Universal Health Care...

[Sal Paradise 57]

it's like saying rape is illegal, but if you get raped, the cops aren't allowed to do any investigation and you can't testify against the rapist.(I don't know if this is a valid comparison or not, I just wanted to talk about RAPE.)

[brvheart 1,752]

Deceitful? You just said that the bill explicitly excludes illegal aliens from getting care. What you have said is that the bill forbids illegals from getting coverage, but that they could find a way to subvert the law and illegally enroll themselves. I'm pretty sure that because someone can find a way to break a law does not make what they are doing legal. Regarding your last statement, you've spent enough time in the blog politics complaining-about-Obama forum to know that pretty much anything can be seen differently.

wow... this isn't good thinking coming from a very smart person. The same bill EXPLICTLY forbids anyone from finding out if someone is illegal or not. Why? As others have said, a driver's license and social security card would be simple. A passport maybe?I like Sal's RAPE analogy.

[El Guapo 8]

I like RAPE.

You're a wily one there brvheart.

[vbnautilus 48]

VB, I'm saying that he's being intentionally deceitful by not ensuring certain loopholes are closed.For instance, he's saying that illegals won't be eligible to enroll.However, the people enrolling aren't allowed to ask if the applicant/enrollee is an illegal alien or otherwise find out that info. So, there is nothing in the bill that explains how people can ensure illegals aren't in the system. Does that make sense?

Seems to me that a "loophole" is a way to get around the intent of a bill. If the bill's intent is to not extend coverage to illegals, the existence of a loophole is not evidence of deceit on the part of the lawmakers. Incompetence, perhaps, but not deceit. Unless you can prove that the loophole was specifically included by Obama in order to subvert the intent of the bill, but I haven't see any evidence of that. From what I understand, the particulars of the language of this bill are still being worked out. The provisions you mention about how to check on alien status are the result of arguments/compromises/etc in the committee, and have not been finalized.

[vbnautilus 48]

Them if he means what he says put the following words in the legislation:simple enough?

So you want to restrict insurance to those who can drive?

[Balloon guy 158]

Seems to me that a "loophole" is a way to get around the intent of a bill. If the bill's intent is to not extend coverage to illegals, the existence of a loophole is not evidence of deceit on the part of the lawmakers. Incompetence, perhaps, but not deceit. Unless you can prove that the loophole was specifically included by Obama in order to subvert the intent of the bill, but I haven't see any evidence of that. From what I understand, the particulars of the language of this bill are still being worked out. The provisions you mention about how to check on alien status are the result of arguments/compromises/etc in the committee, and have not been finalized.

YOU LIE!

[Balloon guy 158]

Sorry about that vb, I got caught up in the moment.

[hblask 1]

So Obama promised not to raise taxes to pay for his destruction of health care in America. Yet we have this:http://www.startribune.com/local/59083327....7PQLanchO7DiUsr

Lost in the furor of last week's debate concerning health care reform was a tiny clause tucked into Sen. Max Baucus' compromise proposal that could extract a huge tax from medical device makers. When the news surfaced, the industry quickly went on the offensive -- contacting key lawmakers, issuing public statements and writing newspaper op-eds in protest. Although scant on detail, Baucus' proposal calls for makers of pacemakers, artificial knees, heart valves and other medical devices to pay about $4 billion annually beginning next year, approximately 3 percent of annual U.S. sales. The fee, which would help fund the health care overhaul now emerging from the Montana Democrat's influential Senate Finance Committee, would be allocated by market share.

So they are not going to raise taxes, except by approximately 3% on certain medical care, which will then be passed on to consumers.This will lower the cost of medical care.Obama = economics fail.

[brvheart 1,752]

You're a wily one there brvheart.

maybe you had to be there.

[brvheart 1,752]

So you want to restrict insurance to those who can drive?

I have several friends that have a non-driver ID, which every state offers.

[CaneBrain 95]

I have several friends that have a non-driver ID, which every state offers.

Do those happen to have a series of key shaped holograms?

[hblask 1]

I read an article on 8 ideas for health care reform. These cost a tiny, tiny fraction of what Obama's takeover of the economy would cost, and have widespread support. Why not try these, and we'll see what we need after that?1) Various lawsuit reforms to keep down medical malpractice premiums, whose costs are passed on to consumers. 2) Allowing health insurance to be bought and sold across state lines. 3) Allowing the tax break for health insurance to be claimed by individuals as well as by businesses. 4) Increased use of health savings accounts. 5) Creation of "health stamps" for low-income people who otherwise wouldn't qualify for tax credits. 6) Allowing doctors who provide pro bono care to treat the value of their time spent doing so as a charitable deduction from their income taxes. 7) Allowing states to band together in regional insurance-pooling arrangements. 8) Various measures to make it easier for patients to figure out the costs of various services and doctors' fees so they can comparison-shop.

[El Guapo 8]

I read an article on 8 ideas for health care reform. These cost a tiny, tiny fraction of what Obama's takeover of the economy would cost, and have widespread support. Why not try these, and we'll see what we need after that?1) Various lawsuit reforms to keep down medical malpractice premiums, whose costs are passed on to consumers. 2) Allowing health insurance to be bought and sold across state lines. 3) Allowing the tax break for health insurance to be claimed by individuals as well as by businesses. 4) Increased use of health savings accounts. 5) Creation of "health stamps" for low-income people who otherwise wouldn't qualify for tax credits. 6) Allowing doctors who provide pro bono care to treat the value of their time spent doing so as a charitable deduction from their income taxes. 7) Allowing states to band together in regional insurance-pooling arrangements. 8) Various measures to make it easier for patients to figure out the costs of various services and doctors' fees so they can comparison-shop.

This right here, would be the absolute most affective way to provide high level care to the poor and impoverished.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Doing the Math on the UninsuredPeter Orszag walks us through the decision to downgrade the number of American citizens who cannot afford health insurance to "more than 30 million".

Last night, President Obama stated: "We are the only democracy--the only advanced democracy on Earth--the only wealthy nation--that allows such hardship for millions of its people. There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage." Today, the Bureau of the Census released the most recent data on the number of uninsured Americans. The report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2008, reveals that 46 million people were uninsured in 2008, the last year for which there are data. These data are based on the Current Population Survey. With two different numbers, there has been some confusion as to which is accurate. Well, both are -- and the President's version is more focused on the relevant target population for health reform since it excludes unauthorized immigrants. The Census report indicates that of the 46 million uninsured individuals, 34 million were native born and 2.8 million were naturalized citizens. The report thus shows that there were 36.8 million uninsured U.S. citizens (native born and naturalized) in 2008. An alternative calculation includes legal immigrants, which based on a figure from the Pew Hispanic Center would bring the total to something like 39 million. Some ambiguity surrounds how to treat individuals who are already eligible for public insurance programs like Medicaid and S-CHIP but do not enroll in those programs, which estimates from the Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured suggest may amount to millions of individuals. These individuals are uninsured but some interpretations would suggest they should not be counted among those who "cannot get" coverage. Subtracting them from the total would produce a number closer to 30 million. To be conservative, the President thus stated that "more than 30 million American citizens" cannot get coverage.

I can't get this math to work. The actual number of the uninsured, according to the census, is 46.3 million. Of those, 36.8 million were natives of the US or naturalized citizens. There is no "alternate figure" for the number of American citizens that includes legal residents. Legally resident immigrants are fine people. But they are, definitionally, not American citizens.Now when I click through to the Kaiser link that Orszag provides, I find that it says that "A quarter of the uninsured (11 million) are eligible for public programs but not enrolled." 36.8mm - 11mm is 25.8 million, not more than 30 million. But of course, that 11 million figure is from 2007 and will have grown, because that's what population statistics do--there's no evidence that we've gotten better at enrolling people in Medicaid since 2007. I mean, the Medicare rolls have gone up. But the number of poor people went up in tandem. Demographics being what they are, the number of seniors on Medicaid for nursing home care went up as well.So it's actually something less than 25.8 million. How much less? Dunno.A "conservative" estimate would have been "more than 20 million American citizens", not "more than 30 million". Of course, if they'd wanted to be really conservative, they would have grappled with the other figures in that study, such as the 15%--6.7 million +/- natural growth--that Kaiser designated as being able to afford health insurance. To be fair, the study also concluded that some of them might have difficulty obtaining it for various reasons, so it's hard to know exactly how many of them to include. Still, the number of people who can afford insurance, but choose not to buy it, is not zero, or even close to zero. Indeed, their existence is implied in the very fact that reform advocates are expecting to use their premiums, through the magic of pooling, to help pay for the uninsurable, and the indigent. If they don't exist, we're in even deeper financial trouble than we thought. But really, in most states, an income of $66,000 for a family of four, or $32,000 for a single, is not too poor to spend several hundred dollars a month on insuring against a catastrophic health event, which is how much insurance costs when you risk rate it, include cost sharing, and don't load it up with mandatory coverage. Obviously, there are exceptions: people in high cost cities that mandate high cost policies (New York), and people who have a gnarly pre-existing condition that makes them uninsurable. But you should probably account for the rest, somehow, if you are going to talk about those who are "unable" to obtain insurance.Someone trying to be truly conservative would also have attempted to control for the fact that government figures tend to show that only around half of the uninsured lack insurance for as much as a year--though of course, that too, is tricky, because it seems that 40% of the very long-term uninsured are Hispanic, and we have to assume that a lot of those are illegal immigrants, who would be the group most likely to lack insurance. We already threw them out of the sample. Trying to back a reasonable modifier out of that would be hell.Still, once you adjust for (mostly young people) who are choosing not to buy insurance, and families taking a short term gamble between jobs, neither of whom I think can technically be said to be "unable to afford insurance", you're conservatively going to end up with a number below 20 million. Generously, a serious "conservative estimate" would be "more than 15 million". But of course, the administration does not really want to be conservative; they want to have the flashiest numbers possible for their plan. All administrations do.Still, even if you say that my modifications are too indeterminate (fair enough), and go back to the figures that Orszag himself laid out, his calculations are off by millions of people. Does it matter? 15 or 20 or 25 million people is still a lot of people. But it matters for the same reason that the difference between 66% and 80% matters. You can't have a debate where everyone gets to bring their own statistics.

[Jeepster80125 0]

doesn't like obama's plan either.

[Chet Chetterson 0]

Pardon my ignorance if this has been discussed before. too lazy to catch up on this thread.why do liberals have an issue with allowing people to buy insurance over state lines? the conservatives want to push for this and it seems to be a reasonable idea. It seems good to have happen regardless of if the public option gets passed.

[DonkSlayer 1]

I woke up somewhat liberal on healthcare today, although I didn't lose my reason either. Responses below.

I read an article on 8 ideas for health care reform. These cost a tiny, tiny fraction of what Obama's takeover of the economy would cost, and have widespread support. Why not try these, and we'll see what we need after that?1) Various lawsuit reforms to keep down medical malpractice premiums, whose costs are passed on to consumers. Exactly. We KNOW this'll happen if we ever went to single-payer..but the lawyers don't seem to like regulate other lawyers until they could actually hurt lawyers too. 2) Allowing health insurance to be bought and sold across state lines. Yep! More competition. Did you mention de-regulating mandated coverages?3) Allowing the tax break for health insurance to be claimed by individuals as well as by businesses. As long as you're not proposing double-breaks, and just proposing extending the break, I"m in.4) Increased use of health savings accounts. What do you mean? Mandate people do it? I don't support that.5) Creation of "health stamps" for low-income people who otherwise wouldn't qualify for tax credits. I think expanding Medicare/Medicaid would be a lot easier..let's put a successful CEO in charge, pay him a million a year, and give him 2 years to whip the programs into efficient, well-run entities.6) Allowing doctors who provide pro bono care to treat the value of their time spent doing so as a charitable deduction from their income taxes. That's fine I guess, but why not just let everyone use their SS# as their Medicaid ID?7) Allowing states to band together in regional insurance-pooling arrangements.And civic groups, and groups of businesses, etc.. 8) Various measures to make it easier for patients to figure out the costs of various services and doctors' fees so they can comparison-shop.

just have them post pricing! I don't have dental insurance so I price-shop.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I woke up somewhat liberal on healthcare today, although I didn't lose my reason either. Responses below.just have them post pricing! I don't have dental insurance so I price-shop.

We'll start to see more transparency because right now, most people have no clue whether an MRI costs $75, $750, or $2750. If people were more aware of what their healthcare costs were, then maybe utilization wouldn't be so high.Donk, I think Henry is advocating more use of HSAs, not mandated use. Relaxed rules, increased deposit limits, easier enrollment, etc. I think he's thinking more along those lines instead of requiring people to enroll with them. Obviously, they're not for everyone.I don't think Medicare can be fixed in two years either. No way.

[CaneBrain 95]

We'll start to see more transparency because right now, most people have no clue whether an MRI costs $75, $750, or $2750. If people were more aware of what their healthcare costs were, then maybe utilization wouldn't be so high.Donk, I think Henry is advocating more use of HSAs, not mandated use. Relaxed rules, increased deposit limits, easier enrollment, etc. I think he's thinking more along those lines instead of requiring people to enroll with them. Obviously, they're not for everyone.I don't think Medicare can be fixed in two years either. No way.

Yeah, I have a bill from my primary care physician in front of me right now and it basically looks like a bunch of gibberish with a price at the bottom.I also had an MRI on my brain recently that cost 3x as much as an MRI on my back last year (and the back MRI took twice as long). So, I would like to hope the transparency issue is one both parties can get behind.

[Jeepster80125 0]

Yeah, I have a bill from my primary care physician in front of me right now and it basically looks like a bunch of gibberish with a price at the bottom.I also had an MRI on my brain recently that cost 3x as much as an MRI on my back last year (and the back MRI took twice as long). So, I would like to hope the transparency issue is one both parties can get behind.

Bush was a very big fan of health savings accounts. Bush haters decry the tax shelter-ness of it all, but it's a great way to increase consumers' stake in their own health care. When they're spending their own dollars they're more likely to price shop and seek the best deal, instead of going to the doc and ordering them to do tests.My mother and father are enrolled in an HSA, and last year she needed a colonoscopy. She shopped around, and found disparities in price of nearly $2,000 from provider to provider. If everyone had some skin in the game, utilization would go down, while general health would go up.Cane, for every bill that's submitted to your health insurance company for payment (your primary doc bill), your insurance company should generate a document called an EOB or explanation of benefits, which explains (somewhat) how that particular claim was paid. I'm sure you're aware, but you should never pay a bill from a provider until you have an EOB from your insurance carrier. The bill's 'PAY THIS AMOUNT' and the EOBs 'Member Responsibility' numbers should match. This EOB should also have information on how much of your deductible is satisfied, etc. Could be different with each individual state, but most of our insurance rules and regulations are similar.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Yeah, I have a bill from my primary care physician in front of me right now and it basically looks like a bunch of gibberish with a price at the bottom.I also had an MRI on my brain recently that cost 3x as much as an MRI on my back last year (and the back MRI took twice as long). So, I would like to hope the transparency issue is one both parties can get behind.

You have to think of the extra power and magnification they had to use to find your brain. I know this was weak but I couldn't pass it up.

[vbnautilus 48]

I get use of the MRI machine for about $500 per hour. Any costs you see on top of that are for the radiologist to read it or whatever else they are screwing you for.

[strategy 4]

I'll never forget the $1800 bill for a 2-3 hour stay to make sure I just had acid reflux and not a heart attack. I had a $5000 deductible so I was entirely at their mercy... seems pretty wrong that they could decide to collect the full amount and ruin my credit if they so desired.they will be getting some money from me years down the line. I do want to show some gratitude...

[hblask 1]

Donk, I think Henry is advocating more use of HSAs, not mandated use. Relaxed rules, increased deposit limits, easier enrollment, etc. I think he's thinking more along those lines instead of requiring people to enroll with them. Obviously, they're not for everyone.

Well, it wasn't my list, so I wasn't exactly sure what they are proposing, but I assumed it would be something like what you say here.

[hblask 1]

So Max Baucus released his "compromise bill" for health care reform.....lol1. It will cost $865 billion for 10 years. I'm assuming this is the same phony accounting as the last one, where they count the first couple of years when it hasn't kicked in yet. So where is this money coming from? Nobody knows. More debt on our children, I guess. Not to mention that, like all government programs, it will really cost twice that amount.2. Instead of a "public option", we've got "co-ops". Calling a turd a rose doesn't make it smell any better. It's still the government rigging the rules and pretending it's a free market.3. Everyone must buy insurance or get massively taxed ($3800 "fee" for families). I guess in Democrat land, increased demand + same supply = cost reductions. Unfortunately, the rest of us live in the real world.4. Additional fees to insurers. In Democrat land, increased costs + same plan = lower costs.What could possibly go wrong?