Recommended Posts
kallend 2,027
Quote
Please cite the page of the Bill where you found that.
Thanks.
page 17 says that insurance companies can only change pricing on a policy under the comissioners approval, I know that this doesn't say anything 100% but if they are going to control pricing with a comissioner I'm sure they will control pricing by controling care given.
But that is NOT what was claimed. Try again.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
billvon 2,991
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>the problem is that obama isn't proposing a solution.
Well, then, what's everyone complaining about?
> the major issue with healthcare is that it is too expensive. the first thing
>obama needs to do is identify exactly where all of our healthcare dollars are
>going, and he hasn't done that yet . . .
So asking people (voluntarily) to identify sources of misinformation is an egregious violation of free speech and right to privacy by the administration, but going into your (and everyone's) health records to determine costs would be just fine? I'd have to disagree there.
No problems with getting a general picture of healthcare costs (which have been done) but we cannot, and should not, invade people's privacy to get exact numbers.
> this is a complex issue and will be felt by everyone.
I agree. Your point on tort reform is an important one, I think, and needs more discussion - since malpractice suits (and protections against them) are becoming one of the leading costs in healthcare.
However, that is often impossible. The GOP is sending "grassroots plants" to spread lies about the program in hopes of sinking it. The "death board" that wants to kill babies and old people is just the latest in the series of "distort distract deceive" tactics used to try to sink this bill before people can read it.
I hope we can get beyond that and talk about it, because it is important.
Well, then, what's everyone complaining about?
> the major issue with healthcare is that it is too expensive. the first thing
>obama needs to do is identify exactly where all of our healthcare dollars are
>going, and he hasn't done that yet . . .
So asking people (voluntarily) to identify sources of misinformation is an egregious violation of free speech and right to privacy by the administration, but going into your (and everyone's) health records to determine costs would be just fine? I'd have to disagree there.
No problems with getting a general picture of healthcare costs (which have been done) but we cannot, and should not, invade people's privacy to get exact numbers.
> this is a complex issue and will be felt by everyone.
I agree. Your point on tort reform is an important one, I think, and needs more discussion - since malpractice suits (and protections against them) are becoming one of the leading costs in healthcare.
However, that is often impossible. The GOP is sending "grassroots plants" to spread lies about the program in hopes of sinking it. The "death board" that wants to kill babies and old people is just the latest in the series of "distort distract deceive" tactics used to try to sink this bill before people can read it.
I hope we can get beyond that and talk about it, because it is important.
azdiver 0
Quote>
So asking people (voluntarily) to identify sources of misinformation is an egregious violation of free speech and right to privacy by the administration, but going into your (and everyone's) health records to determine costs would be just fine? I'd have to disagree there.Quoteuh government run healthcare is going to give them the right to do just that when ever they want, and cost will be the determining factor for care. this form of health care will take it from private sector to fed. gov. control the "commissioner" is going to be a gov. ofc. not a private Dr. right now if your hmo turns u down for a treatment you can still get the treatment, you just have to pay for it. a single payer system would take that option away. personally i think if congress passes the bill their insurance should be discontinued and they should have to use what their trying to shove down our throats. not good enough for them, then damn sure not good enough for me and mine.
light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak
wmw999 2,447
Of course, one problem with tort reform is that medical malpractice does, in fact, exist. And while each of us thinks we're singularly unlikely to sue, that's mainly because we think doctors are singularly unlikely to make mistakes.
Is each of the people here who's against higher prices in medicine willing to take the chance that their doctor will be wrong in a diagnosis, or will miss a drug interaction (happens all the time)? Especially since we're all taking more and more drugs these days.
I'm all for tort reform. But I'm also all for people reform, because the two have to go together. Doctors are no more infallible than anyone else, but neither should shoddy workmanship get a pass.
Wendy P.
Is each of the people here who's against higher prices in medicine willing to take the chance that their doctor will be wrong in a diagnosis, or will miss a drug interaction (happens all the time)? Especially since we're all taking more and more drugs these days.
I'm all for tort reform. But I'm also all for people reform, because the two have to go together. Doctors are no more infallible than anyone else, but neither should shoddy workmanship get a pass.
Wendy P.
There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)
billvon 2,991
>uh government run healthcare is going to give them the right to do just
>that when ever they want . . .
Nope. That would be called a "lie." HIPPA still applies.
>and cost will be the determining factor for care.
Right - just as it is now. Or do you think that everyone is entitled to free care no matter what the cost?
>right now if your hmo turns u down for a treatment you can still get the
>treatment, you just have to pay for it.
Correct.
>a single payer system would take that option away.
1) The Obama plan is not a single payer system
2) Even in a single payer system you can pay for the care you want.
Your post is a good example of the "distract deflect deceive" angle used by the GOP to demonize anything the administration does. Lie about it, then claim you want something different.
>that when ever they want . . .
Nope. That would be called a "lie." HIPPA still applies.
>and cost will be the determining factor for care.
Right - just as it is now. Or do you think that everyone is entitled to free care no matter what the cost?
>right now if your hmo turns u down for a treatment you can still get the
>treatment, you just have to pay for it.
Correct.
>a single payer system would take that option away.
1) The Obama plan is not a single payer system
2) Even in a single payer system you can pay for the care you want.
Your post is a good example of the "distract deflect deceive" angle used by the GOP to demonize anything the administration does. Lie about it, then claim you want something different.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote>
So asking people (voluntarily) to identify sources of misinformation is an egregious violation of free speech and right to privacy by the administration, but going into your (and everyone's) health records to determine costs would be just fine? I'd have to disagree there.Quoteuh government run healthcare is going to give them the right to do just that when ever they want, and cost will be the determining factor for care. this form of health care will take it from private sector to fed. gov. control the "commissioner" is going to be a gov. ofc. not a private Dr. right now if your hmo turns u down for a treatment you can still get the treatment, you just have to pay for it. a single payer system would take that option away.
Please cite the page in the Bill before Congress that takes away your right to be a private patient.Quote
personally i think if congress passes the bill their insurance should be discontinued and they should have to use what their trying to shove down our throats. not good enough for them, then damn sure not good enough for me and mine.
Have to agree with you there. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. (Of course, if the Bill allows us to continue our existing insurance plan, then that would also apply to Congress and their existing plan)
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
azdiver 0
SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
this sounds to me like " if you dont get it now you wont be able to get it later" i have not read the whole bill yet, but wouldnt that eventually lead to a single payer system if you cant buy coverage after this bill takes effect.
(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
this sounds to me like " if you dont get it now you wont be able to get it later" i have not read the whole bill yet, but wouldnt that eventually lead to a single payer system if you cant buy coverage after this bill takes effect.
light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak
kallend 2,027
QuoteSEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-
(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.
(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED- Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.
this sounds to me like " if you dont get it now you wont be able to get it later" i have not read the whole bill yet, but wouldnt that eventually lead to a single payer system if you cant buy coverage after this bill takes effect.
Try again. Please cite the page in the Bill before Congress that takes away your right to be a private patient.
(BTW, you misinterpreted the meaning of section 102 too - it applies to existing plans that do not meet the new coverage requirements. Other sections of the bill deal with setting up private plans that DO meet the coverage requirements. Not surprising you'd be misled, though, given all the lies and disinformation being pushed by the right
)...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
the problem is that obama isn't proposing a solution. the major issue with healthcare is that it is too expensive. the first thing obama needs to do is identify exactly where all of our healthcare dollars are going, and he hasn't done that yet (or if he has, he isn't making it public.) only then can me move on to ways to make it cheaper. one major expense for doctors is malpractice insurance, but he has taken tort reform off the table. why? if he really gave a shit about improving the system, he would offer a little protection for the doctors. along the same lines as malpractice, is cya medicine. the docs i have asked said that 15%-20% of what they do they don't feel is really necessary, but they have to do it to cover their asses in case of a lawsuit. btw, that also mimics the national figures i've heard from the media.
i think we can all agree that something needs to be done, but this just isn't it. this is a complex issue and will be felt by everyone. many people feel that it is just being rammed through far too fast. many fear that it is an expansion of the government and will ultimately fail to make healthcare cheaper and more available but will become a black hole that our tax dollars will just disappear into.
"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites