The Heritage foundations view on health care some good and bad ideas. Great article!!

[Maple]

While the President and his congressional allies insist that they are not proposing a federal govern*ment "takeover" of health care, the facts are indis*putable. The leading bills would transfer regulatory control of health insurance to the federal govern*ment, and would crush state innovation and exper*imentation. The leading bills would impose federal mandates on individuals and employers to buy and offer federally approved packages of health care benefits. The leading bills would expand govern*ment-run health programs, or create a new govern*ment-run health plan to "compete" directly against private health insurance for the purpose of eroding it. The leading bills would impose new taxes on middle-class Americans and would, in their current form, add to the large and growing federal debt.

There is something even more disturbing that is becoming evident: hubris. In the face of mount*ing public apprehension and opposition to these schemes, Members of Congress are intent on having their way with the health care of 300 million Amer*icans, regardless of their wishes in the matter

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg2327.cfm

 

[Maple]

What?? No one wants to read and comment on this article or is everyone asleep?

 

[Emma]

What's with all the asterisks?

 

[Emma]

What?? No one wants to read and comment on this article or is everyone asleep?

That's something I need to read when I'm more awake and coherent. Thanks for the link

 

[Maple]

While the President and his congressional allies insist that they are not proposing a federal govern*ment "takeover" of health care, the facts are indis*putable. The leading bills would transfer regulatory control of health insurance to the federal govern*ment, and would crush state innovation and exper*imentation. The leading bills would impose federal mandates on individuals and employers to buy and offer federally approved packages of health care benefits. The leading bills would expand govern*ment-run health programs, or create a new govern*ment-run health plan to "compete" directly against private health insurance for the purpose of eroding it. The leading bills would impose new taxes on middle-class Americans and would, in their current form, add to the large and growing federal debt.

There is something even more disturbing that is becoming evident: hubris. In the face of mount*ing public apprehension and opposition to these schemes, Members of Congress are intent on having their way with the health care of 300 million Amer*icans, regardless of their wishes in the matter

Preserving Freedom and Federalism: What's at Stake for Americans in the Health Care Debate

What?? No one wants to read and comment on this article or is everyone asleep?

That's something I need to read when I'm more awake and coherent. Thanks for the link

Thanks, they have some very valid points and list what different states have done with health care and what has worked and what has not.

 

[Modbert]

What?? No one wants to read and comment on this article or is everyone asleep?

No offense Maple, but it's tough to read a Health Care Article that is detailed at 1 am if you're half asleep. Just sayin.

 

[Emma]

While the President and his congressional allies insist that they are not proposing a federal govern*ment "takeover" of health care, the facts are indis*putable. The leading bills would transfer regulatory control of health insurance to the federal govern*ment, and would crush state innovation and exper*imentation. The leading bills would impose federal mandates on individuals and employers to buy and offer federally approved packages of health care benefits. The leading bills would expand govern*ment-run health programs, or create a new govern*ment-run health plan to "compete" directly against private health insurance for the purpose of eroding it. The leading bills would impose new taxes on middle-class Americans and would, in their current form, add to the large and growing federal debt.

There is something even more disturbing that is becoming evident: hubris. In the face of mount*ing public apprehension and opposition to these schemes, Members of Congress are intent on having their way with the health care of 300 million Amer*icans, regardless of their wishes in the matter

Preserving Freedom and Federalism: What's at Stake for Americans in the Health Care Debate

What?? No one wants to read and comment on this article or is everyone asleep?

That's something I need to read when I'm more awake and coherent. Thanks for the link

Thanks, they have some very valid points and list what different states have done with health care and what has worked and what has not.

I promise to keep this thread subscribed and read the article

 

[Maple]

What?? No one wants to read and comment on this article or is everyone asleep?

No offense Maple, but it's tough to read a Health Care Article that is detailed at 1 am if you're half asleep. Just sayin.

I understand, I hope you pull it up and read it tomorrow, though.

 

[Modbert]

I understand, I hope you pull it up and read it tomorrow, though.

Of course, looks interesting.

 

[veritas]

I read it.

It's crap.

Next.

 

[MajikMyst]

While the President and his congressional allies insist that they are not proposing a federal govern*ment "takeover" of health care, the facts are indis*putable. The leading bills would transfer regulatory control of health insurance to the federal govern*ment, and would crush state innovation and exper*imentation. The leading bills would impose federal mandates on individuals and employers to buy and offer federally approved packages of health care benefits. The leading bills would expand govern*ment-run health programs, or create a new govern*ment-run health plan to "compete" directly against private health insurance for the purpose of eroding it. The leading bills would impose new taxes on middle-class Americans and would, in their current form, add to the large and growing federal debt.

There is something even more disturbing that is becoming evident: hubris. In the face of mount*ing public apprehension and opposition to these schemes, Members of Congress are intent on having their way with the health care of 300 million Amer*icans, regardless of their wishes in the matter

I am not going to read your article as it is funded by the insurance companies and therefore biased.. Much like your post..

I will start with your post however?? What is wrong with our government haveing regulatory oversight of insurance companies? Do you think that the people of this nation are treated fairly? Someone beind denied coverage because as a teenager they had acne and it is deemed a pre-existing condition.. Is that right? As for the rest of your post? You are talking nonsense! You haven't a clue what you are talking about and I wouldn't doubt it if you were a paid hack by Cigna or United health care or some other outfit.. Medicare has worked well for decades!! Is that a government take over?? I don't hear many seniors complaining about the issues you are raising? Did you even read the bill?? I doubt you have!!

If you want to have a serious debate about this issue.. Can you at least stick to the facts and not the talking points, scare tactics and lies that we get from the insurance companies..

I guarantee you that the CEO of United health Care is terrified of losing his cushy job killing americans and getting paid for it.. Why on earth would want to even argue against the people of this nation for the insurance companies?? Are you stupid or willfully ignorant?

 

[Maple]

I read it.

It's crap.

Next.

I see, it's a little too complicated, for that liberal brain of yours to digest.

" A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED, IS BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE." Thomas Jefferson.

" I'm in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters." Frank Lloyd Wright.

 

[kwc57]

I quit paying attention to the Heritage Foundation when they started their What Would Jesus......er, I mean Reagan Do campaign.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Good article and it illustrates what is missing from the healthcare debate.... "debate". Seems like public option and "big insurance bad" is all that is being "discussed".

Time to start talking about why there are problems in the insurance industry rather than just lapsing into the tired old Halliburton tactics of demonize and destroy.

 

[Maple]

While the President and his congressional allies insist that they are not proposing a federal govern*ment "takeover" of health care, the facts are indis*putable. The leading bills would transfer regulatory control of health insurance to the federal govern*ment, and would crush state innovation and exper*imentation. The leading bills would impose federal mandates on individuals and employers to buy and offer federally approved packages of health care benefits. The leading bills would expand govern*ment-run health programs, or create a new govern*ment-run health plan to "compete" directly against private health insurance for the purpose of eroding it. The leading bills would impose new taxes on middle-class Americans and would, in their current form, add to the large and growing federal debt.

There is something even more disturbing that is becoming evident: hubris. In the face of mount*ing public apprehension and opposition to these schemes, Members of Congress are intent on having their way with the health care of 300 million Amer*icans, regardless of their wishes in the matter

I am not going to read your article as it is funded by the insurance companies and therefore biased.. Much like your post..

I will start with your post however?? What is wrong with our government haveing regulatory oversight of insurance companies? Do you think that the people of this nation are treated fairly? Someone beind denied coverage because as a teenager they had acne and it is deemed a pre-existing condition.. Is that right? As for the rest of your post? You are talking nonsense! You haven't a clue what you are talking about and I wouldn't doubt it if you were a paid hack by Cigna or United health care or some other outfit.. Medicare has worked well for decades!! Is that a government take over?? I don't hear many seniors complaining about the issues you are raising? Did you even read the bill?? I doubt you have!!

If you want to have a serious debate about this issue.. Can you at least stick to the facts and not the talking points, scare tactics and lies that we get from the insurance companies..

I guarantee you that the CEO of United health Care is terrified of losing his cushy job killing americans and getting paid for it.. Why on earth would want to even argue against the people of this nation for the insurance companies?? Are you stupid or willfully ignorant?

First of all, it is not funded by the insurance companies, it is the Heritage Foundation- a conservative think tank. Second of all, you obviously did not read it, because it is giving you a history of what has gone on with different states taking up health care reform and seeing what they can do without federal government intervention.

Washington D.C is many miles away from my state in Colorado, Colorado has certain health problems that other states do not have. Just as Lousianna most likely has the highest number of people with type 11 diabetes due to obesity, Colorado has it's own problems. The different states are in a much better position to determine what they need as far as health care reform than is the federal government. They are closer to the problem.

This article points out that in many of these tried solutions, nothing was set in stone, they were able to tweek and change some of these pilot programs to better suit the state's needs and their budgets. Something you will never see the Federal government be able to do once their plan is enacted.

" A GOVERNMENT BIG ENOUGH TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED IS BIG ENOUGH TO TAKE EVERYTHING YOU HAVE." Thomas Jefferson

 

[Maple]

While the President and his congressional allies insist that they are not proposing a federal govern*ment "takeover" of health care, the facts are indis*putable. The leading bills would transfer regulatory control of health insurance to the federal govern*ment, and would crush state innovation and exper*imentation. The leading bills would impose federal mandates on individuals and employers to buy and offer federally approved packages of health care benefits. The leading bills would expand govern*ment-run health programs, or create a new govern*ment-run health plan to "compete" directly against private health insurance for the purpose of eroding it. The leading bills would impose new taxes on middle-class Americans and would, in their current form, add to the large and growing federal debt.

There is something even more disturbing that is becoming evident: hubris. In the face of mount*ing public apprehension and opposition to these schemes, Members of Congress are intent on having their way with the health care of 300 million Amer*icans, regardless of their wishes in the matter

I am not going to read your article as it is funded by the insurance companies and therefore biased.. Much like your post..

I will start with your post however?? What is wrong with our government haveing regulatory oversight of insurance companies?
Do you think that the people of this nation are treated fairly? Someone beind denied coverage because as a teenager they had acne and it is deemed a pre-existing condition.. Is that right? As for the rest of your post? You are talking nonsense! You haven't a clue what you are talking about and I wouldn't doubt it if you were a paid hack by Cigna or United health care or some other outfit.. Medicare has worked well for decades!! Is that a government take over?? I don't hear many seniors complaining about the issues you are raising? Did you even read the bill?? I doubt you have!!

If you want to have a serious debate about this issue.. Can you at least stick to the facts and not the talking points, scare tactics and lies that we get from the insurance companies..

I guarantee you that the CEO of United health Care is terrified of losing his cushy job killing americans and getting paid for it.. Why on earth would want to even argue against the people of this nation for the insurance companies?? Are you stupid or willfully ignorant?

BTW- I am no fan of large insurance companies but there are ways to get reform that do not involve a take over of 6% of our economy by a bunch of politicians who have a resume that has BANKRUPTED- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Postal Service, Frannie and Freddie.

Why not legislate-
1. Tort Reform.
2. High deductible catastrophic plans.
3. Health savings plans with pre-tax dollars.
4. Group small business.
5. Open competition.
6. Eliminate pre-exisiting clauses.
7. Make it mandatory that people who can afford insurance purchase a policy, it is estimated that 15 million Americans can afford insurance but choose not to, they end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. Subsidize the poor.
8. Legislate that insurance is portable.

This all can be done through legislation, we don't need or want a national take over of 6% of our economy.

"A government big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson

 

[saveliberty]

Fact: 4 out of 10 seniors are not completely satisfied with Medicare.
Fact: 5 out of 10 private insured are not completely satisfied with their insurance.
Fact: Many private insured can switch insurance companies.
Fact: As a senior you either take Medicare or not.

 

[saveliberty]

I find it sad that Democrats in Congress are ready to hang their hat on preliminary figures on the cost and effects of the health care plan. With a $80 billion cushion from Obama's pledge to turn down a plan exceeding $900b., we are in trouble.

Why? Take a look at the intial estimates for the Fannie and Freddie crisis. The number was $25b. Three months later it was $300b. It is not too hard to see a 10% increase in the costs of the health plan. The Fannie and Freddie numbers increased 1200%!

 

[Emma]

Why not legislate-
1. Tort Reform.
2. High deductible catastrophic plans.
3. Health savings plans with pre-tax dollars.
4. Group small business.
5. Open competition.
6. Eliminate pre-exisiting clauses.
7. Make it mandatory that people who can afford insurance purchase a policy, it is estimated that 15 million Americans can afford insurance but choose not to, they end up in our emergency rooms and the rest of us get to pay. Subsidize the poor.
8. Legislate that insurance is portable.

I'm still not ready to delve deeply into your article (sorry, sick... ironic, eh lol). However I am interested in your opinion on this issue.

This morning I watched an interview with an executive of the insurance industry group that put out the recent report promising if this bill passes, insurance rates would skyrocket.

He flatly stated that repealing the anti-trust exemption would not effect or reduce health care / insurance costs. The host and his guest (a state's attorney general) disagreed. The executive insisted repealing the law would have no effect. It wouldn't matter, it wouldn't make a difference as to how the companies charged, etc. So the host asked him, since he was saying repealing the exemption wouldn't have an effect, to explain the benefits to the American people --- healthcare consumers and providers --- (NOT the insurance industry) of leaving the exemption in place.

The executive babbled, stumbled, stuttered and deflected. He never answered the question.

The host tried again (more than once). "What benefit does the exemption provide to consumers and providers."

He never answered.

 

[veritas]

I take issue with the article because it has no facts whatsoever, just anecdotal opinion. The fact is that there are regional pockets of certain types of disease, but that shouldn't make healthcare needs better served by states. How in the hell is that a supportable statement? We are all the same organism. In fact I think universality and the database would make outcomes better and educate the medical industry as a whole. Despite what you may think, there are better concentrations of doctors in more highly populated areas, or concentrations of better doctors because of competition in more populated areas. The best hospitals are along the coasts and up around the great lakes. It's a fact.

The main problem is rural delivery. Small populations that need services and they cost more because of the power law and sizing model. Hospitals are expensive, but they are vastly more cost effective in large cities compared to the majority of the country. There are more people in large cities and their surrounding suburbs than there are in the states that are reluctant to get on board with healthcare reform. That's the disconnect. The truth is that care is better in the more populous states. Certain protocols emerge and doctors compete for jobs, so the learning curve is quite steep. There is also more regulation and more oversight. All of the teaching hospitals are in the larger cities.

In HR3200 there are certain provisions that make it more cost effective and salient for a doctor to own his practice and AND the testing facilities he/she might rely on, such as an MRI or lab, so that services can be delivered centrally and more cheaply. This is barred as a conflict of interest in the denser areas.

Selling insurance over state lines is a sham without universality of insurance laws countrywide, or they will all park themselves in some backwater state with the least regulation and sell crap like the credit card companies do. Each state and DC have a different set of code. Selling over state lines would make it so you'd have to travel to whatever state a company was based in order to have your concerns redressed legally. There's your back door tort reform right there: no torts at all, no way to redress any grievances.

The insurance industry is using the minority states to manipulate the outcome to maintain a monopoly. They're doing it with the Senate because each state has two Senators. The reps are apportioned as to population. The more populous states already subsidize the less populous states as it is. The burden will fall on them as well with healthcare reform AND the public option, but they are FOR it.