Health Care Reform

[Rope]

If you're of the opinion that government involvement in your heath care is a good idea, watch this segment from 60 minutes which aired 10-25-2009. The government plainly can't manage any public fund or program without corruption and loss to the taxpayer.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minu...8JcB58XdIud78c

Once the video loads and you watch the first ad, click on the first dot in the lower bar, you will then be required to watch a second commercial, then the segment will start relating to Medicare.

Rope

[GoldTeethII]

Originally Posted by Rope

If you're of the opinion that government involvement in your heath care is a good idea, watch this segment from 60 minutes which aired 10-25-2009. The government plainly can't manage any public fund or program without corruption and loss to the taxpayer.

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/60_minu...8JcB58XdIud78c

Once the video loads and you watch the first ad, click on the first dot in the lower bar, you will then be required to watch a second commercial, then the segment will start relating to Medicare.

Rope

I just popped into this thread out of boredom. All I read was the post above. I did not watch the video.

But it seems to me that there will always be corruption and fraud in any institution that is very large and deals with large amounts of money. This will be true of government run programs and privately run programs.

So, it seems to me that the claims about fraud and corruption do not give any reason to favor one view on health care over the other. On the basis of this reason alone, the scales are evenly weighted against either position. So, the decision about health care reform will have to be made on some other basis.

[Rope]

Originally Posted by scubabob

Again, regarding fraud and corruption. If the private sector company is investigated and found to have committed an illegal act (Madoff), those responsible are fined, imprisoned, etc. If the federal government is suspected of fraud and/or corruption, first they have to investigate themselves. This part alone is very difficult since the process itself is politically driven (Rangel). Even if fraud is found, nothing comparable happens (Madoff, medicare, social security)! Those responsible in the federal oversight agencies/committees are never arrested, fined, or held personally responsible (banking, SEC/Frank/Dodd/Bush). Those in congress shrug it off or even worse, blame it on inadequate funding. I am not going to stand by and say, "fraud happens," when it is committed by government with money stolen from me, or with the full expectation it will happen again in UHC using history as a guide. With private business, I can switch, opt out, or choose not to participate in the first place.

I've got a good answer for the basic question on whether the health care industry should be left to the private sector or taken over by the public option: legality, and my prior post left last night.

Very true, the government will raise our taxes to pay the shortfall, or print more money without substantial backing, which inturn creates a larger deficit which continues to accrue interest at an alarming rate.

When a government administered fund looses 60 billion dollars to fraud annually and no one in government either cares or takes action to stop the financial bleeding, something is terribly wrong. Easy come, easy go.

Rope

[scubabob]

Originally Posted by GoldTeethII

I just popped into this thread out of boredom. All I read was the post above. I did not watch the video.

But it seems to me that there will always be corruption and fraud in any institution that is very large and deals with large amounts of money. This will be true of government run programs and privately run programs.

So, it seems to me that the claims about fraud and corruption do not give any reason to favor one view on health care over the other. On the basis of this reason alone, the scales are evenly weighted against either position. So, the decision about health care reform will have to be made on some other basis.

Again, regarding fraud and corruption. If the private sector company is investigated and found to have committed an illegal act (Madoff), those responsible are fined, imprisoned, etc. If the federal government is suspected of fraud and/or corruption, first they have to investigate themselves. This part alone is very difficult since the process itself is politically driven (Rangel). Even if fraud is found, nothing comparable happens (Madoff, medicare, social security)! Those responsible in the federal oversight agencies/committees are never arrested, fined, or held personally responsible (banking, SEC/Frank/Dodd/Bush). Those in congress shrug it off or even worse, blame it on inadequate funding. I am not going to stand by and say, "fraud happens," when it is committed by government with money stolen from me, or with the full expectation it will happen again in UHC using history as a guide. With private business, I can switch, opt out, or choose not to participate in the first place.

I've got a good answer for the basic question on whether the health care industry should be left to the private sector or taken over by the public option: legality, and my prior post left last night.

[DIYer]

Pelosi keeps repeating, "affordable quality" care for everyone. Yeah, those two words really go together well, don't they, especially when managed by the fed.

[bfore13]

Originally Posted by GoldTeethII

I just popped into this thread out of boredom. All I read was the post above. I did not watch the video.

But it seems to me that there will always be corruption and fraud in any institution that is very large and deals with large amounts of money. This will be true of government run programs and privately run programs.

So, it seems to me that the claims about fraud and corruption do not give any reason to favor one view on health care over the other. On the basis of this reason alone, the scales are evenly weighted against either position. So, the decision about health care reform will have to be made on some other basis.

While you're correct that there will be corruption/fraud when dealing with large amounts of money, there's a huge difference in how much it happens in federally run health programs vs. private insurers. Private insurers have invested in systems/processes that minimize waste, abuse and fraud (WAF) and work hard to correct these issues when they arise. The fed govt, however, don't really have watchdog systems to fight WAF and we're stuck paying for billions of dollars of WAF every year. The fed govt hypes how they can administer Medicare for 2% of the total dollars but this doesn't include any of the money lost through WAF.

[akula]

Originally Posted by bfore13

While you're correct that there will be corruption/fraud when dealing with large amounts of money, there's a huge difference in how much it happens in federally run health programs vs. private insurers. Private insurers have invested in systems/processes that minimize waste, abuse and fraud (WAF) and work hard to correct these issues when they arise. The fed govt, however, don't really have watchdog systems to fight WAF and we're stuck paying for billions of dollars of WAF every year. The fed govt hypes how they can administer Medicare for 2% of the total dollars but this doesn't include any of the money lost through WAF.

It also doesn't take into account assorted cost saving measures used by private insurers that Medicaid doesn't bother with. If there's a generic drug available, most people with "regular" insurance will opt for it due to the much lower co-pay. People on Medicaid are usually only paying a buck (if that, many copays are a few cents or flat out free), so guess what- they always want the brand name. Doesn't matter that there's a limited amount of Medicaid money, and when they get the brand name stuff that's three other scripts that could have been filled by the state for others, but hell no- they don't care, it's all the same to them so they want the "good" stuff.

I wonder how much could be saved by switching to a "generic only" policy (some states may have already, Missouri hasn't). It reminds me of my days working in the grocery store; the folks using food stamps weren't the ones buying store brand or using coupons (even though they could have stretched their food dollars by doing so).

The government health plans seem rife for fraud and other waste because they don't bother with the overhead to prevent them. Just pulling a number out of my rear, I wouldn't be surprised if a $1 trillion health plan run by the government wouldn't be flushing $100 billion down the toilet via similar methods.

[jestagrl79]

Originally Posted by akula

People on Medicaid are usually only paying a buck (if that, many copays are a few cents or flat out free), so guess what- they always want the brand name. Doesn't matter that there's a limited amount of Medicaid money, and when they get the brand name stuff that's three other scripts that could have been filled by the state for others, but hell no- they don't care, it's all the same to them so they want the "good" stuff.

1) People on state/government insurance in IA are required to get generics unless the doctor says otherwise. Many doctors won't prescribe a name brand. My BIL is disabled and we manage his finances/care. His medication (on governement insurance, 3 prescriptions) costs around $35 a month. So, it's not free.

2) I am not for a public option, but reform of some sort needs to happen. My family will be uninsured next year, because my husband's employer is increasing costs so much that our monthly health care costs will exceed the amount we pay for our mortgage. We simply can not afford another $400+ a month in expected expenses. I don't know a lot of people, personally, that can.

[akula]

Originally Posted by jestagrl79

1) People on state/government insurance in IA are required to get generics unless the doctor says otherwise. Many doctors won't prescribe a name brand. My BIL is disabled and we manage his finances/care. His medication (on governement insurance, 3 prescriptions) costs around $35 a month. So, it's not free.

2) I am not for a public option, but reform of some sort needs to happen. My family will be uninsured next year, because my husband's employer is increasing costs so much that our monthly health care costs will exceed the amount we pay for our mortgage. We simply can not afford another $400+ a month in expected expenses. I don't know a lot of people, personally, that can.

Sounds like Iowa's rules are rather different from the ones at work here in Missouri.

I know our health costs are going up next year. We just did the open enrollment (we use the coverage through my wife's work). We have a high deductible ($6000) health plan and a health savings account. The plan costs are going up by 20% (from about $20/biweekly to $28- not much, but a large percentage jump) and the seed money from the company is going away entirely (this year they fronted $1200 and matched the next $1200, next year it's matching only). It's still better for us than traditional insurance plans and we're fortunate enough to be able to absorb the increased costs, but when the company is still turning a profit it makes you a bit, well, pissed at them for chopping the compensation package that much. It isn't just increased costs; the removal of that seed money may as well be a real pay cut.

It seems that one way or the other, we're likely to end up with coverage unlinked to the employers as the employers continue to chop the benefits packages in an effort to pump up the bottom line.

[heeman]

I have taken COBRA Major Medical Insurance option from my previous employer that will expire in Feb 2010.

We currently pay $750/Month. We have a $2800 deductable each before the 80/20 kicks in and a max out of pocket of $8000.

My wife had surgery in August that ran about $60,000. I had an emeragancy/admit in Sept. that was over $50,000 and Corenary Artery Stenting in Oct that was over $65,000.

Needless to say we reached our max out of pocket and were then covered 100%.

What would have happened if we did not have insurance????

It appears that we will be considered a risk once the COBRA runs out in Feb 2010 and may not be able to pay for medical insurance or not be eligable.

All as I know it is very scary, but I am still alive.

I beleive in fixing the broken parts of the medical insurance system, however not revamp the total system.

Theory of Contraint - Fix the weakest link first, then the next and next. You never revamp a complete system. This is what they have tought us in school.