another right wing lunatic prattling on about "death panels"

[Ursa Majoris]

Yep, MUCH more costly. You are correct.

Tut. I wish you'd stop shattering these right wing myths with definitive proof. The poor sheep won't know what to think if they think Rush isn't telling them the truth.

[Chavez]

Tut. I wish you'd stop shattering these right wing myths with definitive proof. The poor sheep won't know what to think if they think Rush isn't telling them the truth.

Eh, I expect perch to disregard my post staring him in the face but expect better from Az. He normally does research in an attempt to debunk numbers.

[wiegie]

Page 16, though that is only one of many reasons this bill sucks.

16

•HR 3200 IH

1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT

2 COVERAGE.

3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV-

4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of

5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov-

6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health

7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance

8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the

9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in

12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance

13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll

14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef-

15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first

16 day of Y1.

17 ( DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER-

18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect

19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an

20 individual who is covered as of such first day.

21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR

22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except

23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any

24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and

25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be-

26 fore the first day of Y1.

[Azazello1313]

Eh, I expect perch to disregard my post staring him in the face but expect better from Az. He normally does research in an attempt to debunk numbers.

 

well, that was a nice little story about how one medical specialty has reduced mistakes and "bucked the trend" by actually lowering their malpractice claims. you realize that "bucked the trend" implies they are the exception, correct?

[Chavez]

well, that was a nice little story about how one medical specialty has reduced mistakes and "bucked the trend" by actually lowering their malpractice claims. you realize that "bucked the trend" implies they are the exception, correct?

Actually it was a nice little story about one medical specialty and two hospitals bucking the trend.

 

Oddly enough, I would have figured that free-market capitalists would see people lowering their insurance costs and go "hmmm, maybe we should look into what they're doing" but it's probably tons easier just to keep f*cking up and getting sued, and then crying when you have to pay. Which was ALSO mentioned in the original post:

 

1,452 medical malpractice lawsuits. They found that more than 90 percent of the claims showed evidence of medical injury, which means they weren't frivolous. In 60 percent of these cases, the injury resulted from physician wrongdoing. In a quarter of the claims, the patient died.

 

When baseless medical malpractice suits were brought, the study further found, the courts efficiently threw them out. Only six of the cases in which the researchers couldn't detect injury received even token compensation. Of those in which an injury resulted from treatment, but evidence of error was uncertain, 145 out of 515 received compensation. Indeed, a bigger problem was that 236 cases were thrown out of court despite evidence of injury and error to patients by physicians

 

Where does it appear the tort system isn't working? Where does it appear that a decreasing errors like anesthesiologists or the University of Michigan doesn't result in significant savings?

 

The judicial system is NOT the problem. It appears to be working fine. Probably not in the way insurance companies or hospitals would like.

[Yukon Cornelius]

well, that was a nice little story about how one medical specialty has reduced mistakes and "bucked the trend" by actually lowering their malpractice claims. you realize that "bucked the trend" implies they are the exception, correct?

do u have any idea what it takes to file a legitimate malpractice claim... didn't think so . sure there are lawyer( whores) who will try anything but those get tossed in seconds once they get to court. Real malpractice claims take years .... and lots and lots of money.

[Ursa Majoris]

do u have any idea what it takes to file a legitimate malpractice claim... didn't think so . sure there are lawyer( whores) who will try anything but those get tossed in seconds once they get to court. Real malpractice claims take years .... and lots and lots of money.

And anyway, you shouldn't get anything when a doctor takes the wrong leg off. You've got two haven't you? Or you did have. So what's the problem?

[Sox]

Swammi,"moot" seems to be your favorite word.

 

But when a government plan that DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW A PROFIT can undercut the costs of my privately owned plan which as a business has to show a profit,thereby putting it out of business,that does indeed make my point.How can I keep a plan that will no longer exist?

[Yukon Cornelius]

Swammi,"moot" seems to be your favorite word.

 

But when a government plan that DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW A PROFIT can undercut the costs of my privately owned plan which as a business has to show a profit,thereby putting it out of business,that does indeed make my point.How can I keep a plan that will no longer exist?

not sure were you live but HMO's are non profit entities.

[Big John]

not sure were you live but HMO's are non profit entities.

Near Columbus OH, orginally from West Virginia.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Swammi,"moot" seems to be your favorite word.

 

But when a government plan that DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW A PROFIT can undercut the costs of my privately owned plan which as a business has to show a profit,thereby putting it out of business,that does indeed make my point.How can I keep a plan that will no longer exist?

 

Of course the government plan will be cheaper than a private plan....thats the whole point, isn't it? To provide a plan thats affordable for the many people that can't swing paying for private insurance?

 

Which is kinda similar to what we have already in place. I pay a pretty hefty premium to be able to have a plan with low deductibles, low co-pays, freedom of choice in terms of what doctors I see. I am guessing these government plans will be the opposite.....low premiums, moderate to high deductibles and co-pays, and much less choice on what doctors they will have in their government network.

 

Unless your plan is one of these bottom-of-the-barrell plans that may indeed compete with the government on cost, I very highly doubt they'll go out of business. I

[AtomicCEO]

Those pushing for health care reform fail to realize that 85% are happy with their own insurance plans.

 

The latest number I could find is that 15.8% of Americans are uninsured. So you're saying that 100% of insured Americans are happy, and that .8% of those with no insurance are fine with that too.

 

when I went back and looked it up and provided a link, it was actually higher than I quoted, thus even doing more to prove my point.

 

So now you're claiming that MORE than .8 of the people with no insurance are happy with their insurance?

 

Again, who could possibly take you seriously?

[AtomicCEO]

But when a government plan that DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW A PROFIT can undercut the costs of my privately owned plan which as a business has to show a profit,thereby putting it out of business,that does indeed make my point.How can I keep a plan that will no longer exist?

 

Just like how the US Mail has put FedEx and UPS out of business.

 

People who want to pay more for "better" service, are encouraged to keep doing so. There will always be a market for premium services in the US.

[Yukon Cornelius]

orginally from West Virginia.

this explains a lot.

[i_am_the_swammi]

Just like how the US Mail has put FedEx and UPS out of business.

 

People who want to pay more for "better" service, are encouraged to keep doing so. There will always be a market for premium services in the US.

 

 

Pretty much the best comparison I've seen.

[Big John]

Just like how the US Mail has put FedEx and UPS out of business.

 

People who want to pay more for "better" service, are encouraged to keep doing so. There will always be a market for premium services in the US.

And sox works for US Mail.

[WaterMan]

Just like how the US Mail has put FedEx and UPS out of business.

 

People who want to pay more for "better" service, are encouraged to keep doing so. There will always be a market for premium services in the US.

 

You guys need to quit shooting down these myths with two sentences. It's sad.

[Perchoutofwater]

So now you're claiming that MORE than .8 of the people with no insurance are happy with their insurance?

 

Again, who could possibly take you seriously?

 

Why don't you stop spouting off an provide some back up to that? I've already provide a link that states that 45.6 Million people in America are uninsured, though that number is thought to be high do to faulty assumptions. But let's go with that. I've also provided a link showing that 22% of the people that are uninsured are not US citizens, so there are 35,568,000 ( or 11.67%) of US citizens without insurance. I'd also have to assume that the 1/3 of those uninsured are happy being uninsured as they make more than $66,000 a year.

 

So, who can take you seriously? Have you brought anything to this discussion other than attitude?

[Perchoutofwater]

IIRC the "fine" is something like 8% of payroll. So if the public option sucks so bad, employees will be drawn to employers that offer private insurance in their benefits package.

 

That might be true if we were anywhere close to full employment and not on the cusp of double digit unemployment. See this is the biggest problem I have with Obama and the Dems right now. We need to focus on recovering, and this "change" is making people uncomfortable and more cautious. How many people do you think business owners are going to be willing to hire, or how much do you think that businesses are going to be willing to expand when they don't know what their tax burden is going to be next year, but they know they already are going to be on the hook for the non-stimulus "stimulus" plan, all the bailouts, possibly Cap and Tax, and possibly more expanded government and a set up for eventual government take over of 1/6 of our GDP. It is too much in a time where businesses are already stressed. Nobody is going to start expanding and start hiring until they know what the hell is going on. I firmly believe we would be well on our way to recovery if we would have killed the non-stimulus "stimulus" bill, and if Obama said we are not going to any major legislation that will affect taxes in a significant way until unemployment is below 6%.

 

I'm not necessarily against health care reform, actually I'm for it if coupled with immigration reform and tort reform and if it is paid for via a sales tax instead of solely by those who already are paying for their own insurance.

[AtomicCEO]

Why don't you stop spouting off an provide some back up to that? I've already provide a link that states that 45.6 Million people in America are uninsured, though that number is thought to be high do to faulty assumptions. But let's go with that. I've also provided a link showing that 22% of the people that are uninsured are not US citizens, so there are 35,568,000 ( or 11.67%) of US citizens without insurance. I'd also have to assume that the 1/3 of those uninsured are happy being uninsured as they make more than $66,000 a year.

 

So, who can take you seriously? Have you brought anything to this discussion other than attitude?

 

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Find one link that says all those things, because 90% of what you post is proven to be false, so I'm not going to go research 3 of your links from previous posts and cross-reference them to figure out if this is one of the rare times you're not blatantly lying.

[Perchoutofwater]

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Find one link that says all those things, because 90% of what you post is proven to be false, so I'm not going to go research 3 of your links from previous posts and cross-reference them to figure out if this is one of the rare times you're not blatantly lying.

 

Ok, so you are going to ignore links that substantiate what I'm saying, and call me a liar because you don't feel like taking the trouble to look at them. There is no point debating it with you then as you have become a complete partisan joke that refuses to look at data being spoon fed to him that refutes what he feels and what Olberman and Madcow tells him to believe. Got it!

[AtomicCEO]

Ok, so you are going to ignore links that substantiate what I'm saying, and call me a liar because you don't feel like taking the trouble to look at them. There is no point debating it with you then as you have become a complete partisan joke that refuses to look at data being spoon fed to him that refutes what he feels and what Olberman and Madcow tells him to believe. Got it!

 

You posted a number you made up, man. And you admitted it.

 

Now you're indignant because I won't go back and cross-reference three of your links to see if you're right this time.

 

What's your official number now so I can shoot it down in 30 seconds?

[WaterMan]

Most Americans rate the nation's health care as no better than average when compared with health care in other industrialized countries. Just 15% say health care in this country is the "best in the world," while 23% rate it as "above average"; about six-in-ten (59%) view U.S. health care as either "average" (32%) or "below average" (27%).

 

 

So for the people who think our health care is "best in the world," twice as many say it is below average.

 

More people at the bottom than the top. That sounds kind of familiar, like real life almost.

Edited August 21, 2009 by WaterMan

[TimC]

Why does it matter what the right wing lunatics think? Since you've got the President and Congress in your hands, you can cram through any legislation you want. Stop being hippie pansies and blaming the right wing for all your bad ideas and just decide if you want Obama to put a bullet through your Grandma's left or right temple when she sneezes already. Jeez.

[Azazello1313]

So now you're claiming that MORE than .8 of the people with no insurance are happy with their insurance?

 

Again, who could possibly take you seriously?

 

wait, what? how can people with no insurance be happy with their insurance? I posted a link to a poll from this month indicating that 80% of customers rate their health insurance as good or excellent, and another 15% rate it as fair. obviously (since I am not an idiot) I assume that number refers to 95% of the 85% of americans who have health insurance to rate.