Health law could ban low-cost plans

[TOJ]

All things have to be while they can be done. Again, this was just a step. It isn't over. Those who care need to quit whining and encourage their leaders to work together to improve it. Better care, less cost, more access. That should be our effort and leave the Beckish nonsense at the door.

If you believe this law moves the USA along that path, you are delusional. :roll:

.

 

[Boo Radley]

If you believe this law moves the USA along that path, you are delusional. :roll:

.

Perhaps you can do more than name call. Explain why not.

 

[apdst]

Well, that's more a subjective opinion. It's moving slow enough to keep working on it. And frankly, it's bad enough now that at worse it would from the fire to the fire. But it's likely to be some improvement.

So, the new system will be just as ****ty as the old system, but a different kind of ****ty? That's brilliant! Has anyone taken a singl second to think about how to pay this? Or, is that why there are hundreds of new ways to fleece money from American citizens are hidden in the bill?

 

[Boo Radley]

So, the new system will be just as ****ty as the old system, but a different kind of ****ty? That's brilliant! Has anyone taken a singl second to think about how to pay this? Or, is that why there are hundreds of new ways to fleece money from American citizens are hidden in the bill?

Don't know if can be as ****ty as the present system. But we'll see. However, I still encourage everyone to see it as a beginning and not an end. More work really needs to be done, so let's continue to push our leaders to keep working on it.

 

[Z3n]

The American people are shockingly apathetic. People would rather bitch about a Health Care Law than go out and protest it. If it is found to be unconstitutional, then it will be repealed. That's called the democratic process if im not mistaken, folks.

 

[Boo Radley]

The American people are shockingly apathetic. People would rather bitch about a Health Care Law than go out and protest it. If it is found to be unconstitutional, then it will be repealed. That's called the democratic process if im not mistaken, folks.

I wouldn't put too many eggs in that basket.

 

[RightinNYC]

Better care, less cost, more access. That should be our effort and leave the Beckish nonsense at the door.

And if the law did all of this, I doubt many would have a problem. The only one that will actually happen is more access. Overall spending will increase substantially, even if you pretend that Congress will let all the Doc fixes expire (never gonna happen). There's nothing in the bill that leads me to believe it will increase quality of care, especially in light of recent disclosures.

 

[Boo Radley]

And if the law did all of this, I doubt many would have a problem. The only one that will actually happen is more access. Overall spending will increase substantially, even if you pretend that Congress will let all the Doc fixes expire (never gonna happen). There's nothing in the bill that leads me to believe it will increase quality of care, especially in light of recent disclosures.

No, we'd still have a problem. The socialism, death panel nonsense would continue (which is what contributed to watering down the bill to start with). But we can't get there if we don't take the first step.

 

[TOJ]

No, we'd still have a problem. The socialism, death panel nonsense would continue (which is what contributed to watering down the bill to start with). But we can't get there if we don't take the first step.

Too bad that first step was off a cliff. The fall isn't all that bad but the sudden stop is going to be a bitch.

BTW, you certainly are a one-trick-pony with all the first stepping

.

 

[Boo Radley]

Too bad that first step was off a cliff. The fall isn't all that bad but the sudden stop is going to be a bitch.

BTW, you certainly are a one-trick-pony with all the first stepping

.

Taking the first step is important. There is a history here. Health care reform isn't new. People have been trying for decades. And the history shows us that opponents have always hindered reform with the same tired and false arguments used this time (socialism and death panel stuff). Only in the past, they prevented anything from passing. So, the problem continued. And that is what opponents hoped for this time. So, managing to get something is an improvement. But again, more work needs to be done.

 

[RightinNYC]

No, we'd still have a problem. The socialism, death panel nonsense would continue (which is what contributed to watering down the bill to start with). But we can't get there if we don't take the first step.

If that "first step" doesn't do anything to put us in a position to reduce costs or improve overall care, is it really a first step?

 

[Boo Radley]

If that "first step" doesn't do anything to put us in a position to reduce costs or improve overall care, is it really a first step?

Yes, it is. It has improved access and that alone improves care. Cost is more iffy, and I personally believe more needs to be done. But doing nothing simply was never acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[RightinNYC]

Yes, it is. It has improved access and that alone improves care. Cost is more iffy, and I personally believe more needs to be done. But doing nothing simply was never acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

These are not independent factors, they have to be considered in light of one another. If an increase in access of care improves quality of care by a tiny margin, but at a huge cost, then it's not necessarily an improvement.

 

[TOJ]

Yes, it is. It has improved access and that alone improves care. Cost is more iffy, and I personally believe more needs to be done. But doing nothing simply was never acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

Care to pontificate on how it has inproved access using more than what you hope will occur? If more providers opt out of CMS and like programs, it will actually worsen access.

.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

Taking the first step is important. There is a history here. Health care reform isn't new. People have been trying for decades. And the history shows us that opponents have always hindered reform with the same tired and false arguments used this time (socialism and death panel stuff). Only in the past, they prevented anything from passing. So, the problem continued. And that is what opponents hoped for this time. So, managing to get something is an improvement. But again, more work needs to be done.

A step that isn't in the right direction is no better than no step at all. The bill primarily attacks insurance, which the non-medicine related parts (administration, marking, and profits) makes up 12% of the cost of insurance premiums, whereas hospitals and doctors make up 52% of costs and not to mentions the costs associated with already present government regulations and interventions. Break the AMA's ability to limit the number of spots in med schools, drop the government regulations which end up setting prices (typically higher prices), and weaken drug patent laws (drug companies make up another 10% of health care costs) and you'll be attacking prices (and therefore access as lower price=increased access) far more effectively than this bill does. And I think that with the possible exception of weakening the drug patent laws, that law would have been easier to pass. But it would have meant less government intervention which would have gone against the credo of those driving the health care debate (things like death panels were only reactionary, the demands for government intervention is what really controlled the debate as no one really took the idea of reform lessening intervention seriously).

 

[Objective Voice]

I have to agree with both Boo Radley and Civil1 here.

Our health care system has needed revision for decades and each attempt to improve it either through increasing access to the poor or low-income individuals/families, changing how insurance companies deny coverage and bringing down the cost of health care/medical treatment has been fought back tremendously. As I've said before, until you encounter problems with your health insurance coverage, there isn't a problem. I know for myself and my family, until my step-daughter was diagnoses with an incurrable illness we never had a problem with our health insurance. We did like everyone else - saw our doctor for checkups or whenever we got sick, paid our premiums and co-pays, and lead relatively healthy lives. Until recently, we had no reason to believe we'd every have a situation we're anyone in our family would be denied coverage.

While I'm not 100% in agreement with what was passed, I have to agree with Boo Radley. Something had to be done to change our nation's health care system. So, I'd rather they pass health care legistlation and allow a gap from the time of its passage until its full implementation to allow the health care system, employers, Congress and the people to shake the system down and see exactly where the pitfalls are than to go full bore now and then have total chaos at every level across the board. But I also agree with Civil1 in that many of the issues that could have lead to much better changes within the health care system weren't adequalty addressed in the new legistlation. IMO, I'd say you can blame that on one side of our political system fighting moreso to protect the free market system rather than doing more to ensure the system truly works better for the people as a whole. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to our legistlature to work out the kinks. Let's hope they start working to fix things within the legistlation rather than continuing to win political points for one side over the other.

Frankly, I'm tired of all the "repeal the health care bill" BS. This matter is far too important for individuals, families, small businesses, large corporations and the government (as far as how health care costs - Medicaid and Medicare - will affect the deficits for atleast the next decade) to just contiue to either ignore, play partician games or try to go back to the drawing board.

Evaluate the system, revise the legistlation and give the people and the industry something they can truly work with.

 

[MCS117]

I have to agree with both Boo Radley and Civil1 here.

Our health care system has needed revision for decades and each attempt to improve it either through increasing access to the poor or low-income individuals/families, changing how insurance companies deny coverage and bringing down the cost of health care/medical treatment has been fought back tremendously. As I've said before, until you encounter problems with your health insurance coverage, there isn't a problem. I know for myself and my family, until my step-daughter was diagnoses with an incurrable illness we never had a problem with our health insurance. We did like everyone else - saw our doctor for checkups or whenever we got sick, paid our premiums and co-pays, and lead relatively healthy lives. Until recently, we had no reason to believe we'd every have a situation we're anyone in our family would be denied coverage.

While I'm not 100% in agreement with what was passed, I have to agree with Boo Radley. Something had to be done to change our nation's health care system. So, I'd rather they pass health care legistlation and allow a gap from the time of its passage until its full implementation to allow the health care system, employers, Congress and the people to shake the system down and see exactly where the pitfalls are than to go full bore now and then have total chaos at every level across the board. But I also agree with Civil1 in that many of the issues that could have lead to much better changes within the health care system weren't adequalty addressed in the new legistlation. IMO, I'd say you can blame that on one side of our political system fighting moreso to protect the free market system rather than doing more to ensure the system truly works better for the people as a whole. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to our legistlature to work out the kinks. Let's hope they start working to fix things within the legistlation rather than continuing to win political points for one side over the other.

Frankly, I'm tired of all the "repeal the health care bill" BS. This matter is far too important for individuals, families, small businesses, large corporations and the government (as far as how health care costs - Medicaid and Medicare - will affect the deficits for atleast the next decade) to just contiue to either ignore, play partician games or try to go back to the drawing board.

Evaluate the system, revise the legistlation and give the people and the industry something they can truly work with.

But the plan Obama that has gotten through is a wrench in the system... The bill will not only increase costs, but it also will increase those without health insurance because it does nothing to slow down the rise in costs. I can make the same concept that an engine has engine trouble. You find the problem, and you find ways to fix it. Obama is replacing the entire engine, and quite frankly, he's putting an 18-wheeler engine in a sedan. The plan is essentially filled with bribes and shady deals.... Also I blame the govt' for the problem in the first place. I have pregnancy test in my health care plan....(I'm a guy)...

 

[1069]

Health law could ban low-cost plans

They're merely attempting to stop unscrupulous corporations from defrauding the poor and ignorant.
These so-called "plans" are garbage, which target the segment of the population who can least afford to be cheated, yet who are incapable of reading or understanding the "fine print".

 

[Boo Radley]

They're merely attempting to stop unscrupulous corporations from defrauding the poor and ignorant.
These so-called "plans" are garbage, which target the segment of the population who can least afford to be cheated, yet who are incapable of reading or understanding the "fine print".

Exactly. People need to look closer and not only at the suface.

 

[Boo Radley]

These are not independent factors, they have to be considered in light of one another. If an increase in access of care improves quality of care by a tiny margin, but at a huge cost, then it's not necessarily an improvement.

Same with fixing up a house, they all work together, but still often you can only start with one project at a time. Like any process, sometimes it gets worse before it gets better. I can't think of much that is perfect in the begining and doesn't have to go through a process. The cost we have without reform is huge to begin with. This really won't be much worse, and if we quit fighting it, and start fighting for improvements, our efforts will be more likely to bear fruit.

 

[Boo Radley]

A step that isn't in the right direction is no better than no step at all. The bill primarily attacks insurance, which the non-medicine related parts (administration, marking, and profits) makes up 12% of the cost of insurance premiums, whereas hospitals and doctors make up 52% of costs and not to mentions the costs associated with already present government regulations and interventions. Break the AMA's ability to limit the number of spots in med schools, drop the government regulations which end up setting prices (typically higher prices), and weaken drug patent laws (drug companies make up another 10% of health care costs) and you'll be attacking prices (and therefore access as lower price=increased access) far more effectively than this bill does. And I think that with the possible exception of weakening the drug patent laws, that law would have been easier to pass. But it would have meant less government intervention which would have gone against the credo of those driving the health care debate (things like death panels were only reactionary, the demands for government intervention is what really controlled the debate as no one really took the idea of reform lessening intervention seriously).

While I disagree with your opening premise, as we can fix one thing before tackling another, and often we start with the smallest part, you do correctly indentify real problems. More patients with access will automatically require the AMA release some of their restrictions. ANd the effort the government is making to encourage more docotrs is better than what we had before reform.

What hurt the debate, as it always does, is how easily the waters get muddied. Instead of talking about real issues, we got caught up in death panels and socialism. This forced the WH to seek an enemy, insurance companies. They did this while working with insurance companies. Everyone knew what was going on, but the public is too often like Pavlov's dogs, ring the bell and they go off down the socialism trail without actually asking for the real debate. OUr leaders treat us like we're stupid, ands with reason, we refuse to put that silliness aside and actually demand a real debate. Because of this, straightforward reform is impossible. So, we have to start, and keep working to improve. I probably like it less than most, but would like more failure to anything even less.

 

[Barbbtx]

The American people are shockingly apathetic. People would rather bitch about a Health Care Law than go out and protest it. If it is found to be unconstitutional, then it will be repealed. That's called the democratic process if im not mistaken, folks.

It was protested over and over. Dems decided to shove it through any way! They completely ignored the American people, twisted arms, bought votes etc. to barely squeak it through. All the time blaming the Republicans when they didn't need a single Republican vote. At least bi-partisanship was involved. Bi-Partisonship against the piece of garbage that is. Hopefully any good parts can be salvaged, bad parts trashed and good things added. Good things like being allowed to buy across state lines, and malpractice reform.

 

[Boo Radley]

It was protested over and over. Dems decided to shove it through any way! They completely ignored the American people, twisted arms, bought votes etc. to barely squeak it through. All the time blaming the Republicans when they didn't need a single Republican vote. At least bi-partisanship was involved. Bi-Partisonship against the piece of garbage that is. Hopefully any good parts can be salvaged, bad parts trashed and good things added. Good things like being allowed to buy across state lines, and malpractice reform.

You mean the same American people who want a public option, doing away with pre-existing conditions, and nearly everythign in it?

 

[Civil1z@tion]

They're merely attempting to stop unscrupulous corporations from defrauding the poor and ignorant.
These so-called "plans" are garbage, which target the segment of the population who can least afford to be cheated, yet who are incapable of reading or understanding the "fine print".

So you would instead not have these plans and give them no access? I dislike arguments like these because they ignore that not everyone can afford the same level of coverage, and just paying to have everyone get the same level of coverage either leads to some other form of rationing, or higher prices until even the government isn't willing to pay for everybody. Low cost plans don't provide the most complete coverage but they are better than no coverage. Its like the argument about a "living wage". There is lots of economic evidence that putting in a "living wage" requirement will raise unemployment. So instead of having some people having a job the at least pays something, we end up making these same people unemployed and getting paid nothing. That makes no sense. Its not helping people to "protect" them from cheap plans, its decreasing access.

 

[Cold Highway]

They're merely attempting to stop unscrupulous corporations from defrauding the poor and ignorant.
These so-called "plans" are garbage, which target the segment of the population who can least afford to be cheated, yet who are incapable of reading or understanding the "fine print".

This is a strawman. My health insurance is through my employer and I was able to read the everything just fine.