Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='thrustbucket']In other words, it's a waste of money for anyone except the extreme rich that have money to blow. And if you are a company that provides private security, you'd get some business, but you'd never be more than niche.

The same would likely correlate to national health care in a very real (scary?) way. So again, good example.[/QUOTE]


I do agree with that mostly. There was a Canadian in last week's Newsweek who put it well saying something to the effect of "We don't really mind waiting for elective care, so long as the poor and rich are waiting the same amount of time).

A national health care really has to be totally national and not have any private options to avoid the rich just paying there way to better and quicker care and pissing off the masses.
 
Right. And if the private option is available, guess where all the doctors will want to go? It will create a doctor shortage for everyone else on the "free" health care system even worse.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Right. And if the private option is available, guess where all the doctors will want to go? It will create a doctor shortage for everyone else on the "free" health care system even worse.[/QUOTE]

Yep, which is why you have to go 100% national health care, or just have a small government ran insurance option that's not much different from the best private ones currently to create more competition in places that don't have enough.

Coupled with more preventative care, regulations on public and private insurance in regards to not denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, executive salaries, etc., malpractice reform and other ways of lowering costs etc.

I don't think you could have some private doctors and some public doctors. But I think you can have a public insurance option out there as long as it's not too cheap to drive all the others out of business. People who are working have an obligation to cut uneeded expenses and pony up for health care--but they shouldn't have to pay more than those of us who get good insurance through our employers.

There probably just needs to be regulations on costs of procedures etc.--if insurance all pays out the same in an area, no reason for a doctor to not accept all the plans.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Right. And if the private option is available, guess where all the doctors will want to go? It will create a doctor shortage for everyone else on the "free" health care system even worse.[/QUOTE]

Meh, insurance companies don't always like to pay out, the government plan probably always will, and there will probably be a lot of people on the government plan since it will more than likely be cheaper. You can make arguments both ways for who the doctors will like. There are also some doctors who actually like treating people more than money, so there might be some who aren't influenced by such things as the insurance companies perhaps paying more in some situations. If doctors just always went with the money we'd all be fucked because there would only be plastic surgeons.

A single-payer system would be better since it would avoid all this crap, doctors wouldn't have to deal with any of it, and it would be cheaper, but we'll be damned if we have that. Everything works better if it's private, regardless of whether or not it works better.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I'm glad you used that example, it's almost is good as Obama's car insurance example.

If I have enough money to afford my own private security, all they can do is try to prevent people from hurting me. That's it. Unfortunately that is not equal to the police and the authority the police have. They don't get to do all the things regular police can, and they don't have the authority to. They can't arrest anyone. They can't question someone. They can't use any type of force without far more accountability and liability, and their power in the court system matters much less than the police.

In other words, it's a waste of money for anyone except the extreme rich that have money to blow. And if you are a company that provides private security, you'd get some business, but you'd never be more than niche.

The same would likely correlate to national health care in a very real (scary?) way. So again, good example.[/QUOTE]

Except that private and public security involves other people and their rights directly. I don't understand what part of security not being able to throw people in jail would be equatable in my analogy to private health coverage? Are you saying a private doctor would be able to stop a bleeding patient from dying but not be able to get them into surgery for some reason?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Right. And if the private option is available, guess where all the doctors will want to go? It will create a doctor shortage for everyone else on the "free" health care system even worse.[/QUOTE]


That's not true there would not be enough of demand for every person out of medical school to become a rich private doctor. Just like how Blackwater employees make huge amounts of money, but it doesn't hurt the army's enlistment because the demand is not as high and since they are private they demand more experience, and believe it or not a lot of soldiers would rather support the army than "sell out" and go in to some private military business.

All of you bring up excellent points, but then we begin to get into this paradox. If someone has the resources shouldn't they be allowed to get a cancer screening every 6 months? I am all for universal health care and equal fundamental care, but isn't what most of the conservatives are so upset about is the lack of choice and free market when it comes to their health which is fine. My point is if you want your colon examined every month instead of a once or twice a year I am not going to stop you, but I don't think the government should have to pay for it.

Sorry about my incoherence its too early.
 
So I want to relay a story that just happened to my sister and her husband this past week in Houston that I think relates to this thread.

He has had bad abdominal pains for about a week. He couldn't even start his new teaching job. They went to the doctor and the doctor decided to check him into a hospital while they run tests. Two days and two tests later, in the hospital, they discharged him saying they can't find anything wrong. $12,000 hospital bill. After their insurance they owe $3,200 that they don't have.

Understandably they are pissed. He just sat in the hospital for two days (one of the overnights simply because the specialist needed for a test was off for the day) and missed his first two days of work for nothing. They asked several times if they could just go home and come back for the test and they said no.

So, they feel like they were just asked to stay at the hospital so the hospital could make money.

Who's health care reform proposal will fix that kind of bullshit?


[quote name='gareman']Except that private and public security involves other people and their rights directly. I don't understand what part of security not being able to throw people in jail would be equatable in my analogy to private health coverage? Are you saying a private doctor would be able to stop a bleeding patient from dying but not be able to get them into surgery for some reason?[/QUOTE]

The analogy comes into play where private insurance will become so incredibly expensive, with almost no advantages compared to the public option, that having a private option will eventually be pointless except for those with money to waste.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So I want to relay a story that just happened to my sister and her husband this past week in Houston that I think relates to this thread.

He has had bad abdominal pains for about a week. He couldn't even start his new teaching job. They went to the doctor and the doctor decided to check him into a hospital while they run tests. Two days and two tests later, in the hospital, they discharged him saying they can't find anything wrong. $12,000 hospital bill. After their insurance they owe $3,200 that they don't have.

Understandably they are pissed. He just sat in the hospital for two days (one of the overnights simply because the specialist needed for a test was off for the day) and missed his first two days of work for nothing. They asked several times if they could just go home and come back for the test and they said no.

So, they feel like they were just asked to stay at the hospital so the hospital could make money.

Who's health care reform proposal will fix that kind of bullshit?[/QUOTE]

Well that's a bit cynical and kind of demonizing the hospital, but I can see where they're coming from. Really they're mostly upset because they didn't find anything, if they had found some life-threatening condition they would gladly pay the $3,200, I'm sure it's worth his life. But, unfortunately, sometimes there's nothing to find (hopefully they didn't just do a shitty job), but the same tests are necessary and cost just as much whether they find something or not.

As for the hospital stay, I'm sure it's possible they wanted to make money, but severe abdominal pain can be pretty serious. I don't know his symptoms or all the possible diagnoses, but if he had something like appendicitis and that fucker burst and he wasn't close enough to a hospital he could die pretty quickly. I'm sure that's not the only abdominal-pain-related illness that could kill quickly, so it may have been in his best interest to stay.

Obviously $12,000 seems crazy high for 2 nights and a few tests. I dunno if anything anybody is proposing would fix that, but a single-payer system might...:p.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Who's health care reform proposal will fix that kind of bullshit?
[/QUOTE]

No proposal is going to eliminate incompetence at the individual level.

But stuff like that would fall into what Obama's talking about when harping over and over on needing to make the system more efficient and cut out wasteful spending on stuff like that--uneeded tests (not this case maybe), unneeded hospital stays (definitely in this case) etc.

But no reform will totally fix it, as you can legislate incompetence out of humanity unfortunately. All you can do is try to limit it as much as possible.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']You can't be forced to stay in a hospital. If he wanted to get up and walk out, he could have got up and walked out.[/QUOTE]


Exactly... he could have walked..

Was he in too much pain to walk?


They are trying to avoid a death and or lawsuit if something happened.

So hows his pain? Gone? I imagine if it was that bad its coming back.. He better get to a gastroenterologist asap.

Also since he most likely hit his deductible he needs to get the rest of the testing done this year so he doesnt have to start over in january, as i am guessing he is on a calendar year plan.

Lastly if he would have walked out it would have been covered under the ER copay (if he has this on his policy). But since he was checked in, that changes things..

There must have been some bad pain for them to check him in for two days.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Exactly... he could have walked..

Was he in too much pain to walk?


They are trying to avoid a death and or lawsuit if something happened.

So hows his pain? Gone? I imagine if it was that bad its coming back.. He better get to a gastroenterologist asap.

Also since he most likely hit his deductible he needs to get the rest of the testing done this year so he doesnt have to start over in january, as i am guessing he is on a calendar year plan.

Lastly if he would have walked out it would have been covered under the ER copay (if he has this on his policy). But since he was checked in, that changes things..

There must have been some bad pain for them to check him in for two days.[/QUOTE]

The only details I know is he said it felt like someone just punched him in the gut, for almost a week. Said on a scale of 1-10 the pain was a 7.

There was blood in the urine but urinary infections and kiddney stones were negative. So they wanted to have some specialist test his pancreas (I believe) but he couldn't do it until the next day, so they just sat in the hospital and did nothing for over night.

I don't know what state he is in now other than the hospital said they could find nothing wrong.

Edit: Their insurance had an 1100 dollar deductible with an 80/20 copay, or something like that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']Those are good points. My uncle use to be an exec in a medical equipment supply company. He was always lamenting on how expensive that equipment is to maintain. Because if a device fails, and someone dies, everyone from the hospital to the manufacturer of the parts for the devices gets their asses sued into oblivion.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='thrustbucket']Understandably they are pissed. He just sat in the hospital for two days (one of the overnights simply because the specialist needed for a test was off for the day) and missed his first two days of work for nothing. They asked several times if they could just go home and come back for the test and they said no.[/quote]
Perhaps they were afraid of being sued?
Who's health care reform proposal will fix that kind of bullshit?
I'm willing to bet that if the Republicans offered to support the public option in exchange for medical tort reform, we'd have a deal the next day. A compromise! Call Beck on Monday for approval and let's make it happen thrust.

The analogy comes into play where private insurance will become so incredibly expensive, with almost no advantages compared to the public option, that having a private option will eventually be pointless except for those with money to waste.
Are you arguing that the private sector can't compete against a hyper efficient beast like the US Government?
 
[quote name='speedracer']

Are you arguing that the private sector can't compete against a hyper efficient beast like the US Government?[/QUOTE]


Can the private insurance companies just write IOU's to the docs? This might allow them to cut some costs over the next while?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']

Edit: Their insurance had an 1100 dollar deductible with an 80/20 copay, or something like that.[/QUOTE]

To much mountain dew? Ask javeryh....

Anyway.

Sounds correct 1100 deductible (per person non aggregate)

80/20 split (coinsurance) to the stop loss of 10,000 or any number really... sounds as if its actually 10,500 here. So their stop loss is the 2100 (20% of 10,500)...

Now thats in network. I would just give them a heads up there is no way thats been processed yet and most plans (not all) will not count the PAR or RAP as in network. The RAP is radiologist, Pathologist and Anesthesiologist... so they may have another incoming bill eventually for an out of network rad or path. Why join a network. As any of those three dont need to agree to the discounts to get work everyday. When was the last time you asked about your anesthesiologist before a surgery and if they are in your insurance network... you cant. Its the luck of the draw who you get that day... so warn them there may be out of network charges as well.


They may not be maxed, but based on the fact that the bill was 12k it sounds like they maxed his portion for the time and most likely remainder of the year. There are plan year deductibles and coinsurances as well. While less common his could run from month x to month x (same). Probably from Jan to Jan however.*

* To elaborate here. The deductible and coinsurance typically run in 12 month cycles. Either from renewal month (x) to renewal month(x). Or they run in a calendar year, so Jan to Jan.



Maybe kidney stones if he had blood. i would have that and the gall bladder checked. If he is not having any stool symptoms then its probably not IBS or related.

There was a small recall on some vegetables again recently... maybe he got into that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm just glad they have private insurance and not a public plan. There would be so much bureaucracy if it was run by the government.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Can the private insurance companies just write IOU's to the docs? This might allow them to cut some costs over the next while?[/QUOTE]
Someone tell VA and Medicare doctors! And private insurance sure is the friend of the doctor...
 
[quote name='DarkNessBear']Yea, USPS may not be the "best". But, it does not allow UPS and FedEx to rule however they see fit. And helps keep the costs of shipping low. If we gave up all responsibility to UPS and FedEx to decide prices and let them compete, then we'd be seeing much higher prices.[/QUOTE]

Yep. I laugh when people whine about the money the USPS loses. What, so they should double the cost of stamps? There's no way in hell UPS and FedEx would let you mail stuff for 44 cents if they were allowed to enter that market. And if you lived someplace "unprofitable" to deliver to, they just wouldn't. Enjoy picking up your mail at a shipping center god knows where for the rest of your life.

[quote name='SpazX']I'm just glad they have private insurance and not a public plan. There would be so much bureaucracy if it was run by the government.[/QUOTE]

Yes because private insurers never deny care to their policy holders
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']And if you lived someplace "unprofitable" to deliver to, they just wouldn't. Enjoy picking up your mail at a shipping center god knows where for the rest of your life.[/QUOTE]

Ummm... you do realize that the USPS does this, right?

Several small communities do not have home delivery - if you live in one of these areas, you get to go to your local post office to pick up your mail.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I'm just glad they have private insurance and not a public plan. There would be so much bureaucracy if it was run by the government.[/QUOTE]


I know.

Let me share what happened yesterday, my brother in law in France woke up in so much pain he was shaking and stuck on the ground in the fetal position with a high fever. His g/f called 15 (equivelant to 911) and the EMTs came and took him to the hospital. They did a bunch of tests including xrays,blood tests, a doppler test, and seseveral others. All the tests came back negative amd the docotrs consluded it was probably either a potassium deficiency and stress. At the end of the day they said he could either go home or spend the night if he wanted to, so he stayed . This morning he was released and doing fine. He
had to pay a total of $0 though he night get a bill later but he also has private insurance that covers the co-pay so he proably wont be paying that much that.
Ontop of that hes getting 8 days off paid from work. Tomorrow hes going to his regular doctor and might be getting another week off paid from work.
 
Get outta here with your socialist propaganda Homeland!

But on another note extreme stomach pains are very serious, and they kept him over night in case something happens before the specialist could seem him and if they just sent him home the hospital could be in a serious legal problems.
 
I did get a bit more information for anyone that cares. Apparently my bro-in-law was diagnosed with something wrong with his gall bladder, but the hospital decided that it wasn't severe enough to remove it just yet. That makes little sense to them, or me, but whatever.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I did get a bit more information for anyone that cares. Apparently my bro-in-law was diagnosed with something wrong with his gall bladder, but the hospital decided that it wasn't severe enough to remove it just yet. That makes little sense to them, or me, but whatever.[/QUOTE]

I don't think gall bladders are that big of a deal - they're basically unnecessary and they can take them out laparoscopically AFAIK. Other than that they have some stuff that can try to dissolve stones, but I don't see why they wouldn't just take it out unless he's old or it would otherwise be risky for some reason.
 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33161911/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
WASHINGTON - Many middle-class Americans would still struggle to pay for health insurance despite efforts by President Barack Obama and Democrats to make coverage more affordable.The legislation advancing in Congress would require all Americans to get insurance — through an employer, a government program or by buying it themselves. But new tax credits to help with premiums won't go far enough for everyone. Some middle-class families purchasing their own coverage through new insurance exchanges could find it out of reach.
Lawmakers recognize the problem.
"For some people it's going to be a heavy lift," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. "We're doing our best to make sure it's not an impossible lift."
Added Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine: "We have no certainty as to whether or not these plans are going to be affordable." Both are on the Senate Finance Committee, which finished writing a health care bill on Friday.
Ballpark estimates
A new online tool from the Kaiser Family Foundation illustrates the predicament.
The Health Reform Subsidy Calculator provides ballpark estimates of what households of varying incomes and ages would pay under the different Democratic health care bills. The legislation is still a work in progress and the calculator only a rough guide. Nonetheless, the results are revealing.
A family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $63,000 a year is in the middle of the middle class. But that family would pay $7,110 to buy its own health insurance under the plan from the committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
The family would get a tax credit of $3,970 to help pay for a policy worth $11,080. But the balance due — $7,110 — is real money. Maybe it's less than the rent, but it's probably more than a car loan payment.
Kaiser's calculator doesn't take into account co-payments and deductibles that could add hundreds of dollars, even several thousand, to a family's total medical expenses. A Congressional Budget Office analysis estimates total expenses could average 20 percent of income for some families by 2016.
'Lurking in the background'
The issue of affordability "has been lurking in the background and is nowhere near resolved yet," said Kaiser's president, Drew Altman. "It's tricky because it doesn't take a lot of people to make affordability a political problem. It just takes some very visible and understandable cases."
At the root of the concerns is the push to cut the overall cost of health care overhaul legislation. Congress is trimming the budget for subsidies to meet Obama's target of $900 billion over 10 years — as the Baucus plan does. It means premiums will be higher than under earlier Democratic proposals.
The trade-off directly affects people who buy their own coverage. For those with job-based insurance, employers would continue to cover most of the costs.
Most of the uninsured are in households headed by someone who's self-employed or works at a business that doesn't provide coverage. It's this group that Democrats are trying to help.
Because health insurance is so expensive, lawmakers recognize that if they're going to pass a law requiring all Americans to get coverage, government has to defray the cost. The size of those subsidies makes an enormous difference.
Under the Baucus bill, a family of four making $63,000 would have to pay 11 percent of its income for health insurance, according to Kaiser. By comparison, an earlier bill from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee with more generous subsidies required the same hypothetical family to pay about 7 percent of its income for premiums — a difference of about $2,500.
"This is not the loaves and the fishes — you can't just throw some subsidies out there and expect that will take care of everybody's needs," said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University professor who studies the insurance market for people buying their own coverage.
The legislation provides the most generous subsidies to those at or near the poverty line, about $22,000 for a family of four. That's where the problem is concentrated because about three-fourths of the uninsured are in households making less than twice the poverty level.
Subsidies taper off
But as income rises, the subsidies taper off.
For a family of four making $45,000, federal subsidies would pick up 71 percent of the premium under the Baucus plan, according to the Kaiser calculator.
For a family with an income of $63,000, the subsidies would only cover 36 percent of the premium.
A family making $90,000 would get no help.
Pollitz said the subsidies disappear rapidly for households with solid middle-class incomes. That could be tricky for a self-employed individual who has a particularly good year financially.
Another problem is that people won't be able to get the insurance tax credits immediately after the bill passes. To hold down costs, the assistance won't come until 2013, after the next presidential election.
White House officials say that while Obama wants the cost of the final bill to stay manageable, it has to provide affordable coverage.
"The president is absolutely committed to making this affordable. That's the whole point," said Linda Douglass, spokeswoman for the White House health reform office.
Douglass said it's premature to draw any conclusions while the bill is being shaped in Congress. But House leaders are also cutting back their legislation to meet Obama's target.
Acknowledging the affordability problem, Baucus' committee voted Friday to exempt millions of people from the requirement to buy insurance and reduce penalties for those who fail to do so. But that would mean leaving at least 2 million more uninsured — not very satisfying to Democrats who started out with the goal of coverage for all.
"I think we've got to do something about it," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "We've got to make sure health insurance is affordable for the middle class."
 
Politicians need to focus on getting down the administrative costs of these insurance companies. Their admin costs come out to something like 20% meanwhile in contrast Medicare is like 3%. I think I read that in the latest T.R. Reid book and another book Health Care Half Truths.
 
[quote name='depascal22']And to answer your question, I did manage to finish the bill. I find it much easier to debate an issue that I'm informed on. It's easier to sniff out the bull shitters.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='depascal22']Why the fuck does it matter if I had two lawyers with me when I read the bill. I can look things up if I don't understand them. It's called research.[/QUOTE]

Dang, depascal, you need to go work for this guy...

[quote name='Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.)'] "I don't expect to actually read the legislative language because . . . the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life," Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) told an online news service.

And Carper says he doubts his fellow members of the Senate Finance Committee will read their handiwork either.[...]
Carper told CNSnews.com that the bill was "incomprehensible" and "hard stuff to understand.
[/quote]
 
[quote name='saturninus']Politicians need to focus on getting down the administrative costs of these insurance companies. Their admin costs come out to something like 20% meanwhile in contrast Medicare is like 3%. I think I read that in the latest T.R. Reid book and another book Health Care Half Truths.[/QUOTE]

I am getting Reid's book today, I would also recommend Sick by Jonathan Cohn.
 
I really wish there was a controlling majority that gave a shit...then it could be more like "alright, we watered it down and you're still bitching...fuck it, single-payer it is, fuck all you guys" but then again it never would have gotten to this point if that were true.

Ah, to dream.
 
[quote name='SpazX']I really wish there was a controlling majority that gave a shit...then it could be more like "alright, we watered it down and you're still bitching...fuck it, single-payer it is, fuck all you guys" but then again it never would have gotten to this point if that were true.

Ah, to dream.[/QUOTE]

I am still pretty confident some sort of fairly strong public option will pull through.
 
DenialsByInsurer2008.jpg
 
Kind of weird stats elprincipe. The # of CT and MRI machines doesn't necessarily translate into anything, especially considering that the US is more spread out and would require more machines just so that people had access. And the # of angioplasties and coronary bypasses is a little weird to use as a metric since you have to be unhealthy in order to get them, so having a higher number doesn't necessarily mean the health care is better, it would be better to know how many people needed them and didn't get them.

The fatality rates are more interesting, and some are pretty close, the only way out ones would be the UK's, at least as far as prostate and breast cancer. Perhaps skewed by longer lifespans, but not that skewed. A higher percentage of people in the UK and Canada smoke too, apparently.

Diabetes is crazy though, the US is similar to Canada, but fucking insane compared to the UK, 20.3 per 100,000 for the US and 6.7 for the UK in 2005 (as far as the US goes, in 2007 it was 6.2 in the UK)
 
[quote name='SpazX']Kind of weird stats elprincipe. The # of CT and MRI machines doesn't necessarily translate into anything, especially considering that the US is more spread out and would require more machines just so that people had access. And the # of angioplasties and coronary bypasses is a little weird to use as a metric since you have to be unhealthy in order to get them, so having a higher number doesn't necessarily mean the health care is better, it would be better to know how many people needed them and didn't get them.

The fatality rates are more interesting, and some are pretty close, the only way out ones would be the UK's, at least as far as prostate and breast cancer. Perhaps skewed by longer lifespans, but not that skewed. A higher percentage of people in the UK and Canada smoke too, apparently.

Diabetes is crazy though, the US is similar to Canada, but fucking insane compared to the UK, 20.3 per 100,000 for the US and 6.7 for the UK in 2005 (as far as the US goes, in 2007 it was 6.2 in the UK)[/QUOTE]

Yeah I know, I just posted it because I found the numbers interesting. Maybe we have more angioplasties because we have more heart problems, although the mortality rate is interesting. I was most struck by the cancer survival rates. And of course, these are cherry-picked stats from a known right-wing source, so I'm sure that they took the numbers most compatible with their viewpoint. Again, I just found some of the numbers interesting and a good talking point maybe. Always take stuff like this with a grain of salt - someone put something like this together because they want you to see it and think one way, so realize this and keep and open mind as to other information.
 
Hmm.

Have a heart-attack in Canada. Get breast cancer in the US. Stay the fuck out of the UK.

And Christ, why do you guys have so many angioplasties?
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Hmm.

Have a heart-attack in Canada. Get breast cancer in the US. Stay the fuck out of the UK.

And Christ, why do you guys have so many angioplasties?[/QUOTE]

That would be the pound of cure.

See also the diabetes stats, lopping your foot off is no problem paying for preventative care is an uphill battle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bread's done
Back
Top