OK RWers, Lets Say They Scrap The Bill, Start Over If You Will...

[MarcATL]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

 

[Tom Clancy]

Which Bill?

 

[MarcATL]

Which Bill?

That's a good question.

I hear folks on your side repeating, screaming and shouting time and time again..."Scrap the bill! Scrap the bill! Start over!"

I guess that's the bill I'm talking about.

*shrugs*

 

[hboats]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The Republicans have submitted two bills for approval. Do you know what happened to them? They weren't even looked at. They were dismissed. Maybe if the Democrats had tried to include both sides in all of this discussion before today we'd be a lot closer to a solution.

Rick

 

[MarcATL]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The Republicans have submitted two bills for approval. Do you know what happened to them? They weren't even looked at. They were dismissed. Maybe if the Democrats had tried to include both sides in all of this discussion before today we'd be a lot closer to a solution.

Rick

Can you briefly describe the arguments in their bills?

 

[ItHappens]

Someone got to their TiVo'd episodes of Olbermann and Maddow late today.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Starting over is Republican code for doing nothing. They are talking about incrementalism, which is code for doing nothing.

The president should say flat out to the Republicans, come back Monday with a list of the PARTS of the current bill you are willing to support, then we'll go from there, passing them first, 'incrementally'. I'm guessing the GOP response would be a big hummunna hummunna.

 

[hboats]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The Republicans have submitted two bills for approval. Do you know what happened to them? They weren't even looked at. They were dismissed. Maybe if the Democrats had tried to include both sides in all of this discussion before today we'd be a lot closer to a solution.

Rick

Can you briefly describe the arguments in their bills?

I'll do you one better, I'll post a link to the latest bill. And BTW, the bill doesn't contain "arguments" it contains their ideas of a solution.

The following link is a summary of the points of the Republican bill.

http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/...rnative_Health_Care_plan_Updated_11-04-09.pdf

The following link is the whole of the Republican bill.

http://rules-republicans.house.gov/Media/PDF/RepublicanAlternative3962_9.pdf

Rick

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then what?

What do you do to actually IMPROVE the current system?

And how soon do you plan or expect to do so?

The Republicans have submitted two bills for approval. Do you know what happened to them? They weren't even looked at. They were dismissed. Maybe if the Democrats had tried to include both sides in all of this discussion before today we'd be a lot closer to a solution.

Rick

How do you know that they weren't looked at?
What was in their proposals?

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Let's start with focusing on a bill that gets rid of the dumb sales points of the Democrats:

No one denied coverage for pre-exisiting conditions. Period. Should have been implemented a century ago.

All US citizens have coverage, period. Already in place, so that one covered.

Once that stupid sales point is dealt with:

Try actually "reforming" health care this time, and quit selling the people out:

Come up with a bill that costs America zero and reduces entitlement costs.

Look at the benefit and harm of government regulation on these costs.

Catastrophic coverage offered to 90% of the population who are healthy, and use very little of the money applied to their health insurance. This option will reduce regular medical insurance costs.

Enact tort reform yesterday

Form medical courts who can be experienced in medical litigation and also reducing costs.

Open state borders to increased competition.

Review state regulations and their benefit / cost to health care costs.

Look at "non-profit" salaries and target them for increased taxation if necessary.

Look at government salaries, and target them for increased taxation to return "public service" to the job.

Look at the tax breaks universities and colleges get, and start treating them like the big businesses they are.

Look at increasing taxation on hospital administrator salaries, and admit they are robbing the crap out of people.



In short, get busy you corrupt bastards, and do something for our nation and people for a change.

 

[Oddball]

No one denied coverage for pre-exisiting conditions. Period. Should have been implemented a century ago.

Pure nonsense....You cannot wait until your house is on fire to buy homeowner's insurance.

Nobody has a right to a risk pool to get others to pay their bills.

 

[ItHappens]

No one denied coverage for pre-exisiting conditions. Period. Should have been implemented a century ago.

Pure nonsense....You cannot wait until your house is on fire to buy homeowner's insurance.

Nobody has a right to a risk pool to get others to pay their bills.

I agree.
Something that I don't know if has been pointed out in the overall debate or not is that if you are joining a group plan (i.e. you leave one company with an employee group plan and join another) you already can not be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

 

[Article 15]

Starting over is Republican code for doing nothing. They are talking about incrementalism, which is code for doing nothing.

The president should say flat out to the Republicans, come back Monday with a list of the PARTS of the current bill you are willing to support, then we'll go from there, passing them first, 'incrementally'. I'm guessing the GOP response would be a big hummunna hummunna.

Oh, man, I would love to see him do that.

Sadly, I don't think he has the balls or the moxie to do something like that.

 

[slackjawed]

No one denied coverage for pre-exisiting conditions. Period. Should have been implemented a century ago.

Pure nonsense....You cannot wait until your house is on fire to buy homeowner's insurance.

Nobody has a right to a risk pool to get others to pay their bills.

I agree.
Something that I don't know if has been pointed out in the overall debate or not is that if you are joining a group plan (i.e. you leave one company with an employee group plan and join another) you already can not be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

When I switched companies, that did not hold true. The 'new' insurance for the new company would not cover my daughter because of a pre-existing condition, and the old one had covered her from birth.
Now that was in 1999, maybe it has changed.

 

[Some Guy]

Ideally, i'd want to eliminate the need for insurance companies or government provided insurance and put people directly in control of their health insurance needs via tax exempt (or lower taxed) health savings accounts. Eliminate the need for any entity, private or public, to get between a person and their doctor, be it a physician, facility, etc. If i want to go eat some pizza, all i have to do is go buy some pizza; why should i need a company or the government tell me whether or not i can eat some pizza? Why shouldn't it be the same way if i want to see if someone can tell me why my throat hurts?

Once the middle men are mostly out of the way, then it basically forces physicians to compete for business rather than having your health insurance company telling you which doctors your plan benefits will apply for. Physicians, facilities, etc will lose business to others who can run a more efficient operation and provide care at decent prices. This alone will be enough motivation to automate the clerical stuff as much as possible. AKA, IT used in record keeping, billing, etc.

Eliminate medicare. People shouldn't stop being responsible for their health after a certain age.

I'd like to see one simple provision added if one decides to sue. If you sue and lose, you pay all the defendants' court costs as well. Hopefully that would help weed out the frivolous lawsuits from the legit ones.

I think we'd need to maintain a government backstop (Medicaid) for the people who legitimately can't cover their health expenses or something catastrophic happens, although my rules for who is eligible to receive these benefits would be pretty stringent.

Perfect? Nope. Realistic? Definitely not. But i think it targets the cost of health care most directly and will do the most to cut down costs. You simply cannot reduce costs unless you knock down barriers between the provider and the consumer.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I agree dude, if everyone has coverage, this pre-exisiting garbage, which Democrats let fester for decades and decades and decades when they have had an absolute monopoly on power and government in this nation (had to take a breath), would not be an issue.



Government forced this entire mess on us because of their failures, and it needs to change. We have to figure out a way to remove those two items from their corrupt sales pitch.

You can not deny someone that needs help. I can't, even Right Winger and Jillian I would help.

Change the system or fix it, at NO cost to us. The entire health care concept needs to be flipped on it's head.

 

[Oddball]

The president should say flat out to the Republicans, come back Monday with a list of the PARTS of the current bill you are willing to support, then we'll go from there, passing them first, 'incrementally'. I'm guessing the GOP response would be a big hummunna hummunna.

Why should they support any of that monstrosity at all?

They have, after all, submitted alternative ideas, the fraudulent cries to the contrary of the other party nonwithstanding.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

Have a good night.

 

[ItHappens]

Pure nonsense....You cannot wait until your house is on fire to buy homeowner's insurance.

Nobody has a right to a risk pool to get others to pay their bills.

I agree.
Something that I don't know if has been pointed out in the overall debate or not is that if you are joining a group plan (i.e. you leave one company with an employee group plan and join another) you already can not be denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

When I switched companies, that did not hold true. The 'new' insurance for the new company would not cover my daughter because of a pre-existing condition, and the old one had covered her from birth.
Now that was in 1999, maybe it has changed.

My experience is similar in dealing with a child's pre-existing condition. Both in 2004 and 2007, in two different states. Could be state by state I suppose.

 

[slackjawed]

How about we fix institutionalized health insurance fraud before making new rules that open the system up to more fraud.here is what i am refering to;

from wiki;

"Health care insurance

According to Roger Feldman, Blue Cross Professor of Health Insurance at the University of Minnesota, one of the main reasons that medical fraud is such a prevalent practice is that nearly all of the parties involved find it favorable in some way. Many physicians see it as necessary to provide quality care for their patients. Many patients, although disapproving of the idea of fraud, are sometimes more willing to accept it when it affects their own medical care. Program administrators are often lenient on the issue of insurance fraud, as they want to maximize the services of their providers.[16]

The most common perpetrators of healthcare insurance fraud are health care providers. One reason for this, according to David Hyman, a Professor at the University of Maryland School of Law, is that the historically prevailing attitude in the medical profession is one of “fidelity to patients”.[17] This incentive can lead to fraudulent practices such as billing insurers for treatments that are not covered by the patient’s insurance policy. To do this, physicians often bill for a different service, which is covered by the policy, than that which was rendered.[18]

Another motivation for insurance fraud in the healthcare industry, just as in all other types of insurance fraud, is a desire for financial gain. Public healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are especially conducive to fraudulent activities, as they are often run on a fee-for-service structure.[19] Physicians use several fraudulent techniques to achieve this end. These can include “up-coding” or “upgrading,” which involve billing for more expensive treatments than those actually provided; providing and subsequently billing for treatments that are not medically necessary; scheduling extra visits for patients; referring patients to another physician when no further treatment is actually necessary; "phantom billing," or billing for services not rendered; and “ganging,” or billing for services to family members or other individuals who are accompanying the patient but who did not personally receive any services.[20]
[edit] "