8 myths about health insurane reform

[beachFool]

From David Alexrod: I bolded Point 3 just to hack off the resident deathers :funn:

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It?s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. We can?t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It?s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It?s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It?s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It?s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It?s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. You can keep your own insurance: It?s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you ? and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

 

[30ashopper]

I don't understand how these folks can send stuff like this out. This is just part of the disinformation campaign, coming from the other side. There are many competing proposals, some of which include measures that can lead to some of these side effects, particularly #5, #6, and #7.

As far as cost goes, the CBO has been quite clear that depending on the plan, #2 is not true at all in some cases. The current house bill for example could substantially increase costs, and all of the proposals involve government spending more on healthcare.

 

[Blair]

From David Alexrod: I bolded Point 3 just to hack off the resident deathers :funn:

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It?s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
2. We can?t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It?s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It?s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: It?s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It?s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It?s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
7. You can keep your own insurance: It?s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you ? and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

David Axelrod is a myth....

 

[rapunzel]

I don't understand how these folks can send stuff like this out. This is just part of the disinformation campaign, coming from the other side. There are many competing proposals, some of which include measures that can lead to some of these side effects, particularly #5, #6, and #7.

As far as cost goes, the CBO has been quite clear that depending on the plan, #2 is not true at all in some cases. The current house bill for example could substantially increase costs, and all of the proposals involve government spending more on healthcare.

You can understand how Sarah Palin can use her own disabled child to try to scare people by tainting our President, our democratically elected government, with the specter of Josef Mengele and Hitler and death panels and final solutions, but you can't understand how David Axelrod can send out a simple, straightforward, point-by-point response? Are you just confused by the lack of hyperbole and that Axelrod resisted the temptation to get in the mud and appeal to the lowest common denominator since he knows this issue is too complex for the vast majority of even the wonkiest Americans to truly comprehend?

The CBO is far from objective, and you know he has suspect motives. I'd love to know where the CBO was when the Bush administration did the projections for Medicare D, decided to keep the Iraq War off the books.

Did you know that the house bill will encourage doctors to go into primary care specialties by forgiving student loans that force many doctors into overcrowded specialties. It would also reduce the influence of specialty specific lobbying that has distorted reimbursement by concentrating the CPI driven increase in RBRVS (which all insurance companies base their reimbursements on, so in reality we've had government control of physician costs since 2000) to increase -- as an example -- orthopedic surgery codes by 220% while the 99212 code (the most common office visit code for primary care) has actually gone down in that time. This legislation would correct some of the horrible decisions brought forward by the hospital industry and lobbyists over the last 15 years. Our elected officials have cowered before these people since 1994 when they last showed their ability to frighten people who did not truly understand the bizarre, singular world of health care finance and create political chaos.

For the record, I could have supported the Republican reform plan placed in Bush's platform in 1999. It was the same one that McCain had in his platform, and has been in the party platform for 12 years. They never tried to tackle the issue, they lacked the cajones to face the Hospital-Insurance-Industrial complex. Now, rather than show any kind of leadership or advance any real solution, they are using fear to whip up their base and try to score political points. Power-hungry, do-nothing cynics do not make good leaders.

What do you think of the trigger option for the public plan?

 

[GoodWitch58]

Health Care Reform - A Simple Explanation

this was printed in Florida Trend today:\

PolitiFact | Health care reform: A simple explanation

 

[30ashopper]

You can understand how Sarah Palin can use her own disabled child to try to scare people by tainting our President, our democratically elected government, with the specter of Josef Mengele and Hitler and death panels and final solutions,

woah woah woah WOAH! Rapunzel, go catch up on some healthcare forums. The whole death panels thing is silly and Palin is an idiot for saying what she did. I've not said that anywhere here but I also haven't tried to back up her claims.

but you can't understand how David Axelrod can send out a simple, straightforward, point-by-point response? Are you just confused by the lack of hyperbole and that Axelrod resisted the temptation to get in the mud and appeal to the lowest common denominator since he knows this issue is too complex for the vast majority of even the wonkiest Americans to truly comprehend?

:roll: David Axelrod is Sarah Palin is Sean Hannity is moveon.org is huffingtonpost is Erza Klien is ... Nobody in my opinion is doing a good job of communicating the issues. I have been pretty clear on that in all of my posts.

The CBO is far from objective, and you know he has suspect motives. I'd love to know where the CBO was when the Bush administration did the projections for Medicare D, decided to keep the Iraq War off the books.

They were busy underestimating the cost by about a half a trillion dollars. I'm not a fan of Medicare part D nor am I a fan of the prescription drug benefit program.

Did you know that the house bill will encourage doctors to go into primary care specialties by forgiving student loans that force many doctors into overcrowded specialties. It would also reduce the influence of specialty specific lobbying that has distorted reimbursement by concentrating the CPI driven increase in RBRVS (which all insurance companies base their reimbursements on, so in reality we've had government control of physician costs since 2000) to increase -- as an example -- orthopedic surgery codes by 220% while the 99212 code (the most common office visit code for primary care) has actually gone down in that time. This legislation would correct some of the horrible decisions brought forward by the hospital industry and lobbyists over the last 15 years. Our elected officials have cowered before these people since 1994 when they last showed their ability to frighten people who did not truly understand the bizarre, singular world of health care finance and create political chaos.

The house bill, like all the bills, has good reform in it. It eliminates exclusions through regulation, establishes three standardized levels of coverage, and creates cross state portability. It also heavily taxes small businesses, shuts down the possible use of certain types of policies, creates a massive new general accounting funded entitlement that provides subsidies for all-you-can-eat care to families making up to 80K a year. IMHO, the house bill is not the right solution, but there are good idea in it that I hope end up in the final legislation.

For the record, I could have supported the Republican reform plan placed in Bush's platform in 1999. It was the same one that McCain had in his platform, and has been in the party platform for 12 years. They never tried to tackle the issue, they lacked the cajones to face the Hospital-Insurance-Industrial complex. Now, rather than show any kind of leadership or advance any real solution, they are using fear to whip up their base and try to score political points. Power-hungry, do-nothing cynics do not make good leaders.

Fine, criticize republicans for being afraid to tackle the issue and take on special interests. But don't forget to criticize democrats for the exact same thing - where's tort reform in the House bill? Why does the house bill subsidize standard insurance policies? Where's the innovation in the House bill? Where's the incentive for people to do right by themselves and make better decisions?

What do you think of the trigger option for the public plan?

I am a fan of the non-profit co-op idea, either at the federal level or state level. It accomplishes what Obama wants by introducing competition without open up a massive can of worms where the true cost of what's provided is obfuscated by general accounting. It also takes the decision making on the types of polices and coverage out of the hands of bureaucrats and puts it in the hands of health care professionals.

The public option is a no-go from the get-go in my book.

 

[Bob]

woah woah woah WOAH! Rapunzel, go catch up on some healthcare forums. The whole death panels thing is silly and Palin is an idiot for saying what she did. I've not said that anywhere here but I also haven't tried to back up her claims.



:roll: David Axelrod is Sarah Palin is Sean Hannity is moveon.org is huffingtonpost is Erza Klien is ... Nobody in my opinion is doing a good job of communicating the issues. I have been pretty clear on that in all of my posts.



They were busy underestimating the cost by about a half a trillion dollars. I'm not a fan of Medicare part D nor am I a fan of the prescription drug benefit program.



The house bill, like all the bills, has good reform in it. It eliminates exclusions through regulation, establishes three standardized levels of coverage, and creates cross state portability. It also heavily taxes small businesses, shuts down the possible use of certain types of policies, creates a massive new general accounting funded entitlement that provides subsidies for all-you-can-eat care to families making up to 80K a year. IMHO, the house bill is not the right solution, but there are good idea in it that I hope end up in the final legislation.



Fine, criticize republicans for being afraid to tackle the issue and take on special interests. But don't forget to criticize democrats for the exact same thing - where's tort reform in the House bill? Why does the house bill subsidize standard insurance policies? Where's the innovation in the House bill? Where's the incentive for people to do right by themselves and make better decisions?



I am a fan of the non-profit co-op idea, either at the federal level or state level. It accomplishes what Obama wants by introducing competition without open up a massive can of worms where the true cost of what's provided is obfuscated by general accounting. It also takes the decision making on the types of polices and coverage out of the hands of bureaucrats and puts it in the hands of health care professionals.

The public option is a no-go from the get-go in my book.

you do not support the public option, but have no problem legalizing drugs that would exact a greater toll on the budget.

 

[30ashopper]

you do not support the public option, but have no problem legalizing drugs that would exact a greater toll on the budget.

It would be well within government's domain to require drug tests to qualify for subsidized care. By making a person's health the public's interest, individual freedom can be sacrificed.

 

[Mango]

I am a fan of the non-profit co-op idea, either at the federal level or state level. It accomplishes what Obama wants by introducing competition without open up a massive can of worms where the true cost of what's provided is obfuscated by general accounting. It also takes the decision making on the types of polices and coverage out of the hands of bureaucrats and puts it in the hands of health care professionals.

The public option is a no-go from the get-go in my book.

The co-op idea is really a co-opt out idea of any reform, IMHO.
Exactly who is going to take a co-op? The sickest of the sick who have been declined by the other insurers; so, there will be a high risk pool of people who can't afford to pay for it. Is the government going to subsidize this? Also, where is the competition in that? We need one larger pool to lower costs than adding a new one. Also, where is the preventative care stimulus in this plan, which btw, for the uninsured, is the reason our healthcare is so expensive because 70% of the treatments required could have been prevented.

Sen. Ezra Kent was the one who masterminded this supposed "compromise". Taking a look at his campaign contributors over the last 5 years explains everything.

 

[30ashopper]

The co-op idea is really a co-opt out idea of any reform, IMHO.
Exactly who is going to take a co-op? The sickest of the sick who have been declined by the other insurers; so, there will be a high risk pool of people who can't afford to pay for it. Is the government going to subsidize this? Also, where is the competition in that? We need one larger pool to lower costs than adding a new one. Also, where is the preventative care stimulus in this plan, which btw, for the uninsured, is the reason our healthcare is so expensive because 70% of the treatments required could have been prevented.

With the mandate in place declining coverage will be illegal, and all plans will be subsidized under all the legislation currently under consideration.

One of the cornerstones of current legislation is to define a set three basic minimum coverage levels that all plans must adhere too. Now remember, the whole point of the public option: "introduce fair competition" and "bring costs down"? The public option coverage will be defined by the HHS Secratary, it will adhere to the minimums, but will not be outwardly bound in terms of what coverage it provides. The people managing the public option will be free to provide benefits way beyond what is mandated - so why wouldn't it? It is based on a system that has no incentive what so ever to keep costs under control. That goes completely against what we are trying to accomplish here - we are trying to reduce costs by increasing the pool, limiting coverage to only that which is needed, and adding coverage (preventitive care) that reduces long term costs.

The public option has -

- no incentive to implement preventitive care (we see this problem today with Medicaid coverage)
- no incentive to control costs (funded by a bottomless pit of the American taxpayer)
- no incentive to compete fairly (no overhead costs, no need to balance the books)

A stand alone, non-profit will have all of these incentives. This isn't about rationing or making a profit, it's about driving costs down.

Pelosi's bill is flawed flawed flawed, she knows it, and she doesn't care.