RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate!

RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 1:16:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Because otherwise, all that it's accomplished is to fuck us with a slightly different dick. For the metaphor alone, 30 points.

rulemylife -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 1:46:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yummee quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Have you ever had a major illness? One requiring lengthy hospitalizations, surgeries and extensive diagnostics over a period of many years? How well do you think self-insuring would work in that case? As I have already said, my experience is with routine care with the occasional hiccup (crowns, root canal and LEAP procedure). I have also already explained that I cannot buy catastrophic only coverage where I live, which would handle your scenario. I would have to buy a rounded coverage. Since I cannot be denied care if I require lengthy hospitalizations, surgeries and extensive diagnostics over a period of many years, I'd still be treated and making payments. Bad shit happens and sometimes it is expensive. Sometimes people's houses flood and they don't have flood insurance. Sometimes people total their car and only have liability insurance. It is not up to the government to make sure I am never affected by bad things happening. My own opinion is that I would rather the government address the cost of health care rather than mandating insurance coverage. If the coasts were addressed, more people could afford insurance coverage, and those who cannot (or choose not to) would not be crippled by the inflated costs if bad shit happens. I have always weighed my options. Current coverage for me would be $388 per month here and would not include vision or dental, and coverage would be limited. Any catastrophic event would still cripple me financially, even with insurance costing me $388 per month. Since I have had no issues being uninsured before, and any major event would bankrupt me whether I have insurance or not, I just don't see the point. If the government forces me to buy health insurance and it is some lame ass 60/40 policy, I will STILL be bankrupt in your scenario. Only difference is that I will be forced to pay a monthly fee/tax to be in the exact same boat I am currently in. My mother does have a chronic disease and has had it for over 20 years. She is a retired high school teacher so has a very limited income. She even had to retire early due to the disease, so does not receive full pension. Her retirement insurance it complete crap (as is most people's). She is never denied care or any of her numerous medications (many of which are very expensive), and there is a lot of assistance available out there. Her next surgery will be in January. It's not her first back surgery and won't be her last. No one has come to repossess her home or car for lack of payment, and no one is threatening to stop treating her. Her disease is not even really considered life threatening. It is just extremely painful, so a quality of life issue rather than a live or die issue. If I am ever in need of extended care, I would expect it would be treated much like my mother's case is treated. She still owes on her first back surgery and is soon going in for her third. I don't know where these people live who say that people are being denied care for lack of insurance (and are dropping dead as a result). I have not lived in every state, so I suppose it is possible. However, I have lived in a couple of states that are on very opposite ends of the spectrum, and my experience (and that of my loved ones) is that we receive the care we need, regardless of our ability to pay for it or our medical insurance status. I'm just pissed that now I will be forced to pay private insurance companies my hard earned money to be exactly where I am right now. I am better off putting that money in the bank and using it for routine and preventative care. If something catastrophic happens, I'm bust with or without that shitty insurance. Who do you think makes up for you and your mother's inability or unwillingness to purchase health care? In the case of your mother the bill as planned would provide subsidies to her as she seems to be getting now. In your case you seem to be just refusing to purchase insurance intent on letting others pick up the bill if something happens. And those others are everyone who is already responsible enough to carry their own insurance.

AnimusRex -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 1:59:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity An insurance company's motivation is selling policies, something that a good reputation helps with tremendously. They perform, or they lose business. In a perfectly responsive marketplace, that would be true. But the marketplace in health insurance is not competitive, and consists of mostly local monopolies that have absolutely zero need to have a good reputation. In most parts of the country, one company controls 75% or more of the market. You will buy their product, or go without. The marketplace fails for another reason, which is that there is no such thing as a market that acheives universal coverage- markets reach efficiency precisely by not serving those who can't pay. A civilized society provides medical care even to those who cannot pay.

rulemylife -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 2:17:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cuckoldmepls By the way, funny you should accuse the website I listed as a fantasy website, since they have 10 points that prove democrats live in a fantasy world. I believe they call that Irony. I appreciate the opportunity to expose liberal mentality every chance I get. Thanks. http://babelishere.webs.com/liberals.html Hurricane Katrina Survivor on the news cleaning up his yard: "I'm a repubublican, I don't wait for the government to clean up my mess." You mean the one and only website you constantly list in every post you make?

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 2:35:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LiveFreeAndSpank Move to Canada. That will solve your problems. ROFL Which shows how little you understand the system here or there,

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 2:49:39 PM)
BC/BS has a program here i am eligible for... and they notified me they will notify me again when they have the funds to enroll me... in other words... your eligible, but you cant sign up for now. Hospitals cant turn away emergent care... but, if they deem you are not an emergency, they dont have to treat you. Hospitals have been adding interest on medical bills left outstanding.. some are even requiring you to approve to the credit system when you sign up for treatment at their facilities. Minnesota's Attorney General is suing Allina Hospitals & Clinics for charging patients 18% interest on medical debt. Health care in America is a profit-centered business, of course, and that involves extracting as much money from patients as possible. Allina Hospitals likely would have liked to charge even more for financing medical debt, but state law limits the interest rate to 18 percent. ............. The whole reason Allina Hospitals was likely charging 18 percent interest on medical debt is because fewer and fewer people can afford to pay their medical debt in the first place (making it very expensive to try to collect that debt). With 50 percent of household bankruptcies now due to medical bills, the disease-based U.S. economy has reached a degree of financial absurdity that threatens to bankrupt the whole country. http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000693_hospital_bills_medical_debt_interest_rates.html Charities and businesses alike are running out of funds. IF you can still find them in your area, then be thankful. In Pittsburgh, its becoming harder and harder. And, btw, your assumption that only a 60/40 policy will be offered is incorrect.

yummee -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 2:53:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife Who do you think makes up for you and your mother's inability or unwillingness to purchase health care? For myself, a Catholic charity paid a portion of my LEAP procedure. Other than that, I have paid all of my own health care costs. For my mother, she is insured and has been her whole adult life. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife In the case of your mother the bill as planned would provide subsidies to her as she seems to be getting now. That assistance is already in place. She does receive it and has for 15 years+. This plan will change nothing for her. My point is that it is already there. My mother's condition is not even considered life threatening. If she can get that assistance, even with a pre-existing non life threatening condition with no hope for a cure and expensive medical treatments for the rest of her life, I just don't believe that people are being denied care and dying as a result. There are isolated horror stories in all countries, including the US, including Canada, etc. Let's work to bring down the inflated cost of health care and eliminate those isolated horror stories before we spend all this money and create a huge new bureaucracy that will make little to no difference to those who have crappy coverage or are unable to buy coverage. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife In your case you seem to be just refusing to purchase insurance intent on letting others pick up the bill if something happens. I could afford catastrophic coverage, but not the $388 per month for a rounded policy. I cannot purchase catastrophic coverage because insurance companies are not allowed to provide ONLY that coverage. The minimum coverage is $388 per month, and its crappy coverage. I can afford to pay routine and preventative medical care and have always done so. If something catastrophic happens, others will be picking up the bill whether I have insurance or not. It is a matter of whether they pick up 40% or 100%. Either way, I will be bankrupt. With or without insurance, I am bankrupt in this state if something happens like that. If I were in Louisiana, I could be treated at one of the Charity hospitals there (teaching hospitals) or one of the charitable Catholic hospitals there. Not sure why that is not available nationwide. quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife And those others are everyone who is already responsible enough to carry their own insurance. Under the new plan, "those others" will be covering me, as I take home $1,000 per month. Under the new plan, I won't even have to bother paying my own preventative and routine medical care (which I have always done and prefer to do). I get a free ride off "those others." If I want to pay my own way (barring something catastrophic, when I will be unable to do so), I have to give my money to a private insurance company and then still have out of pocket expenses. On paper, I am less than $100 per month above the poverty line. I could be getting all sorts of government assistance, but I don't. I could even get "those others" to pay my telephone bill. How ridiculous is that? Since when is a telephone so necessary, such a basic right, that we can get taxpayers to buy me one? What I was saying before is that these bills (as they stand) will change nothing at all for me (cannot afford the insurance that would be required because its too rounded) or my mother (chronic illness and low income, so already qualifies for benefits already available). I don't even understand the point. I will be forced to pay a private insurance company (or, most likely, have the government pay that insurance company for me, which is HIGHLY unappealing to me). If something catastrophic happens, the government will STILL be footing 40ish% of my medical costs and I will STILL be bankrupt, because the insurance they MANDATE I buy (or they pay for) is crappy. I object to being forced to take government assistance when it is not needed and may not ever be needed. I'd prefer to get that government assistance if and when I actually need it. That's what I feel government assistance is for ... when a NEED arises. So my question is, what's the point? Why not spend all this trillions of dollars: 1) addressing the costs of healthcare so people can afford it or insurance to cover it, 2) add to funds in existing programs that already cover medical costs of those who cannot afford it (no need for a whole new government agency), 3) build teaching hospitals, clinics and so on ... anything but give it to private insurance companies.

zephyroftheNorth -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 2:56:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: LiveFreeAndSpank Move to Canada. That will solve your problems. ROFL Which shows how little you understand the system here or there, But, but, but don't you know that Canada is the land of milk and honey, no problems at all yepyepyep

yummee -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 3:03:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And, btw, your assumption that only a 60/40 policy will be offered is incorrect. The version I read, and it may have changed again by now, had a 60/40 policy listed. I was assuming that if the government was footing my bill, they would buy me the cheapest insurance they could and remain compliant. I am not holding out any hopes that the government is going to buy me an 80/20 policy when they can buy me a 60/40 policy. If I assume they buy me an 80/20 policy, however, and something catastrophic happens (which is the ONLY reason I would need assistance), I will still likely be unable to pay 20% of that medical bill. You work in the industry. What do you estimate the medical bills to be if I get into a car accident and require trauma care, emergency surgery, and a recovery stay? And then the physical therapy or other extended care that generally follows catastrophic events? 20% or 40% ... I am bankrupt either way, so the government foots the bill. Now, private insurance gets its money via premiums and the government not only foots the bill for that, but also foots the bill for the costs the insurance company doesn't cover. As it stands now, the government (all you taxpayers) aren't footing anything for me and won't unless I actually need it. Soon, you will be footing my insurance bill when I don't need it, and will still have to foot the bill if I need it. And, as an added bonus, I will be receiving government assistance when I have purposely gone my whole like without it and would like to continue like that if at all possible. The only winner is private insurance. I'm going to be on government assistance in order to benefit private insurance ... beautiful. It just makes me sick is all, so I am pissing and moaning. =(

shannie -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 3:37:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yummee The version I read, and it may have changed again by now, had a 60/40 policy listed. I was assuming that if the government was footing my bill, they would buy me the cheapest insurance they could and remain compliant. I am not holding out any hopes that the government is going to buy me an 80/20 policy when they can buy me a 60/40 policy. If I assume they buy me an 80/20 policy, however, and something catastrophic happens (which is the ONLY reason I would need assistance), I will still likely be unable to pay 20% of that medical bill. You work in the industry. What do you estimate the medical bills to be if I get into a car accident and require trauma care, emergency surgery, and a recovery stay? And then the physical therapy or other extended care that generally follows catastrophic events? 20% or 40% ... I am bankrupt either way, so the government foots the bill. Now, private insurance gets its money via premiums and the government not only foots the bill for that, but also foots the bill for the costs the insurance company doesn't cover. As it stands now, the government (all you taxpayers) aren't footing anything for me and won't unless I actually need it. Soon, you will be footing my insurance bill when I don't need it, and will still have to foot the bill if I need it. And, as an added bonus, I will be receiving government assistance when I have purposely gone my whole like without it and would like to continue like that if at all possible. The only winner is private insurance. I'm going to be on government assistance in order to benefit private insurance ... beautiful. It just makes me sick is all, so I am pissing and moaning. =( Very well said.

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 3:53:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yummee quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl And, btw, your assumption that only a 60/40 policy will be offered is incorrect. The version I read, and it may have changed again by now, had a 60/40 policy listed. I was assuming that if the government was footing my bill, they would buy me the cheapest insurance they could and remain compliant. I am not holding out any hopes that the government is going to buy me an 80/20 policy when they can buy me a 60/40 policy. If I assume they buy me an 80/20 policy, however, and something catastrophic happens (which is the ONLY reason I would need assistance), I will still likely be unable to pay 20% of that medical bill. You work in the industry. What do you estimate the medical bills to be if I get into a car accident and require trauma care, emergency surgery, and a recovery stay? And then the physical therapy or other extended care that generally follows catastrophic events? 20% or 40% ... I am bankrupt either way, so the government foots the bill. Now, private insurance gets its money via premiums and the government not only foots the bill for that, but also foots the bill for the costs the insurance company doesn't cover. As it stands now, the government (all you taxpayers) aren't footing anything for me and won't unless I actually need it. Soon, you will be footing my insurance bill when I don't need it, and will still have to foot the bill if I need it. And, as an added bonus, I will be receiving government assistance when I have purposely gone my whole like without it and would like to continue like that if at all possible. The only winner is private insurance. I'm going to be on government assistance in order to benefit private insurance ... beautiful. It just makes me sick is all, so I am pissing and moaning. =( its not 20 or 40... its 100 percent the rest are left holding the bag for. Not only the hospitals, but every insured person who walks through the doors for treatment. Thats the system now... how is it working for those who have insurance? Do you enjoy paying for me, yumme and anyone else who decides they dont need insurance? honestly, i think many of you have no clue what you are speaking about beyond what you are being told by "other" sources. Again, i suggest you read the actual bills being offered.

shannie -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 4:55:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl its not 20 or 40... its 100 percent the rest are left holding the bag for. Not only the hospitals, but every insured person who walks through the doors for treatment. Thats the system now... how is it working for those who have insurance? Do you enjoy paying for me, yumme and anyone else who decides they dont need insurance? Unpaid medical bills accrue as losses to hospitals, labs, etc. (like "Hospital Corporation of America," through which Senator Bill Frist made millions, in spite of whatever losses were incurred because of "those who choose not to be insured") -- not to insurance companies. Such losses are not rolled over (directly or indirectly) into the premium costs of those who carry insurance. Covering those losses simply raises the profits of the healthcare industry, on the backs of the middle class.

yummee -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 5:05:05 PM)
I did read it. Its still H.R.3590, isn't it? Under 8 ‘‘SEC. 2715. DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF UNIFORM 9 EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE DOCUMENTS 10 AND STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS. (b) (a) (3) (G) (ii) "1 ‘(ii) ensures that the plan or coverage 2 share of the total allowed costs of benefits 3 provided under the plan or coverage is not 4 less than 60 percent of such costs;" If insurance covers 60 percent of such costs, that leaves 40 percent. So, the taxpayer will be paying my insurance premiums and 40% of my medical bills. Currently, the taxpayer has had to pay none of my medical expenses. The one time I needed assistance, I got it from a charity, not the taxpayer. If the government pays my premiums for 20 years, that's roughly $93,000 the taxpayer pays for me when I have not needed it at all in the past 20 years. $93,000 pissed away on me when I can pay my own routine and preventative care. So, say the government pays this insurance for me and then I get in a car crash and require hospitalization. I'm hoping you can give me a better idea of what that would cost, but I realize it would depend on the injuries and their treatments. A quick google on average medical costs after a car accident (after weeding out the damned ambulance chasing lawyer sites) gives me a rough estimate of about $100,000 (but that could be much lower or much higher). I can't pay $40,000 even after the insurance company pays its $60,000. So, since I am right at the poverty line, the government (you taxpayers) kicks in and pays the $40,000 in addition to the $93,000 you've already paid for me. Taxpayers have paid out $133,000. If I had been uninsured, the government would eat the full $100,000 car crash stay. Taxpayers have overpaid for me by $33,000 even if I have a car crash and need assistance. If I never have that car crash, the taxpayers have wasted $133,000 on me when I never even wanted the assistance I was required to take. If you let me go on my merry way and I never need assistance, taxpayers don't give me a dime. If you let me go on my merry way and I ever need assistance, taxpayers will pay out that $100,000 for me. Why make them pay $133,000? After that car crash, taxpayers will still be paying my insurance premiums, another $93,000 for another 20 years (assuming I don't live past that). For every person who cannot afford health insurance, taxpayers will pay it for them for the duration of their lives, $280,000 for 60 years ... plus $40,000 if he has that $100,000 hospital stay (so $320,000). Not every person will have that car accident. I don't even think most people will. The vast majority of people I know have not had that kind of thing happen. How is this cost effective? It is not a matter of not knowing what is being presented. For me, at least, it is a matter of disagreeing with this particular flavor of shit they are feeding me. I don't want to be forced to go on federal assistance, and I most certainly don't want to be forced to go on government assistance to line the pockets of private insurance companies. This particular bill is crap. I've read about 1700 of the 2074 pages of it and I think it is crap. They should scrap it and start over. There's a Democratic majority at the moment. Why can't they do any better than this piece of crap?

shannie -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 5:28:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yummee I did read it. Its still H.R.3590, isn't it? Under 8 ‘‘SEC. 2715. DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF UNIFORM 9 EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE DOCUMENTS 10 AND STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS. (b) (a) (3) (G) (ii) "1 ‘(ii) ensures that the plan or coverage 2 share of the total allowed costs of benefits 3 provided under the plan or coverage is not 4 less than 60 percent of such costs;" If insurance covers 60 percent of such costs, that leaves 40 percent. So, the taxpayer will be paying my insurance premiums and 40% of my medical bills. Currently, the taxpayer has had to pay none of my medical expenses. The one time I needed assistance, I got it from a charity, not the taxpayer. If the government pays my premiums for 20 years, that's roughly $93,000 the taxpayer pays for me when I have not needed it at all in the past 20 years. $93,000 pissed away on me when I can pay my own routine and preventative care. So, say the government pays this insurance for me and then I get in a car crash and require hospitalization. I'm hoping you can give me a better idea of what that would cost, but I realize it would depend on the injuries and their treatments. A quick google on average medical costs after a car accident (after weeding out the damned ambulance chasing lawyer sites) gives me a rough estimate of about $100,000 (but that could be much lower or much higher). I can't pay $40,000 even after the insurance company pays its $60,000. So, since I am right at the poverty line, the government (you taxpayers) kicks in and pays the $40,000 in addition to the $93,000 you've already paid for me. Taxpayers have paid out $133,000. If I had been uninsured, the government would eat the full $100,000 car crash stay. Taxpayers have overpaid for me by $33,000 even if I have a car crash and need assistance. If I never have that car crash, the taxpayers have wasted $133,000 on me when I never even wanted the assistance I was required to take. If you let me go on my merry way and I never need assistance, taxpayers don't give me a dime. If you let me go on my merry way and I ever need assistance, taxpayers will pay out that $100,000 for me. Why make them pay $133,000? After that car crash, taxpayers will still be paying my insurance premiums, another $93,000 for another 20 years (assuming I don't live past that). For every person who cannot afford health insurance, taxpayers will pay it for them for the duration of their lives, $280,000 for 60 years ... plus $40,000 if he has that $100,000 hospital stay (so $320,000). Not every person will have that car accident. I don't even think most people will. The vast majority of people I know have not had that kind of thing happen. How is this cost effective? It is not a matter of not knowing what is being presented. For me, at least, it is a matter of disagreeing with this particular flavor of shit they are feeding me. I don't want to be forced to go on federal assistance, and I most certainly don't want to be forced to go on government assistance to line the pockets of private insurance companies. This particular bill is crap. I've read about 1700 of the 2074 pages of it and I think it is crap. They should scrap it and start over. There's a Democratic majority at the moment. Why can't they do any better than this piece of crap? Wow, that's the best analysis of this whole thing that I've ever read. Bravo.

Kirata -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 5:36:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shannie Wow, that's the best analysis of this whole thing that I've ever read. Bravo. I have to agree. Louise Slaughter is right when she complains that under the Senate bill... millions of Americans will be forced into private insurance company plans, which will be subsidized by taxpayers. That alternative will do almost nothing to reform health care but will be a windfall for insurance companies. Is it any surprise that stock prices for some of those insurers are up recently? K.

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 7:16:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: yummee I did read it. Its still H.R.3590, isn't it? Under 8 ‘‘SEC. 2715. DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF UNIFORM 9 EXPLANATION OF COVERAGE DOCUMENTS 10 AND STANDARDIZED DEFINITIONS. (b) (a) (3) (G) (ii) "1 ‘(ii) ensures that the plan or coverage 2 share of the total allowed costs of benefits 3 provided under the plan or coverage is not 4 less than 60 percent of such costs;" If insurance covers 60 percent of such costs, that leaves 40 percent. So, the taxpayer will be paying my insurance premiums and 40% of my medical bills. Currently, the taxpayer has had to pay none of my medical expenses. The one time I needed assistance, I got it from a charity, not the taxpayer. If the government pays my premiums for 20 years, that's roughly $93,000 the taxpayer pays for me when I have not needed it at all in the past 20 years. $93,000 pissed away on me when I can pay my own routine and preventative care. So, say the government pays this insurance for me and then I get in a car crash and require hospitalization. I'm hoping you can give me a better idea of what that would cost, but I realize it would depend on the injuries and their treatments. A quick google on average medical costs after a car accident (after weeding out the damned ambulance chasing lawyer sites) gives me a rough estimate of about $100,000 (but that could be much lower or much higher). I can't pay $40,000 even after the insurance company pays its $60,000. So, since I am right at the poverty line, the government (you taxpayers) kicks in and pays the $40,000 in addition to the $93,000 you've already paid for me. Taxpayers have paid out $133,000. If I had been uninsured, the government would eat the full $100,000 car crash stay. Taxpayers have overpaid for me by $33,000 even if I have a car crash and need assistance. If I never have that car crash, the taxpayers have wasted $133,000 on me when I never even wanted the assistance I was required to take. If you let me go on my merry way and I never need assistance, taxpayers don't give me a dime. If you let me go on my merry way and I ever need assistance, taxpayers will pay out that $100,000 for me. Why make them pay $133,000? After that car crash, taxpayers will still be paying my insurance premiums, another $93,000 for another 20 years (assuming I don't live past that). For every person who cannot afford health insurance, taxpayers will pay it for them for the duration of their lives, $280,000 for 60 years ... plus $40,000 if he has that $100,000 hospital stay (so $320,000). Not every person will have that car accident. I don't even think most people will. The vast majority of people I know have not had that kind of thing happen. How is this cost effective? It is not a matter of not knowing what is being presented. For me, at least, it is a matter of disagreeing with this particular flavor of shit they are feeding me. I don't want to be forced to go on federal assistance, and I most certainly don't want to be forced to go on government assistance to line the pockets of private insurance companies. This particular bill is crap. I've read about 1700 of the 2074 pages of it and I think it is crap. They should scrap it and start over. There's a Democratic majority at the moment. Why can't they do any better than this piece of crap? From the bill (1) LEVELS OF COVERAGE DEFINED.—The lev11 els of coverage described in this subsection are as 12 follows: 13 (A) BRONZE LEVEL.—A plan in the bronze 14 level shall provide a level of coverage that is de15 signed to provide benefits that are actuarially 16 equivalent to 60 percent of the full actuarial 17 value of the benefits provided under the plan. 18 (B) SILVER LEVEL.—A plan in the silver 19 level shall provide a level of coverage that is de20 signed to provide benefits that are actuarially 21 equivalent to 70 percent of the full actuarial 22 value of the benefits provided under the plan. 23 (C) GOLD LEVEL.—A plan in the gold level 24 shall provide a level of coverage that is designed 25 to provide benefits that are actuarially equiva 113 O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C. 1 lent to 80 percent of the full actuarial value of 2 the benefits provided under the plan. 3 (D) PLATINUM LEVEL.—A plan in the 4 platinum level shall provide a level of coverage 5 that is designed to provide benefits that are ac6 tuarially equivalent to 90 percent of the full ac7 tuarial value of the benefits provided under the 8 plan.

shannie -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 7:27:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl From the bill (1) LEVELS OF COVERAGE DEFINED.—The lev11 els of coverage described in this subsection are as 12 follows: 13 (A) BRONZE LEVEL.—A plan in the bronze 14 level shall provide a level of coverage that is de15 signed to provide benefits that are actuarially 16 equivalent to 60 percent of the full actuarial 17 value of the benefits provided under the plan. 18 (B) SILVER LEVEL.—A plan in the silver 19 level shall provide a level of coverage that is de20 signed to provide benefits that are actuarially 21 equivalent to 70 percent of the full actuarial 22 value of the benefits provided under the plan. 23 (C) GOLD LEVEL.—A plan in the gold level 24 shall provide a level of coverage that is designed 25 to provide benefits that are actuarially equiva 113 O:\BAI\BAI09M01.xml [file 1 of 9] S.L.C. 1 lent to 80 percent of the full actuarial value of 2 the benefits provided under the plan. 3 (D) PLATINUM LEVEL.—A plan in the 4 platinum level shall provide a level of coverage 5 that is designed to provide benefits that are ac6 tuarially equivalent to 90 percent of the full ac7 tuarial value of the benefits provided under the 8 plan. "Gold level, bronze level, silver level, platinum level?" Geezus, it's pure "corporate speak." To add insult to injury.

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 7:30:36 PM)
your insulted. im hopeful. that was on page 113. if so many people are truly reading the bill and not just what is posted on other sites, that would not have been passed over. im at least trying to educate myself on what the lawmakers are proposing... instead of allowing others to form my opinion for me.

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 7:45:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: shannie quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl its not 20 or 40... its 100 percent the rest are left holding the bag for. Not only the hospitals, but every insured person who walks through the doors for treatment. Thats the system now... how is it working for those who have insurance? Do you enjoy paying for me, yumme and anyone else who decides they dont need insurance? Unpaid medical bills accrue as losses to hospitals, labs, etc. (like "Hospital Corporation of America," through which Senator Bill Frist made millions, in spite of whatever losses were incurred because of "those who choose not to be insured") -- not to insurance companies. Such losses are not rolled over (directly or indirectly) into the premium costs of those who carry insurance. Covering those losses simply raises the profits of the healthcare industry, on the backs of the middle class. It rolls over into the hospital costs, lab costs, radiology costs, Dr costs, ect. Medicare and Medicaid also pay a portion of the unpaid hospital portions. Posted that a while back, im not going to look it up again. WASHINGTON — The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured, according to a study to be released Thursday by an advocacy group for health care consumers. Families USA, which supports expanded health care coverage, found that about 37% of health care costs for people without insurance — or a total of $42.7 billion — went unpaid last year. That cost eventually was shifted to the insured through higher premiums, according to the group. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm During 2007, South Carolina hospitals provided $1.3 billion in care to persons who were either uninsured or underinsured. Much of that was spent treating preventable diseases or diseases that could have been treated much more effi ciently and successfully with early diagnosis. And all of those costs were passed on to insured patients as higher hospital bills, which ultimately lead to higher premiums. In the United States, the average insured family pays an additional $922 in premiums each year to help cover the health care bills of uninsured patients. So uninsured or not, each of us is a victim of the crisis. http://www.scha.org/covering-carolina And private coverage for the average individual costs an extra $370 a year because of the cost-shifting, which happens when someone without medical insurance gets care at an emergency room or elsewhere and then doesn't pay. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=7693941

AnimusRex -> RE: Health Care Bill passes the Senate! (12/25/2009 7:57:05 PM)
[With 50 percent of household bankruptcies now due to medical bills, the disease-based U.S. economy has reached a degree of financial absurdity that threatens to bankrupt the whole country. [/quote] this. This is why this is so critical an issue. Even if you can get your head around the notion of letting millions of people suffer and die, the fact is that even for those of us who are covered, this is a threat. My company for instance, is required by the marketplace to provide insurance- in order to attract skilled professionals, you have to offer one or your competitors will. But last year we spent more on our health plan than we did for corporate income tax. Meaning, that for all the Republican wailing about "Tax Cuts", what we really would benefit from is a Democratic plan to reform health care. I will say it again- it is the Democrats who are more understanding of the long term interests of small businesses and the working professionals. The Republicans are stuck in 1979.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875