WHY health care needed reform

[Brutus]

My personal choice is Medicare for all.... it has been an extremely sucessful program, it is more cost effective than private insurance, .

liberals lack the IQ to understand capitalism; in fact that is the definition of a liberal. Medicare is not successful for those who pay for it, obviously. How could it be successful when people are not shopping with their own money?

Would you want the liberals to supply us cars that way too??

See how far a little thinking will get you?

Clearly that's not on your agenda.

About time we got back to trying to digress yet another thread here into a wingnut cat fight! YAAAAAAAAAYYYY The left sucks! No wait the right sucks! Bush! Obama! Tea Party! There's my opinion and the wrong one! My side is always right! Yours is always wrong! blah! etc! blah!

why change the subject? What are you afraid of? Why not try to put into words what you have against capitalism and freedom in health care? HOw will you learn if you are afraid to try?

 

[Brutus]

to digress yet another thread here into a wingnut cat fight!

I hate to inform you, but the voting booth offers a simple choice: freedom and capitalism or liberalism, not a cat fight as you call democracy. Why not get in the game and decide where you stand?
I'm here to help you.

 

[dblack]

to digress yet another thread here into a wingnut cat fight!

I hate to inform you, but the voting booth offers a simple choice: freedom and capitalism or liberalism, not a cat fight as you call democracy. Why not get in the game and decide where you stand?
I'm here to help you.

You forgot the Republicans!

 

[Brutus]

to digress yet another thread here into a wingnut cat fight!

I hate to inform you, but the voting booth offers a simple choice: freedom and capitalism versus liberalism, not a cat fight as you call democracy. Why not get in the game and decide where you stand?
I'm here to help you.

You forgot the Republicans!

how so???????????/

 

[dblack]

I hate to inform you, but the voting booth offers a simple choice: freedom and capitalism versus liberalism, not a cat fight as you call democracy. Why not get in the game and decide where you stand?
I'm here to help you.

You forgot the Republicans!

how so???????????/

Well, you said it's a choice between the Libertarians and the Democrats. I wouldn't rule out the Republican's just yet.

 

[Brutus]

You forgot the Republicans!

how so???????????/

Well, you said it's a choice between the Libertarians and the Democrats. I wouldn't rule out the Republican's just yet.

actually Republicans are Libertarians who compromise in order to hold office in a centrist country. If they did not compromise they would merely be impotent libertarians. Not so hard to understand is it?

 

[dblack]

actually Republicans are Libertarians who compromise in order to hold office in a centrist country. If they did not compromise they would merely be impotent libertarians. Not so hard to understand is it?

heh... seriously?

 

[Greenbeard]

They're infinite. That's the point. From what I've read, catastrophic plans will not count as sufficient coverage - but it's all up to the regulators and their lobbyists eh? The point is, what we're arguing for isn't a specific plan of action, it's the freedom to find our own solutions rather than have the vested interests choose them for us.

The most common type of catastrophic coverage--the high-deductible health plan, a plan that can be coupled to an HSA--is the benchmark used by the ACA. Its contours have been used in the ACA to define the landscape.

As for the freedom you're now denied: what is it? What do you want? An abstract "you know...stuff" won't do it.

Hadn't thought of it like that, but that would be one way of introducing such concepts.

What were you suggesting when you said we should "Allow that 90% to purchase plans that maybe only cover catastrophic illness"?

I see your resorting to the same incorrect thinking that is applied to Obama's jobs and economic recovery plans. It would have been so much worse, if Obama hadn't done this ir that. Well it will come as a shock to you, but healthcare costs are STILL RISING at a high level. He didn't do a thing with healthcare. It DID cause uncertainty in the business community though. That slowed job recovery.

Peer into the future. And still further.

2,600 pages that almost NOBODY read.

More like 950 pages. Not bad for a major reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance.

And medicare successful? By what measure?

Aside from its obvious successes in insuring the elderly and disabled, Medicare has done better than the private sector with regard to cost control: see today on the Incidental Economist, Private vs Public Health Care Cost Control FAQ. And as I've pointed out, the ACA's brakes on health spending via delivery system reform seem be felt by Medicare first.

 

[dblack]

As for the freedom you're now denied: what is it? What do you want? An abstract "you know...stuff" won't do it.

Hmm... thought I'd covered that:

... the freedom to find our own solutions rather than have the vested interests choose them for us.

But you seem to be looking for something more concrete. How about the freedom to buy insurance other than that selected for me by the state? How about the freedom to not buy insurance at all? The point is that freedom isn't a matter of permission to do specific things. It's about judging for yourself what's best for you, and acting on your judgment without undo hindrance from government. Regulatory campaigns are sold as efforts to get control of industry run amok. But all too often the effort is turned inside out ands end up regulating customers more than business.

 

[Bern80]

What were you suggesting when you said we should "Allow that 90% to purchase plans that maybe only cover catastrophic illness"?

No. The high deductibles I'm familiar with are really only different in that one respect to 'regular' deductible plans. For example, at my work you essentially have two choices for insurance coverage; the low deductible plan or the high deductible plan. That's the only difference, what is covered is exactly the same between the two.

Aside from its obvious successes in insuring the elderly and disabled, Medicare has done better than the private sector with regard to cost control: see today on the Incidental Economist, Private vs Public Health Care Cost Control FAQ. And as I've pointed out, the ACA's brakes on health spending via delivery system reform seem be felt by Medicare first.

Simply delivering a service is not a measure of success (if even THAT were true). You might be able to sell widgets at $5 to anyone that wants them on demand, but you are not going to be succussful if it costs you $10 to make one. And medicare is not controlling costs so much as they are dictating them. You have to start taking a broader view of the situation Green. Medicare can control costs the way it does because it is insulated from having to work in the free market. Again I ask, do you suppose the program would survive if it were a privately run company? Hospitals and physicians don't get to negotiate with medicare for reimbursements. Medicare simply tells them, this is what we'll pay. Take it or leave it. Medicare doesn't really care if their reimbursement covers the providers expenses in delivering the service. Consequently the rate at which providers have been turning away medicare patients has been escalating. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-06-20-medicare_N.htm So no, not even your preliminary measure of success is accurate because many on medicare are not getting the care the need because they are being turned away from providers....because the government doesn't seem to care about the economics of the providers.

The notion that medicare is successful is simply false. What would need to happen for it to be successfull which I would define as any and all medicare recipients receiving the care they need AND providers actually being able to live with their reimbursement rates, is that medicare funding would have to go up pretty significantly. And guess who would be on the hook for that.

 

[saveliberty]

In Michigan, the largest carrier of health insurance is Blu Cross Blue Shield. It is a nonprofit corporation. Two things are sure. One, it is not returning profits to its shareholders. Two, its mission is not profit.

 

[bill5]

The things you are "sure" about are wrong.

 

[saveliberty]

The things you are "sure" about are wrong.

Nope, I clearly saw nonprofit in the TV ad today. My two points are sure. You fail.

 

[Brutus]

actually Republicans are Libertarians who compromise in order to hold office in a centrist country. If they did not compromise they would merely be impotent libertarians. Not so hard to understand is it?

heh... seriously?

if you disagree please try to say why or admit you can't. Thanks

 

[bill5]

The things you are "sure" about are wrong.

Nope, I clearly saw nonprofit in the TV ad today. My two points are sure. You fail.

You clearly saw an extremely old ad or need glasses. Google the topic if you don't believe me.

I have no idea what "you fail" means, unless you're just riding that trendy and hideously over-used "fail" phrase. I "succeeded" in pointing out your error. If you refuse to believe it, that's your right. Enjoy.

 

[saveliberty]

The things you are "sure" about are wrong.

Nope, I clearly saw nonprofit in the TV ad today. My two points are sure. You fail.

You clearly saw an extremely old ad or need glasses. Google the topic if you don't believe me.

I have no idea what "you fail" means, unless you're just riding that trendy and hideously over-used "fail" phrase. I "succeeded" in pointing out your error. If you refuse to believe it, that's your right. Enjoy.

Here you go idiot:

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit corporation and an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

https://secure.bcbsm.com/pr/pr_02-18-2010_85116.shtml

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSMI)


In the backyard of the Michigan Wolverines, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is growing their own fans. This nonprofit company has been working with Michigan residents for more than sixty years.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBS in MI)

BCBSM is committed to remain a private, nonprofit company that provides quality, affordable health care to our customers and members. The reason is simple. Once a company becomes for-profit, the top priorities are no longer the customers, members or the people of Michigan. The top priority becomes the shareholders. As part of our commitment to nonprofit health care, BCBSM is a founding member of the Alliance For Advancing Nonprofit Health Care.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan - Nonprofit Health Care Advocacy

Sucks to be you.

 

[Flopper]

The goal should not the ability of people to afford health care insurance. The goal needs to be the ability for people to afford health care.

That is a totally unrealistic and unworkable goal. Price out a 1-week stay in the hospital sometime, or the cost of a CT scan or 3.

Ask yourself WHY it has come to cost so much...? The natural fee-for-service scale has gone way off the charts because of unnatural market forces! Health insurance has become a racket but don't worry we will have created soooo many new jobs with all the "overhead" reams of paperwork involved!

Until we do something about our fee for service system of delivering healthcare, cost will keep rising. The fee for service system has too much overhead. I don't know the answer but what we are doing now is not working. I visited my doctor two days ago. He spent 15 mins with me and billed my insurance company over $200.

 

[lehr]

WHY did health care need reform? Because Wall Street took complete control of the health care industry. Profit driven incentives create REAL death panels for Americans. Insurance corporations are incentivized to deny patient coverage and push more and more of the costs onto consumers.

For anyone who wants an insider's knowledge of this, I recommend investing a half hour of your time to listen to what this man has to say...

Wendell Potter is former Vice President of corporate communications at CIGNA, one of the United States' largest health insurance companies. In June 2009, he testified against the HMO industry in the U.S. Senate.

Looking back over his long career, Potter sees an industry corrupted by Wall Street expectations and greed. According to Potter, insurers have every incentive to deny coverage — every dollar they don't pay out to a claim is a dollar they can add to their profits, and Wall Street investors demand they pay out less every year. Under these conditions, Potter says, "You don't think about individual people. You think about the numbers, and whether or not you're going to meet Wall Street's expectations."


Profits before Patients - Wendell Potter

WATCH VIDEO
READ TRANSCRIPT

Following a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Wendell left his position as head of communications for CIGNA, one of the nation’s largest health insurers, to help socially responsible organizations — including those advocating for meaningful health care reform — achieve their goals.

In widely covered testimony before the Senate Commerce, Science and Technology Committee in June of 2009, Wendell disclosed how insurance companies, as part of their efforts to boost profits, have engaged in practices that have resulted in millions of Americans being forced into the ranks of the uninsured. Wendell also described how the insurance industry has developed and implemented strategic communications plans, based on deceptive public relations, advertising and lobbying efforts, to defeat reform initiatives.

Since then Wendell has testified before two House committees, briefed several members of Congress and their staffs, appeared with members of Congress at several press conferences, spoken at more than 100 public forums, and has been the subject of numerous articles in the U.S. and foreign media.

At CIGNA, Wendell served in a variety of positions over 15 years, most recently as head of corporate communications and chief corporate spokesperson. Prior to joining CIGNA, Wendell headed communications at Humana Inc., another large for-profit health insurer. Before that he was director of public relations and advertising for the Baptist Health System of East Tennessee and a partner in an Atlanta public relations firm. He also serves as a consumer liaison representative for the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

Wendell Potter's News Articles


“As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called, ‘Wall Street’s relentless profit expectations.’” — President Barack Obama, Remarks to Joint Session of Congress, September 9, 2009

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

yea - we needed (reform) but national healthcare means throwing out the baby with the bath water - they r replacing the health private sector with government - EVERY THING GOVT. TOUCHES IT DESTROYS !

 

[bill5]

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit corporation and an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

I thought you mean BC/BS in general, not simply Michigan. My bad.

So what's your point? Michigan sucks? Wow big news flash there.

 

[saveliberty]

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a nonprofit corporation and an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

I thought you mean BC/BS in general, not simply Michigan. My bad.

So what's your point? Michigan sucks? Wow big news flash there.

You would be correct on BC/BS at the national and most state levels. I was specific to Michigan.

What sort of issues are you compensating for with the put downs? Michigan was hampered by a Democrat governor for too long. We are making good progress.