HealthCare

Mooseman

Isengar Tussle
So what is the truth about this thing?
Factcheck.com seems to have good info, but not a lot.
Does anyone have any other places for good info........
Ok, also your opinions too.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I haven't really been paying attention. Just that apparently people are throwing around a lot of misinformation...
 

turgy22

Nothing Special
I don't know much about the plan that's getting drafted, but I do know that the country is long overdue for health care reform and I think it's necessary to have a government plan as a "catch-all" for anyone that isn't insured.

I really don't understand all these people that are getting so upset on the issue, so if anyone can enlighten me on the views of those opposed to health care reform, I'd be interested in hearing the opposition point of view.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
I've been debating starting a thread on this here, just to see what everyone else thinks. I've done quite a bit of research and I don't guarentee that I understand it 100%, but I've tried to get as clear a picture of it as I can.

Spidey - as far as I can tell, the White House has been claiming that there is a lot of "misinformation" as you say being spread by those who "want to maintain the status quo", but that itself is misinformation. There are a lot of people out there that know that the status quo won't work that oppose the health care bill also and the president has basically claimed that if you don't support this change, then you support status quo, which isn't true. In that vein, they have asked that people report anything "fishy" to an email address at the White House so they can "clear up misunderstandings". I personally feel their motivations are probably innocent, but it doesn't stop the fact that asking for that information is illegal and a tactic used in nazi germany and that is very unfortunate.

As for "misinformation" itself, I don't believe that anyone is intentionally spreading misinformation, but I think there are a lot of people speculating or trying to extrapolate what this health care bill will lead to. As happens with this sort of stuff, a lot of it ends up being presented as if it were fact when the truth is probably somewhere in between. In a few cases (like the whole euthenasia thing), it may be that they are intentionally presenting it this way as a scare tactic.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Disclaimer - the information I have gleaned comes from so many different sources that it would be difficult to provide source information. Regardless, I don't guarentee that any of it is accurate, only that it is what have been able to establish of what I believe to be correct.

In response to turgy, I am opposed to the current health care package. I try to remain as neutral as possible when analyzing it and I don't buy into the hype of some of the doomsayers, but there are a few common sense issues that I am concerned about.

First off, my understanding is that there are two things being proposed here. The one that is most in the center of the controversy is the "public option", but in addition to this, there are a host of regulations that the government wants to put into place for all heath insurance companies. It is often unclear what applies to just the public option and what applies to all heath insurance companies. The one item that concerns me the most on regulations for heath insurance companies is that they will be required to accept all enrollees, regardless of pre-existing conditions. This concerns me because it will lead many to a mentality of not bothering to have coverage until they need it and the insurance companies will have to take them. This will lead to a huge increase in premiums for everyone to compensate, depending on how prevelant that behavior is.

To mitigate that, the government is imposing a surtax on anyone that doesn't have insurance coverage, which may or may not help (given that the surtax is likely less than insurance premiums for many), but strikes me as very "big brother". There is speculation that because the government can decide what is "adequate coverage" that many insurance plans will no longer be available. In particular, there are a lot of healthy individuals who opt for "catastrophe" insurance, which basically means that they pay most of their health care costs out-of-pocket, but are covered 100% on anything big that might happen to them, after a relatively large deductable ($5K was the example I saw). Personally, I think this is a very good option for many people, keeping premiums low since they are unlikely to need much, but covering them if they do have an emergency. Most people can afford $5K in an emergency or have family or friends that would step in to help, so for people who are unlikely to need coverage, this is a good option currently available that may be considered "inadequate" if the new health bill passes and that would be unfortunate.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
But the key here is the public option and what that means. Obama has said countless times that if you like your current health insurance, you can keep it and that is probably the biggest piece of misinformation out there because there are so many other factors that play into that. First and foremost, most people in this country get their insurance from their employer and if your employer decides to stop offering your current coverage, then you cannot keep it.

The question there becomes how likely companies are to stop offering their current coverage and that is unclear to me. It appears that companies will be required to offer the government plan as an option. I don't know what paperwork or fees are required in simply offering a plan to employees, so I don't know what the likelihood is that companies will continue to offer their current plans as well. I'm guessing that a lot will depend on how many people within a company opt for the government plan as the premiums for group policies are usually tied very directly to how many people are insured within the group. Larger groups mean lower premiums, so in most cases, the premiums for the current plan will likely increase, leading to companies only offering the government plan for health insurance (which also reduces paperwork for the HR department). So for most people, it is unlikely that they will be able to continue with their current plan.

Then there is the issue of how insurance companies deal with costs. I have heard at one point that the public option would not be allowed to be subsidized. However, the more I see recently, it appears that this is no longer the case and the public option will be government subsidized. What that means is that every taxpayer will be helping to offset the costs of the public option, even if they have their own insurance. More to the point, what that means is that the public option's premiums will likely be significantly less than premiums from other insurance companies. The White House will spin this and say that insurance companies will be able to compete with the lower premiums if they would cut their marketing budget and administrative costs. Personally, I believe that insurance companies pay their administrators (CEO's, etc) way too much, so I agree that they should make some cuts there, but the fact is that the public option, if indeed subsidized, will create an artificial competition that is effectively rigged.

So, it is my opinion that a lot of health insurance companies will not be able to compete and will eventually go out of business. I don't know how long this will take, but the likely eventual outcome of this is a single payer system. Most people will be on the government's "public option" plan and a few insurance companies will survive, but will be much more expensive. Using Canada as a historical example, the insurance companies that do survive will do so because they can actually take care of people while the socialized...I mean, public option, will mean long waits in lines and other such.

BTW - the problem with socialized medicine isn't that it automatically leads to bad coverage. The problem is that the government dictates how much doctors are paid for procedures under the public option instead of market forces. Insurance companies sometimes aren't much better, but if you try to cut costs by limiting how much you pay doctors, fewer and fewer doctors will be willing to take your insurance (or become doctors in the first place), which leads to longer and longer lines for those doctors that do continue to practice. If the government sets the doctor's wages too high, it means more taxes.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
My response to Obama is that I agree that the status quo is a problem, but I think that the answer is to determine specifically what the problem areas are and to address those problem areas.

For example, they keep quoting a statistic that 57 million americans don't have health insurance, but when you analyze that number, it turns out that a very high percentage of that (I saw a report that said 45%, but I don't know for sure) choose not to have health insurance because they would rather spend their money elsewhere. Another group (I've seen 15%) qualify for Medicare, but haven't bothered to fill out the paperwork. Yet another group (again 15%) are illegal aliens. It turns out that the single mothers that Obama references are a very small fraction. I haven't found anyone who has exact numbers, but every site I've seen that discusses this agrees that it is a small fraction, between 10-20%.

There is also a general consensus that many politicians have received millions of dollars from heath related special interest groups (hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacetical, etc.). The democrats would tell you that every republican is in the back pocket of the heath industry and from what I've seen, that may or may not be true, but there are plenty of democrats back there with them if it is.

My issue is that if these groups have enough money to pay that much to every one of the politicians, and you know that their CEOs and other administrators are also getting million-dollar bonuses, then they must be soaking the consumer to get there. Effectively, the government's plan claim to introduce (artificial) competition to get them to stop doing that. But it seems to me that the first step in true health care reform would be to limit the amount that a politician can receive from the heath industry and limit what types of corporate bonuses administrators can receive. I'm not saying to cut them off completely, but to force them to be reasonable.

Personally, I'm not opposed to requiring companies in the health industry to be non-profit and to set limits on the percentage of income that can be paid to employees (particularly CEOs and bonuses). As for the 57 million uninsured, I wouldn't mind seeing hospitals being required to have (government subsidized even) free walk-in clinics. Such clinics would have long lines and would serve as a triage for non-emergencies. But if people don't have insurance, then they should be happy to have an option. It may not be politically correct to suggest that the single mother with no income have to wait in line while the stuffy aristocrat gets top treatment, but unfortunately, its hard to differentiate between people who can't afford coverage and those who simply choose not to purchase coverage and at least this way they would have something.

In the end, I do agree that something needs to be done, but I think that what is currently on the table is even worse in the long run than what we have now.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for trying to answer some of the questions.

However, like you said, most of what you are saying is your interpretation or thinking of how things will go down. To me, who doesn't know *anything* about this, this isn't that helpful. What would be helpful to me is:

* What exactly is being proposed by the White House?
* How is that being rebutted by the opponents?
 

Melkor

Well-known member
That is a well put together argument Eric, I've come to a different conclusion but I wish the debate was actually on the merits of different health care solutions. Instead it seems the people on the Right have decided to throw a hissy fit.

One of the big problems is that Obama hasn't actually proposed a specific set of legislation and instead has let Congress take the lead. This has lead to a bunch of different bills being introduced, some similar, some not so similar. I'd say that Eric is right that the biggest policy debate right now is over the "Public Option." Because Congress doesn't have a single bill on the table and because it is the most controversial part of the legislation, we don't really know exactly what the public option will look like by the time a semi-final draft is completed. To be perfectly honest, I'm not as familiar with what a public option would do as I am with a Single Payer system.

Unfortunately, it seems the opponents of health care reform seem to have decided to rebutt the proposals by engaging in wild flights of fancy. According to the opponents health care reform is actually a trojan horse for killing the elderly and the disabled. I mean death panels? Are they serious?
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Melkor - HR3200 contains coverage for "end of life counselling". My understanding of this is that if an elderly person wants to sit down with the doctor and discuss options (an example being assited living), that will be covered under HR3200. However, there are concerns over rationing of health care, particularly for the elderly, that are linked to this "end of life counselling". It has been suggested that under HR3200, this counselling is mandatory, which has led many to believe that the true purpose of this counselling is to discuss with elderly whether they should really get the expensive care that would be needed to keep them alive. Honestly, I think that the truth of what would happen on this one depends more upon the individual doctor.

Spidey - Part of the problem is that the exact proposals aren't clear. I know that the government is proposing a public option with the purpose of serving as competition for existing health insurance plans. The rebuttal to that is that it would lead to socialized medicine.

I don't know all of the specifics, but I've given as many of them as I do know.

Melkor - Are there different health care solutions being discussed right now? I'm really only aware of one solution being discussed. I have a different interpretation of what is going on at the town halls than you do. You say "the people on the Right have decided to throw a hissy fit", but from what I've seen, the people attending these town halls have opinions that they want expressed. The people putting on the town halls want to present information and answer questions about what the health care reform bill is, not listen to what the people have to say.

In other words, the senators what to tell the people what they are getting, not to listen to what the people want.

I do agree with you that a lot of the people attending these town halls are not going about it correctly and not being respectful of the people putting them on. If they really want their opinion listened to, they need to be more orderly about it. It seems that there are some people that are trying to do that, but unfortunately, the ones that aren't won't shut up and let that be the case.
 

turgy22

Nothing Special
Melkor;285576 said:
Unfortunately, it seems the opponents of health care reform seem to have decided to rebutt the proposals by engaging in wild flights of fancy. According to the opponents health care reform is actually a trojan horse for killing the elderly and the disabled. I mean death panels? Are they serious?
This is my perception, as well. I think if these people disrupting the town hall meetings formed cogent arguments (like EB) and voiced their criticisms in a reasonable manner, a lot more moderates would start seeing their side of things. Instead, they've chosen to embrace a series of lies and throw tantrums like 2-year olds. It almost makes me suspect that the Democrats are planting these idiots to gain support from moderates.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
lol turgy - the democrats have accused the republicans of organizing these "mobs".

I just checked on whitehouse.gov and according to them, the "end of life counselling" is not mandatory. I think there is a lot of rhetoric on whitehouse.gov, but they don't flat out lie about things, so it seems to me that the euthenasia issue is either based on a misunderstanding and extrapolation or is an intentional scare tactic.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
So if there are different proposals, no wonder it's not clear to me exactly what's going on.

EricBess said:
The people putting on the town halls want to present information and answer questions about what the health care reform bill is, not listen to what the people have to say.

In other words, the senators what to tell the people what they are getting, not to listen to what the people want.
A slight correction to that is that they don't want to hear what the people who are *opposed* to the plans say, not the people as a whole (and from what I understand, it's the opponents that are either talking the loudest or in the most disruptive manner so any supporters can't be heard). So it's a subset of the "people".
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
Man, I have no idea. This is complicated stuff. I think there's a consensus here that we're not too fond of the current system. But any change we make will come with its own set of issues. My general impression is that it's a step in the right direction, but EB has pointed out the concerns with this.

I've heard a bit of hype elsewhere about legal issues with the Obama administration asking people to e-mail about fishy information. And I don't buy it. But I do think they made a serious mistake in posting that. Here's exactly what it says...

There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
I later got the impression that what they meant to do was offer to clarify information and debunk lies that were being spread. Basically, help people have accurate information and that's good. But it's worded very poorly there and easy to misconstrue as a request for people to rat out naysayers. And such a request would be illegal. If I do find out that they're trying to track dissidents, I'll be really, really, really, really mad at them. But I highly doubt that they intend to do so. The other problem is, of course, even if they do something illegal (and in this case totalitarian), who's going to penalize them? But that's another matter...

EricBess;285572 said:
For example, they keep quoting a statistic that 57 million americans don't have health insurance, but when you analyze that number, it turns out that a very high percentage of that (I saw a report that said 45%, but I don't know for sure) choose not to have health insurance because they would rather spend their money elsewhere.
I think that they are oversimplifying things, but it also gets more complicated than trying to break that number into sub-groups like this.

For example, I don't have health insurance. I don't get any through the job I have now, but I'm trying to get into a university in January (don't know if I'll get in yet) and it should work out for that. Of course, this is a conscious decision on my part. I could blow all my money on health insurance and just hope that I can get enough in student loans to pay for school. But I choose not to (because it probably wouldn't work anyway). So if I'm part of your 45% who would rather spend their money elsewhere, fine. But I'd still like some insurance. As it is, if I do happen to get hurt, I'm in big trouble.
 
E

EricBess

Guest
Oversoul;285586 said:
I later got the impression that what they meant to do was offer to clarify information and debunk lies that were being spread. Basically, help people have accurate information and that's good. But it's worded very poorly there and easy to misconstrue as a request for people to rat out naysayers. And such a request would be illegal. If I do find out that they're trying to track dissidents, I'll be really, really, really, really mad at them. But I highly doubt that they intend to do so. The other problem is, of course, even if they do something illegal (and in this case totalitarian), who's going to penalize them? But that's another matter...
Yes, I get the exact same impression. The problem is, if they were trying to track dissidents, this is exactly the message that they would use to do it, which is why it isn't even legal for them to ask for that information in the first place. I'm pretty confident that their intentions are legit. [Edit] BTW - As long as they don't start offering rewards, I'm not concerned by it.

For example, I don't have health insurance. I don't get any through the job I have now, but I'm trying to get into a university in January (don't know if I'll get in yet) and it should work out for that. Of course, this is a conscious decision on my part. I could blow all my money on health insurance and just hope that I can get enough in student loans to pay for school. But I choose not to (because it probably wouldn't work anyway). So if I'm part of your 45% who would rather spend their money elsewhere, fine. But I'd still like some insurance. As it is, if I do happen to get hurt, I'm in big trouble.
Yes, you are part of that 45%. The people they interviewed said the same thing, "I would like insurance, but I would rather spend my money elsewhere." So they weren't saying that it wouldn't be a burden for members of this 45% to get insurance, only that they could afford it if they prioritized it.

That's why something like catastrophe insurance is such a good option for someone in your position. It basically doesn't provide any coverage for day-to-day stuff. But as you say, if you get hurt, catastrophe insurance would step in and limit your damages.

My hope is that such insurance is eventually deemed "adaquate".

Spidey - I just listened to another one of the videos on whitehouse.gov and I get the impression that there are multiple proposals, but that they are all basically the same, with some differences in the specifics (such as the last point on what is considered adaquate coverage).
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
<shrug> I don't see the harm in asking for the stuff. Heck, it's bad enough that such misinformation is spreading in the first place. It's the same kind of thing where people send in urban legends and the like to snopes.com (although I guess that's a more "neutral" third party).

So if the proposals are mostly the same, what's the basics?
 
E

EricBess

Guest
The central piece of all of the proposals is a government funded public option. They intend to keep premiums low through 1) no marketing expense, 2) low administrative cost, and 3) government subsidies.

Honestely, I would be more supportive of this if it weren't for the government subsidies. If they were just setting up a new heath insurance company that needed to stand on it's own merits, but without all of the overhead (and corporate greed), they why not?

Exactly what is covered or is not covered is up for debate and some are hot topics. For example, should such a plan cover abortion?

There was also a list of items that I believe was on whitehouse.gov discussing specific regulations for all health insurance providers (such as not allowing discrimination based on pre-existing conditions), but the way they have their site set up, I'm having trouble finding it again :( If I find something, I'll post a link.

HR3200 is the one currently up for a vote and it is supposedly over 1000 pages long, though I haven't been able to find the full text, just extrapolations of specific sections :(
 

Oversoul

The Tentacled One
EricBess;285572 said:
There is also a general consensus that many politicians have received millions of dollars from heath related special interest groups (hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacetical, etc.). The democrats would tell you that every republican is in the back pocket of the heath industry and from what I've seen, that may or may not be true, but there are plenty of democrats back there with them if it is.

My issue is that if these groups have enough money to pay that much to every one of the politicians, and you know that their CEOs and other administrators are also getting million-dollar bonuses, then they must be soaking the consumer to get there. Effectively, the government's plan claim to introduce (artificial) competition to get them to stop doing that. But it seems to me that the first step in true health care reform would be to limit the amount that a politician can receive from the heath industry and limit what types of corporate bonuses administrators can receive. I'm not saying to cut them off completely, but to force them to be reasonable.
The more I think about this, the more I like it. I don't know why we're not doing this sort of thing already. Obviously it won't solve everything, but it's a step in the right direction and I can't think of a reason not to do it. Not sure about the details, though. My preference would be to say that legislators, at least, can't take a dime.
 

Melkor

Well-known member
Oversoul;285606 said:
The more I think about this, the more I like it. I don't know why we're not doing this sort of thing already. Obviously it won't solve everything, but it's a step in the right direction and I can't think of a reason not to do it. Not sure about the details, though. My preference would be to say that legislators, at least, can't take a dime.
Well, even if Congress had the nerve to actually turn off the Insurance Lobby's money spigot, it wouldn't last. The conservative wing of the Supreme Court is probably going to do some activist judging of its own in the next couple years and give Corporations the same 1st Amendment rights as actual Persons when it comes to campaign contributions. That'll probably accompany a big change in 1st Amendment jurisprudence concerning campaign contributions in general.
 
Top