Open Letter to MMJ (Health Care Reform)

[MMJ_fanatic]

I find it extremely typical and non-amusing that a disagreeing post has been completely wiped out yet the person trying to dismiss my charges quotes and personal attacks remain (albeit the quotes now have no clarity without the source).  Nice

P.S.--everyone throwing the R word at me can suckafuck because the incident y'all refer to was, is and will always be a typo.  Kudos to BHO for figuring out how to dupe the masses into putting him in charge of the greatest country.  Just because 3% more voted for him over the alternative doesn't mean everyone is required to owe him allegiance in every change he wants to make--especially if it runs counter to the way this country was designed to run.  Maybe everyone clamoring for this type of system should lobby at their individual state levels or maybe insurance companies should be allowed to compete across the country and over state lines--abiding by guideline set by the feds.  The fed is destined to screw this up.

[Penny Lane]

 Maybe everyone clamoring for this type of system should lobby at their individual state levels or maybe insurance companies should be allowed to compete across the country and over state lines--abiding by guideline set by the feds.  The fed is destined to screw this up.

even if the fed sets the rules, a floor, state laws vary enough that this idea is WORST thing the repubs have said. it's not workable at all.

[aMillionDreams]

I find it extremely typical and non-amusing that a disagreeing post has been completely wiped out yet the person trying to dismiss my charges quotes and personal attacks remain (albeit the quotes now have no clarity without the source).  Nice

P.S.--everyone throwing the R word at me can suckafuck because the incident y'all refer to was, is and will always be a typo.  Kudos to BHO for figuring out how to dupe the masses into putting him in charge of the greatest country.  Just because 3% more voted for him over the alternative doesn't mean everyone is required to owe him allegiance in every change he wants to make--especially if it runs counter to the way this country was designed to run.  Maybe everyone clamoring for this type of system should lobby at their individual state levels or maybe insurance companies should be allowed to compete across the country and over state lines--abiding by guideline set by the feds.  The fed is destined to screw this up.

You sound like a Democrat from three years ago.  You know when the Republicans insisted everyone support Bush and his wars despite the majority of the country voting against him in both general elections.  Some perspective would serve you well.  This is not the first time you've been accused of being a racist.  It's likely not just some strange coincidence.  

[bear sin rug]

everyone throwing the R word at me can suckafuck because the incident y'all refer to was, is and will always be a typo.

You had a typo and spelled Obsama instead of Obama. 100's of words in your posts and you just "happened" to put Obsama instead of Obama.

You don't like Obama and you just "happened" to have a typo and put Obsama.

And you expect us to believe this?

Keep saying it's a typo; keep saying it until you believe it.

 

[ALady]

 Maybe everyone clamoring for this type of system should lobby at their individual state levels or maybe insurance companies should be allowed to compete across the country and over state lines--abiding by guideline set by the feds.  The fed is destined to screw this up.

even if the fed sets the rules, a floor, state laws vary enough that this idea is WORST thing the repubs have said. it's not workable at all.

Can you say a little more about this?  This was actually one of the Republican points I could sort of see agreeing with.  I assume they would have to repeal the conflicting state laws, which could be a bear in itself.

[Penny Lane]

 Maybe everyone clamoring for this type of system should lobby at their individual state levels or maybe insurance companies should be allowed to compete across the country and over state lines--abiding by guideline set by the feds.  The fed is destined to screw this up.

even if the fed sets the rules, a floor, state laws vary enough that this idea is WORST thing the repubs have said. it's not workable at all.

Can you say a little more about this?  This was actually one of the Republican points I could sort of see agreeing with.  I assume they would have to repeal the conflicting state laws, which could be a bear in itself.

i kind of see it as a race to the bottom. wouldn't all the insurance companies just relocate to delaware..? each state having it's own set of mandates, so like you said, conflict of laws, but when those companies relocate (state losing a lot of jobs), they'll ask for exemption from the mandates (living in NJ where we're a very consumer protected state) how would that work for things like mandatory hospital stays, etc. I think reform should come but it should still be a state regulated industry, like other insurance. each state has a stake in its citizens well-being, and if this happens, i think people will get insurance cheaper, but they'll be shocked by the quality of coverage.

so i guess it's workable, but i just think it'll hurt us in the end.

[ALady]

wouldn't all the insurance companies just relocate to delaware..?

Wouldn't they just do as other companies do (and as I assume many insurance companies already do) - incorporate in Delaware, but maintain the satellite offices?

they'll ask for exemption from the mandates (living in NJ where we're a very consumer protected state) how would that work for things like mandatory hospital stays, etc.

No doubt there would be a great deal of upheaval no matter how they approach it.  Do you think the states would necessarily have to grant the exemptions?

I think reform should come but it should still be a state regulated industry, like other insurance. each state has a stake in its citizens well-being, and if this happens, i think people will get insurance cheaper, but they'll be shocked by the quality of coverage.

so i guess it's workable, but i just think it'll hurt us in the end.

Might just be arguing semantics, but doesn't the nation also have a stake in its citizens' well being?

I think one of the big problems with the current health insurance system is that the consumer's choices are often limited to the insurance plan that their employer chooses to provide, and insurance purchased independently of a group plan is cost-prohibitive.  

I'm still trying to educate myself on these issues, so I have a lot of questions, but just wanted to say I'm enjoying (most of  ;)) the discussion here.

[Penny Lane]

wouldn't all the insurance companies just relocate to delaware..?

Wouldn't they just do as other companies do (and as I assume many insurance companies already do) - incorporate in Delaware, but maintain the satellite offices?

they'll ask for exemption from the mandates (living in NJ where we're a very consumer protected state) how would that work for things like mandatory hospital stays, etc.

No doubt there would be a great deal of upheaval no matter how they approach it.  Do you think the states would necessarily have to grant the exemptions?

I think reform should come but it should still be a state regulated industry, like other insurance. each state has a stake in its citizens well-being, and if this happens, i think people will get insurance cheaper, but they'll be shocked by the quality of coverage.

so i guess it's workable, but i just think it'll hurt us in the end.

Might just be arguing semantics, but doesn't the nation also have a stake in its citizens' well being?

I think one of the big problems with the current health insurance system is that the consumer's choices are often limited to the insurance plan that their employer chooses to provide, and insurance purchased independently of a group plan is cost-prohibitive.  

I'm still trying to educate myself on these issues, so I have a lot of questions, but just wanted to say I'm enjoying (most of  ;)) the discussion here.

all your points are great. there should be more competition w/in the states but overall, i would like to leave things like the post office up to the fed gov and leave the rest up to states.

and the states wouldn't have to grant exemptions but inevitably they will, just seems like it'll get too political what w/the lobbyists, etc.

in any case, it'll create more lawyer jobs. WEEEEEE!

[joey kokomo]

A question I have is wouldn't the lower price provided by a public option actully create some competition in the insurance market place and in theory cause some of the insurance providers to lower their costs?

[ALady]

all your points are great. there should be more competition w/in the states but overall, i would like to leave things like the post office up to the fed gov and leave the rest up to states.

and the states wouldn't have to grant exemptions but inevitably they will, just seems like it'll get too political what w/the lobbyists, etc.

in any case, it'll create more lawyer jobs. WEEEEEE!

I agree that the states are in a unique position to assess the needs of their citizens.  And I agree that the health insurance lobby would get out of hand, but let's face it, it already has.  Any major changes in the current system are going to be ridiculously difficult to implement.  That said, I'm hopeful it can be done because I don't think our current system does a very good job of serving its customers.

WEEEEEEEE! for more lawyer jobs indeed!  Though I suspect we may be in the minority of people who are excited about that   ;D ;D ;D

[BH]

OK Alady and Pennylane are in and that's IT.  NO MORE LAWYERS.  ;)

[MMJ_fanatic]

everyone throwing the R word at me can suckafuck because the incident y'all refer to was, is and will always be a typo.

You had a typo and spelled Obsama instead of Obama. 100's of words in your posts and you just "happened" to put Obsama instead of Obama.

You don't like Obama and you just "happened" to have a typo and put Obsama.

And you expect us to believe this?

Keep saying it's a typo; keep saying it until you believe it.

 

That's funny--the post is gone so now you can't prove there were no other mispellings, neither can I--but am sure there were a few since I don't proof obsessively, so how about admitting you know nothing about me including my views on race--which happen to unbiased though you'll probably never buy that unless you see me kiss Obama's hand.  Besides I know you're just trying to be a role model ultra liberal and use the liberal transference-defense to label others as you are.  So keep calling everyone else the R word until you believe you aren't one yourself. :D

[MMJ_fanatic]

I find it extremely typical and non-amusing that a disagreeing post has been completely wiped out yet the person trying to dismiss my charges quotes and personal attacks remain (albeit the quotes now have no clarity without the source).  Nice

P.S.--everyone throwing the R word at me can suckafuck because the incident y'all refer to was, is and will always be a typo.  Kudos to BHO for figuring out how to dupe the masses into putting him in charge of the greatest country.  Just because 3% more voted for him over the alternative doesn't mean everyone is required to owe him allegiance in every change he wants to make--especially if it runs counter to the way this country was designed to run.  Maybe everyone clamoring for this type of system should lobby at their individual state levels or maybe insurance companies should be allowed to compete across the country and over state lines--abiding by guideline set by the feds.  The fed is destined to screw this up.

You sound like a Democrat from three years ago.  You know when the Republicans insisted everyone support Bush and his wars despite the majority of the country voting against him in both general elections.  Some perspective would serve you well.  This is not the first time you've been accused of being a racist.  It's likely not just some strange coincidence.  

Except the Dems of 3 yrs ago were the biggest drama queens and the most vitriolic ever. :)

The word of the day is "TRANSFERENCE":  the defense technique used by liberals to label all dissenting parties with negative adjectives (e.g.--"racists" "nazis") when it is they who actually live those characteristics.

[bear sin rug]

everyone throwing the R word at me can suckafuck because the incident y'all refer to was, is and will always be a typo.

You had a typo and spelled Obsama instead of Obama. 100's of words in your posts and you just "happened" to put Obsama instead of Obama.

You don't like Obama and you just "happened" to have a typo and put Obsama.

And you expect us to believe this?

Keep saying it's a typo; keep saying it until you believe it.

 

That's funny--the post is gone so now you can't prove there were no other mispellings, neither can I--but am sure there were a few since I don't proof obsessively, so how about admitting you know nothing about me including my views on race--which happen to unbiased though you'll probably never buy that unless you see me kiss Obama's hand.  Besides I know you're just trying to be a role model ultra liberal and use the liberal transference-defense to label others as you are.  So keep calling everyone else the R word until you believe you aren't one yourself. :D

you're the one who dropped the racist term, not me. God help your racist soul.

[camille]

all your points are great. there should be more competition w/in the states but overall, i would like to leave things like the post office up to the fed gov and leave the rest up to states.

and the states wouldn't have to grant exemptions but inevitably they will, just seems like it'll get too political what w/the lobbyists, etc.

in any case, it'll create more lawyer jobs. WEEEEEE!

I agree that the states are in a unique position to assess the needs of their citizens.  And I agree that the health insurance lobby would get out of hand, but let's face it, it already has.  Any major changes in the current system are going to be ridiculously difficult to implement.  That said, I'm hopeful it can be done because I don't think our current system does a very good job of serving its customers.

WEEEEEEEE! for more lawyer jobs indeed!  Though I suspect we may be in the minority of people who are excited about that   ;D ;D ;D

Good posts  :)

I have to agree, when you break these things down... it's astounding anything ever works at all. Astounding. So many angles,  so many moving parts and questions.

I remember listening to an NPR report a while back and they were interviewing a doctor from Columbia Presbyterian. He said the number of people employed by the hospital for billing/collection services vastly outnumbered the people employed for health-giving services. It was something like 700 nurses/doctors/surgeons vs. 900+ billing people.

Right now, every insurer in this country (and per current law, they are all regional providers) negotiates different prices for thousands of different procedures with their regional hospitals.

For something like a basic MRI, one insurer will negotiate, say, 40 different prices - one for each hospital in their service area. And actually that same hospital might get eight different prices for that one procedure from that one insurance company, depending on whether that patient came to that insurer thru an HMO, a PPO, and indemnity plan, etc...

Now, as you can imagine, most patients with even the most routine trauma case will have many, many tests, procedures, you name it. The insurer will haggle over the validity of every single one. So the hospital employs an army of people to haggle back. Often times, the doctors themselves spend a ton of time battling with the insurers, imploring them to pay for a procedure that doctor was convinced was necessary.

Escalating administrative costs are one of the major drivers in escalating healthcare costs, not to mention doctor dissatisfaction with their job.

I'm sorry to say, I think selling insurance across state lines would only exacerbate that problem.

We think it's confusing now when our doctor's office has to find out what our insurance plan does and does not cover? Think how it'd be if our doctor's office had to know what 1500 different insurance companies' various products covered.

All of the endless red tape would only add to the upward cost curve. Let alone... oof it makes me kind of nauseous just thinking about it... you think you bought a good policy, you've paid your premiums, but now your Kansas-based policy is refusing to cover that procedure at your Kentucky-based hospital. When you bought the policy, they covered that hospital, that doctor, but then last year they changed, and on and on... and where would you go to sue for your rights? Kansas? Kentucky? Federal? Every state, right now, has different consumer-protection laws governing how badly your insurer can screw you. What happens to all those existing laws? Shall we write more laws to govern which current laws apply in cross-state insurance law? It really does make me nauseous.

*

Mind you - I don't have the answer - not even close. But I'm not sure "unleashing the power of the free market" is good for this particular problem.

[Penny Lane]

i think it would also be confusing w/HIPAA regs varying from state to state, too. some (and more and more) fed regs, but generally it's up to states.

[MMJ_fanatic]

everyone throwing the R word at me can suckafuck because the incident y'all refer to was, is and will always be a typo.

You had a typo and spelled Obsama instead of Obama. 100's of words in your posts and you just "happened" to put Obsama instead of Obama.

You don't like Obama and you just "happened" to have a typo and put Obsama.

And you expect us to believe this?

Keep saying it's a typo; keep saying it until you believe it.

 

That's funny--the post is gone so now you can't prove there were no other mispellings, neither can I--but am sure there were a few since I don't proof obsessively, so how about admitting you know nothing about me including my views on race--which happen to unbiased though you'll probably never buy that unless you see me kiss Obama's hand.  Besides I know you're just trying to be a role model ultra liberal and use the liberal transference-defense to label others as you are.  So keep calling everyone else the R word until you believe you aren't one yourself. :D

you're the one who dropped the racist term, not me. God help your racist soul.

Yea you're really funny with your cute pics--I find it interesting that you are the one posting these potentially offensive images.  God help your puny little mind!

[ALady]

For something like a basic MRI, one insurer will negotiate, say, 40 different prices - one for each hospital in their service area. And actually that same hospital might get eight different prices for that one procedure from that one insurance company, depending on whether that patient came to that insurer thru an HMO, a PPO, and indemnity plan, etc...

Now, as you can imagine, most patients with even the most routine trauma case will have many, many tests, procedures, you name it. The insurer will haggle over the validity of every single one. So the hospital employs an army of people to haggle back. Often times, the doctors themselves spend a ton of time battling with the insurers, imploring them to pay for a procedure that doctor was convinced was necessary.

Escalating administrative costs are one of the major drivers in escalating healthcare costs, not to mention doctor dissatisfaction with their job.

I'm sorry to say, I think selling insurance across state lines would only exacerbate that problem.

We think it's confusing now when our doctor's office has to find out what our insurance plan does and does not cover? Think how it'd be if our doctor's office had to know what 1500 different insurance companies' various products covered.

All of the endless red tape would only add to the upward cost curve. Let alone... oof it makes me kind of nauseous just thinking about it... you think you bought a good policy, you've paid your premiums, but now your Kansas-based policy is refusing to cover that procedure at your Kentucky-based hospital. When you bought the policy, they covered that hospital, that doctor, but then last year they changed, and on and on... and where would you go to sue for your rights? Kansas? Kentucky? Federal? Every state, right now, has different consumer-protection laws governing how badly your insurer can screw you. What happens to all those existing laws? Shall we write more laws to govern which current laws apply in cross-state insurance law? It really does make me nauseous.

Ooookay.  This is the kind of breakdown I was looking for.  Thanks camille!

God, it all just makes me want to go single-payer.   ;D


And see...stuff like this really exposes the flaws in our current system:

http://www.bloodshotrecords.com/news/sygc-van-accident

[MMJ_fanatic]

I'll Pass on 'Opting Out'

The Democrats' all-new "opt out" idea for health care reform is the latest fig leaf for a total government takeover of the health care system.

Democrats tell us they've been trying to nationalize health care for 65 years, but the first anyone heard of the "opt out" provision was about a week ago. They keep changing the language so people can't figure out what's going on.

The most important fact about the "opt out" scheme allegedly allowing states to decline government health insurance is that a state can't "opt out" of paying for it. All 50 states will pay for it. A state legislature can only opt out of allowing its own citizens to receive the benefits of a federal program they're paying for.

It's like a movie theater offering a "money back guarantee" and then explaining, you don't get your money back, but you don't have to stay and watch the movie if you don't like it. That's not what most people are thinking when they hear the words "opt out." The term more likely to come to mind is "scam."

While congressional Democrats act indignant that Republicans would intransigently oppose a national health care plan that now magnanimously allows states to "opt out," other liberals are being cockily honest about the "opt out" scheme.


On The Huffington Post, the first sentence of the article on the opt-out plan is: "The public option lives."

Andrew Sullivan gloats on his blog, "Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere."

But the only reason government health insurance will be more "affordable" than private health insurance is that taxpayers will be footing the bill. That's something that can't be opted out of under the "opt out" plan.

Which brings us right back to the question of whether the government or the free market provides better services at better prices. There are roughly 1 million examples of the free market doing a better job and the government doing a worse job. In fact, there is only one essential service the government does better: Keeping Dennis Kucinich off the streets.

So, naturally, liberals aren't sure. In Democratic circles, the jury's still out on free market economics. It's not settled science like global warming or Darwinian evolution. But in the meantime, they'd like to spend trillions of dollars to remake our entire health care system on a European socialist model.

Sometimes the evidence for the superiority of the free market is hidden in liberals' own obtuse reporting.

In the past few years, The New York Times has indignantly reported that doctors' appointments for Botox can be obtained much faster than appointments to check on possibly cancerous moles. The paper's entire editorial staff was enraged by this preferential treatment for Botox patients, with the exception of a strangely silent Maureen Dowd.

As the Times reported: "In some dermatologists' offices, freer-spending cosmetic patients are given appointments more quickly than medical patients for whom health insurance pays fixed reimbursement fees."

As the kids say: Duh.

This is the problem with all third-party payor systems -- which is already the main problem with health care in America and will become inescapable under universal health care.

Not only do the free-market segments of medicine produce faster appointments and shorter waiting lines, but they also produce more innovation and price drops. Blindly pursuing profits, other companies are working overtime to produce cheaper, better alternatives to Botox. The war on wrinkles is proceeding faster than the war on cancer, declared by President Nixon in 1971.

In 1960, 50 percent of all health care spending was paid out of pocket directly by the consumer. By 1999, only 15 percent of health care spending was paid for by the consumer. The government's share had gone from 24 percent to 46 percent. At the same time, IRS regulations made it a nightmare to obtain private health insurance.

The reason you can't buy health insurance as easily and cheaply as you can buy car insurance -- or a million other products and services available on the free market -- is that during World War II, FDR imposed wage and price controls. Employers couldn't bid for employees with higher wages, so they bid for them by adding health insurance to the overall compensation package.

Although employees were paying for their own health insurance in lower wages and salaries, their health insurance premiums never passed through their bank accounts, so it seemed like employer-provided health insurance was free.

Employers were writing off their employee insurance plans as a business expense, but when the IRS caught on to what employers were doing, they tried to tax employer-provided health insurance as wages. But, by then, workers liked their "free" health insurance, voters rebelled, and the IRS backed down.

So now, employer-provided health insurance is subsidized not only by the employees themselves through lower wages and salaries, but also by all taxpayers who have to make up the difference for this massive tax deduction.

How many people are stuck in jobs they hate and aren't good at, rather than going out and doing something useful, because they need the health insurance from their employers? I'm not just talking about MSNBC anchors -- I mean throughout the entire economy.

Almost everything wrong with our health care system comes from government interference with the free market. If the health care system is broken, then fix it. Don't try to invent a new one premised on all the bad ideas that are causing problems in the first place.

[Penny Lane]

MMJfanatic,

are there ANY reforms that you'd vote for? just curious as to what you think should be done, if anything.

my mom's hospital bill for 6 days in Pittsburgh Hosp was 240K -----jes sayin'

i'm not championing or beating down the public option, but i'd like to hear some ideas.

also, for those states (like Wyoming, which probably has 1 insurance company covering the market) that choose to opt out, pelosi has already said there will be some kind of exemption so they're not paying for a program they're not entitled to receive. hey, if a state chooses not to offer the public option to its citizens, let them continue to regulate it at a state level. when medicare first started, they said it was going to take out private insurers and that didn't happen, did it? public option (IMO) isn't a slippery slope toward socialization. seems like about 40% of healthcare is socialized now anyway--- most people don't WANT a govt run plan, think they're probably choose a competitively priced Aetna plan any day.