Riverside Info » About Riverside

Health Care problem

(120 posts)
1 2 3 ... 12

  1. mrt
    Member

    in response to a post re HC

    http://www.riversideinfo.org/forum/topic/700-pm-1000-pm-tonight-boe-state-of-district-forum-little-theatre/page/2#post-12309

    While I believe the status quo in HC is not good ...

    - only people who happen to have an employer who happens to pay a good amount of the premium for reasonable healthcare and who have no pre existing health issue get to live and have healthcare (not good for the people who were dislocated from their jobs thru no fault of their own and not good for the employers since this saps more of their already diminishing assets on what is properly a public good, almost like employers paying for expressways) -

    ...and I understand that the 'perfect is the enemy of the good' (if we wait for the perfect solution we'll stay with the status quo), many of those elements cited in that letter are very troubling indeed. Ideally, the gov't should be insinuating itself not between the doctor and the patient but between the insurance company and the patient, prohibiting, for example, an insurance company from excluding an applicant for health care due to pre existing condition.

    Hopefully, we can remove the most egregious of those elements from the current Act in the senate now. Wasnt there a big attempt in the 90s for HC reform and , failing a perfect solution, we still got the status quo? If we are waiting for something that EVERYONE likes, it just won't happen, and we're back to the status quo.

    Naive question: as I understand the HC issue, medicare is already provided to certain segments of society, elderly and very poor, and it seems that there is not that much criticism even tho this is a form of 'creeping socialism'. Why not just simply expand Medicare to more segments of our citizenry? Go from a 2,700 pg Act to a 30 page Act?

    Posted Tuesday Mar 16, 2010 11:19 #

  2. mr
    Member

    The major criticism of Medicare and Medicaid is that they are broke. Congress has had the chance for decades to enact Medicare reform that cuts costs and addresses fraud and abuse. Yet every time they get a recommendation from some sort of bipartisan commission, they fail to enact cost savings measures. Their " out of the box" idea is to cut reimbursements to providers.

    Based on what I have seen with pensions, it has become increasingly clear to me that elected officials use taxpayer money to buy votes. As a result, our populace is motivated by disincentives that increase cost and inefficiencies. We will become increasingly uncompetitive globally. You got to wonder why the state of CT mandates that all health insurance policies cover hair transplants.

    Yes, I think we need some health care reform and at one point would have been willing to make some sacrifice for it. But too many "friends" of elected officials, such as unions and trial attornies and the elected officials themselves were unwilling to make the same sacrifice. So now, neither am I.

    Posted Tuesday Mar 16, 2010 12:06 #

  3. mrt
    Member

    I just saw that the Indiana letter from that 'patriot' was erroneous.

    Someone should put up a criticism of the current bill in the Senate so that we can see what is before us. Does the current bill have provisions for coverage, for example, for EVERYONE, US citizen or not, illegal or not? So not only would the US be the world's policeman but also the world's doc. Not enuf mites in this widow's cupboard to pay for that!

    Mr, that is a pretty significant criticism of medicare , that it is broke and awash with bloat and fraud. It is quite reasonable for the paying citizens to demand that what they are paying for is tightly *and reasonably* run as possible. See other related comment in the HS thread for the need for reasonable cuts.

    Posted Tuesday Mar 16, 2010 12:14 #

  4. anonymous
    Member

    SOME of the items MAY be erroneous. NOT ALL. How do we know? That's what is so frightful about it. What else is frightful, again, is what Nancy Pelosi said: "We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it

    Posted Tuesday Mar 16, 2010 17:03 #

  5. PAR4
    Member

    Actually, she's only relaying the historical truth. Pretty much all the bills that get presented are so bloated with pork and localized fluff that none of these idiots even know what they are voting for. They pay clerks to read it all, summarize it for them, tell them what they can add by making back room deals with others and then they all vote it through and have a party because they have done something for the taxpayer - until we realize that what they've done is given their constituents and their sponsors big gifts at the expense of the general public.

    Every politician that runs on a 'I'm gonna be different' platform soon realizes he won't get very far being 'different'....

    Posted Tuesday Mar 16, 2010 19:02 #

  6. anonymous
    Member

    Perhaps. However, the bills that are historically passed do not fundamentally transform our country with the government taking over one 6th of our economy. Seems to me that THAT bill should be studied and scrutinized by the all of the people. Where is it? What EXACTLY is in it? Until it's presented before it's voted on, I will believe it is more likely than not what it contained in the letter to Senator Bayh.

    Let's not forget, the Nebraska Kickback the Louisiana Purchase and the exemption of the unions are in it. If it's so good, then why are the unions exempt?

    Posted Tuesday Mar 16, 2010 21:36 #

  7. mrt
    Member

    Is the Health Reform bill - whether the House, WH, or Senate versions - currently under consideration available on the internet somwhere?

    Posted Thursday Mar 18, 2010 10:14 #

  8. ChrisHajer
    Member

    mrt, I heard they were going to put it online on Thursday (today), and leave it online for 72 hrs, and not vote on it before those 72 hrs have elapsed.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000691-503544.html

    Posted Thursday Mar 18, 2010 10:25 #

  9. mrt
    Member

    THanks, chris. I guess that would be 900 pages per day to consume. But, like SETI, with enough people reading and analysing it, maybe we could get some meaningful info on it. I wonder if there is a statute that governs whether, or how long, a bill needs to be available to the general public before being voted on. Or was this 72 hour simply the Dems being 'nice guys'? I wonder what the typical or standard rules or protocols of operation are, whether for a republican or a democratic bill, for Federal Bills under consideration or voting. What, and when, is typically made public?

    Isn't there something like this in our local Village Board proceedings, or is it simply the agenda of what will be voted on that needs to be published (24 hours?) ahead of time?

    Posted Thursday Mar 18, 2010 10:58 #

  10. mr
    Member

    The Senate bill is what will be "deemed" in. Supposedly there will be amendments to that bill, but no one really knows what they are. The CBO came out with a score today, but the analysis won't be available until later. The score, presumably, is determined from changes to the bill. We don't know if that score is the result of increases in taxes or reductions in benefits. I did read that one of the things the unions lost was the inflation indexing of the premium size of a cadillac plan. Before, it was the rate of inflation + 1%. Now it is just the rate of inflation. Don't know if inflation rate is medical inflation rate or just general inflation.

    I actually believe that the 72 hours is for the members to read the bill. I am not sure that it has anything to do with the public - or even posting it online. The clock is already ticking - it is set to when the CBO score comes out.

    Also, there were some questions here about Medicare. People should be aware that supposedly if Medicare denies a claim because it is not covered, your doctor may not treat you, at your request, and bill you anyway. I was surprised at this when I read it, but I have read it a couple of times. There are some people who pay more for their medicare - because of their income. Think about it - they pay more than others to support the program - but still can't spend there own money for treatments Medicare won't pay. If anyone has more information on treatment outside of Medicare, I would be interested.

    Also, I read today that Daniel Rostekowski still receives a cadillac health plan courtesy of the US tax payers. For me, the interesting part of this is not that as a felon, he did not lose his benefits, but that he is over 65 and does not have to rely on Medicare.

    Posted Thursday Mar 18, 2010 11:11 #

RSS feed for this topic

1 2 3 ... 12

Reply »

You must log in to post.