I bet its a cover page, 50 pages of tax increases, 150 pages of breaks for the insurance companies, and the rest of the 1800+ pages just say "monkey, monkey, monkey, underpants, hockey puck, kazoo, monkey, monkey..." or are Joe Lieberman singing I'm Henry the XIII I Am.
__________________
MM
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
Ben Nelson, our Democrat state senator, is refusing to sign on to the health care bill unless there are clear provisions that taxpayer money does not go to abortions.
According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the closure list if Nelson doesn't come around to supporting the bill as it is.
Ben Nelson, our Democrat state senator, is refusing to sign on to the health care bill unless there are clear provisions that taxpayer money does not go to abortions.
According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the closure list if Nelson doesn't come around to supporting the bill as it is.
Obama will never do that...His first day in office he made it a priority to sign abortion legislation into law. It is a cornerstone of his administration.
Your Senator deserves credit for standing by his convictions.
I like Ben. He seems to be one of the few that is working for us, rather than his own political career. He is one case where I vote for the guy I agree with the most instead of just voting my party line.
WebGuy wrote:According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the closure list if Nelson doesn't come around to supporting the bill as it is.
That is blackmail.
__________________
Stop trying to be what you see. Be what you ought to be.
WebGuy wrote:According to a Senate aide, the White House is now threatening to put Nebraska's Offutt Air Force Base on the closure list if Nelson doesn't come around to supporting the bill as it is.
That is blackmail.
It is also politics. Especially Chicago politics. Obama's stomping grounds.
That health care bill has no need for a rush through Congress. 80 % of Americans have health insurance.
And that's why I refuse to get into the health care debate. I know I can't look at it critically, because I don't have health insurance. I don't know if it's best for our country, but personally, I would love to be able to go to the doctor without evaluating it like I do a big ticket purchase (ie "Do I really need it? Is it worth the money?").
That health care bill has no need for a rush through Congress. 80 % of Americans have health insurance.
And that's why I refuse to get into the health care debate. I know I can't look at it critically, because I don't have health insurance. I don't know if it's best for our country, but personally, I would love to be able to go to the doctor without evaluating it like I do a big ticket purchase (ie "Do I really need it? Is it worth the money?").
Mz, I really can appreciate your situation. I have been in it several times. Even people with insurance have gaps in their coverage and need help.
I think the answer isnt throwing out the whole system. The current one could use some reform, absolutely. However, if the goal was to insure the uninsured...there is stimulus money left. If the figure of 20 to 50 million uninsured is reliable....they could allocate less than 2 billion dollars to adequately cover people who need insurance. Even if they allocated 10 billion...it is still a drop in the cost they anticipate the bill to come to.
The thing I don't understand with this bill is how squashing the insurance companies is going to fix anything.
The insurance companies charge what they do because health care is so expensive.
Mz, you stated that just going to the doctor is a "big ticket purchase" (and I agree). Isn't medical care cost the root of the problem? Why does it cost so much for a 20 minute office visit? The insurance companies are paying the bills the doctors and hospitals present them. The cost if insurance is the symptom of the cost of medical care. Insurance costs are not the cause of medical costs.
When I had my colon surgery a few years ago, the total bill was very near $60,000. My insurance paid (most of) the bill. The insurance company is not why it cost $60,000 for a one hour surgery and a few days in a hospital bed.
The government is not going to be able to provide insurance any cheaper than the private sector unless they cut services, or quality of service. It will cost the government the same for that surgery service, unless they change the service as well. Thinking that the government can somehow insure us all for a fraction of what insurance companies can is not sensible thinking. If it made sense, they would show us how that will work. They haven't, and they can't show us because it simply doesn't add up.
Another thing I don't understand is why we have to totally pull the trigger on this proposed system all at once. Why can't we let a progressive state who really wants this try it for a year or two and see how it goes? Why can't we do some testing? In real life, when you have a major change like this coming, you do a trial, and test your ideas before totally revamping your entire methodology.
Yes, something needs to be done, but it makes no sense to do it this way.
While I agree with the comments about the cost of health care I do fault the insurance companies somewhat too.
I've mentioned here a couple times that when I've gone to my doctor during periods of no health insurance I've paid their standard office fee, but the two times I've gone when I had insurance they have charged me $50 (which is only $25 less than the office visit fee) and then billed the insurance another $175).
That's literally THREE TIMES the normal fee, simply because I had insurance.
The last time they did it I was so upset that I called the insurance fraud line. I was treated like an idiot, told not to worry about it because it wasn't coming out of my pocket and that the amount they were charging was "within the range of what we pay for a standard office visit".
I pointed out that I DO pay for it with my higher premiums, but again was told that the amount paid was within the range.
The other issue is that with the exception of companies with less than 50 employees companies are going to be forced to provide health insurance (unless that's changed since I last heard about it). Does anyone thing that's not going to affect their pay? No company is just gonna cough up an extra $500 to $1000 a month for health insurance and not recoup some of it by lower pay to the employee. Or worse yet, cut back on jobs.
I firmly believe this should be done MUCH slower and it should start with a serious effort to cut out fraud like what I described above.
Finally. What is the RUSH when the plan won't even go into effect for FOUR YEARS?!?! Of course they start collecting taxes on it immediately, so I suppose it's just an eagerness to start grabbing our cash.
I agree with JR. Doctors are taking advantage of insurance companies, and insurance companies let them, and I don't see how scamming the people like that is legal.
I've heard one of the excuses for such high healthcare costs is the high cost of malpractice insurance. I'm not sure how much I believe that, though.
I'm not expressing an opinion either way on the bill itself, just adding a couple thoughts, not saying if that means I'm for or against it. (I'm voting "present.")
In my opinion, there are several reasons why health care costs are so high. The biggest culprits are fraud, waste, and the insurance and drug companies.
There are unethical doctors out there who overbill for services and bill for services that are not necessarily performed. Others run unnecessary tests and perform unnecessary procedures either for the extra money or to avoid the potential of being sued.
There are patients out there who fraudulently claim to need treatment for medical conditions as a means of getting drugs, getting attention, or suing someone for whatever they can get. There are hypochondriacs who suck up our resources because they think they have any and every medical condition they learn about.
The laws in this country require hospitals and emergency care facilities to care for everyone regardless of ability to pay. We all know there is a huge problem with people who either can't or won't pay their medical bills. Somebody has to cover the charges for the resources used on those people.
Drug companies charge insanity level rates for their products in this country because they can. Yes, they have to pay for the research and development, but they also have to pay for the advertizing campaigns they run to get people to want to use their drugs. Other countries regulate what can be charged for these same drugs. Everybody has a profit margin to make for their shareholders... so they make up the difference where they can.. yet we are not allowed to get drugs from other countries because they might be "unsafe". If Pfizer makes the pill, how is it any less save if it is sold in Canada than it is here in the US? Pfizer sure does sell their drugs around the world. They also make the generic versions of the same pills, so they make money on that too.
Insurance companies sure do contribute. They bill you for having their service. They bill your doctor for his malpractice insurance. They bill the drug companies for their liability insurance. They too are "for profit" organizations that have profit margins to make for their shareholders. For every dollar that gets paid out in coverage for any of these things has to be earned back several times over to make profit margin. For the most part they don't really have to compete with each other, so they have little to no reason to have to control costs.
Let's don't even forget the other part of this issue... our politicians who are making these laws. They have to get elected to office which costs a lot of money. The insurance and drug companies make millions of dollars in campaign donations so that they get favorable legislation. How hard can you really go against your financier? You don't vote their way, they give their dollars to someone who will.
Yes, this system needs to be revamped. I have not yet read this bill to know what is in it and what is not. Listening to the various news reports from both slants, the only thing they agree on is that this bill is garbage. It is not really a surprise if you take onto consideration that the people writing it have no real interest in looking out for what is best for the people. They say they do, but again... bite the hand that feeds you? I think not.
__________________
MM
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
Here is a serious question based on what I hear being touted on the news as a "benefit" to the masses this morning:
According to what I heard Sen. Claire McCaskill (D- MO) say during an interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe today... there is a provision within this bill that "will save the taxpayers millions of dollars" on their insurance rates because it will require 85% of every dollar the insurance companies collect in premiums to be spent on providing healtcare services to their customers. How exactly will this save anyone any money if they are not capping what can be collected for insurance premiums?
Simple example: Lets say insurance company "A" currently collects $100,000 in premiums. Today they spend on average 65 cents per dollar on providing health care services. That leaves them 35 cents per dollar to cover their expenses and make a profit for their shareholders. The healthcare bill now passes and they are required to spend 85 cents per dollar on providing healthcare services. Does anyone really believe they are going to eat that $20,000 loss AND still cover their expenses and make a profit for the shareholders? Isn't it the more likely case that premiums will go up until "A" now makes a minimum of their same margin? For those of you doing the math, they would now have to collect around $235,000 in premiums to cover the 85 cents per dollar in services and still make approximately the same 35K (technically it would be $35,250) profit margin.
__________________
MM
That which does not kill me postpones the inevitable.
They needed to slow down and take their time with it. That's all I have to say.
