Last night during his national press conference, President Barack Obama maligned doctors as doing unnecessary operations based on greed, not the best interest of the patient. He said:
“Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. … The doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, ‘You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out,’” Obama told a prime-time news conference.
The president added: “Now, that may be the right thing to do, but I’d rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid’s tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change — maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.”
It’s interesting that President Obama discusses unnecessary operations as one of the causes of high health care costs. Do you know what the most often performed operation is in the United States? With heart disease being the number one killer in America, you might think it would be related to that, perhaps bypass surgery or angioplasty.
It’s cesarean section. In 1965, only 4.5 percent of children were delivered via c-section. Today, 31 percent are. That’s a huge increase for a procedure that was once reserved to emergency situations. And as the Los Angeles Times notes, it has resulted in “an explosion in medical bills, an increase in complications — and a reconsideration of the cesarean as a sometimes unnecessary risk.”
What is the reason for the increase? Is it greedy doctors looking for a new summer home? No, it’s something far worse.
John Edwards.
The now disgraced former Senator from North Carolina made his name, and his money, as a trial lawyer. In a 1985 case, he convinced a jury that a doctor’s negligence was responsible for a child’s cerebral palsy. He argued that had the doctor performed a c-section earlier, the girl would not have been disabled. He went so far as to channel the girl in court for the jury:
“I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her, I feel her presence,” he said in his record-setting 1985 lawsuit on behalf of Jennifer Campbell, born brain-damaged after being deprived of oxygen during labor. “She’s inside me and she’s talking to you. . . . And this is what she says to you. She says, `I don’t ask for your pity. What I ask for is your strength. And I don’t ask for your sympathy, but I do ask for your courage.’ “
The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million. The New York Times reports this verdict led to more lawsuits:
In the decade that followed, Mr. Edwards filed at least 20 similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third. As a politician he has spoken of these lawsuits with pride.
“I was more than just their lawyer,” Mr. Edwards said of his clients in a recent essay in Newsweek. “I cared about them. Their cause was my cause.”
The effect of his work has reached beyond those cases, and beyond his own income. Other lawyers have filed countless similar cases; just this week, a jury on Long Island returned a $112 million award. And doctors have responded by changing the way they deliver babies, often seeing a relatively minor anomaly on a fetal heart monitor as justification for an immediate Caesarean.
So what has been the result of the increase in Caesarean section births? Occurrences of cerebral palsy have “remained fairly stable” at about “1.5/1000 births.”
In fact, the incidence of CP seems to be increasing slightly with the increased survival rates of infants born before thirty-two weeks gestation.
Whether or not fetal heart rate monitoring during labor has led to a reduction in cerebral palsy has been researched extensively. The conclusion established by multiple scientific evidence is: Fetal heart rate monitoring during labor does not reduce rates of cerebral palsy, although it does increase the rate of cesarean section.
As the L.A. Times notes, they also lead to unnecessary costs:
As the No. 1 cause of hospital admissions, childbirth is a huge part of the nation’s $2.4-trillion annual healthcare expenditure, accounting in hospital charges alone for more than $79 billion.
Because the average uncomplicated cesarean runs about $4,500, nearly twice as much as a comparable vaginal birth, cesareans account for a disproportionate amount (45%) of delivery costs. Among privately insured patients, uncomplicated cesareans run about $13,000.
The problem, experts say, is that the cesarean — delivery via uterine incision — exposes a woman to the risk of infection, blood clots and other serious problems. Cesareans also have been shown to increase premature births and the need for intensive care for newborns. Even without such complications, cesareans result in longer hospital stays.
If the president is really interested in reducing the occurrences of unnecessary operations, he doesn’t need to create the boogey-man of “greedy doctors.” Greedy doctors don’t remove body parts like tonsils. They implant body parts, like silicone breasts. The real culprit here is the trial lawyer, who has helped create a medical world that chooses procedures based on the CYA diagnosis method. However, the president’s speech last night was not critical of this, and didn’t emphasize tort reform.
A 2001 article from National Review explains why the president doesn’t see a need for tort reform:
An estimated 50 cents of every dollar awarded to tort plaintiffs gets eaten up by lawyers and courts-and a great deal of that money ends up benefiting Democratic candidates. Over the last decade, the legal profession has led all other groups in campaign contributions-giving a total of $357 million to federal candidates-and 70 percent of its cash goes to Democrats. The 56,000-member Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) was the top PAC contributor to Democratic federal candidates in the last election cycle; the organization spent $2.6 million, 86 percent of which went to Democrats.
If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns “greedy doctors,” many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the “greedy trial lawyers” off the hook. Remember that next time he accuses the Republicans of bowing down to special interests.
Update:
Thanks to those who liked and linked, including Jimmie at the Sundries Shack, Melissa Clouthier at Melissa Clouthier.com and Right Wing News, Jenn Sierra at Fort Hard Knox, Kathy Shaidle at fivefeetoffury. You all helped me get my first Memeorandum thread!
If I missed you, it’s not intentional. I just haven’t found your link yet.
Don’t forget to retweet and stumble! Thanks again!
Update 2:
I guess this story has some legs. Welcome Lucianne and American Thinker readers. Please remember to subscribe and follow me on Twitter! I’m closing in on 3,000 followers.
In recent years, I've come to regret the negative thoughts I've occasionally had about physicians and the medical profession. More recent experience has convinced me that they are not the "greedy" ones. If one wants to see greed in action, all that's necessary is a glance at this country's leadership. And the greed of politicians is particularly ugly, because it isn't as much about money as it is about wielding power over the lives of others.
In recent years, I've come to regret the negative thoughts I've occasionally had about physicians and the medical profession. More recent experience has convinced me that they are not the "greedy" ones. If one wants to see greed in action, all that's necessary is a glance at this country's leadership. And the greed of politicians is particularly ugly, because it isn't as much about money as it is about wielding power over the lives of others.
In recent years, I've come to regret the negative thoughts I've occasionally had about physicians and the medical profession. More recent experience has convinced me that they are not the "greedy" ones. If one wants to see greed in action, all that's necessary is a glance at this country's leadership. And the greed of politicians is particularly ugly, because it isn't as much about money as it is about wielding power over the lives of others.
Very informative. I have learned more about health cost with this article than I have listening our new president for the last week.
Very informative. I have learned more about health cost with this article than I have listening our new president for the last week.
Very informative. I have learned more about health cost with this article than I have listening our new president for the last week.
In addition, many OBGYN's in North Carolina have moved out of the state or have stopped delivering babies. Thanks, John Edwards and President Obama who has not met a trial lawyer whose interests he does not embrace.
In addition, many OBGYN's in North Carolina have moved out of the state or have stopped delivering babies. Thanks, John Edwards and President Obama who has not met a trial lawyer whose interests he does not embrace.
In addition, many OBGYN's in North Carolina have moved out of the state or have stopped delivering babies. Thanks, John Edwards and President Obama who has not met a trial lawyer whose interests he does not embrace.
I had a procedure last year that the specialist in confidence told me was unnecessary, was a CYA maneuver, to protect my primary physician from any missing any inadvertent diagnosis and a possible lawsuit. It was a 500.00 overabundance of caution based on my doctor fearing someone tracking him down someday and suing his buttinski off. I have since had a long, heartwarming chat with my primary, who is a dear, caring man who is now fairly confident that he needs to stop practicing "defensive medicine" with me.
It infuriates me that in all this cost savings BS, no one is talking about tort reform ….malpractice worries make a doctor's life a misery…and incredibly inflate the cost of medical care. Obama, a lawyer himself, who is surrounded by lawyers, will not even bring the phrase "tort reform" to his lips, much less his brain. The lawyers will be the death of us all. They line their pockets with our hard earned cash. It's not big business, big insurance, or big oil…it's big lawyers.
I had a procedure last year that the specialist in confidence told me was unnecessary, was a CYA maneuver, to protect my primary physician from any missing any inadvertent diagnosis and a possible lawsuit. It was a 500.00 overabundance of caution based on my doctor fearing someone tracking him down someday and suing his buttinski off. I have since had a long, heartwarming chat with my primary, who is a dear, caring man who is now fairly confident that he needs to stop practicing "defensive medicine" with me.
It infuriates me that in all this cost savings BS, no one is talking about tort reform ….malpractice worries make a doctor's life a misery…and incredibly inflate the cost of medical care. Obama, a lawyer himself, who is surrounded by lawyers, will not even bring the phrase "tort reform" to his lips, much less his brain. The lawyers will be the death of us all. They line their pockets with our hard earned cash. It's not big business, big insurance, or big oil…it's big lawyers.
I had a procedure last year that the specialist in confidence told me was unnecessary, was a CYA maneuver, to protect my primary physician from any missing any inadvertent diagnosis and a possible lawsuit. It was a 500.00 overabundance of caution based on my doctor fearing someone tracking him down someday and suing his buttinski off. I have since had a long, heartwarming chat with my primary, who is a dear, caring man who is now fairly confident that he needs to stop practicing "defensive medicine" with me.
It infuriates me that in all this cost savings BS, no one is talking about tort reform ….malpractice worries make a doctor's life a misery…and incredibly inflate the cost of medical care. Obama, a lawyer himself, who is surrounded by lawyers, will not even bring the phrase "tort reform" to his lips, much less his brain. The lawyers will be the death of us all. They line their pockets with our hard earned cash. It's not big business, big insurance, or big oil…it's big lawyers.
This is an excellent article and I commend you for your straightforward approach to this very important topic. It is the first structured discussion I have seen of the pernicious effects of our tort system on the medical profession. John Edwards may actually do a real service to our country if using his name in your title inspires widespread readership.
In your final sentence you state: "If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns “greedy doctors,” many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the “greedy trial lawyers” off the hook." I focus on "If he were serious … " and can think of no other rejoinder than: Yes, but he is not.
Virtually every argument proffered by the president involves the use of straw men, men he seems to conjure on demand in support of his weak arguments. He also seems to vilify any and all those with different viewpoints as being in possession of evil motives, His assignment of evil to his perceived enemies seems to flow from a Cartesian wellspring of paranoid fantasies.
This is an excellent article and I commend you for your straightforward approach to this very important topic. It is the first structured discussion I have seen of the pernicious effects of our tort system on the medical profession. John Edwards may actually do a real service to our country if using his name in your title inspires widespread readership.
In your final sentence you state: "If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns “greedy doctors,” many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the “greedy trial lawyers” off the hook." I focus on "If he were serious … " and can think of no other rejoinder than: Yes, but he is not.
Virtually every argument proffered by the president involves the use of straw men, men he seems to conjure on demand in support of his weak arguments. He also seems to vilify any and all those with different viewpoints as being in possession of evil motives, His assignment of evil to his perceived enemies seems to flow from a Cartesian wellspring of paranoid fantasies.
Thanks.
Thanks.
This is an excellent article and I commend you for your straightforward approach to this very important topic. It is the first structured discussion I have seen of the pernicious effects of our tort system on the medical profession. John Edwards may actually do a real service to our country if using his name in your title inspires widespread readership.
In your final sentence you state: "If he were serious about lower costs, this would be the cornerstone of his movement. Instead, he maligns “greedy doctors,” many of whom work 16 hours or more a day trying to help people, and lets the “greedy trial lawyers” off the hook." I focus on "If he were serious … " and can think of no other rejoinder than: Yes, but he is not.
Virtually every argument proffered by the president involves the use of straw men, men he seems to conjure on demand in support of his weak arguments. He also seems to vilify any and all those with different viewpoints as being in possession of evil motives, His assignment of evil to his perceived enemies seems to flow from a Cartesian wellspring of paranoid fantasies.
Thanks.
Other notable physician behavioral changes resulting from the malpractice circus:
– In the 1960s, possibly 70% of physicians donated free care to clinics, etc, and some devoted as much as 30% of their practice time to charitable care. Currently near 0% of physicians donate free care: it widens “exposure” and patients who receive free care are just as assiduous as paying patients (perhaps more so) in pursuing liability claims.
Other notable physician behavioral changes resulting from the malpractice circus:
– In the 1960s, possibly 70% of physicians donated free care to clinics, etc, and some devoted as much as 30% of their practice time to charitable care. Currently near 0% of physicians donate free care: it widens “exposure” and patients who receive free care are just as assiduous as paying patients (perhaps more so) in pursuing liability claims.
Other notable physician behavioral changes resulting from the malpractice circus:
– In the 1960s, possibly 70% of physicians donated free care to clinics, etc, and some devoted as much as 30% of their practice time to charitable care. Currently near 0% of physicians donate free care: it widens “exposure” and patients who receive free care are just as assiduous as paying patients (perhaps more so) in pursuing liability claims.
Continued…Other notable physician behavioral changes resulting from the malpractice circus:
– Physicians “limit” their practices to less risky procedures and away from patient populations with more complex problems: this is especially true for those in private practice who don’t have the liability “cover” of a hospital insurance policy and hospital attorneys. Often top doctors have creative ideas about how to approach difficult or intractable medical problems. Savvy doctors, who want to financially survive and stay out of (the time and energy draining) judicial process, avoid procedures that are known gold mines for plaintiff’s attorneys, or could later be regarded in court as outside “typical standards” for treatment.
– So called “defensive medicine” is a massive problem, with loads of unnecessary tests, procedures and consultations. CYA is a term used constantly by physicians these days.
The long and short of it: real tort reform would probably decrease the overall cost of medicine by about one-third.
Continued…Other notable physician behavioral changes resulting from the malpractice circus:
– Physicians “limit” their practices to less risky procedures and away from patient populations with more complex problems: this is especially true for those in private practice who don’t have the liability “cover” of a hospital insurance policy and hospital attorneys. Often top doctors have creative ideas about how to approach difficult or intractable medical problems. Savvy doctors, who want to financially survive and stay out of (the time and energy draining) judicial process, avoid procedures that are known gold mines for plaintiff’s attorneys, or could later be regarded in court as outside “typical standards” for treatment.
– So called “defensive medicine” is a massive problem, with loads of unnecessary tests, procedures and consultations. CYA is a term used constantly by physicians these days.
The long and short of it: real tort reform would probably decrease the overall cost of medicine by about one-third.
Continued…Other notable physician behavioral changes resulting from the malpractice circus:
– Physicians “limit” their practices to less risky procedures and away from patient populations with more complex problems: this is especially true for those in private practice who don’t have the liability “cover” of a hospital insurance policy and hospital attorneys. Often top doctors have creative ideas about how to approach difficult or intractable medical problems. Savvy doctors, who want to financially survive and stay out of (the time and energy draining) judicial process, avoid procedures that are known gold mines for plaintiff’s attorneys, or could later be regarded in court as outside “typical standards” for treatment.
– So called “defensive medicine” is a massive problem, with loads of unnecessary tests, procedures and consultations. CYA is a term used constantly by physicians these days.
The long and short of it: real tort reform would probably decrease the overall cost of medicine by about one-third.
Does the name John Edwards mean you automatically get to talk to dead people? Seriously? Why didn't he just tell the jury that someone from their past really wanted him to win the case? "I'm getting an "M" from this part of the jury box… Does anyone know an "M" that crossed over?"
Does the name John Edwards mean you automatically get to talk to dead people? Seriously? Why didn't he just tell the jury that someone from their past really wanted him to win the case? "I'm getting an "M" from this part of the jury box… Does anyone know an "M" that crossed over?"
Does the name John Edwards mean you automatically get to talk to dead people? Seriously? Why didn't he just tell the jury that someone from their past really wanted him to win the case? "I'm getting an "M" from this part of the jury box… Does anyone know an "M" that crossed over?"
Thank you for writing this. Obama and company are doing everything possible to make sure every base is covered to retain control of the government. Their facade of 'care' for America is just that. A facade. Their main concern again, is power and control.
You are right on Steve. They hate this country and every fiber in it. That is why they put a healthcare plan out there and the GOP announced two days ago they will not have a plan. Our own Roy Blunt everyone (Clap Clap Clap). I'm serious, let's just start another war and everyone will forget about this healthcare stuff. Nothing to see here…
I see what you did there.
Rather than admit the Dems are catering to special interests and ignoring one of the driving forces behind unnecessary procedures and rising health care costs, you try to switch the focus to Republicans.
Have you seen what the Dems health care takeover would mean?
Here's a peek:
Does that sound like an improvement to you? Does that sound like liberty, or freedom?
I'll take their plan over the status quo of right now for sure. I was going to read the GOP's plan but they don't have one. They are so afraid of putting a plan out there because of 2010 elections. They do have reason to be a little timid after getting killed in 2008.
Our government set a record in spending from 2000-2008…..and now everyone is worried.
If you don't like the gov't plan, don't take part. Continue to buy it the insurance companies who have no one's interest in but their own. Cigna recorded record profits and let 1,100 people go from their jobs. Something has to change. It is your choice.
Imagine if we had all the money we wasted in Iraq? Now that is a fun thought……
Hey Martin, if you do a little research, you'd know that your opinion that there is "no GOP plan" is the farthest thing from the truth. the TRUTH is that the Dems would never let it leave the committee, or hardly ever let it be brought up. Open your eyes, man.
Hey Martin, if you do a little research, you'd know that your opinion that there is "no GOP plan" is the farthest thing from the truth. the TRUTH is that the Dems would never let it leave the committee, or hardly ever let it be brought up. Open your eyes, man.
Actually, our boy blunt said there would be no GOP plan to oppose the Dem's plan. So here you have one group saying this is our plan and then you have one group that says we don't have a plan and there is nothing wrong with what is happening.
FYI – I lost an eye to a hunting accident in 1993. I will open one eye ok?
Actually, our boy blunt said there would be no GOP plan to oppose the Dem's plan. So here you have one group saying this is our plan and then you have one group that says we don't have a plan and there is nothing wrong with what is happening.
FYI – I lost an eye to a hunting accident in 1993. I will open one eye ok?
For our edification, Martin, would you please provide us with your personal catalog of critical failings of our medical care system that justify a near nationalization of the one-sixth of our economy? Also, while you are doing that, explain how this planned takeover will cure those ills that animate your support for this dramatic move to socialized medicine. Not to be too burdensome, but would you also please explain how this plan will deal with the, possibly unintended consequences, of this grand socialized medicine experiment if it becomes law.
I await your response with a sense of anticipation of becoming truly informed about the depths of your thoughts in this matter.
Thanks
For our edification, Martin, would you please provide us with your personal catalog of critical failings of our medical care system that justify a near nationalization of the one-sixth of our economy? Also, while you are doing that, explain how this planned takeover will cure those ills that animate your support for this dramatic move to socialized medicine. Not to be too burdensome, but would you also please explain how this plan will deal with the, possibly unintended consequences, of this grand socialized medicine experiment if it becomes law.
I await your response with a sense of anticipation of becoming truly informed about the depths of your thoughts in this matter.
Thanks
For our edification, Martin, would you please provide us with your personal catalog of critical failings of our medical care system that justify a near nationalization of the one-sixth of our economy? Also, while you are doing that, explain how this planned takeover will cure those ills that animate your support for this dramatic move to socialized medicine. Not to be too burdensome, but would you also please explain how this plan will deal with the, possibly unintended consequences, of this grand socialized medicine experiment if it becomes law.
I await your response with a sense of anticipation of becoming truly informed about the depths of your thoughts in this matter.
Thanks
We currently rank 34th in healthcare. I spend 12-15% of my income on insurance and healthcare. that is all you need to know. I admit I don't know all the details but my costs have gone up 20-30% each year since I began working and starting a family. So in my mind, something has to change. I'm willing to give this plan a shot if it works to keep costs down.
Everyone can use their scare tactics about regulating and deciding when someone dies or comparing it to Canada and other countries. It isn't that system so I don't know why they do that.
The insurance companies have had it pretty darn good for many years. And like I said, they are having record years and still laying people off. They spend 1.4 million dollars a year to lobby our gov't. This isn't as much of a party issue as a human race issue for me.
I essentially want the same coverage and premiums that members of congress or the senate have. Actually, even if I could just have the coverage that Federal Employees get that would be great.
I really wish we wouldn't of wasted all that money on Iraq. Now Obama has to pick up the pieces.
Part One:
Martin, I want to thank you for responding so rapidly to my request for information, I must inform you, however, that if I were your university professor, and you were presenting me with a formal position statement as per an assignment, I would be required, even in this era of rampant grade-inflation, to give you a 'D.' Being generous, and adding in a grade for effort, I would give you a grade of 'D+' and the telephone number of the nearest academic dean.
Permit me the luxury of taking your points in order of occurrence and suggesting ways in which you could provide more informative contributions to this discussion.
#1: We rank 34th in Health-care. Do you know the origin of this claim? Do you know that the claim is based on 1997 data? Do you know that eight elements of performance were used to generate the index upon which the ranking of 37th was based? Have you ever examined these elements and evaluated them for possible validity and reliability for evaluating the performance of an entire nation's health-care system?
#2: You spend 12-15% of your income on heath-care. Do you know that the national average for health-care expenditures is closer to 17%? What do you do with the other 83-88% of your income? Are those expenditures more important than your health and that of your family? If you didn't spend your income on maintaining your own and your family's health, what would you spend it on? If you did not pay for your own health-care, who do you think should take on this responsibility and why?
#3:Your health-care expenditures are annually increasing 20-30%. Can you document this assertion? Could you detail the elements of this dramatic inflation of your health-care budget? Presuming your assertion to be true, have you carefully looked at the factors influencing general increases in health-care expenditures? Please study the effects of each of the following factors influencing health-care expenditures and identify which you would be willing to forgo: Medical research leading to improved procedures, pharmaceutical research leading to improvement in medicines, compensation improvements for all the working stiffs who staff our medical institutions, medical training, including routine and advanced, for physicians and other medical practitioners, defensive medicine costs, malpractice insurance costs, jackpot justice for those who claim injury. You, of course, could add to this list since your additions may improve your thesis.
#4: Unnamed persons use scare tactics concerning regulations and using comparisons to other health-care systems such as the Canadian system. Who are the purveyors of these scare tactics? Have you considered the origin of these 'scare tactics' and whether they emanate from professional evaluations of the proposed legislation or if they are simply invented in the fevered imaginations of those who are opposed to nationalization of our health-care system? When thinking of the future, do you anticipate being denied life-saving procedures because they are not cost effective for a man of your age by a remote bureaucrat with a moral affinity to the late Dr. Joseph Mengele? Do you personally look forward to month-long queues for appointments to see physicians, medical tests, medical operations? If so, why?
Part One:
Martin, I want to thank you for responding so rapidly to my request for information, I must inform you, however, that if I were your university professor, and you were presenting me with a formal position statement as per an assignment, I would be required, even in this era of rampant grade-inflation, to give you a 'D.' Being generous, and adding in a grade for effort, I would give you a grade of 'D+' and the telephone number of the nearest academic dean.
Permit me the luxury of taking your points in order of occurrence and suggesting ways in which you could provide more informative contributions to this discussion.
#1: We rank 34th in Health-care. Do you know the origin of this claim? Do you know that the claim is based on 1997 data? Do you know that eight elements of performance were used to generate the index upon which the ranking of 37th was based? Have you ever examined these elements and evaluated them for possible validity and reliability for evaluating the performance of an entire nation's health-care system?
#2: You spend 12-15% of your income on heath-care. Do you know that the national average for health-care expenditures is closer to 17%? What do you do with the other 83-88% of your income? Are those expenditures more important than your health and that of your family? If you didn't spend your income on maintaining your own and your family's health, what would you spend it on? If you did not pay for your own health-care, who do you think should take on this responsibility and why?
#3:Your health-care expenditures are annually increasing 20-30%. Can you document this assertion? Could you detail the elements of this dramatic inflation of your health-care budget? Presuming your assertion to be true, have you carefully looked at the factors influencing general increases in health-care expenditures? Please study the effects of each of the following factors influencing health-care expenditures and identify which you would be willing to forgo: Medical research leading to improved procedures, pharmaceutical research leading to improvement in medicines, compensation improvements for all the working stiffs who staff our medical institutions, medical training, including routine and advanced, for physicians and other medical practitioners, defensive medicine costs, malpractice insurance costs, jackpot justice for those who claim injury. You, of course, could add to this list since your additions may improve your thesis.
#4: Unnamed persons use scare tactics concerning regulations and using comparisons to other health-care systems such as the Canadian system. Who are the purveyors of these scare tactics? Have you considered the origin of these 'scare tactics' and whether they emanate from professional evaluations of the proposed legislation or if they are simply invented in the fevered imaginations of those who are opposed to nationalization of our health-care system? When thinking of the future, do you anticipate being denied life-saving procedures because they are not cost effective for a man of your age by a remote bureaucrat with a moral affinity to the late Dr. Joseph Mengele? Do you personally look forward to month-long queues for appointments to see physicians, medical tests, medical operations? If so, why?
Part two:
#5: Medical insurance “ … companies have had it pretty darn good for many years … [and] … are having record years and still laying people off.” You seem to be faulting profit making private enterprise for making profits and for discharging unneeded workers. Please explain how private enterprise could attract investment capital if profit could not be anticipated. Please also explain why you think the cost of your medical-care would be reduced if insurance companies (or any other enterprise) maintained an unnecessary and unproductive workforce. Make it personal, explain how your company could afford to hire and continue to pay you if it did not make a profit and/or discharge unneeded workers. As an alternative, couch your explanation in terms of GM or Chrysler.
#6: Medical insurance companies “ … spend 1.4 million dollars a year to lobby our gov't.” Are you certain they spend so little? Do you understand that this would probably support at most 2 or 3 shoestring budgeted lobbyists in Washington? Do you think that medical insurance companies should be forbidden to petition the House and Senate on behalf of their corporate and customer interests? Would you advocate the same restrictions on all other potential petitioners?
#7. You “ … essentially want the same coverage and premiums … members of congress or the senate have [or] …Federal Employees get … “ Explain how and why you believe the proposed legislation will fulfill this essential desire of yours . How do you anticipate convincing the writers of this legislation that they should not exempt themselves from the 'public option' they have designed for you while forbidding you the option of participating in the health-care program designed of, by, and for federal employees.
#8. You state “I really wish we wouldn't of (sic) wasted all that money on Iraq.” Please explain how the fulfillment of this wish would have reduced your health-care costs. Also explain in some detail why the energetic bipartisan support of the Iraqi enterprise could have been so wrong as to be regarded as a waste. You could, alternatively, just strike this seemingly irrelevant remark from your explanations.
Best regards to you, Sir.
Actually, I am going to be against this plan after reading your post and the sane comments from one the GOP's great reps, he converted me:
GOHMERT: We’ve been battling this socialist health care, the nationalization of health care, that is going to absolutely kill senior citizens. They’ll put them on lists and force them to die early because they won’t get the treatment as early as they need. [...] I would rather stop this socialization of health care because once the government pays for your health care, they have every right to tell you what you eat, what you drink, how you exercise, where you live. [...] But if we’re going to pay 700 million dollars like we voted last Friday to put condoms on wild horses, and I know it just says an un-permanent enhanced contraception whatever the heck that is. I guess it follows that they’re eventually get around to doing it to us.
Actually, I am going to be against this plan after reading your post and the sane comments from one the GOP's great reps, he converted me:
GOHMERT: We’ve been battling this socialist health care, the nationalization of health care, that is going to absolutely kill senior citizens. They’ll put them on lists and force them to die early because they won’t get the treatment as early as they need. [...] I would rather stop this socialization of health care because once the government pays for your health care, they have every right to tell you what you eat, what you drink, how you exercise, where you live. [...] But if we’re going to pay 700 million dollars like we voted last Friday to put condoms on wild horses, and I know it just says an un-permanent enhanced contraception whatever the heck that is. I guess it follows that they’re eventually get around to doing it to us.
Part two:
#5: Medical insurance “ … companies have had it pretty darn good for many years … [and] … are having record years and still laying people off.” You seem to be faulting profit making private enterprise for making profits and for discharging unneeded workers. Please explain how private enterprise could attract investment capital if profit could not be anticipated. Please also explain why you think the cost of your medical-care would be reduced if insurance companies (or any other enterprise) maintained an unnecessary and unproductive workforce. Make it personal, explain how your company could afford to hire and continue to pay you if it did not make a profit and/or discharge unneeded workers. As an alternative, couch your explanation in terms of GM or Chrysler.
#6: Medical insurance companies “ … spend 1.4 million dollars a year to lobby our gov't.” Are you certain they spend so little? Do you understand that this would probably support at most 2 or 3 shoestring budgeted lobbyists in Washington? Do you think that medical insurance companies should be forbidden to petition the House and Senate on behalf of their corporate and customer interests? Would you advocate the same restrictions on all other potential petitioners?
#7. You “ … essentially want the same coverage and premiums … members of congress or the senate have [or] …Federal Employees get … “ Explain how and why you believe the proposed legislation will fulfill this essential desire of yours . How do you anticipate convincing the writers of this legislation that they should not exempt themselves from the 'public option' they have designed for you while forbidding you the option of participating in the health-care program designed of, by, and for federal employees.
#8. You state “I really wish we wouldn't of (sic) wasted all that money on Iraq.” Please explain how the fulfillment of this wish would have reduced your health-care costs. Also explain in some detail why the energetic bipartisan support of the Iraqi enterprise could have been so wrong as to be regarded as a waste. You could, alternatively, just strike this seemingly irrelevant remark from your explanations.
Best regards to you, Sir.
We currently rank 34th in healthcare. I spend 12-15% of my income on insurance and healthcare. that is all you need to know. I admit I don't know all the details but my costs have gone up 20-30% each year since I began working and starting a family. So in my mind, something has to change. I'm willing to give this plan a shot if it works to keep costs down.
Everyone can use their scare tactics about regulating and deciding when someone dies or comparing it to Canada and other countries. It isn't that system so I don't know why they do that.
The insurance companies have had it pretty darn good for many years. And like I said, they are having record years and still laying people off. They spend 1.4 million dollars a year to lobby our gov't. This isn't as much of a party issue as a human race issue for me.
I essentially want the same coverage and premiums that members of congress or the senate have. Actually, even if I could just have the coverage that Federal Employees get that would be great.
I really wish we wouldn't of wasted all that money on Iraq. Now Obama has to pick up the pieces.
For our edification, Martin, would you please provide us with your personal catalog of critical failings of our medical care system that justify a near nationalization of the one-sixth of our economy? Also, while you are doing that, explain how this planned takeover will cure those ills that animate your support for this dramatic move to socialized medicine. Not to be too burdensome, but would you also please explain how this plan will deal with the, possibly unintended consequences, of this grand socialized medicine experiment if it becomes law.
I await your response with a sense of anticipation of becoming truly informed about the depths of your thoughts in this matter.
Thanks
I'll take their plan over the status quo of right now for sure. I was going to read the GOP's plan but they don't have one. They are so afraid of putting a plan out there because of 2010 elections. They do have reason to be a little timid after getting killed in 2008.
Our government set a record in spending from 2000-2008…..and now everyone is worried.
If you don't like the gov't plan, don't take part. Continue to buy it the insurance companies who have no one's interest in but their own. Cigna recorded record profits and let 1,100 people go from their jobs. Something has to change. It is your choice.
Imagine if we had all the money we wasted in Iraq? Now that is a fun thought……
And in terms of choice…my insurance company and any company I would go to tells me how much I pay for visits, tells me which doctors I CAN SEE, which procedures I CAN HAVE. We don't have choices now.
Martin, your arguments are a compilation of various liberal canards, jumbled together in order to appear to be powerful.
They are not.
You cannot compare the spending of Bush to Obama when Obama has spent more than all the presidents in the history of America combined. You just look silly trying, so stop it.
You cannot tell me that a plan that will consult the elderly on how to die with dignity rather than how to rehab from hip replacement surgery is a better plan.
You cannot tell me that a plan that tells doctors how much they can make will result in better health care in America. It won't. It will result is less doctors and an explosion of medical tourism.
You cannot tell me that the government will run things better than the private sector. You cannot centralize 18% of the economy and expect it to run smoother. It's silly to even think you can.
It's unfortunate that you are unhappy with your health care. I am not. Your unhappiness does not mean that those who are content with their coverage should sacrifice it for government run health care.
Martin, your arguments are a compilation of various liberal canards, jumbled together in order to appear to be powerful.
They are not.
You cannot compare the spending of Bush to Obama when Obama has spent more than all the presidents in the history of America combined. You just look silly trying, so stop it.
You cannot tell me that a plan that will consult the elderly on how to die with dignity rather than how to rehab from hip replacement surgery is a better plan.
You cannot tell me that a plan that tells doctors how much they can make will result in better health care in America. It won't. It will result is less doctors and an explosion of medical tourism.
You cannot tell me that the government will run things better than the private sector. You cannot centralize 18% of the economy and expect it to run smoother. It's silly to even think you can.
It's unfortunate that you are unhappy with your health care. I am not. Your unhappiness does not mean that those who are content with their coverage should sacrifice it for government run health care.
Then let's come up with a plan that frees things up, Martin, not controls things even more. You are against the current controls of insurance agencies, but you're jumping onto the "only" plan that is out there and supporting more control by bureaucrats. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Rather than jump on the only plan out there, we can keep from jumping off a cliff by keeping the status quo and wait until people who actually care about us are in office.
Yes, spending was up from 2000-2008. Guess who controlled Congress at that time, too? Oh yeah, the same people controlling it today… if you didn't get it, they're Democrats.
Duane and 44Grim, what would you like to see changed about our current healthcare in the United States?
Duane and 44Grim, what would you like to see changed about our current healthcare in the United States?
Then let's come up with a plan that frees things up, Martin, not controls things even more. You are against the current controls of insurance agencies, but you're jumping onto the "only" plan that is out there and supporting more control by bureaucrats. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Rather than jump on the only plan out there, we can keep from jumping off a cliff by keeping the status quo and wait until people who actually care about us are in office.
Yes, spending was up from 2000-2008. Guess who controlled Congress at that time, too? Oh yeah, the same people controlling it today… if you didn't get it, they're Democrats.
And in terms of choice…my insurance company and any company I would go to tells me how much I pay for visits, tells me which doctors I CAN SEE, which procedures I CAN HAVE. We don't have choices now.
I see what you did there.
Rather than admit the Dems are catering to special interests and ignoring one of the driving forces behind unnecessary procedures and rising health care costs, you try to switch the focus to Republicans.
Have you seen what the Dems health care takeover would mean?
Here's a peek:
Does that sound like an improvement to you? Does that sound like liberty, or freedom?
I see what you did there.
Rather than admit the Dems are catering to special interests and ignoring one of the driving forces behind unnecessary procedures and rising health care costs, you try to switch the focus to Republicans.
Have you seen what the Dems health care takeover would mean?
Here's a peek:
Does that sound like an improvement to you? Does that sound like liberty, or freedom?
I see what you did there.
Rather than admit the Dems are catering to special interests and ignoring one of the driving forces behind unnecessary procedures and rising health care costs, you try to switch the focus to Republicans.
Have you seen what the Dems health care takeover would mean?
Here's a peek:
Does that sound like an improvement to you? Does that sound like liberty, or freedom?
You are right on Steve. They hate this country and every fiber in it. That is why they put a healthcare plan out there and the GOP announced two days ago they will not have a plan. Our own Roy Blunt everyone (Clap Clap Clap). I'm serious, let's just start another war and everyone will forget about this healthcare stuff. Nothing to see here…
Thank you for writing this. Obama and company are doing everything possible to make sure every base is covered to retain control of the government. Their facade of 'care' for America is just that. A facade. Their main concern again, is power and control.
Thank you for writing this. Obama and company are doing everything possible to make sure every base is covered to retain control of the government. Their facade of 'care' for America is just that. A facade. Their main concern again, is power and control.
You are right on Steve. They hate this country and every fiber in it. That is why they put a healthcare plan out there and the GOP announced two days ago they will not have a plan. Our own Roy Blunt everyone (Clap Clap Clap). I'm serious, let's just start another war and everyone will forget about this healthcare stuff. Nothing to see here…
I see what you did there.
Rather than admit the Dems are catering to special interests and ignoring one of the driving forces behind unnecessary procedures and rising health care costs, you try to switch the focus to Republicans.
Have you seen what the Dems health care takeover would mean?
Here's a peek:
Does that sound like an improvement to you? Does that sound like liberty, or freedom?
I see what you did there.
Rather than admit the Dems are catering to special interests and ignoring one of the driving forces behind unnecessary procedures and rising health care costs, you try to switch the focus to Republicans.
Have you seen what the Dems health care takeover would mean?
Here's a peek:
Does that sound like an improvement to you? Does that sound like liberty, or freedom?
I'll take their plan over the status quo of right now for sure. I was going to read the GOP's plan but they don't have one. They are so afraid of putting a plan out there because of 2010 elections. They do have reason to be a little timid after getting killed in 2008.
Our government set a record in spending from 2000-2008…..and now everyone is worried.
If you don't like the gov't plan, don't take part. Continue to buy it the insurance companies who have no one's interest in but their own. Cigna recorded record profits and let 1,100 people go from their jobs. Something has to change. It is your choice.
Imagine if we had all the money we wasted in Iraq? Now that is a fun thought……
Hey Martin, if you do a little research, you'd know that your opinion that there is "no GOP plan" is the farthest thing from the truth. the TRUTH is that the Dems would never let it leave the committee, or hardly ever let it be brought up. Open your eyes, man.
Actually, our boy blunt said there would be no GOP plan to oppose the Dem's plan. So here you have one group saying this is our plan and then you have one group that says we don't have a plan and there is nothing wrong with what is happening.
FYI – I lost an eye to a hunting accident in 1993. I will open one eye ok?
For our edification, Martin, would you please provide us with your personal catalog of critical failings of our medical care system that justify a near nationalization of the one-sixth of our economy? Also, while you are doing that, explain how this planned takeover will cure those ills that animate your support for this dramatic move to socialized medicine. Not to be too burdensome, but would you also please explain how this plan will deal with the, possibly unintended consequences, of this grand socialized medicine experiment if it becomes law.
I await your response with a sense of anticipation of becoming truly informed about the depths of your thoughts in this matter.
Thanks
For our edification, Martin, would you please provide us with your personal catalog of critical failings of our medical care system that justify a near nationalization of the one-sixth of our economy? Also, while you are doing that, explain how this planned takeover will cure those ills that animate your support for this dramatic move to socialized medicine. Not to be too burdensome, but would you also please explain how this plan will deal with the, possibly unintended consequences, of this grand socialized medicine experiment if it becomes law.
I await your response with a sense of anticipation of becoming truly informed about the depths of your thoughts in this matter.
Thanks
We currently rank 34th in healthcare. I spend 12-15% of my income on insurance and healthcare. that is all you need to know. I admit I don't know all the details but my costs have gone up 20-30% each year since I began working and starting a family. So in my mind, something has to change. I'm willing to give this plan a shot if it works to keep costs down.
Everyone can use their scare tactics about regulating and deciding when someone dies or comparing it to Canada and other countries. It isn't that system so I don't know why they do that.
The insurance companies have had it pretty darn good for many years. And like I said, they are having record years and still laying people off. They spend 1.4 million dollars a year to lobby our gov't. This isn't as much of a party issue as a human race issue for me.
I essentially want the same coverage and premiums that members of congress or the senate have. Actually, even if I could just have the coverage that Federal Employees get that would be great.
I really wish we wouldn't of wasted all that money on Iraq. Now Obama has to pick up the pieces.
Part One:
Martin, I want to thank you for responding so rapidly to my request for information, I must inform you, however, that if I were your university professor, and you were presenting me with a formal position statement as per an assignment, I would be required, even in this era of rampant grade-inflation, to give you a 'D.' Being generous, and adding in a grade for effort, I would give you a grade of 'D+' and the telephone number of the nearest academic dean.
Permit me the luxury of taking your points in order of occurrence and suggesting ways in which you could provide more informative contributions to this discussion.
#1: We rank 34th in Health-care. Do you know the origin of this claim? Do you know that the claim is based on 1997 data? Do you know that eight elements of performance were used to generate the index upon which the ranking of 37th was based? Have you ever examined these elements and evaluated them for possible validity and reliability for evaluating the performance of an entire nation's health-care system?
#2: You spend 12-15% of your income on heath-care. Do you know that the national average for health-care expenditures is closer to 17%? What do you do with the other 83-88% of your income? Are those expenditures more important than your health and that of your family? If you didn't spend your income on maintaining your own and your family's health, what would you spend it on? If you did not pay for your own health-care, who do you think should take on this responsibility and why?
#3:Your health-care expenditures are annually increasing 20-30%. Can you document this assertion? Could you detail the elements of this dramatic inflation of your health-care budget? Presuming your assertion to be true, have you carefully looked at the factors influencing general increases in health-care expenditures? Please study the effects of each of the following factors influencing health-care expenditures and identify which you would be willing to forgo: Medical research leading to improved procedures, pharmaceutical research leading to improvement in medicines, compensation improvements for all the working stiffs who staff our medical institutions, medical training, including routine and advanced, for physicians and other medical practitioners, defensive medicine costs, malpractice insurance costs, jackpot justice for those who claim injury. You, of course, could add to this list since your additions may improve your thesis.
#4: Unnamed persons use scare tactics concerning regulations and using comparisons to other health-care systems such as the Canadian system. Who are the purveyors of these scare tactics? Have you considered the origin of these 'scare tactics' and whether they emanate from professional evaluations of the proposed legislation or if they are simply invented in the fevered imaginations of those who are opposed to nationalization of our health-care system? When thinking of the future, do you anticipate being denied life-saving procedures because they are not cost effective for a man of your age by a remote bureaucrat with a moral affinity to the late Dr. Joseph Mengele? Do you personally look forward to month-long queues for appointments to see physicians, medical tests, medical operations? If so, why?
Part two:
#5: Medical insurance “ … companies have had it pretty darn good for many years … [and] … are having record years and still laying people off.” You seem to be faulting profit making private enterprise for making profits and for discharging unneeded workers. Please explain how private enterprise could attract investment capital if profit could not be anticipated. Please also explain why you think the cost of your medical-care would be reduced if insurance companies (or any other enterprise) maintained an unnecessary and unproductive workforce. Make it personal, explain how your company could afford to hire and continue to pay you if it did not make a profit and/or discharge unneeded workers. As an alternative, couch your explanation in terms of GM or Chrysler.
#6: Medical insurance companies “ … spend 1.4 million dollars a year to lobby our gov't.” Are you certain they spend so little? Do you understand that this would probably support at most 2 or 3 shoestring budgeted lobbyists in Washington? Do you think that medical insurance companies should be forbidden to petition the House and Senate on behalf of their corporate and customer interests? Would you advocate the same restrictions on all other potential petitioners?
#7. You “ … essentially want the same coverage and premiums … members of congress or the senate have [or] …Federal Employees get … “ Explain how and why you believe the proposed legislation will fulfill this essential desire of yours . How do you anticipate convincing the writers of this legislation that they should not exempt themselves from the 'public option' they have designed for you while forbidding you the option of participating in the health-care program designed of, by, and for federal employees.
#8. You state “I really wish we wouldn't of (sic) wasted all that money on Iraq.” Please explain how the fulfillment of this wish would have reduced your health-care costs. Also explain in some detail why the energetic bipartisan support of the Iraqi enterprise could have been so wrong as to be regarded as a waste. You could, alternatively, just strike this seemingly irrelevant remark from your explanations.
Best regards to you, Sir.
Actually, I am going to be against this plan after reading your post and the sane comments from one the GOP's great reps, he converted me:
GOHMERT: We’ve been battling this socialist health care, the nationalization of health care, that is going to absolutely kill senior citizens. They’ll put them on lists and force them to die early because they won’t get the treatment as early as they need. [...] I would rather stop this socialization of health care because once the government pays for your health care, they have every right to tell you what you eat, what you drink, how you exercise, where you live. [...] But if we’re going to pay 700 million dollars like we voted last Friday to put condoms on wild horses, and I know it just says an un-permanent enhanced contraception whatever the heck that is. I guess it follows that they’re eventually get around to doing it to us.
And in terms of choice…my insurance company and any company I would go to tells me how much I pay for visits, tells me which doctors I CAN SEE, which procedures I CAN HAVE. We don't have choices now.
Martin, your arguments are a compilation of various liberal canards, jumbled together in order to appear to be powerful.
They are not.
You cannot compare the spending of Bush to Obama when Obama has spent more than all the presidents in the history of America combined. You just look silly trying, so stop it.
You cannot tell me that a plan that will consult the elderly on how to die with dignity rather than how to rehab from hip replacement surgery is a better plan.
You cannot tell me that a plan that tells doctors how much they can make will result in better health care in America. It won't. It will result is less doctors and an explosion of medical tourism.
You cannot tell me that the government will run things better than the private sector. You cannot centralize 18% of the economy and expect it to run smoother. It's silly to even think you can.
It's unfortunate that you are unhappy with your health care. I am not. Your unhappiness does not mean that those who are content with their coverage should sacrifice it for government run health care.
Then let's come up with a plan that frees things up, Martin, not controls things even more. You are against the current controls of insurance agencies, but you're jumping onto the "only" plan that is out there and supporting more control by bureaucrats. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Rather than jump on the only plan out there, we can keep from jumping off a cliff by keeping the status quo and wait until people who actually care about us are in office.
Yes, spending was up from 2000-2008. Guess who controlled Congress at that time, too? Oh yeah, the same people controlling it today… if you didn't get it, they're Democrats.
Duane and 44Grim, what would you like to see changed about our current healthcare in the United States?
As a grandmother who just saw her first grandchild be born, I can relate to the intense pressure to do c-sections. Awesome article. I find it interesting that a democrat is part of the problem. Isn't that interesting!
As a grandmother who just saw her first grandchild be born, I can relate to the intense pressure to do c-sections. Awesome article. I find it interesting that a democrat is part of the problem. Isn't that interesting!
As a grandmother who just saw her first grandchild be born, I can relate to the intense pressure to do c-sections. Awesome article. I find it interesting that a democrat is part of the problem. Isn't that interesting!
Martin, let me welcome you to the fold.
I am sorry you lost an eye in a hunting accident.
I am 72 and attend thrice weekly kidney dialysis sessions which is very expensive. I know the importance of medically necessary procedures despite cost effectiveness judgments made in the hallowed halls of hell (Washington). For me, this program could be the difference between life and death (mine).
Kidney transplant would be less expensive but politicians are disinclined to pass legislation that would make donated organs more readily available than currently.
Socialized medicine scares the hell out of me, especially when it is designed by a crew of social and cultural iconoclasts such as those who would remotely control our lives from Washington.
They know what they are doing, that is why they maintain a solid gold program for themselves while designing a genuine Simulated Gold Tone program for us peons.
Martin, let me welcome you to the fold.
I am sorry you lost an eye in a hunting accident.
I am 72 and attend thrice weekly kidney dialysis sessions which is very expensive. I know the importance of medically necessary procedures despite cost effectiveness judgments made in the hallowed halls of hell (Washington). For me, this program could be the difference between life and death (mine).
Kidney transplant would be less expensive but politicians are disinclined to pass legislation that would make donated organs more readily available than currently.
Socialized medicine scares the hell out of me, especially when it is designed by a crew of social and cultural iconoclasts such as those who would remotely control our lives from Washington.
They know what they are doing, that is why they maintain a solid gold program for themselves while designing a genuine Simulated Gold Tone program for us peons.
Martin, let me welcome you to the fold.
I am sorry you lost an eye in a hunting accident.
I am 72 and attend thrice weekly kidney dialysis sessions which is very expensive. I know the importance of medically necessary procedures despite cost effectiveness judgments made in the hallowed halls of hell (Washington). For me, this program could be the difference between life and death (mine).
Kidney transplant would be less expensive but politicians are disinclined to pass legislation that would make donated organs more readily available than currently.
Socialized medicine scares the hell out of me, especially when it is designed by a crew of social and cultural iconoclasts such as those who would remotely control our lives from Washington.
They know what they are doing, that is why they maintain a solid gold program for themselves while designing a genuine Simulated Gold Tone program for us peons.
Page 22 — MANDATES the government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure.
NO, ACTUALLY THE LANGUAGE SAYS THAT A STUDY SHOULD BE COMMISSIONED TO DETERMINE — IN GENERAL — HOW MANY EMPLOYERS ARE SELF-FUNDING THEIR BENEFITS AND MIGHT WANT TO SHIFT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO THE HEALTH EXCHANGE. NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT AUDITING THE BOOKS.
Page 30 Section 123 — There will be a Government COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
NOT EXACTLY. AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE WILL RECOMMEND THE BENEFITS TO BE OFFERED, JUST LIKE WHAT YOUR EMPLOYER DOES NOW OR YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY — THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES TO BUY MORE EXPENSIVE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS BUT IT WILL BE YOUR CHOICE. FOR HEALTH PLANS THAT OFFER BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO BUY THEIR INSURANCE THROUGH THE EXCHANGE, JUST LIKE WITH MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTS NOW, THERE WILL BE A COMMON PACKAGE OF BENEFITS OFFERED SO PEOPLE CAN COMPARE THEIR CHOICES.
Page 22 — MANDATES the government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure.
NO, ACTUALLY THE LANGUAGE SAYS THAT A STUDY SHOULD BE COMMISSIONED TO DETERMINE — IN GENERAL — HOW MANY EMPLOYERS ARE SELF-FUNDING THEIR BENEFITS AND MIGHT WANT TO SHIFT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO THE HEALTH EXCHANGE. NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT AUDITING THE BOOKS.
Page 30 Section 123 — There will be a Government COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
NOT EXACTLY. AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE WILL RECOMMEND THE BENEFITS TO BE OFFERED, JUST LIKE WHAT YOUR EMPLOYER DOES NOW OR YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY — THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES TO BUY MORE EXPENSIVE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS BUT IT WILL BE YOUR CHOICE. FOR HEALTH PLANS THAT OFFER BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO BUY THEIR INSURANCE THROUGH THE EXCHANGE, JUST LIKE WITH MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTS NOW, THERE WILL BE A COMMON PACKAGE OF BENEFITS OFFERED SO PEOPLE CAN COMPARE THEIR CHOICES.
Page 22 — MANDATES the government will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure.
NO, ACTUALLY THE LANGUAGE SAYS THAT A STUDY SHOULD BE COMMISSIONED TO DETERMINE — IN GENERAL — HOW MANY EMPLOYERS ARE SELF-FUNDING THEIR BENEFITS AND MIGHT WANT TO SHIFT THEIR EMPLOYEES TO THE HEALTH EXCHANGE. NOTHING IN THERE ABOUT AUDITING THE BOOKS.
Page 30 Section 123 — There will be a Government COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get.
NOT EXACTLY. AN INDEPENDENT COMMITTEE WILL RECOMMEND THE BENEFITS TO BE OFFERED, JUST LIKE WHAT YOUR EMPLOYER DOES NOW OR YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY — THERE WILL BE OPPORTUNITIES TO BUY MORE EXPENSIVE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLANS BUT IT WILL BE YOUR CHOICE. FOR HEALTH PLANS THAT OFFER BENEFITS TO INDIVIDUALS WHO BUY THEIR INSURANCE THROUGH THE EXCHANGE, JUST LIKE WITH MEDICARE SUPPLEMENTS NOW, THERE WILL BE A COMMON PACKAGE OF BENEFITS OFFERED SO PEOPLE CAN COMPARE THEIR CHOICES.
As a public health educator, I am ripped by both concerns from the government and the qualms of the people. Somehow there is a gap that both us (the people) must reach to the government and vice versa. The issue here is not primarily about health care but more on the politics behind.
.-= Benjamin Robert Johnson´s last blog ..Effective Facts about Fats and Weight Loss =-.
As a public health educator, I am ripped by both concerns from the government and the qualms of the people. Somehow there is a gap that both us (the people) must reach to the government and vice versa. The issue here is not primarily about health care but more on the politics behind.
.-= Benjamin Robert Johnson´s last blog ..Effective Facts about Fats and Weight Loss =-.
As a public health educator, I am ripped by both concerns from the government and the qualms of the people. Somehow there is a gap that both us (the people) must reach to the government and vice versa. The issue here is not primarily about health care but more on the politics behind.
.-= Benjamin Robert Johnson´s last blog ..Effective Facts about Fats and Weight Loss =-.