Gov. Role in Health Care Question

[JamesInFlorida]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

 

[auditor0007]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

This is what the insurance companies do. You should see what happens when you have a private policy and become sick. They'll do whatever they can to stop covering you. This is why we had to have some type of healthcare reform. Unfortunately, we're still leaving everything in the hands of the insurance companies. Until a person actually becomes very sick, it is hard to make them understand how bad the insurance companies can be. But that is the nature of insurance companies. Unlike almost anything else covered by insurance, an individual doesn't always have a choice in becoming ill. And eventually, everyone becomes ill unless they die in an accident or die when they suddenly become sick such as with a heart attack or aneurysm.

 

[code1211]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

The national origin of the person in the story is not important.

The cost of the medical care is all that matters.

The Obamacare approach has nothing at all to do with medical care. The only thing it addresses, and that it hopes to confiscate, is the insuarance dollars to pay for the medical care.

Liberals proclaim that our "Healthcare System" is the worst in the industrialized world and yet make no moves to change it. All they want to talk about is the dollars paid to the insurance companies.

This is what you are doing.

If the costs are generated by the healthcare providers and the insurance companies are paying those costs, why do you attack those who are paying and not those who are charging?

The price of the care is already established. The insurance company only acknowledges that cost and passes it along.

Until something is done to reduce the costs, the costs will remain high.

 

[Bfgrn]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

If you want an insight into how insurance companies operate, I suggest you take a half hour and listen to this interview. Wendell Potter has 20 years of experience as an insurance executive. You will come away with a different view of 'for profit' health insurance and how real death panels already exist. Unfortunately, your friends baby is on that list.

Wendell Potter on Profits Before Patients

Here is a recent article Potter authored: Insurers Getting Rich By Not Paying for Care

 

[Gadawg73]

Government pays 75% of all prescription costs now and Medicare is all paid for by government and that is blank check health care.
And it would be GOP that passed Gramps Dope Plan.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Obamacare approach has nothing at all to do with medical care. The only thing it addresses, and that it hopes to confiscate, is the insuarance dollars to pay for the medical care.

Liberals proclaim that our "Healthcare System" is the worst in the industrialized world and yet make no moves to change it. All they want to talk about is the dollars paid to the insurance companies.

Where does this perception come from? Is it from the media's focus on the health insurance provisions of the ACA during the public debate? Or the implicit suggestion that it's some kind of carbon copy of the much more limited Massachusetts law (it isn't). It certainly wasn't 2,000 pages just of insurance law.

The reality is that the ACA (particularly when combined with CHIPRA from 2009 and certain pieces of the stimulus) does take a system view: building capacity to measure and evaluate care quality, building the research base for evidence-based treatment, focusing on fostering care coordination and more patient-centered delivery of care, encouraging prevention and health maintenance at the individual level, and so on.

If you're interested in the health or health care components of the law (as opposed to the much more famous health insurance provisions), then you'll want to look in particular at some of the ways the ACA has the government using its leverage as a payer to encourage delivery system (i.e. health care) reforms. I've posted some of the highlights before:

• Value-based purchasing in Medicare.
• In the vein of paying for value, building on quality measure advancement begun for children two years ago under CHIPRA by extending it to adults and expanding public reporting on quality.
• Incentives for accountable care.
• Upping AHRQ's in health care delivery system research and building technical assistance capacity to assist providers in implementing them.
• One of the largest patient safety initiatives in recent memory, aimed at curbing unnecessary expenditures due to preventable errors and hospital-acquired conditions, is not a price control.
• Supporting community-based prevention efforts, particularly those aimed at chronic illness (one of the big cost drivers in our system).
• Financial incentives for Medicare and Medicaid providers who adopt electronic health records with clinical support tools and quality measurement capabilities.
• Seeding models of advanced primary care aimed specifically at high-utilization, high-cost beneficiaries.
• Payment reforms to discourage unnecessary spending.
• Improved care coordination, particularly for those needing the most complex and expensive care regimes (and thus likely to benefit the most from it).
• Transitioning enrollees from institution-based long-term care to community-based care where possible.
• Learning which treatments are the most effective and using that knowledge.
• A body dedicated to testing payment and delivery system innovations to determine which ones improve quality an reduce costs, and a mechanism for using that knowledge.

How does this kind of thing work? Take one of the earliest examples, from late last year:

Partners planning reduction of costs
Health care president stresses affordability
By Liz Kowalczyk
Globe Staff / November 1, 2010

The state’s largest health care system says it will redesign care for thousands of patients and reduce administrative costs as part of a major new initiative intended in part to make treatment at its teaching hospitals more affordable.

Partners HealthCare, a physician and hospital organization that includes Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals, also plans to launch a “public education campaign’’ early next year to improve its image, which has taken a pounding this year in the debate over soaring health care costs.

Dr. Gary Gottlieb, Partners’ president, has been introducing the initiative in a speech called “The Case for Change’’ to board members, executives and physician leaders at the organization’s nine hospitals. He has told managers that Partners needs to go more on the offensive in telling its story, and to figure out “when it’s right’’ to use care and “not just be driven by the transaction and demand for care in a given moment.’’ [...]

Why reorganize the way it does business to reign in costs now? They're getting ready to respond to payment reforms, including bundled payments, that are coming down the pike:

As are other providers, Partners is under pressure to prepare for a new payment system that will essentially put doctors and hospitals on a budget, said Dr. Thomas Lee, head of Partners’ physician organization.

Over the next few years, insurers and government programs are expected to start paying providers a flat fee for treating a patient for a particular episode, or for caring for a patient during a particular time period — rather than paying for each test, procedure, and appointment.

That's how something like payment reform at the state or federal level translates directly into health care reform on the provider end.

If the costs are generated by the healthcare providers and the insurance companies are paying those costs, why do you attack those who are paying and not those who are charging?

That was the point of the proposed public health insurance option: to give private insurance companies greater leverage in the negotiations that set reimbursement rates (i.e. prices) for provider services. Even that indirect attack on provider markups was considered too heavy-handed by The Powers That Be, though the public option polled very well with the public.

The price of the care is already established. The insurance company only acknowledges that cost and passes it along.

Until something is done to reduce the costs, the costs will remain high.

Much of the ACA is dedicated to laying the groundwork for a system that can identify and implement improvements in care quality and delivery that can reduce costs. But what you're talking about here isn't the actual cost of delivering care, it's the price that providers charge for that care. And there's precious little in the ACA to nudge provider prices toward their costs, even as those costs are, one hopes, reduced in the decade or two ahead. As I mentioned, the public option was the primary mechanism for achieving that but that was removed.

The difficulty is that tackling prices, as opposed to the underlying inefficiencies and quality deficiencies that raise costs (which is where the ACA's focus lies), will invariably look like very heavy-handed government intervention; the public option was actually a rather roundabout, indirect way of tackling the problem and even that was demonized. Perhaps we'll see more states bite the bullet and institute all-payer rate-setting.

But the reality is that health care reform isn't what you're talking about--we have that now, or at least the contours of it, and if we implement it well (a big if, given the animosity in the political layer of government right now) we stand to see major improvements in care and greater cost-effectiveness in its delivery. But provider prices are a different issue than that.

 

[sparky]

pretty good Greenbeard, so to synopsize it all down to one governmental fucntion might be to use the term de-monopolize.....

 

[MaggieMae]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

The national origin of the person in the story is not important.

The cost of the medical care is all that matters.

The Obamacare approach has nothing at all to do with medical care. The only thing it addresses, and that it hopes to confiscate, is the insuarance dollars to pay for the medical care.

Liberals proclaim that our "Healthcare System" is the worst in the industrialized world and yet make no moves to change it. All they want to talk about is the dollars paid to the insurance companies.

This is what you are doing.

If the costs are generated by the healthcare providers and the insurance companies are paying those costs, why do you attack those who are paying and not those who are charging?

The price of the care is already established. The insurance company only acknowledges that cost and passes it along.

Until something is done to reduce the costs, the costs will remain high.

Surely you jest. "Liberals" and other thinking people have been trying to create a system for better health care for ALL Americans for decades. But the Republicans simply won't agree to it, which includes of course reining in high costs of medical services because that would mean tampering with free enterprise and the right to make a profit regardless how much it hurts consumers. The insurance-for-all was the best deal possible.

 

[code1211]

Surely you jest. "Liberals" and other thinking people have been trying to create a system for better health care for ALL Americans for decades. But the Republicans simply won't agree to it, which includes of course reining in high costs of medical services because that would mean tampering with free enterprise and the right to make a profit regardless how much it hurts consumers. The insurance-for-all was the best deal possible.

That is a red herring. The Dems controlled both houses of Congress and the White House and could have passed anything they wanted to pass. Immigration reform. Meaningful healthcrare reform. Expansion of neighborhood clinics. Government healthcare insurance that could have functioned like flood insurance available for those who could not get insurance through regular means.

There were plenty of things that could have been done to directly address and correct the problems that they professed to see. They did none of these things opting instead to grab the cash.

They are lying, cheating thieves who only want your money. If you accept this one single principle as fact, then everything that they do suddenly makes sense. If you don't you cannot possibly see any wisdom in anything that they do.

 

[Greenbeard]

Expansion of neighborhood clinics.

Well:

The Affordable Care Act provides $11 billion to bolster and expand community health centers over the next 5 years.

• $1.5 billion will support major construction and renovation projects at community health centers nationwide.
• $9.5 billion will:
  • Create new community health center sites in medically underserved areas; and
  • Expand preventive and primary health care services, including oral health, behavioral health, pharmacy, and/or enabling services, at existing community health center sites.

Next week, $250 million is being made available to support the establishment of approximately 350 new community health center sites in fiscal year 2011. The expansion of community health center sites and services will make affordable, cost-effective, high quality preventive and primary care services available to nearly twice as many people regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay; and will create thousands of direct employment opportunities in many of the country’s most economically distressed, low income communities.

 

[lizzie]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

I know that it's really sad, but the reality is that we can't afford unlimited care for everyone who needs it, and this will worsen even more with Obamacare on the horizon. I feel for your friend's baby, but there is (by necessity) a limit to what can be spent just to keep seriously and critically ill folks alive. We will be seeing more and more of this phenomenon as the country starts to see the real costs of unlimited health care coverage.

So no, I don't think we should have congress legislate this issue. It's a reality of living and dying.

 

[code1211]

Expansion of neighborhood clinics.

Well:

The Affordable Care Act provides $11 billion to bolster and expand community health centers over the next 5 years.

• $1.5 billion will support major construction and renovation projects at community health centers nationwide.
• $9.5 billion will:
  • Create new community health center sites in medically underserved areas; and
  • Expand preventive and primary health care services, including oral health, behavioral health, pharmacy, and/or enabling services, at existing community health center sites.

Next week, $250 million is being made available to support the establishment of approximately 350 new community health center sites in fiscal year 2011. The expansion of community health center sites and services will make affordable, cost-effective, high quality preventive and primary care services available to nearly twice as many people regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay; and will create thousands of direct employment opportunities in many of the country’s most economically distressed, low income communities.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be done. The whole insurance piece is a swindle.

As I said, the stated goal is to insure the uninsurable. This is obviously a lie. If that is what they wanted to do, then they would simply make available insurance for the uninsurable, like Flood insurance is offered today.

So you list about 11 Billion of the Trillion or so? So 1.1% of the boondogle is going toward something that might actually help? Perfect Obamanomics.

 

[MaggieMae]

That is a red herring. The Dems controlled both houses of Congress and the White House and could have passed anything they wanted to pass. Immigration reform. Meaningful healthcrare reform. Expansion of neighborhood clinics. Government healthcare insurance that could have functioned like flood insurance available for those who could not get insurance through regular means.

There were plenty of things that could have been done to directly address and correct the problems that they professed to see. They did none of these things opting instead to grab the cash.

They are lying, cheating thieves who only want your money. If you accept this one single principle as fact, then everything that they do suddenly makes sense. If you don't you cannot possibly see any wisdom in anything that they do.

A red herring? Hardly.

Nixon « Media Monitor

Nixon’s proposal for healthcare reform

In the 1970s, Democrats tried to create a “Medicare for all” program of health insurance. Facing re-election in 1974, Nixon offered an alternative to universal health insurance where everyone would be offered a minimum level of comprehensive benefits, regardless of how they were covered by their employer. Those who were not offered benefits by their employer would be eligible for a subsidized public plan with costs shared by the federal government. Basically it would be a Medicaid-type insurance plan that was subsidized, not free. Sound familiar? The plan unraveled as the Watergate scandal developed, but Congress did create Health Maintenance Organizations during this period. For more on Nixon’s plan, in his own words, see: Nixon's Plan For Health Reform, In His Own Words - Kaiser Health News.

I'm also confused what you mean by "grab the cash," when the way the final bill was enacted, it preserves the ability of the private sector health care insurance industry to remain in business. Rather than promoting a national (universal single pay plan), this was a compromise to satisfy the free marketeers.

 

[MaggieMae]

Expansion of neighborhood clinics.

Well:

The Affordable Care Act provides $11 billion to bolster and expand community health centers over the next 5 years.

• $1.5 billion will support major construction and renovation projects at community health centers nationwide.
• $9.5 billion will:
  • Create new community health center sites in medically underserved areas; and
  • Expand preventive and primary health care services, including oral health, behavioral health, pharmacy, and/or enabling services, at existing community health center sites.

Next week, $250 million is being made available to support the establishment of approximately 350 new community health center sites in fiscal year 2011. The expansion of community health center sites and services will make affordable, cost-effective, high quality preventive and primary care services available to nearly twice as many people regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay; and will create thousands of direct employment opportunities in many of the country’s most economically distressed, low income communities.

This is the kind of thing that needs to be done. The whole insurance piece is a swindle.

As I said, the stated goal is to insure the uninsurable. This is obviously a lie. If that is what they wanted to do, then they would simply make available insurance for the uninsurable, like Flood insurance is offered today.

So you list about 11 Billion of the Trillion or so? So 1.1% of the boondogle is going toward something that might actually help? Perfect Obamanomics.

The cost would be astronomical for individual plans, as is the FEMA flood insurance, which is why few people have it. The reason the "uninsurable" (I'm not sure what you mean by that) will be covered is because they will become part of a pool of insured, which always lowers premiums for individual members of the pool.

 

[Momanohedhunter]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

This is what the insurance companies do. You should see what happens when you have a private policy and become sick. They'll do whatever they can to stop covering you. This is why we had to have some type of healthcare reform. Unfortunately, we're still leaving everything in the hands of the insurance companies. Until a person actually becomes very sick, it is hard to make them understand how bad the insurance companies can be. But that is the nature of insurance companies. Unlike almost anything else covered by insurance, an individual doesn't always have a choice in becoming ill. And eventually, everyone becomes ill unless they die in an accident or die when they suddenly become sick such as with a heart attack or aneurysm.

Well that borders on a blatant lie. I have been very sick with out insurance, got treated with very expensive medication (got it free) and was cured. I am pretty sick again and it is costly, but the insurance is doing what it is supposed to do. The cost of the insurance has gone up by around $100.00 a person in my family since 'Bammers reform bill, but we deal with it. As for leaving it all in the hands of the insurance companies, Thats a hell of allot better then having it in the hands of the government like it is now.

 

[code1211]

A red herring? Hardly.

Nixon « Media Monitor


I'm also confused what you mean by "grab the cash," when the way the final bill was enacted, it preserves the ability of the private sector health care insurance industry to remain in business. Rather than promoting a national (universal single pay plan), this was a compromise to satisfy the free marketeers.

However, the rules were intended to force the private sector out. Insurance is based on risk which can be calculated. That is why there are lifetime caps in many policies and why folks with pre-existing conditions find it difficult to buy insurance.

By removing caps and forcing insurance companies to insure all at the same rates, this denies the reality of the economics of the health care industry.

Ironically, the actuaries at Insurance companies analyzed the details of Obamacare and concluded that costs would rise. The economy, strangled by the policies of Obamanomics has made people so poor that they cannot afford health care even if they are insured.

Obamanomics is the economic cure for the economic disaster that is Obamacare.

In this sense, then, Obama has answered the question of Obamacare. Reduce the national payroll to the extent that nobody can afford care and cost of insurance will go down.

Maybe he is a genius.

 

[code1211]

Well:

This is the kind of thing that needs to be done. The whole insurance piece is a swindle.

As I said, the stated goal is to insure the uninsurable. This is obviously a lie. If that is what they wanted to do, then they would simply make available insurance for the uninsurable, like Flood insurance is offered today.

So you list about 11 Billion of the Trillion or so? So 1.1% of the boondogle is going toward something that might actually help? Perfect Obamanomics.

The cost would be astronomical for individual plans, as is the FEMA flood insurance, which is why few people have it. The reason the "uninsurable" (I'm not sure what you mean by that) will be covered is because they will become part of a pool of insured, which always lowers premiums for individual members of the pool.

Always is a big word. If there is a work force of 150 idividuals and 149 are 25 year old single males and one is a 30 year old woman, that woman will enjoy lower rates.

Reverse that demographic and the single 25 year ol male will suffer vastly increased rates.

Any group is comprised of individuals and the risks and experience of that composite dictate the cost of each individual that comprises that group. This is why the participation in a national healthcare plan must be mandatory for all so the relatively healthy young can in effect subsidize the cost of the pregnant women, those with ongoing conditions and the infirm.

The truth is that the costs are averaged and some will rise while others will fall.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is the kind of thing that needs to be done. The whole insurance piece is a swindle.

As I said, the stated goal is to insure the uninsurable. This is obviously a lie. If that is what they wanted to do, then they would simply make available insurance for the uninsurable, like Flood insurance is offered today.

So you list about 11 Billion of the Trillion or so? So 1.1% of the boondogle is going toward something that might actually help? Perfect Obamanomics.

The cost would be astronomical for individual plans, as is the FEMA flood insurance, which is why few people have it. The reason the "uninsurable" (I'm not sure what you mean by that) will be covered is because they will become part of a pool of insured, which always lowers premiums for individual members of the pool.

Always is a big word. If there is a work force of 150 idividuals and 149 are 25 year old single males and one is a 30 year old woman, that woman will enjoy lower rates.

Reverse that demographic and the single 25 year ol male will suffer vastly increased rates.

Any group is comprised of individuals and the risks and experience of that composite dictate the cost of each individual that comprises that group. This is why the participation in a national healthcare plan must be mandatory for all so the relatively healthy young can in effect subsidize the cost of the pregnant women, those with ongoing conditions and the infirm.

The truth is that the costs are averaged and some will rise while others will fall.

Maybe the definition of insurance pools has changed then. I actually used to put out bids for company health insurance when our existing contract expired and if the current provider had plans to raise the rates on renewal. The bids were always segregated based strictly on a cost factor for a single person, a family of two, and slightly increased as more were added to the family. In other words, flat fees (premiums) for all employees for identical coverage.

 

[Gadawg73]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

I know that it's really sad, but the reality is that we can't afford unlimited care for everyone who needs it, and this will worsen even more with Obamacare on the horizon. I feel for your friend's baby, but there is (by necessity) a limit to what can be spent just to keep seriously and critically ill folks alive. We will be seeing more and more of this phenomenon as the country starts to see the real costs of unlimited health care coverage.

So no, I don't think we should have congress legislate this issue. It's a reality of living and dying.

CURRENT employer paid health insurance, where the consumer is not the customer THAT PAYS THE BILLS OR PREMIUMS, Medicare and Medicaid ARE ALL BLANK CHECK HEALTH CARE.
We pay 2 1/2 times MORE than other industrialized nations as a result of our dysfinctional HEALTH CARE system.
Disease care is another matter. We have the best disease care in the world.
We should. We use 60% OF ALL HEALTH CARE DOLLARS IN THE US to pay for disease care of 5% of the population. And 7 of the top 8 diseases treated ARE PREVENTABLE.
The other 95% of the population have substandard health and health care.
WAKE UP DUMB ASS AMERICANS.

 

[MaggieMae]

Just curious as to what people here will say about this. Do you think the government should pass legislation to prevent the following example below from happening, and if so what, and if not why not?

I know someone, who's in his mid/late 30s, immigrated here (legally), has held the same job steadily, recently became a US citizen, married a US citizen here, and just had a baby. He's a prime example of somebody coming here for a better life-and an example of the American dream. Did everything the right way. He's a hard worker, and has health insurance for his family through his employer.

His newborn baby however has many medical problems-and needs very expensive medical attention, or will die. The health insurance company has already alerted the company he works for that he's no longer able to stay on the policy.

I think there's something very wrong with this scenario-and it can happen to ANYBODY. I think America can do better for our citizens than this.

edit: to be fair they're not dropping him, but just charging a ridiculous amount, knowing full well he, and the other employees cannot afford it. Adding edit here, rather than my post.

I know that it's really sad, but the reality is that we can't afford unlimited care for everyone who needs it, and this will worsen even more with Obamacare on the horizon. I feel for your friend's baby, but there is (by necessity) a limit to what can be spent just to keep seriously and critically ill folks alive. We will be seeing more and more of this phenomenon as the country starts to see the real costs of unlimited health care coverage.

So no, I don't think we should have congress legislate this issue. It's a reality of living and dying.

CURRENT employer paid health insurance, where the consumer is not the customer THAT PAYS THE BILLS OR PREMIUMS, Medicare and Medicaid ARE ALL BLANK CHECK HEALTH CARE.
We pay 2 1/2 times MORE than other industrialized nations as a result of our dysfinctional HEALTH CARE system.
Disease care is another matter. We have the best disease care in the world.
We should. We use 60% OF ALL HEALTH CARE DOLLARS IN THE US to pay for disease care of 5% of the population. And 7 of the top 8 diseases treated ARE PREVENTABLE.
The other 95% of the population have substandard health and health care.
WAKE UP DUMB ASS AMERICANS.

So isn't cost control the solution? But Heaven Forbid we should tinker with the medical profession's right to the highest profits it can get. That's one of the evil parts of capitalism.