• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,845
3,471
58
Right here!
FYI, The current plan on the table isn't socialized medicine, there is no "government run healthcare" option in the public plan. It also involves expanding our current Medicaid system, but even that care is private, it's just regulated by government and subsidized by taxpayers.

Quite honestly, while I don't like the whole wealth redistribution aspect of it, my fears of a "government run" healthcare system have abated based on what I've read about the plan that's currently on the table.
 

CampCreekLou

Beach Lover
Feb 25, 2005
214
33
FYI, The current plan on the table isn't socialized medicine, there is no "government run healthcare" option in the public plan. It also involves expanding our current Medicaid system, but even that care is private, it's just regulated by government and subsidized by taxpayers.

Quite honestly, while I don't like the whole wealth redistribution aspect of it, my fears of a "government run" healthcare system have abated based on what I've read about the plan that's currently on the table.

If you love Medicaid, you'll love the new system. Not sure how we are going to afford it.
 

Gidget

Beach Fanatic
May 27, 2009
2,450
638
Blue Mtn Beach!!
Stop asking for antibiotics to cure coughs and colds, Government tells patients
- Daniel Martin, February 17, 2009 [Daily Mail(UK)]


Sounds like sound advice to me since colds are viruses.

I am not going to try to respond to the array of "sound bite" type articles here because I would truly have to read every one.

Our health care needs fixing - perhaps we will do a better job than any other country and get it right! Wouldn't that be wonderful!!

G
 

Andy A

Beach Fanatic
Feb 28, 2007
4,389
1,738
Blue Mountain Beach
FYI, The current plan on the table isn't socialized medicine, there is no "government run healthcare" option in the public plan. It also involves expanding our current Medicaid system, but even that care is private, it's just regulated by government and subsidized by taxpayers.

Quite honestly, while I don't like the whole wealth redistribution aspect of it, my fears of a "government run" healthcare system have abated based on what I've read about the plan that's currently on the table.
It might work if it were to be structured as President Obama outlines. I do not think that is likely to transpire, partially due to the meddling that will be involved once Congress gets a hold of it. I want nothing even close to the the British or Canadian plans. The problem is, as stated earlier, I believe employers will opt out of good private plans and leave their employees with accessibility to a mediocre public plan. Also, to be quite honest and selfish, I am afraid they will take my retired military coverage away from me. I, and many others, worked hard to get it and I don't want to see it gone. If it wasn't for it and the healthcare available to us under our present system, I have strong doubts that my wife would be here today.
 

NoHall

hmmmm......can't remember
May 28, 2007
9,032
996
Northern Hall County, GA
Can't, pharmacy is out of chill pills.:lolabove:

My insurance company has already decided that they are my doctor--they decide which pills I should take and how many, and they spend my money to send me advertisements for particular brands of medicines despite the fact that my doctor and I have already determined the best medication (and those that don't work.)

It terrifies me to think about how much worse it will be if the government thinks they should make those decisions. Wouldn't it be great if the government would put a leash on the insurance industry instead, and let the doctors do their jobs?
 

steyou

Beach Fanatic
Feb 20, 2007
423
80
Walton County
FYI, The current plan on the table isn't socialized medicine, there is no "government run healthcare" option in the public plan. It also involves expanding our current Medicaid system, but even that care is private, it's just regulated by government and subsidized by taxpayers.

Quite honestly, while I don't like the whole wealth redistribution aspect of it, my fears of a "government run" healthcare system have abated based on what I've read about the plan that's currently on the table.

My fears of a government run anything (business wise) have done the oppisite of abatement.:trainwreck: Amtrak
 

Gidget

Beach Fanatic
May 27, 2009
2,450
638
Blue Mtn Beach!!
I understand that it is troubling to think of the government being involved. Please take a look at Obama's speech to the AMA and discuss what you think he should NOT do or encourage. I am really trying to understand as I think what he is proposing is what I've been saying for years.

Thanks in advance
G


"The second step that we can all agree on is to invest more in preventive care so that we can avoid illness and disease in the first place. That starts with each of us taking more responsibility for our health and the health of our children. It means quitting smoking, going in for that mammogram or colon cancer screening. It means going for a run or hitting the gym, and raising our children to step away from the video games and spend more time playing outside.


It also means cutting down on all the junk food that is fueling an epidemic of obesity, putting far too many Americans, young and old, at greater risk of costly, chronic conditions. That's a lesson Michelle and I have tried to instill in our daughters with the White House vegetable garden that Michelle planted. And that's a lesson that we should work with local school districts to incorporate into their school lunch programs.


Building a health care system that promotes prevention rather than just managing diseases will require all of us to do our part. It will take doctors telling us what risk factors we should avoid and what preventive measures we should pursue. And it will take employers following the example of places like Safeway that is rewarding workers for taking better care of their health while reducing health care costs in the process. If you're one of the three quarters of Safeway workers enrolled in their "Healthy Measures" program, you can get screened for problems like high cholesterol or high blood pressure. And if you score well, you can pay lower premiums. It's a program that has helped Safeway cut health care spending by 13% and workers save over 20% on their premiums. And we are open to doing more to help employers adopt and expand programs like this one.


Our federal government also has to step up its efforts to advance the cause of healthy living. Five of the costliest illnesses and conditions ? cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, lung disease, and strokes ? can be prevented. And yet only a fraction of every health care dollar goes to prevention or public health. That is starting to change with an investment we are making in prevention and wellness programs that can help us avoid diseases that harm our health and the health of our economy.

But as important as they are, investments in electronic records and preventive care are just preliminary steps. They will only make a dent in the epidemic of rising costs in this country.
Despite what some have suggested, the reason we have these costs is not simply because we have an aging population. Demographics do account for part of rising costs because older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones. But what accounts for the bulk of our costs is the nature of our health care system itself ? a system where we spend vast amounts of money on things that aren't making our people any healthier; a system that automatically equates more expensive care with better care.
A recent article in the New Yorker, for example, showed how McAllen, Texas is spending twice as much as El Paso County ? not because people in McAllen are sicker and not because they are getting better care. They are simply using more treatments ? treatments they don't really need; treatments that, in some cases, can actually do people harm by raising the risk of infection or medical error. And the problem is, this pattern is repeating itself across America. One Dartmouth study showed that you're no less likely to die from a heart attack and other ailments in a higher spending area than in a lower spending one.


There are two main reasons for this. The first is a system of incentives where the more tests and services are provided, the more money we pay. And a lot of people in this room know what I'm talking about. It is a model that rewards the quantity of care rather than the quality of care; that pushes you, the doctor, to see more and more patients even if you can't spend much time with each; and gives you every incentive to order that extra MRI or EKG, even if it's not truly necessary. It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession ? a calling ? to a business.

That is not why you became doctors. That is not why you put in all those hours in the Anatomy Suite or the O.R. That is not what brings you back to a patient's bedside to check in or makes you call a loved one to say it'll be fine. You did not enter this profession to be bean-counters and paper-pushers. You entered this profession to be healers ? and that's what our health care system should let you be.


That starts with reforming the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals. We need to bundle payments so you aren't paid for every single treatment you offer a patient with a chronic condition like diabetes, but instead are paid for how you treat the overall disease. We need to create incentives for physicians to team up ? because we know that when that happens, it results in a healthier patient. We need to give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes ? so that we are not promoting just more treatment, but better care"

I think that this is an excellent start - prevention, controlling costs, better record keeping.

Thanks for reading
G
 

30ashopper

SoWal Insider
Apr 30, 2008
6,845
3,471
58
Right here!
From what I understand it would work like this – there would be new state managed healthcare "gateways" that any private insurer could offer insurance through. The benefits, premiums, and out-of-pocket costs of plans available through the gateway would be set by the Department of Health. States could also add their own regulations on top of this if they chose to. Gateways would be operated by the state or the state could contract the work out. The FEDs would regulate the gateways heavily to be sure they do things “the right way”.

Through the “gateway” plans, premiums would be set and subsidized on a sliding scale based on income level, e.g. the government pays a percentage of people’s insurance premiums based on income. Anyone qualified could get coverage through a plan in the gateway; qualification would be limited to certain income levels and employment types. Involvement would be voluntary for both citizens and private insurers - any private insurer would be able to offer insurance through the gateway as long as they met the base level benefit requirements and other restrictions like out-of-pocket caps. Government subsidies would be paid through the gateway to insurers based on use, there would be no special treatment for any one insurer.

There would also be a “public plan” in each state which can only be managed by non-profit organizations. These organizations would act like insurers and offer plans through the gateways. Initial “start-up” funding would come in the form of loans from HHS would have to be paid back. (Yeah right!) After that, these orgs would have to operate on their own financially. (They would however receive payments for administration from HHS, this isn’t well defined in the current bill.) They'd have to balance their books and stay afloat on their own, and they would negotiate payments with providers and drug makers just like private insurers do.

Because these organizations would be non-profits, they wouldn't have to generate a return. (There’s really nothing about this as I see it currently that is “un-American”.) The orgs would offer services only through the state run gateways, and would receive the same subsidies the other insurers who offer plans through the gateway receive. The non-profits would not provide healthcare services. Services would still be handled by private providers (hospitals, doctors, etc., just like Medicare and Medicaid.)

A few more bits of info - the bill specifically states that gateways and the non-profits would not receive payments for illegal aliens. So there should be no incentive to allow these folks into the system unless they sneak in illegally. The bill also includes an expansion of Medicaid (The whole thing is sort of a mix and match to try and cover as many people as possible.) It also adds regulation to existing private insurer’s plans making it illegal to apply riders or deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, genetic information, and livelihood. It also includes some public reporting requirements.

Apparently even with these changes in place, some percentage of the population (about 10-20 million) would still be without coverage for some reason, but I haven't figured out where the loopholes are yet. The plan will also be rolled out over a period of four years, so there’s no instant-on switch.

There’s a lot more in this thing than just the above, it’s worth a read if you have some time to kill –

http://help.senate.gov/BAI09F54_xml.pdf

What this amounts to really is a big wealth redistribution system and a major intrusion of government into the healthcare industry. It’s really not socialized medicine AFAICT. It involves heavy regulation by government on plans offered by insurers and fees charged by providers, government subsidies for healthcare costs (the healthy and wealthy pay for the healthcare of the sick and poor), the creation of new independent non-profit insurers, and an expansion of existing entitlement systems (Medicaid).

How the FEDs plan to pay for all this is still being worked out I guess, but three key components seem to be pretty much guaranteed - employer fees ($750.00 per employee over 25 employees), individual mandates (force all the younger, low cost healthy people into the system to pay premiums they’ll never use, just like social security), and some third set of tax options nobody has agreed on yet. (tax the rich, tax employer private healthcare spending, raise payroll taxes, etc. etc.) Note for small businesses below the 25 employee point, there are also credits to help them get started paying for healthcare.

My biggest issue thus far - anyone 400% above the poverty level (48K a year about?) who doesn’t have an employer sponsored plan, will likely get a plan through the gateway in order to take advantage of the subsidies. Dems are claiming this will only be about 20 million people. That to me seems ridiculous, but the CBO seems to agree with these numbers. Why anyone who could get subsidized care through the gateway would pass that chance up isn’t clear. My guess is the overall costs for the subsidized plans are grossly under estimated. That, not socialized care, is my biggest concern at this point.
 
Last edited:

Gidget

Beach Fanatic
May 27, 2009
2,450
638
Blue Mtn Beach!!
LOL for the first time I realized that your profile name is 30a - shopper - I thought it was hopper and I always pictured a grasshopper :D:D

I'd like to thank you for filling me in on how you see the plan. It helps me to get an understanding of why people object or think the plan isn't the best idea.

I gotta run but I'll look at this later - and thanks again

G
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter