Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Socialist HealthcareFollow

#1 Jun 16 2009 at 6:24 AM Rating: Sub-Default
Quote:
Which is why Section 133 of the Kennedy bill grandfathers in every union-negotiated health plan that apes union health plans for workers and prohibits companies from transferring workers into the public "option."


Quote:
First, it borrows. But who's counting or keeping track?

Second, it creates "Gateways" that are supposed to create groups of purchasers to reduce the cost of insurance. In fact, since insurance companies have already made it clear that they can provide guaranteed coverage without regard to the size of purchasing pools, why are such Gateways necessary? Because, as agents of the federal government, Gateways collect a tax on the insurance premiums of the young, healthy and health-conscious to subsidize the cost of insurance for those who now have no incentive to improve their health.


Quote:
Third, in order to subsidize the sort of health plans that broke the bank at GM, the Kennedy bill taxes the health benefits of others, particular those in self-insured corporations that are doing the most innovative things to improve quality and reduce costs.


Quote:
Today, Obama would slash payments and choices to seniors -- mostly the sickest -- to help pay for GM-type health plans, retiree slush funds, and the mass relocation of middle-class Americans into a richer version of the Indian Health Service. On top of that, the Kennedy bill costs $1 trillion to "cover" 16 million new people in the process. By tossing 40 million out of private insurance no less. Not only is it not right. It's incompetent.



http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/16/a-trillion-dollars-in-incompet


Hope you people take good care of yourself.

#2 Jun 16 2009 at 6:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Wow, a right-wing media site carried an opinion column generated by a think tank funded by the pharmaceutical industry? Well, I'm convinced. Thanks!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#3 Jun 16 2009 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
Wait wait wait. STOP THE PRESSES!!!

A conservative columnist wrote an editorial for a magazine dedicated to publishing conservative editorials that disagrees with a national healthcare plan?!

No. way.
#4 Jun 16 2009 at 6:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Way.

Hang on, I need to check Mother Jones for a suitable retort to this column.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Jun 16 2009 at 7:00 AM Rating: Good
*****
12,049 posts
Haha, I read the title when opening the forum and thought to myself "Varrus has done it again!"
#6 Jun 16 2009 at 7:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
OK virus.

How come I pay 30% less tax for healthcare than you, yet I and every other Brit has universal healthcare?

Odd?
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#7 Jun 16 2009 at 7:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
And here's where unchecked capitalism gets us. The site requires registration so the article is reproduced in its entirety below.

Quote:
Retainer Physicians Help Uninsured But Face Legal Obstacles

Robert Lowes


June 4, 2009 — Instead of waiting for Washington, DC, to solve the problem of the uninsured, general surgeon John Muney, MD, in New York City launched his own reform program last year.

He began offering unlimited primary and urgent care to patients at his 5 clinics for $79 per month, plus a $10 copay for acute-care visits.

It's an arrangement that appeals to many physicians — a direct financial relationship with patients that bypasses insurers, their paperwork, and their profit margins. However, Dr. Muney's plan didn't pass muster with the New York state insurance department. The reason? Dr. Muney, the department ruled, was operating as an unlicensed insurer.

This regulatory obstacle has emerged in other states where primary care physicians have charged monthly retainer fees. And when state legislators have sought to exempt these practices from insurance regulations, they've met resistance from the health insurance industry. However, retainer physicians have won legal standing in Washington state, where some employers are starting to provide their employees with paid membership in these practices along with high-deductible health coverage for hospitalization and specialty care.

"It's an idea that can save the healthcare system," said Seattle internist Garrison Bliss, MD, president of a 7-physician group called Qliance that has pioneered this practice model.

Insurers Want Level Playing Field

Physicians like Dr. Bliss make up a minority of "concierge" physicians who charge retainer fees. Most of these practitioners accept reimbursement from a patient's health insurer for office visits and procedures, and charge the retainer fee for services not covered by insurance, such as comprehensive annual physicals, 24/7 cell-phone access to the physician, and same-day appointments, said family physician Thomas LaGrelius, MD, in Torrance, California. He is board chairman of the Society for Innovative Medical Practice Design, which includes many conciergists.

In contrast, the monthly fee charged by the likes of Dr. Muney and Dr. Bliss cover most if not all the services they provide — office visits, minor procedures like wart removal, onsite tests, even X-rays — regardless of whether the patient is insured. Family physician Vic Wood, DO, in Wheeling, WV, throws in crutches and tetanus shots under his $83 monthly fee for an individual. No insurance company cuts a check. At the same time, such physicians stress that their fees do not cover a hospital stay, outside specialty care, or prescription drugs.

Physicians who guarantee primary and urgent care for a monthly fee, however, strike the health insurers as competition, especially as these companies market "mini-medical" or limited-benefit plans of their own at similar rates. "If a person is providing an insurance product, they should be licensed and follow the same rules as all insurance carriers," Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesperson for American's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, told Medscape Medical News.

States, for example, require insurers to have financial reserves as proof they can deliver on their promises to insurees. That concern figured into Dr. Muney's run-in with New York regulators, who forced him this year to raise the copay on acute-care visits from $10 to $33 — an amount covering Dr. Muney's costs — and limit these visits to 15 per year.

"We want to ensure solvency," said Andrew Mais, a state insurance department spokesperson. However, the $33 copay on top of the retainer fee will discourage patients from signing up, Dr. Muney told Medscape Medical News.

Dr. LaGrelius thinks it is unfair to view colleagues like Dr. Muney as insurers like Humana or Cigna, noting that such physicians typically have far smaller panel sizes than those who accept reimbursement from health plans, minimizing the risk of getting overextended. "There hasn't been a single case of a patient complaining that he didn't get the service he was promised," said Dr. LaGrelius.

Retainer Practices Seek "Legal Certainty"

The debate about retainer practices and insurance has reached state legislatures. The controversy over Dr. Muney led to a bill pending in the current session of the New York State Assembly that would essentially exempt retainer practices like his from insurance regulation.

Dr. Wood sought that same kind of law in West Virginia several years ago after the state insurance department threatened to prosecute him for operating as an unlicensed insurer. The legislation died, thanks in part to lobbying by the insurance industry, but Dr. Wood eventually got what he wanted when his practice was later included in a state pilot project testing the value of prepaid primary care for the uninsured.

Sonia Chambers, who chairs the West Virginia Health Care Authority, told Medscape Medical News that her agency has yet to evaluate the pilot project, which consists of 5 providers and some 550 patients. This experiment looks promising enough, however, to state Rep. Eric Koch of Indiana, who introduced a bill this year to establish a similar pilot project in his state. The bill died in committee, but Koch said he hopes to reintroduce it in the next session. More physicians will consider the retainer model, he said, if they have "the legal certainty that they aren't offering an illegal insurance policy."

Legal certainty arrived for Dr. Bliss and other physicians charging all-encompassing retainer fees in Washington state in 1997, when lawmakers there exempted them from strict insurance regulations and substituted less onerous ones, such as the requirement to accept all patients, regardless of health status. And just this year, the state legislature broadened opportunities for retainer practices by allowing them to accept their fees directly from a patient's employer.

Before this law was enacted, employers who wanted to offer employees paid membership in a retainer practice had to funnel the fee to them through a health savings account (HSA) or health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), and let the employee pay the bill himself, says Chapin Henry, the membership development director at Qliance, the group practice of Dr. Bliss. Fourteen employers so far have gone this route with Qliance, said Mr. Henry, with most of them giving their employees high-deductible insurance coverage as well.

One Washington state employer intending to exploit the new law on direct payment is Tri-Tec Manufacturing, which makes naval piping equipment. Tri-Tec provides its 38 employees with traditional health insurance, but rising costs forced the company to raise the deductible from $200 to $1500 during the past 2 years to keep the premium affordable, said company technology director Rick Cordray. At the same time, Tri-Tec reimburses employees for 75% of their deductible expenses through an HRA. Mr. Cordray said the company plans to offer employees paid enrollment in Qliance this summer with the hope that the more they see Dr. Bliss and his colleagues, the less they will tap their HRA for other medical costs.

Qliance charges patients $49 to $129 per month, depending on their age and the level of care desired. Because Qliance eliminates the deductible and copays that sometimes discourage people from seeking medical care, employees won't have to decide if they're sick enough to see a physician, said Mr. Cordray. "We like the Qliance model — 'come in anytime, you've already paid.' "

That same open-door model also appeals to the 10% to 15% of Qliance patients who lack any sort of health coverage. "We can take care of 70% to 90% of their medical needs," said Dr. Bliss. For Dr. John Muney in New York City, all of the patients who pay him a monthly retainer fee are uninsured, many of them victims of the recent economic downturn. "My plan is the next best thing to sliced bread for them," said Dr. Muney, who unlike Bliss, accepts health-plan reimbursement for patients who have insurance.

Band-Aid or Building Block?

To Princeton University healthcare economist Uwe Reinhardt, retainer practices do not represent a long-term solution to the problem of the uninsured. "It's just a Band-Aid over a festering sore," said Mr. Reinhardt. "It might seduce people into a false sense of security. However, relative to a horrible insurance situation in America, it fills a need."

For his part, Dr. Bliss argues that retainer practices can be a key building block in a revamped healthcare system. Financing primary care and its steady stream of small charges through traditional health insurance, he said, not only wastes money in administrative costs, but forces physicians to earn a living in a grueling piecework manner, seeing patients every 12 minutes. However, insurance coverage is still needed for catastrophic, big-ticket medical problems. It'd be affordable for everyone, said Dr. Bliss, if primary care were removed from the insurance equation and financed instead through retainer practices. In the process, his field could thrive again, attracting more physicians.

Dr. Bliss said he's taking this message to lawmakers in Washington, DC, as they craft healthcare reform legislation.

"I love insurance," said Dr. Bliss. "I own plenty of it. But if we don't move away from our current system, we're going to bankrupt the country."


____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Jun 16 2009 at 7:03 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
I fail to see how this is all that socialist.
#9 Jun 16 2009 at 7:04 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

Quote:
think tank funded by the pharmaceutical industry


You didn't dispute anything that was stated; but that's typical for liberals, attack the source.

And I'd rather trust what the pharmaceutical industry has to say on the matter than the federal govn who is trying to take over the industry.


Ambrya,

Jophed already did the attack the source defense. Anything new to add? I mean it's not like actual intelligent opinions are given an oppurtunity to be heard.

Have you heard about Obama admin taking over ABC?

Boy I bet W would have liked to have had control over the programming of the major networks.



Edited, Jun 16th 2009 11:08am by publiusvarus
#10 Jun 16 2009 at 7:06 AM Rating: Default
Nobby,

The quality of care isn't comparable. And you Brits don't mind using all the advances in medical technology that the US create but sure as h*ll don't want to pay for the research and development yourself.

#11 Jun 16 2009 at 7:15 AM Rating: Default
Section 133 of the Kennedy bill grandfathers in every union-negotiated health plan that apes union health plans for workers and prohibits companies from transferring workers into the public "option."


Do any of you liberals have the balls to discuss section 133? Ask yourselfs why the unions want to grandfather these union-negotiated health plans and PROHIBIT companies from transferring workers to the PUBLIC OPTION? If the public option is so good why would the Obama Unions not want to opt in?

Fortunately I take care of myself and because of that my healthcare is relatively inexpensive and I don't have to worry about my business forcing me to take the PUBLIC OPTION.



Edited, Jun 16th 2009 11:17am by publiusvarus
#12 Jun 16 2009 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
You didn't dispute anything that was stated
Nothing much was stated. I don't know where he got his numbers from, so they're pretty meaningless to me.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jun 16 2009 at 7:18 AM Rating: Default
Jophed,

SECTION 133...any thoughts why the public option is good for everyone EXCEPT the Unions?

#14 Jun 16 2009 at 7:18 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,909 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophed already did the attack the source defense. Anything new to add? I mean it's not like actual intelligent opinions are given an oppurtunity to be heard.


I found this line in particular very telling.
#15 Jun 16 2009 at 7:21 AM Rating: Default
Any of you pinko commies want to talk about section 133?

#16 Jun 16 2009 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Do any of you liberals have the balls to discuss section 133? Ask yourselfs why the unions want to grandfather these union-negotiated health plans and PROHIBIT companies from transferring workers to the PUBLIC OPTION?
Actually, unions would be able to terminate the agreement and thusly go to the Public Health Service Act provisions if they so chose. However, the Public Health Service Act does not immediately over ride the contracts made prior to its passage. What companies can't do is use the passage of the Public Health Service Act as an excuse to break their union contracts (without permission from the union).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Jun 16 2009 at 7:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Ministry of Silly Cnuts
*****
19,524 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Nobby,

The quality of care isn't comparable. And you Brits don't mind using all the advances in medical technology that the US create but sure as h*ll don't want to pay for the research and development yourself.



1. In most cases, yes it is. Apart from certain Cancers, in most long-term conditions we're way ahead of you. But I suppose the World Health Organisation is a liberal lap-dog to rampant socialism.

2. Britain generates a significant proportion of medical technology and R&D (disproportionately large based on population or expenditure as a % of GDP), but I'm assuming that JAMA, the BMJ & other medical research journals are also in communist hands.

And it's odd that so many of my co-workers are constantly invited to USA to teach them how we've managed to deliver care with better outcomes & patient satisfcation, more quickly, and for less money in a wide range of conditions.

Big factors in why your system is so inefficient include:

  • - The mahoossive over-use of diagnostics (current evidence says about 70% of MRI's, CTs and CAT scans in USA are un-necessary, and about 40% of those are actively harmful)
  • - The outrageous financial incentive for your system to prescribe un-necessary drugs
  • - Built-in pecuniary incentives for invasive procedures that do more harm than good. (Check out how many people have operations for hernia or Hip/Knee replacements and report more discomfort and less mobility post-surgery - it's scary)
  • - The profit margins of Health Insurance companies - an overhead most developed countries have excluded from their healthcare system
  • - Your management costs - about double those of UK, France or Canadia


Anyway. Have to go plan the next visit to VHA to show them how we deliver renal care for 1/3rd of the cost and with a 24% higher survival rate. Byee.
____________________________
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
#18 Jun 16 2009 at 7:29 AM Rating: Default
Jophiel,

Quote:
Actually, unions would be able to terminate the agreement and thusly go to the Public Health Service Act provisions if they so chose


If they chose...I like that knowing d*mn well they would never chose to.
#19 Jun 16 2009 at 7:37 AM Rating: Decent
Nobby,

Quote:
In most cases, yes it is. Apart from certain Cancers


Now take a look at some others stats;

Quote:
Studies show that only 5 percent of Americans wait more than four months for surgery, compared with 23 percent of Australians, 26 percent of New Zealanders, 27 percent of Canadians, and 36 percent of Britons.


Quote:
Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and one-third as many MRI scanners. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_61/ai_n31875118/
#20 Jun 16 2009 at 7:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
If they chose...I like that knowing d*mn well they would never chose to.
Well, not if their current contract is better, of course not. If (to make up numbers) my union plan covers 95% of my health costs and the government plan covers 85%, why would I switch? But me staying at 95% doesn't make 85% a bad number. On the other hand, if the current union contract calls for 70% coverage, it makes sense to go to the government 85% plan -- and makes sense that the law would allow this since its purpose is to provide this minimum level of coverage.

What exactly am I supposed to be defending here?

Edited, Jun 16th 2009 10:41am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Jun 16 2009 at 7:55 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
yeah, every time a US health care thread happens I'm happy that I live in Canadia.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#22 Jun 16 2009 at 7:55 AM Rating: Decent
Jophiel,

Quote:
Kennedy bill grandfathers in every union-negotiated health plan


Why not grand-father in every negotiated health plan? Why is this grandfather clause restricted to unions?

#23 Jun 16 2009 at 7:57 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Jophiel wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
If they chose...I like that knowing d*mn well they would never chose to.
Well, not if their current contract is better, of course not. If (to make up numbers) my union plan covers 95% of my health costs and the government plan covers 85%, why would I switch? But me staying at 95% doesn't make 85% a bad number. On the other hand, if the current union contract calls for 70% coverage, it makes sense to go to the government 85% plan -- and makes sense that the law would allow this since its purpose is to provide this minimum level of coverage.

What exactly am I supposed to be defending here?
Varrus thinks that the government should force all unions to end their existing contracts, and do whatever the government tells them to. I think. It's hard to say.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#24 Jun 16 2009 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
publiusvarus wrote:

Quote:
Britain has only one-fourth as many CT scanners per capita as the U.S., and one-third as many MRI scanners. The rate at which the British provide coronary-bypass surgery or angioplasty to heart patients is only one-fourth the U.S. rate, and hip replacements are only two-thirds the U.S. rate. The rate for treating kidney failure (dialysis or transplant) is five times higher in the U.S. for patients between the ages of 45 and 84, and nine times higher for patients 85 years or older.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_9_61/ai_n31875118/


Didn't a linked article just say that the US performs waaaay too many unnecessary diagnostic procedures like MRIs and CT scans, and has a huge level of discontent with problems after operations like hip or knee replacements?
#25 Jun 16 2009 at 7:58 AM Rating: Good
*****
10,601 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Jophiel,

Quote:
Kennedy bill grandfathers in every union-negotiated health plan


Why not grand-father in every negotiated health plan? Why is this grandfather clause restricted to unions?

Because without unions it's up to the company to do whatever they want. They can keep their current plan or go to the new one. Just like the unions.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#26 Jun 16 2009 at 8:04 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
Kennedy bill grandfathers in every union-negotiated health plan
Why not grand-father in every negotiated health plan? Why is this grandfather clause restricted to unions?
Beats me. Go tell Kennedy you don't think it goes far enough.

Was that supposed to make me think that not allowing companies to terminate existing union contracts is a bad idea? Because... umm... it didn't work.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
« Previous 1 2 3
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 217 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (217)