Re: Health Care Reform - 1/6 of the Economy Up for Grabs
Some of the potential legal challenges that may be used after implimentation of the bill.
Some of the potential legal challenges that may be used after implimentation of the bill.
Had a "health care" meeting at work yesterday. There was some debate over whether we'd be switching our health insurance provider, and our President shared the whole story with us. The reason?
Boy, it'd be nice if genuine capitalism applied here (even I, a <strike>moderate</strike> "Godless Communist" liberal, would be overjoyed if that were the case), but the sad and annoying truth (in my limited experience) is that it truly does not.But at least you have the option of switching to another company. Imagine if this was happening and that was the only place you could turn to.
So with that in mind, yes let's maintain our precious status quo and protect these poor corporations from <strike>their customers</strike> all those mean tyrants who want them to actually do something with all the money they're swallowing. While we're at it, let's throw a pity party for the late Charles Ponzi.
United is the devil...and i know someone who works for them so I am confident in saying that
That said, how does the Senate Bill help that in any way? Maybe it does and I am ill informed but last I checked the current Reform Bill that just was voted on isnt going to help curb costs or really cap how badly the insurers can fleece you. If I am wrong seriously explain how because I am looking for a reason to like what is going on without much luck!
I'm fine with people opposing the current health care bill. I'm even very hesitant to believe it will do any good.
Yeah I read that after...I left the post in case someone else can answer it not you specifically.
So with that in mind, yes let's maintain our precious status quo and protect these poor corporations from <strike>their customers</strike> all those mean tyrants who want them to actually do something with all the money they're swallowing. While we're at it, let's throw a pity party for the late Charles Ponzi.
You're not seriously expecting anyone to believe that 1.3T savings estimate are you? Aside from the poor government track record for estimating program costs, especially entitlement programs, the current health reform bill's costs are very shaky. e.g. The 200B Doc Fix cost has been dropped from the bill and put in separate legislation; that's a nice shell game that conveniently allows Congress (via the CBO) to come up with 132B in projected savings after 10 years rather than just adding to the deficit. On an even larger scale, there are projected Medicare cuts of 400-500B in this bill that contribute to that 132B CBO projected deficit reduction for the first 10 years. Pretty much every time in the past when Congress has proposed legislation with Medicare cuts, they get cold feet when push comes to shove and those cuts get dropped or significantly reduced. The CBO has to use what Congress "plans" in its analysis. The reality of what Congress ultimately "does" typically is much different.Doesn't strike you a little funny that they completely ignored the 1.3T in savings the next 10 years. Just glossed right over it.....almost like they had no answer for it, so just happened to stop riiiiigght before they got to that time period. Very interesting.
Fair enough. And, truth be told, I have absolutely no idea how the bill will possibly make any of us sleep better at night, so I'm interested in the answer to that question as well.
You're not seriously expecting anyone to believe that 1.3T savings estimate are you? Aside from the poor government track record for estimating program costs, especially entitlement programs, the current health reform bill's costs are very shaky. e.g. The 200B Doc Fix cost has been dropped from the bill and put in separate legislation; that's a nice shell game that conveniently allows Congress (via the CBO) to come up with 132B in projected savings after 10 years rather than just adding to the deficit. On an even larger scale, there are projected Medicare cuts of 400-500B in this bill that contribute to that 132B CBO projected deficit reduction for the first 10 years. Pretty much every time in the past when Congress has proposed legislation with Medicare cuts, they get cold feet when push comes to shove and those cuts get dropped or significantly reduced. The CBO has to use what Congress "plans" in its analysis. The reality of what Congress ultimately "does" typically is much different.
Well, sure - if, by "overhead" you mean "all of the expenses of running a health insurance company." You haven't accounted for any of their expenses at all. For every dollar you paid them, they sent $.84 to medical providers, leaving them only $.16 to pay their employees, pay their utilities, buy their computers, etc. By the time you subtract out all their expenses, they're easily down in the 5-10% ROI range, like most normal companies. If health insurance companies were really getting 19% "ROI" then we'd have more health insurance companies than we know what to do with. They're not.For every dollar our company spent on premiums last year, the insurance company (ok, I won't hide which one: United Healthcare) spent $0.84 on expenses. To make that clear: Every time United spent 84 cents on my company, they got a dollar in return. Adjust the percentages, and that's a little bit over 19% return on investment, minus overhead. Not bad, eh?
This is a false reassurance. They all pretty much feed off each other when they make the rules for what to cover or not. You do not have the option to switch anything if you are the employee. The employer is in control and they are also motivated by money. No one is motivated by what would be best for the medical needs of the person. Even the provider seeing the person needs to take into consideration what the person can afford. My usual speal is that I would recommend X as the most optimal care. Unfortunately this might not be covered. For this reason we could also try Z which may work and if not we will need to move to X and trry and work out the cost....But at least you have the option of switching to another company. Imagine if this was happening and that was the only place you could turn to.
FYP.But this is Congress...surely they wouldn't fudge the numbers!
***As long as health care is "for profit' we are all screwed. Its cool though, because I can get medication for depression, with a side effect that it may cause...DEPRESSION!
There is no Status Quo, we are a sinking ship. I defy anyone to find a plan that kept the same coverage for the same rate. Personally our insurance has doubled for the cost outright, all the copayments have doubled, the coverage is cut. This double is from last June when it had also had a cost increase that was significant. This is State offered insurance (Mr works for the state and is in a union~required) and honestly, if it wasn't against the law, I might consider floating without and putting $ in an acct for if we need it. The coverage is so bad at this point it is almost worthless for the amount of $ we put in. The exclusions are ridiculous and I have no idea just how someone without a medical backround would be able to stratify the risk of chosing plan with one exclusion over the other.
Its the same for all of us with insurance. I wonder if the solution is to just go back to paying cash for all medical needs
There is no Status Quo, we are a sinking ship. I defy anyone to find a plan that kept the same coverage for the same rate. Personally our insurance has doubled for the cost outright, all the copayments have doubled, the coverage is cut. This double is from last June when it had also had a cost increase that was significant. This is State offered insurance (Mr works for the state and is in a union~required) and honestly, if it wasn't against the law, I might consider floating without and putting $ in an acct for if we need it. The coverage is so bad at this point it is almost worthless for the amount of $ we put in. The exclusions are ridiculous and I have no idea just how someone without a medical backround would be able to stratify the risk of chosing plan with one exclusion over the other.