evidence. Informed opinion does not count when an OP is made if you are going to ask for evidence from the other side. The OP has to post its evidenc first: not just anyone's opinion as evidence.

You do realize that the OP is a press release from AT&T don't you? You do realize that when companies take billion dollar hits, the shit rolls down hill don't you? You do realize that 2+2 still equals 4 don't you? Do you think AT&T will be giving big fat bonuses to all the employees and hiring more people?

Let's see the evdience, the empirical data, the objective proof of it, not simplistic talking points used by simplistic minds. And should one use the CBO's report as evidence, check to see if it uses the word "uncertainty". If not, you can safely ignore it.

At this point, I don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. The HC bill passes and is signed into law. AT&T which is a BIG comapnay with many HR, tax and legal professionals in it's hire pours over the legislation to see how it is going to affect them. They determine it is going to cost them a cool billion.......and you think that is opinion and won't become reality. You think that the shit won't roll down hill to the little guy in the company. You don't think it will affect pay raises or number of jobs. You are welcome to your fantasy reality, but common sense and history disagree with you. In my 30+ years of employment, I've had 3 different companies fold up under me. My wife has had more than that. When profits go down due to employee expense, employees get cut so the company can maintain a profit to stay in business. That's simply the way it works. Need empirical evidence.....get a job.

 

[kwc57]

For example, our friend Trina who might qualify for early disability someday. She has a heck of a lot higher medical cost than I do even though I have private insurance.

Imagine my decreased ability to pay for private insurance if I suddenly catch lung cancer. Eventually I get sick enough I can't afford $202 cash a month to Alliance and poof, I'm suddenly VERY sick and costing public insurance tons of money.

Imagine if you will I have a friend his name 'John Crackhead'. He has never held a job for more than a day, therefore never paying a penny in income taxes. He suddenly thinks his nose is running excessively. He immediately goes to his doctor and demands extensive medical testing, threatening his doctor with legal action if the tests are not performed. The doctor fearing litigation, due to the failure of Congress to include tort reform in the health reform law, hesitantly agrees to perform the testing. $$$ with no premiums paid by John Crackhead only government subsidies to cover his excessive medical treatment.....now repeat this 30 million times do you see a problem?

Your story has nothing to do with tort reform. The doctor does not have to accept him as a patient or run tests out of fear of a law suit. Tort reform seeks to limit the judgements made in malpractice suits. Like when you need to have your left leg amputated below the knee and the doctor cuts off your right leg by mistake. The left leg still needs to come off and now you have no legs. Tort reform would say that even though the doctor fucked up royally, you can't take him to the cleaners for what he did to you. You can only get X amount of dollars in judgement. By doing this, the doctors malpractice insurance company only has to pay a smaller portion of dollars for your damages, can keep their premiums lower to the doctor, keeps the doctors costs down which then keeps your medical care costs lower. But you still have no legs and can't drive your long haul truck you used to drive for a living.

I think there are some crazy dollars paid out for some malpractice, but I think tort reform to limit costs for insurance companies and doctors at the expense of a patient is just as crazy. If you cut off my legs by mistake, you're going to pay for it.

 

[Foxfyre]

For example, our friend Trina who might qualify for early disability someday. She has a heck of a lot higher medical cost than I do even though I have private insurance.

Imagine my decreased ability to pay for private insurance if I suddenly catch lung cancer. Eventually I get sick enough I can't afford $202 cash a month to Alliance and poof, I'm suddenly VERY sick and costing public insurance tons of money.

Imagine if you will I have a friend his name 'John Crackhead'. He has never held a job for more than a day, therefore never paying a penny in income taxes. He suddenly thinks his nose is running excessively. He immediately goes to his doctor and demands extensive medical testing, threatening his doctor with legal action if the tests are not performed. The doctor fearing litigation, due to the failure of Congress to include tort reform in the health reform law, hesitantly agrees to perform the testing. $$$ with no premiums paid by John Crackhead only government subsidies to cover his excessive medical treatment.....now repeat this 30 million times do you see a problem?

Your story has nothing to do with tort reform. The doctor does not have to accept him as a patient or run tests out of fear of a law suit. Tort reform seeks to limit the judgements made in malpractice suits. Like when you need to have your left leg amputated below the knee and the doctor cuts off your right leg by mistake. The left leg still needs to come off and now you have no legs. Tort reform would say that even though the doctor fucked up royally, you can't take him to the cleaners for what he did to you. You can only get X amount of dollars in judgement. By doing this, the doctors malpractice insurance company only has to pay a smaller portion of dollars for your damages, can keep their premiums lower to the doctor, keeps the doctors costs down which then keeps your medical care costs lower. But you still have no legs and can't drive your long haul truck you used to drive for a living.

I think there are some crazy dollars paid out for some malpractice, but I think tort reform to limit costs for insurance companies and doctors at the expense of a patient is just as crazy. If you cut off my legs by mistake, you're going to pay for it.

I don't know of any tort reform accomplished or proposed, however, that limits malpractice in cases of gross negligence. Such as cutting off the wrong leg.

What tort reform does do is limit judgments in cases of ordinary, non lethal or non life threatening error, failure to diagnose something that was not clearly medically indicated, failing to deliver a 100% perfect baby, etc. In other words, it frees doctors to practice medicine according to medically indicated and approved principles instead of being forced to practice so much defensive medicine which is what is really driving up costs and is not reflected in the stats people use to evaluate the cost of malpractice litigation.

And in the worst case scenario, tort reform does liberate doctors sufficiently to want to practice medicine again. Put it into place and we'll have plenty of competent OB-Gyns again. The most shining positive result of Texas's tort reform is a great insurgence of doctors and other medical professionals into that state, and that is a good thing for the people no matter how you evaluate tort reform.

 

[driveby]

my party, lozerby, is the GOP that has no plan at all and has had no plan since reagan. if it fails, then we will try something else, just not any reagan voo-doo economics.

Wow, hard hitting stuff there from the former female impersonator turned republican wanna be........

 

[jreeves]

For example, our friend Trina who might qualify for early disability someday. She has a heck of a lot higher medical cost than I do even though I have private insurance.

Imagine my decreased ability to pay for private insurance if I suddenly catch lung cancer. Eventually I get sick enough I can't afford $202 cash a month to Alliance and poof, I'm suddenly VERY sick and costing public insurance tons of money.

Imagine if you will I have a friend his name 'John Crackhead'. He has never held a job for more than a day, therefore never paying a penny in income taxes. He suddenly thinks his nose is running excessively. He immediately goes to his doctor and demands extensive medical testing, threatening his doctor with legal action if the tests are not performed. The doctor fearing litigation, due to the failure of Congress to include tort reform in the health reform law, hesitantly agrees to perform the testing. $$$ with no premiums paid by John Crackhead only government subsidies to cover his excessive medical treatment.....now repeat this 30 million times do you see a problem?

Your story has nothing to do with tort reform. The doctor does not have to accept him as a patient or run tests out of fear of a law suit. Tort reform seeks to limit the judgements made in malpractice suits. Like when you need to have your left leg amputated below the knee and the doctor cuts off your right leg by mistake. The left leg still needs to come off and now you have no legs. Tort reform would say that even though the doctor fucked up royally, you can't take him to the cleaners for what he did to you. You can only get X amount of dollars in judgement. By doing this, the doctors malpractice insurance company only has to pay a smaller portion of dollars for your damages, can keep their premiums lower to the doctor, keeps the doctors costs down which then keeps your medical care costs lower. But you still have no legs and can't drive your long haul truck you used to drive for a living.

I think there are some crazy dollars paid out for some malpractice, but I think tort reform to limit costs for insurance companies and doctors at the expense of a patient is just as crazy. If you cut off my legs by mistake, you're going to pay for it.

Sure it doesn't, what if the doctor doesn't run the tests and Mr. Crackhead suffers as a result of not performing the tests. Lawsuit....

 

[JakeStarkey]

my party, lozerby, is the GOP that has no plan at all and has had no plan since reagan. if it fails, then we will try something else, just not any reagan voo-doo economics.

Wow, hard hitting stuff there from the former female impersonator turned republican wanna be........

Nope, I am neither lozerby nor Palin.

Bub, we had no plan, don't ya get it? And now we want to complain? No wonder we got thumped, and we are again with your type of thinking. Driveby, the American public has not forgiven the Republican Party. They hate us more than the Dems. That's the problem.