ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Night Strike]

The current bill does not match much of what Obama put forward and is likely not going to pass the Senate. So, talking about the "current" bill is a waste.

Then why are lawmakers and proponents allowed to talk about it? Obama gave a speech, but Congress has text on the floor. H.R. 3200 IS a bill currently being discussed in the House of Representatives, so its contents CAN be debated, attacked, and supported. Obama's rhetoric is not believable until it's put into print. It's beyond time to just wait and believe what Obama says.....we have to debate the actual legislation that's available. Even if the legislation is not in its final form. That's the whole point: change the text of the bill before it passes. It's useless to debate it after it actually passes.

[Titanic]

Ok, two simple logic problems that make absolutely no sense for passing the current health care bills.

1) The current plans say up to $500 billion dollars will come from squeezing savings out of medicare and medicaid. If this is possible, why isn't it already being done? And, if one government program already has that much waste built into it, then how much waste will an even bigger government program accrue?

2) Reports are that the revenue generation will begin two years before the benefits kick in from any government program in order to begin the pool of funds. Therefore, the budget projections are currently running on 10 years of revenue for 8 years of payouts. Isn't that the definition of running a deficit? What will happen in the next 10 years when you're collecting and paying out money each for 10 years.

1) Because atm the insurance companies make the US government pick up a lot of the bill even if the citizens are covered by the insurers. Also, the excessive tests and profit motives and huge number of middle management or administrators is wasting a lot of money. It has not been done so far because the Republicans were in for the last 8 years, and they are controlled by the insurance companies. The new system would not have as much waste because it will be much harder for the insurance companies to fiddle the system and make the government pick up the bills whilst they take the profits.

2) Can you explain that in more detail, I don't fully follow.

[Night Strike]

1) Because atm the insurance companies make the US government pick up a lot of the bill even if the citizens are covered by the insurers. Also, the excessive tests and profit motives and huge number of middle management or administrators is wasting a lot of money. It has not been done so far because the Republicans were in for the last 8 years, and they are controlled by the insurance companies. The new system would not have as much waste because it will be much harder for the insurance companies to fiddle the system and make the government pick up the bills whilst they take the profits.

2) Can you explain that in more detail, I don't fully follow.

1) Are you sure about that? It's common knowledge that medicare does not pay 100 cents on the dollar for medicare patients, so the insurance companies have to pick up the tabs for those doctors who do take medicare patients. It's why so many doctors have stopped taking medicare patients. And if you want to cut excessive tests, limit malpractice suits. It's common sense: the more worried the doctor is about getting sued, the more likely they are to run every test possible.

2) In legislation-speak, the taxes and other revenue generation start in Year 1 of the legislation, but benefits do not start until Year 3. Therefore, in the 10 year projections that get scored, it is taking 10 years of revenue to pay for only 8 years of services. That leaves the program already spending more on a yearly basis than it is taking in, which is the definition of a deficit.

[PLAYER57832]

1) Because atm the insurance companies make the US government pick up a lot of the bill even if the citizens are covered by the insurers. Also, the excessive tests and profit motives and huge number of middle management or administrators is wasting a lot of money. It has not been done so far because the Republicans were in for the last 8 years, and they are controlled by the insurance companies. The new system would not have as much waste because it will be much harder for the insurance companies to fiddle the system and make the government pick up the bills whilst they take the profits.

2) Can you explain that in more detail, I don't fully follow.

1) Are you sure about that? It's common knowledge that medicare does not pay 100 cents on the dollar for medicare patients, so the insurance companies have to pick up the tabs for those doctors who do take medicare patients. It's why so many doctors have stopped taking medicare patients.

No, the people who really pay are those without insurance. They often have to pay 5-10 times the insurance rate for the same procedure. Insurance companies make BILLIONS.. far more than insurance in any other country (other coutries insurance makes a profit, but millions instead of billions). The ones getting creamed are not the insurance companies... it is US!

And if you want to cut excessive tests, limit malpractice suits. It's common sense: the more worried the doctor is about getting sued, the more likely they are to run every test possible.

Fear of lawsuits does drive added tests, but that does not necessarily mean that limiting lawsuits is the best way to control extra tests OR to drive down costs. Malpractice insurance really makes every decent doctor pay for the few screw-ups. Giving a pass on lawsuits will simply hamstring those who really have been harmed. A better approach on that is to not pay for mistakes, to require the hospital/doctor to pay. This works in many areas.

Also, malpratice is not really the biggest factor in costs and not necessarily even in extra tests. Right now, most doctors get paid more for doing more. Its not that doctors are intentionally padding the bills, but subconsciously there just is no incentive NOT to do extra work. Geisinger, (In Altoona, PA) among others, has begun to change that.

The BIGGEST cost increase, however, is pure paperwork. Each insurance company has their own forms, their own standards of approval. Approvals and forms even vary amongst different policies for the same company in many cases. I can remember when we went to a clinic with 3 doctors and 1 nurse who served as the the receptionist. They processed all their own bills. My kid's office has 2 doctors, a nurse practitioner, and about 9 other employees, only 2 of whom are any kind of nurse. (not Rn's, but they can give injections, etc.). Furthermore, they hire out billing. I faced collection notices on Thanksgiving weekend, while my father-in-law was dying in the hospital (literally), AND I had paid the bill. None of that mattered, I got 5 calls a day because some clerk could not be bothered to check records and could care less what the impact of their actions were.

2) In legislation-speak, the taxes and other revenue generation start in Year 1 of the legislation, but benefits do not start until Year 3. Therefore, in the 10 year projections that get scored, it is taking 10 years of revenue to pay for only 8 years of services. That leaves the program already spending more on a yearly basis than it is taking in, which is the definition of a deficit.

Any bill that passes will be deficit-nuetral.

Keeping things as they are, however, will not only bankrupt our country, it will bankrupt most US citizens and even a good many doctors. ... but leave the insurance companies fat and healthy.

[GabonX]

There is an element of convenient fantasy as well in Obama's health care statements to date. We are going to save money by spending money. We are going to solve our fiscal problems with a program that will increase the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000 over a decade. We are going to guarantee you can keep your current insurance with a bill that encourages your employer to stop offering it.

The list goes on. We are going to improve health care for seniors by cutting $500,000,000,000 from Medicare. We aren't going to insure illegal aliens, except that we won't have any verification provisions to see that they can't apply and get benefits.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/colum ... 44217.html

[Neoteny]

How much is that? A bajillion??!?!

[GabonX]

There is an element of convenient fantasy as well in Obama's health care statements to date. We are going to save money by spending money. We are going to solve our fiscal problems with a program that will increase the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000 over a decade. We are going to guarantee you can keep your current insurance with a bill that encourages your employer to stop offering it.

The list goes on. We are going to improve health care for seniors by cutting $500,000,000,000 from Medicare. We aren't going to insure illegal aliens, except that we won't have any verification provisions to see that they can't apply and get benefits.
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/colum ... 44217.html

[Neoteny]

I mean, a million millions has to be a bajillion. That's a lot of zeroes.

[PLAYER57832]

There is an element of convenient fantasy as well in Obama's health care statements to date. We are going to save money by spending money. We are going to solve our fiscal problems with a program that will increase the national debt by $1,000,000,000,000 over a decade. We are going to guarantee you can keep your current insurance with a bill that encourages your employer to stop offering it.

The list goes on. We are going to improve health care for seniors by cutting $500,000,000,000 from Medicare.

This is being debated by economists of all stripes. Likely none will be truly correct.

[We aren't going to insure illegal aliens, except that we won't have any verification provisions to see that they can't apply and get benefits.

This is pure baloney. What happened is that a previous proposal that would have been very, very honorous on everyone and excluded many LEGAL citizens was eliminated. Now they are putting forward new provisions that will help limit the numbers of illegal aliens that get benefits. I don't care what steps you take, some people are going to be able to cheat the system... some will be caught, others will not. Claiming that not catching every cheat is the same as "allowing" illegals to get benefits is plain stupid. You are the first to cry "Big brother is coming" whenever stricter measures are put forward, but those extremely strict, "Orwellian" measures would be the only way to really and truly stop illegal aliens from getting all benefits... and frankly, even then some would probably slip by, while millions of honest Americans would be harmed.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Michael_Barone/The-convenient-fantasies-of-President-Obama-57944217.html

There are "convenient fantasies" by both sides. I find it striking, though that this particular column continues to put forward so much plain garbage, like the illegal alien question.

[Snorri1234]

I mean, a million millions has to be a bajillion. That's a lot of zeroes.

Yeah but you have to type it out to scare people. 1,000,000,000,000 just looks scarier than "a bajilliion"

[Phatscotty]

we are finally dealing in reality.

[Neoteny]

we are finally dealing in reality.

I seriously think your use of first person there is incorrect.

[Juan_Bottom]

[thegreekdog]

FYI:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

[thegreekdog]

And just to be fair:

This - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33480141/ns ... ealth_care

[Phatscotty]

And just to be fair:

This - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33480141/ns ... ealth_care

HA total hit piece. The price tag may be right give or take, yet the article mentions nothing about gov't accountability which already exists in the US health care system....cant be 0. anything gov't 25% right off the top, that's a fact. Also, private insurance companies profit margins are 2.2%. this is a loss when considering hidden tax of inflation. Garbage report, but thanks was fun to read

[notyou2]

we are finally dealing in reality.

I seriously think your use of first person there is incorrect.

That's funny

[Mr_Adams]

And just to be fair:

This - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33480141/ns ... ealth_care

Garbage report, but thanks was fun to read

did you expect anything else from MSNBC?

[Phatscotty]

you should have seen the BS he was trying to pull! but, back him blindly, and keep contributing opinion and analysis! I have always said you bring a lot to the table

[Nobunaga]

... An interesting fact check article on the obscene profits made by health insurers*

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

...From the article:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

...

[Phatscotty]

... An interesting fact check article on the obscene profits made by health insurers*

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20091025/D9BI4D6O1.html

...From the article:

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries. As is typical, other health sectors did much better - drugs and medical products and services were both in the top 10.

The railroads brought in a 12.6 percent profit margin. Leading the list: network and other communications equipment, at 20.4 percent.

...

thank you, that was my source. I like other people to stick their feet in their mouths first before I slam them with the source. Bonus points for cnn and msnbc sources!

[Juan_Bottom]

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.

I don't quite understand, this is your argument?

[Nobunaga]

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.

I don't quite understand, this is your argument?

... It proves the falsehood of the following claims:

“I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed.” Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

“Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.” A MoveOn.org advertisement.

... Quite a valid argument, actually. Rather debunks the whole "evil insurance companies" rhetoric so often thrown around.

...

[Phatscotty]

Health insurers posted a 2.2 percent profit margin last year, placing them 35th on the Fortune 500 list of top industries.

I don't quite understand, this is your argument?

... It proves the falsehood of the following claims:

“I’m very pleased that (Democratic leaders) will be talking, too, about the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry and how those profits have increased in the Bush years.” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“Keeping the status quo may be what the insurance industry wants their premiums have more than doubled in the last decade and their profits have skyrocketed.” Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, member of the Democratic leadership.

“Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.” A MoveOn.org advertisement.

... Quite a valid argument, actually. Rather debunks the whole "evil insurance companies" rhetoric so often thrown around.

...

Harry Reid said something equally Ridiculous also can't remember.

[Juan_Bottom]

OK, see that doesn't pass the smell test to me. That is why I had to ask.

“Health insurance companies are willing to let the bodies pile up as long as their profits are safe.”

See to me, this statement his makes perfect sense.
They have such a thin profit margin they have to do whatever they can to protect it. That includes denying treatment. I would call that an Immoral practice. Former insurance company executives have said this very thing before congress.
Am I right here, or still confused?

Besides that 2.2% is a huge profit margin when considering how many millions of Americans are covered. Though I do not know all of the insurance industries written in stone expenses, so I admittedly don't know if it is a nice profit in the long run.

Interesting to think about though.