America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

[Rover]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I think hospitals should be able to turn away patients based on ability to pay.

Lynah, I think the problem here is a difference between what would happen if you ruled the world and what's realistic by the standards we live in in the 21st century. Denying people life saving treatment at the ER because they might not be able to pay the bill (how would you know if they could pay? Would an installment plan be negotiated while they were suffering, etc) has zero chance of ever becoming law in anybody's lifetime or the lifetimes of the next 10 generations of their decendents. If that's your standard for a bill that you can support, I can see why you're consistantly disappointed. Well...maybe Ron Paul will come up with something like this.

I'm also terribly amused that MinnFan has conducted a more exhaustive inquiry into the mindset of doctors than the NE Journal of Medicine. MinnFan, kindly direct us to some medical papers that you've had published...

 

[LynahFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Denying people life saving treatment at the ER

Oops - my bad. Didn't mean to imply that I felt that way about ER care for true emergencies - but yes, I do mean that for non-emergency care whether at the ER or an office. I'm probably just a heartless jerk for feeling that way, but I do.

 

[pardonme]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Have you ever read the New England Journal of Medicine? Its just left of the New York Times Editorial page.

Have you ever read the New England Journal of Medicine?

Also, I consider leaving my job relatively frequently, but then I realize its the best option I have and stick around. There is a difference between considering quitting and actually quitting.

 

[MattS]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Finally, discussion of optimal care is great, but in the end it still relies on the patients' choices to go get that optimal treatment. If we require people to buy health insurance, then we should also require them to use it.

This is absolutely the truth. I am so fed up with paying for other people's stupidity. If I am going to be forced to subsidize people's health care coverage, then I think it is more than reasonable to require that they keep them selves in decent shape. No smoking, limited drinking, no obese people. If they choose to not follow these rules then they should pay a penalty.

I would love to join a health care plan where there is a requirement to maintain a healthy lifestyle (with forced checkups) and in return for that I pay a lower rate than plan that cover anyone and everyone.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Have you ever read the New England Journal of Medicine?

Probably half if the issues over the past 3 years.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I'm also terribly amused that MinnFan has conducted a more exhaustive inquiry into the mindset of doctors than the NE Journal of Medicine. MinnFan, kindly direct us to some medical papers that you've had published...

Do everyone a favor. Look up the definition of anecdotal.

 

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

10,000 foot view of how the Baucus proposal fits into the next steps in the sausage-making.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

For those who still don't understand why reform is at least being talked about.

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf

Our 2001 study in 5 states found that medical problems contributed to at least 46.2% of all bankruptcies.

Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance.

So, 75% of the 46.% of bankruptcies were medically related and had health insurance.

Fun.

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

For those who still don't understand why reform is at least being talked about.

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf



So, 75% of the 46.% of bankruptcies were medically related and had health insurance.

Fun.

While it think it's been fairly common knowledge that around half of all bankruptcies are medical bill related, I am genuinely surprised to see that high of a number with insurance.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Number of medically related bankruptcies closer to 17%

UC-Davis says its closer to 5% and overspending is the main factor.

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

For those who still don't understand why reform is at least being talked about.

http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0002-9343/PIIS0002934309004045.pdf



So, 75% of the 46.% of bankruptcies were medically related and had health insurance.

Fun.

Yep. It's amazing how a terminal or chronic illness, or catastrophic accident, can blow through a $1M or $2M lifetime cap in a few months. That's also why you can buy policies that cover beyond the usual events/limits, such as policies for cancer treatment, long-term disability, etc.

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Number of medically related bankruptcies closer to 17%

I've seen that report before, and have read where it was soundly discredited too. In short, they distorted the data in an effort to make the problem not look as bad as it really is.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Yep. It's amazing how a terminal or chronic illness, or catastrophic accident, can blow through a $1M or $2M lifetime cap in a few months. That's also why you can buy policies that cover beyond the usual events/limits, such as policies for cancer treatment, long-term disability, etc.

Point taken but that's another problem with medical insurance. Consumers don't buy it, companies do. How many of us really know what kind of coverage we have? I have to admit I don't really know what would happen if I blew through the cap or what the cap even is right now.

 

[moe24]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

How many of us really know what kind of coverage we have?

Such as me learning the hard way that a CT Scan requires pre-approval. Now I know the words 'covered in full' really means 'read the 100 page contract just in case while you're in excruciating pain with a kidney stone'.

 

[MinnFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

I've seen that report before, and have read where it was soundly discredited too. In short, they distorted the data in an effort to make the problem not look as bad as it really is.

Source? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd be interested to see what they take issue with considering that report basically takes issue with someone else's reporting.

 

[ScottM]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Point taken but that's another problem with medical insurance. Consumers don't buy it, companies do. How many of us really know what kind of coverage we have? I have to admit I don't really know what would happen if I blew through the cap or what the cap even is right now.

Maybe that's part of the problem. If companies, while gaining a tax benefit, purchase the coverage, and insurance companies cover all employees without regard to risk factors, etc., you create potential for a lot administrative waste and "exceptions" to coverage. Why not remove the tax incentive for companies to purchase group policies, and create financial incentives and a mandate for people to purchase their own coverage based on their own needs? A policy purchased by 25 year old single person, will probably be different than a 30 year old married person with children. If insurance companies want to carp about competition and "innovation" let them prove it at the bottom line. I'd like to see the insurance companies really compete for customers, instead of getting fat, lazy and indifferent by selling plain vanilla group policies.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Maybe that's part of the problem. If companies, while gaining a tax benefit, purchase the coverage, and insurance companies cover all employees without regard to risk factors, etc., you create potential for a lot administrative waste and "exceptions" to coverage. Why not remove the tax incentive for companies to purchase group policies, and create financial incentives and a mandate for people to purchase their own coverage based on their own needs? A policy purchased by 25 year old single person, will probably be different than a 30 year old married person with children. If insurance companies want to carp about competition and "innovation" let them prove it at the bottom line. I'd like to see the insurance companies really compete for customers, instead of getting fat, lazy and indifferent by selling plain vanilla group policies.

I've wanted this for a long time. I'd much rather buy my own policy so I know what I have. But, alas, I pretty much can't. I take whatever the company gives me or I lose a ton of money that I don't have.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Maybe that's part of the problem. If companies, while gaining a tax benefit, purchase the coverage, and insurance companies cover all employees without regard to risk factors, etc., you create potential for a lot administrative waste and "exceptions" to coverage. Why not remove the tax incentive for companies to purchase group policies, and create financial incentives and a mandate for people to purchase their own coverage based on their own needs? A policy purchased by 25 year old single person, will probably be different than a 30 year old married person with children. If insurance companies want to carp about competition and "innovation" let them prove it at the bottom line. I'd like to see the insurance companies really compete for customers, instead of getting fat, lazy and indifferent by selling plain vanilla group policies.

Exactly - like the "salad bar" concept I mentioned earlier. The way things are now, the companies aren't ALLOWED to sell a different plan to a 25 year old than they do to a 60 year old, so the consumers have basically no choices - employers make them all. If consumers could choose individual options, the insurance companies would have to get a lot better at pricing the coverage for specific illnesses which would drive inefficiency out of the system.

 

[Bill]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

Exactly - like the "salad bar" concept I mentioned earlier. The way things are now, the companies aren't ALLOWED to sell a different plan to a 25 year old than they do to a 60 year old, so the consumers have basically no choices - employers make them all. If consumers could choose individual options, the insurance companies would have to get a lot better at pricing the coverage for specific illnesses which would drive inefficiency out of the system.

State governments are to blame for most of this. They "mandate" certain coverages whether people want them or not.

 

[Kepler]

Re: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 - Part 2 - Deathers vs. Commies

538 skewers the IDB poll.

For example:

At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: "Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better?"

Cute.

As we learned during the Presidential campaign -- when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 -- the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they're doing. I mean, literally none. For example, I don't trust IBD/TIPP to have competently selected anything resembling a random panel, which is harder to do than you'd think.

Ouch.

My advice would be to completely ignore this poll. There are pollsters out there that have an agenda but are highly competent, and there are pollsters that are nonpartisan but not particularly skilled. Rarely, however, do you find the whole package: that special pollster which is both biased and inept. IBD/TIPP is one of the few exceptions.