Hi everyone! Thanks for the increased participation. This blog is a little different. I want to take a step back to do two things:
First, I want to encourage all of you to continue to talk to your political leaders. If you are not happy with health care reform in its current incarnation, then tell them! This bill may be law, but laws can be changed and repealed. I think a lot of times (this being one of them) the goal of politicians is to get a law passed so the dissenters will release one last roar of indignation (which we saw just prior to my last post) and then go back to their lives. It's a brilliant strategy really. Our society has just enough of an attention span to get from one commercial to the next. We change cell phones more often than we change tooth brushes. We are a consumer based, instant gratification nation... and they (Washington) count on us to surrender and find an easier goal than to actually (4 letter word coming up) "work" for what we truly want. So please! If you are unhappy with the bill, then KEEP THE PRESSURE ON! The same holds true for supporters. If you are satisfied... tell Washington. If you're content but want to see more or less... tell Washington. If you don't care... tell me, Washington is a little busy ;-)
Second, I want to try something new. I am going to embed a poll because I am curious as to what all of you think. I will not be voting because I want to see what all of you say. Please encourage everyone you know to come here and vote (one vote each, please, don't skew the results). After you vote, please take two minutes to post a comment. Tell me what you like or dislike about the bill. Or you could even tell me why you don't care. I am interested in that, too. Basically, I want this blog to be about what YOU think. Share your thoughts an opinions. Even a one line response is something. Share! Let your voice be heard!!
Thanks again for stopping by. Keep spreading the word and please visit the sponsor while you're here!
You can find a copy of the Health Care Reform Bill here (clickable link)
Monday, March 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You do a great job on this. You know and I hate this health care bill. Not really much on the health care but sure has a ton of other stuff that don't need in a health care package.
ReplyDeleteYou are a awsome write. everything is so true
ReplyDeleteThey need to throw the whole bill in the fire and start completely over.
ReplyDeletethanks
Mike(Dad)
The reason I selected "mostly", instead of "spot on , is that I believe there still needs to be a robust public option to keep the insurance companies honest. My ideal choice would be a single payer system, AKA medicare for all. A lot of folks are tossing around terms like socialism and communism pretty loosely because it is fashionable to do so. Social Security, Medicare, veterans benefits and healthcare,the Armed Forces, police and fire services, state parks, and a hundred other services could be labeled socialism, using their criteria. I call those things sensible, necessary national policy.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Frank B. I would have preferred a single-payer system. A single-payer system makes sense from an “economies of scale” perspective. It’s already working. For instance, Medicare is so efficient in the treatment of end-stage renal disease that any American diagnosed with this condition will receive dialysis treatments through Medicare, despite his/her age, ability to pay, or the presence of other health insurance.
ReplyDeleteA single-payer system would also result in parity of benefits. There are some households in which various members receive their benefits from differing sources. One family member may have coverage through an employer, and has benefits for office visits, etc., while another has coverage through a different employer, and has no such benefits. Some family members may be excluded from coverage altogether because of a preexisting condition.
For all its flaws, Medicare is the best-run health care system in the country right now. The majority of benefits are provided through the private sector under contract with the federal government, but it is highly regulated and overseen by CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services). The federal government is not new at this -- Medicare became law nearly 50 years ago.
Medicare HMOs provide all the Medicare benefits with nominal deductibles, copays and coinsurance, without the need for Medicare supplement, and the premium for participation is $0.00 (premiums are funded 100% by Medicare), unless the individual wants to add extra benefits not covered by Medicare such as enhanced pharmacy, hearing, or vision benefits. To attract enrollees, these privately run HMOs (the largest of which are publicly-traded) offer incentives such as health club memberships just for signing up. It’s a win-win for the private and public sectors, since the contract is hugely profitable to the corporation, and the per-member-per-month premium to the government allows CMS to predict with accuracy the annual cost of benefits for those Medicare recipients who enroll in the HMO.
If the consumer doesn't like the HMO format, regular Medicare plus a Medicare supplement policy, which can cost a couple hundred dollars a month, will provide the same coverage but allows more freedom in selecting providers.
Ironically, Medicare’s benefit schedules have preceded many states' mandatory coverage for the private health insurance industry. Long before most states mandated benefits for diabetes supplies, Medicare mandated it. The same is true for the treatment of other chronic conditions, as well as for certain diagnostic procedures such as well-woman exams, and prostate cancer screenings. And the Medicare "appeal" laws that allow a person to challenge a denied claim have also formed the framework for many states' appeal laws that followed.
In the absence of a single-payer system, I would have supported a system whereby individuals could purchase Medicare benefits as an alternative to purchasing private health insurance. This would have eliminated the need for a new agency and could have been made available earlier than 2014. Imagine how seamless it would be when a person turns 65 – just go on with the coverage they had before.
I also agree that those in Congress who carelessly label tax-supported health care for private citizens as "socialism" or "communism" don't seem to be turning down the tax-supported health benefits they receive as sitting members, so I guess it's "do as I say, not as I do"?
Hey Frank and Snapping, there is legislation in this bill for a public option...
ReplyDeleteSEC. 321. ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF A PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION AS AN EXCHANGE-QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.
Is this not what you are looking for?
Also, I have been remiss... I am sure some folks do not know where to find a copy of the bill. I have added a link to the end of the post above.
Keep the comments coming!
The whole plan needs to be chucked. Reform is necessary, no doubt about it. The reform needs to be across the board, made available to everyone, not just those under the poverty level. The middle class struggle on whether they should fork over the few hundred dollars for an insurance policy for their family or if they should spend the money to feed them. At my current place of employment, not one person qualifies for the health program as it is currently listed because they earn too much money. However for a family (in this case mom, dad and one child) the cost for the company health insurance is over $500 a month, tack on another $68 for a family with 2 or more kids. These people are making on average 3-4 thousand a month which means they will be paying on average 16%-17% a month if they choose to enroll in the company health plan. In addition to the $500, factor in the money they pay into the government for Medicare in the form of taxes, to pay for those that are fortunate to qualify for the supposedly "well run" Medicare/Medicaid program. Why should those willing to put in a hard day of work for honest wages be penalized by paying high premiums for their own health care and then be forced to pay for others that are not so lucky to either find a job with benefits, a decent paying job or (gasp!) are one of those people that find it easier to apply for jobs they would never in a million years be hired for but do it just to maintain their unemployment benefits. No. I am not in favor of this current health care reform policy and the thought it is ok to make Americans pay for such a small percentage of people lacking health insurance. I do not mind paying taxes, and if I am not mistaken we American's pay a fraction of the taxes citizens of other countries pay. (Something I am grateful for.) I am just not in favor of the health care reform that does not benefit America as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAs a realist I have to admit that it's not perfect, but I don't think anything ever will be. You can't make everyone happy. You are never going to create a bill that will benefit everyone as far as personal coverage. However, increasing coverage for the "small percentage of people lacking health insurance" will benefit everyone as a whole. From the perspective of someone that works in healthcare, specifically billing, there is a lot of damage done to the general public by the individuals that can't afford healthcare. One of the greatest causes of increased wait times in the ER and increased cost is providing for individuals that can not afford healthcare. Many of them are unable to go to a primary care physician for testing and early treatment of simple ailments. As a result they postpone treatment till it becomes a life threatening illness. At this point they are no more able to pay then before and now the taxpayers are stuck with a bill for over $200,000 to save a persons life when a $200 test and treatment would have dealt with the problem in the begining. I am most willing to concede that the bill is not perfect, but it is a start. As our host has stated laws can be changed and repealed. Isn't it better to try something and adjust it later as opposed to letting more people suffer unnecessarily because we are waiting for that magical perfect solution?
ReplyDeleteChristos
Christos,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the perspective of one who works in the health care industry. It'srefreshing to read a post which is clearly well thought out and not just a repetition of talking points. Your example shows one of the big reasons that these reforms could save huge amounts as we move forward. It might equate, Jumbo, to making necessary repairs on a jet when they are discovered instead a waiting until the jet can't fly and then needs much more expensive fixes. I look forward to continuing this dialogue.