Rethinking Opposition to the Healthcare Bill

[editec]

My main opposition is that I read the Caterpillar, 3M etc complaints of how much it would cost them and that heads would roll. I thought America was heading down a scary road. HOWEVER, we are not seeing these negative effects. Without these negative effects, the positives might outweigh the negatives:
(1) Getting rid of preexisting condition:
No one cares about this until it effects you personally. My brother-in-law has MS. His ex-wife and him had insurance through a corporation she started. With the marriage over 4 months ago. she dropped him immediately from her insurance. Not sure if anyone knows the cost of MS, but its enormous. The drugs are insane and the doctor visits and test cost an arm and a leg. Its nutz. After she dropped him, he tried to get insurance. Guess what! He couldn't get it ANYWHERE! He went to the Ichips program, it has a 8 month waiting period and then it doesn't cover his doctors and not all his medicine. In other words, he is screwed. Its been months since he has had his medicine and he is getting decidedly worse.

(2) Requiring everyone to get insurance:
It sounded unfair at first, but when you think about it. Its pretty damn unfair that MY insurance bills are so high to cover all the people without insurance. Young people who seem healthy today (like me - I haven't been in a doctors office, other than a physical in 5 years), can get sick tomorrow or get injured. Sorry hospitals shouldn't have to force the bill upon payors.

What I don't like:
(1) They didn't allow for further competition across state lines
(2) They didn't find a way to get insurance away from employer based plans.
(3) Did nothing to deal with the 10 lb Gorilla in the room! Illegal immigrants destroying emergency rooms budgets and getting free healthcare at our expense!

All and all I am going to look at the bill in a new light and wait until we start seeing how it changes things and withhold my opinions until then.

Very sensible approach, GHook.

The devil really is in the details.

The motive for HC reform is sound, even if you or I might disagree about how well the policy will deal with the problem.

This debate really is not about socialism V capitalism.

This is about how we get the people the HC they need without breaking the bank.

I don't think the solution we have now really works, but I cannot blame this administration for at least trying it.

 

[Claudette]

My main opposition is that I read the Caterpillar, 3M etc complaints of how much it would cost them and that heads would roll. I thought America was heading down a scary road. HOWEVER, we are not seeing these negative effects. Without these negative effects, the positives might outweigh the negatives:
(1) Getting rid of preexisting condition:
No one cares about this until it effects you personally. My brother-in-law has MS. His ex-wife and him had insurance through a corporation she started. With the marriage over 4 months ago. she dropped him immediately from her insurance. Not sure if anyone knows the cost of MS, but its enormous. The drugs are insane and the doctor visits and test cost an arm and a leg. Its nutz. After she dropped him, he tried to get insurance. Guess what! He couldn't get it ANYWHERE! He went to the Ichips program, it has a 8 month waiting period and then it doesn't cover his doctors and not all his medicine. In other words, he is screwed. Its been months since he has had his medicine and he is getting decidedly worse.

(2) Requiring everyone to get insurance:
It sounded unfair at first, but when you think about it. Its pretty damn unfair that MY insurance bills are so high to cover all the people without insurance. Young people who seem healthy today (like me - I haven't been in a doctors office, other than a physical in 5 years), can get sick tomorrow or get injured. Sorry hospitals shouldn't have to force the bill upon payors.

What I don't like:
(1) They didn't allow for further competition across state lines
(2) They didn't find a way to get insurance away from employer based plans.
(3) Did nothing to deal with the 10 lb Gorilla in the room! Illegal immigrants destroying emergency rooms budgets and getting free healthcare at our expense!

All and all I am going to look at the bill in a new light and wait until we start seeing how it changes things and withhold my opinions until then.

Very sensible approach, GHook.

The devil really is in the details.

The motive for HC reform is sound, even if you or I might disagree about how well the policy will deal with the problem.

This debate really is not about socialism V capitalism.

This is about how we get the people the HC they need without breaking the bank.

I don't think the solution we have now really works, but I cannot blame this administration for at least trying it.

Ditto.

I just can't agree on not blaming the administration for this clusterfuck of a HC bill the dimwits in Congress have passed.

All they needed to do was fix the problems. They did some of that with he pre-existing conditons and the fact that insurance can't drop you if your sick.

They did nothing to address tort reform or opening up the markets country wide. I think this would done a lot to address cost. If companies have to compete against themselves across state lines then the free market would work.

Instead we have Barry Boy getting his foot in the door to Govt takeover of HC. Oh yes. The Govt that has never run anything cheaply, efficiently or well in charge of OUR H/C

As Douger said, you ain't seen nothin yet!!

 

[industry7]

thus forcing more people into the government subsidized program and simultaneously increasing costs and lowering revenue.

You realize that the "government program" is you buy insurance from a PRIVATE company right?

 

[auditor0007]

Back to the basics; no one should be denied coverage imo. The problem with not denying coverage is that someone has to pay for this, and that answer is simple; you pay for it by requiring everyone to purchase insurance. And the argument that people shouldn't be forced to purchase something they don't need is idiotic. Everyone needs health insurance whether they will use it or not. No one knows when they will suddenly become sick or be injured in some type of accident.

That is the first part; the second part is that costs must be reduced. That will not happen unless drasitc changes are made. The endless lawsuits are a major problem and Tort Reform is an absolute necessity. But beyond that, we need to change the way that healthcare is delivered.

As an example, I need to have a pint of blood removed from my body every so often (phlebotomy). I cannot just donate blood at a blood center due to my condition, so I must pay to have them remove the blood. The cost of a phlebotomy varies greatly from the $145 that I pay to as much as $1400 or more.

Q: What is the cost of treatment? Will my insurance pay for this?

A: Treatment, known as phlebotomy or bloodletting, which is identical to a blood donation at a blood bank, ranges in cost (in U.S. dollars) per treatment as follows: a.) Blood bank (community blood bank)=$30.00 to $200.00 per treatment b.) Doctor's office=$200.00 to $400.00 per treatment c.) Hospital/outpatient=$400.00 to $1400.00 per treatment

Untitled Document

By paying cash and looking around, I found a doctor's office (actually a Cancer and Hemotology Center) that has their own infusion center and only charges $145. Yet many doctors send patients to the hospital where the cost can be well over $1000, and the insurance companies pay for this.

Now, in almost every other business in the world, if someone sells a product or service for five to ten times the price of his competitor, he'd be out of business, because nobody would buy his product. If you know a can of soup costs $1.50, would you pay $10 to $15 for that exact same can of soup? Of course not, but in healthcare, through insurance companies, some people are paying $1500 for a treatment that only costs $150.

Now, it is easy to figure why certain healthcare providers would charge this much. It's quite simple; they know they can collect that much. How about abdominal ultrasounds? This is another bit of healthcare I personally need to have performed on a regular basis. The national average minimum is around $290. The maximum? It's $1700.

How about lab work / blood tests? I need certain blood tests on a regular basis. For the tests I need, I pay between $150 and $200. When I had insurance, the insurance company paid out close to $1000 for the same tests.

These are just examples I am personally familiar with. However, I'm certain we could find the same thing from one medical procedure/service to the next. I don't have all the answers as to how this can all be changed, but I'm positive that if we really wanted to, we could find a way to bring real competition back to healthcare with or without the insurance companies. Between the nonsense that I see currently with such price discrepancies and the massive cost of administration, I know that costs could be cut in half. The queston is how?

Unfortunately, the only thing people seem to be concerned with is how the current system does or does not effect them personally, or how they think it does. Nobody on this board, nor those in the healthcare industry, nor the politicians have even thought of discussing this, and this is where the true problem lies. We have to reduce the cost of healthcare, and it can be done, yet nobody wants to discuss this. And why? Because everyone involved is having their pockets lined with big bucks, and nobody wants to jeapardize that.

Maybe if more people were better informed, then we would all begin to demand more of our insurance companies, the people who run our healthcare organizations, and the politicians who try to regulate this albatorss.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

My main opposition is that I read the Caterpillar, 3M etc complaints of how much it would cost them and that heads would roll. I thought America was heading down a scary road. HOWEVER, we are not seeing these negative effects. Without these negative effects, the positives might outweigh the negatives:
(1) Getting rid of preexisting condition:
No one cares about this until it effects you personally. My brother-in-law has MS. His ex-wife and him had insurance through a corporation she started. With the marriage over 4 months ago. she dropped him immediately from her insurance. Not sure if anyone knows the cost of MS, but its enormous. The drugs are insane and the doctor visits and test cost an arm and a leg. Its nutz. After she dropped him, he tried to get insurance. Guess what! He couldn't get it ANYWHERE! He went to the Ichips program, it has a 8 month waiting period and then it doesn't cover his doctors and not all his medicine. In other words, he is screwed. Its been months since he has had his medicine and he is getting decidedly worse.

(2) Requiring everyone to get insurance:
It sounded unfair at first, but when you think about it. Its pretty damn unfair that MY insurance bills are so high to cover all the people without insurance. Young people who seem healthy today (like me - I haven't been in a doctors office, other than a physical in 5 years), can get sick tomorrow or get injured. Sorry hospitals shouldn't have to force the bill upon payors.

What I don't like:
(1) They didn't allow for further competition across state lines
(2) They didn't find a way to get insurance away from employer based plans.
(3) Did nothing to deal with the 10 lb Gorilla in the room! Illegal immigrants destroying emergency rooms budgets and getting free healthcare at our expense!

All and all I am going to look at the bill in a new light and wait until we start seeing how it changes things and withhold my opinions until then.

That's why reform was needed, but not free health care for lazy people and Tax payers paying for it. ~BH

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Back to the basics; no one should be denied coverage imo. The problem with not denying coverage is that someone has to pay for this, and that answer is simple; you pay for it by requiring everyone to purchase insurance. And the argument that people shouldn't be forced to purchase something they don't need is idiotic. Everyone needs health insurance whether they will use it or not. No one knows when they will suddenly become sick or be injured in some type of accident.

Why does everyone need health insurance. Someone like Bill Gates has no need of insurance because he can afford to pay for any care he might need. I have lived for more than half a century and never required health insurance once. Everyone does not need insurance, so trying to force people to but it because everyone needs it is shows how little you have thought this issue through. there are plenty of alternatives to health insurance that will cover people who are healthy and have no need to worry about anything but a catastrophic problem.

That is the first part; the second part is that costs must be reduced. That will not happen unless drasitc changes are made. The endless lawsuits are a major problem and Tort Reform is an absolute necessity. But beyond that, we need to change the way that healthcare is delivered.

As an example, I need to have a pint of blood removed from my body every so often (phlebotomy). I cannot just donate blood at a blood center due to my condition, so I must pay to have them remove the blood. The cost of a phlebotomy varies greatly from the $145 that I pay to as much as $1400 or more.

No, we have to change how health care is paid for. The reason cost keep spiraling out of control is that insurance pays for everything, and no one has to compete for customers. Take a look at how the cost of plastic surgery, eye surgery, and other surgeries have gone down over the years despite the fact that they share the same tort burdens of other doctors. When you allow the market to work it tends to drive costs down.

Now, in almost every other business in the world, if someone sells a product or service for five to ten times the price of his competitor, he'd be out of business, because nobody would buy his product. If you know a can of soup costs $1.50, would you pay $10 to $15 for that exact same can of soup? Of course not, but in healthcare, through insurance companies, some people are paying $1500 for a treatment that only costs $150.

Now, it is easy to figure why certain healthcare providers would charge this much. It's quite simple; they know they can collect that much. How about abdominal ultrasounds? This is another bit of healthcare I personally need to have performed on a regular basis. The national average minimum is around $290. The maximum? It's $1700.

Amazing what happens to prices when no one has to pay them directly, isn't it?

How about lab work / blood tests? I need certain blood tests on a regular basis. For the tests I need, I pay between $150 and $200. When I had insurance, the insurance company paid out close to $1000 for the same tests.

These are just examples I am personally familiar with. However, I'm certain we could find the same thing from one medical procedure/service to the next. I don't have all the answers as to how this can all be changed, but I'm positive that if we really wanted to, we could find a way to bring real competition back to healthcare with or without the insurance companies. Between the nonsense that I see currently with such price discrepancies and the massive cost of administration, I know that costs could be cut in half. The queston is how?

Unfortunately, the only thing people seem to be concerned with is how the current system does or does not effect them personally, or how they think it does. Nobody on this board, nor those in the healthcare industry, nor the politicians have even thought of discussing this, and this is where the true problem lies. We have to reduce the cost of healthcare, and it can be done, yet nobody wants to discuss this. And why? Because everyone involved is having their pockets lined with big bucks, and nobody wants to jeapardize that.

Maybe if more people were better informed, then we would all begin to demand more of our insurance companies, the people who run our healthcare organizations, and the politicians who try to regulate this albatorss.

There are quite a few people that have proposed reasonable and sensible reforms that will actually reduce prices. Unfortunately for you, employees based halth care is a sacred cow to the unions, and the unions own the Democrats. Maybe you should take a closer look at some of the Republican proposals Obama. Reid, and Pelosi claim does not exist.

 

[Queecho Feecho]

To those that support the idea of allowing companies to sell across state lines, please lay out how you think that would reduce health insurance premiums.

 

[GHook93]

My main opposition is that I read the Caterpillar, 3M etc complaints of how much it would cost them and that heads would roll. I thought America was heading down a scary road. HOWEVER, we are not seeing these negative effects. Without these negative effects, the positives might outweigh the negatives:
(1) Getting rid of preexisting condition:
No one cares about this until it effects you personally. My brother-in-law has MS. His ex-wife and him had insurance through a corporation she started. With the marriage over 4 months ago. she dropped him immediately from her insurance. Not sure if anyone knows the cost of MS, but its enormous. The drugs are insane and the doctor visits and test cost an arm and a leg. Its nutz. After she dropped him, he tried to get insurance. Guess what! He couldn't get it ANYWHERE! He went to the Ichips program, it has a 8 month waiting period and then it doesn't cover his doctors and not all his medicine. In other words, he is screwed. Its been months since he has had his medicine and he is getting decidedly worse.

(2) Requiring everyone to get insurance:
It sounded unfair at first, but when you think about it. Its pretty damn unfair that MY insurance bills are so high to cover all the people without insurance. Young people who seem healthy today (like me - I haven't been in a doctors office, other than a physical in 5 years), can get sick tomorrow or get injured. Sorry hospitals shouldn't have to force the bill upon payors.

What I don't like:
(1) They didn't allow for further competition across state lines
(2) They didn't find a way to get insurance away from employer based plans.
(3) Did nothing to deal with the 10 lb Gorilla in the room! Illegal immigrants destroying emergency rooms budgets and getting free healthcare at our expense!

All and all I am going to look at the bill in a new light and wait until we start seeing how it changes things and withhold my opinions until then.

That's why reform was needed, but not free health care for lazy people and Tax payers paying for it. ~BH

Why do you assume lazy. Many of the uninsured are people who can't be insured. My brother-in-law worked his whole life since he was 14. He got MS and it got worse to the point he can't work. His bitch wife tossed him out and cancelled their insurance against a court order (not a formal order, so she got away with it). Now he CAN'T get insurance. The IChip program takes 6 months to get into.

There is always a gray area!

 

[The Rabbi]

Requiring coverage on pre-existing conditions does NOT mean the insurer must sell the policy at a low rate. How much would it cost to cover your brother with MS? His premiums will run thousands of dollars a month, possibly tens of thousands. All insurance is about risk. There is no free lunch when it comes to risk. The gov't cannot legislate away that risk.

Currently opposition to health care and support for its repeal run over 60% in opinion polls. That is a very strong base.

And every company in America, big and small that offers coverage, is looking at the pros and cons of dumping their employees onto the public system and paying the fine. They will probably do what ultimately will cost them less. So the costs will skyrocket.

I say dump the tax advantage for companies to offer insurance, treat it like salary, and use the extra taxes brought in to lower payroll taxes so people can afford to buy their own plans.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To those that support the idea of allowing companies to sell across state lines, please lay out how you think that would reduce health insurance premiums.

Many states require insurers to cover conditions that most people do not need, one example of this is covering rehab for alcohol and drug abuse. This means that if you live in one of those states you are paying for rehab, and any other health conditions that result from someone who abuses drugs. If you were able to shop across state lines, and know that you do not have a drug or alcohol problem, you could shop for a policy that did not cover this, thus saving you money. If you look at your health insurance you will see everything that it covers, all of which you pay for.

 

[The Rabbi]

To those that support the idea of allowing companies to sell across state lines, please lay out how you think that would reduce health insurance premiums.

Many states require insurers to cover conditions that most people do not need, one example of this is covering rehab for alcohol and drug abuse. This means that if you live in one of those states you are paying for rehab, and any other health conditions that result from someone who abuses drugs. If you were able to shop across state lines, and know that you do not have a drug or alcohol problem, you could shop for a policy that did not cover this, thus saving you money. If you look at your health insurance you will see everything that it covers, all of which you pay for.

Nahh. That's too logical. It's a plot by Big Insurance in cahoots with George Bush. yeah, that's the ticket, Yeah.

 

[Yukon.]

We Canadians are fortunate people. I have Medicare and I have had several major illnesses.

I survived cancer in 1994, a heart attack in 2004, and spinal stenosis in 2006. Each of these illnesses required hospitization, surgery, continuous drug therapy, and continuous visits to the Dr.

My cost was ZERO, I paid nothing and continue to pay NOTHING. Oh yes, I do pay more for gasoline, booze, and cigs (I quit smoking), and it is debatable if I pay more income taxes then the average American.

Good luck America, someday soon you too may be able to live your lives free of the worry that you'll be bankrupt because you got sick.

Praise Jesus

 

[GHook93]

Can they also cure compulsive lying?

We Canadians are fortunate people. I have Medicare and I have had several major illnesses.

I survived cancer in 1994, a heart attack in 2004, and spinal stenosis in 2006. Each of these illnesses required hospitization, surgery, continuous drug therapy, and continuous visits to the Dr.

My cost was ZERO, I paid nothing and continue to pay NOTHING. Oh yes, I do pay more for gasoline, booze, and cigs (I quit smoking), and it is debatable if I pay more income taxes then the average American.

Good luck America, someday soon you too may be able to live your lives free of the worry that you'll be bankrupt because you got sick.

Praise Jesus

 

[Polk]

My main opposition is that I read the Caterpillar, 3M etc complaints of how much it would cost them and that heads would roll. I thought America was heading down a scary road.

The thing is, how could you really support what was going on before in terms of retiree health benefits (which is what the Caterpillar/3M issue was about). They were receiving a government subsidy, and then being able to claim the subsidy as an expense, thereby receiving a tax credit for it.

What I don't like:
(1) They didn't allow for further competition across state lines
(2) They didn't find a way to get insurance away from employer based plans.
(3) Did nothing to deal with the 10 lb Gorilla in the room! Illegal immigrants destroying emergency rooms budgets and getting free healthcare at our expense!

All and all I am going to look at the bill in a new light and wait until we start seeing how it changes things and withhold my opinions until then.

1. Competition across state lines is pretty meaningless, when you get down to it. With the existence of a national coverage standard (which will now exist), there isn't really any incentive to purchase from another state. Without the existence of a national coverage standard (which is what the GOP wanted), no competition would exist as every insurance company would just pull out of every state except for the one with the most lax regulation (even worse, the Republican bill actually allowed colonies to be considered states for the purposes of the bill, so welcome to the Northern Marianas standard).
2. They didn't even attempt that because it would have been politically impossible. However, you may get your wish on that in the long-run.
3. That's a problem that's really hard to address.

 

[Polk]

Consider the only Federally run hospitalization program in the country, the VA, and then tell me that the Feds know how to care for patients.

Sometimes it helps to know what's actually happening, instead of falling for conventional wisdom (which is often wrong).

How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care - TIME

 

[Polk]

Currently opposition to health care and support for its repeal run over 60% in opinion polls. That is a very strong base.

60% of the voices in your head, perhaps. I'd love for you to provide a poll with over 60% voicing opposition that's not one of Scott Rasmussen's push polls.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Currently opposition to health care and support for its repeal run over 60% in opinion polls. That is a very strong base.

60% of the voices in your head, perhaps. I'd love for you to provide a poll with over 60% voicing opposition that's not one of Scott Rasmussen's push polls.

Gallup tracks the opposition to health care at over 50% and climbing among adults. As Gallop always skews Democratic, and includes a large portion of those who would benefit from the new law, I think you have a serious problem if you think most people support the law.

 

[Polk]

Currently opposition to health care and support for its repeal run over 60% in opinion polls. That is a very strong base.

60% of the voices in your head, perhaps. I'd love for you to provide a poll with over 60% voicing opposition that's not one of Scott Rasmussen's push polls.

Gallup tracks the opposition to health care at over 50% and climbing among adults. As Gallop always skews Democratic, and includes a large portion of those who would benefit from the new law, I think you have a serious problem if you think most people support the law.

I didn't claim most people support the law. That's a strawman.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

60% of the voices in your head, perhaps. I'd love for you to provide a poll with over 60% voicing opposition that's not one of Scott Rasmussen's push polls.

Gallup tracks the opposition to health care at over 50% and climbing among adults. As Gallop always skews Democratic, and includes a large portion of those who would benefit from the new law, I think you have a serious problem if you think most people support the law.

I didn't claim most people support the law. That's a strawman.

I didn't say you did, just pointed out you have a problem if you think that. Do you?

 

[Polk]

Gallup tracks the opposition to health care at over 50% and climbing among adults. As Gallop always skews Democratic, and includes a large portion of those who would benefit from the new law, I think you have a serious problem if you think most people support the law.

I didn't claim most people support the law. That's a strawman.

I didn't say you did, just pointed out you have a problem if you think that. Do you?

No. I think the public is pretty evenly divided, with a small plurality opposed.