Skip to main content

View Diary: SEIU attacked, then arrested at Healthcare Townhall while Kenneth Gladney lawyers up to sue SEIU? (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oy vey. Would this be the board that identifies (0+ / 0-)

    what treatments are most effective (and that would show if they are cost effective to I guess) and have that information available to doctors and patients?

    It does not determine what treatment must be selected, there are obviously variances in a particular patients needs. Just Obama, silly guy, believes information is a valuable thing that can help people in their decisions.
    This is based on what he's learned from the cities and clinics that are very effective and have lower costs. Making sure the latest findings and studies are available makes a big difference. Even dedicated bust doctors can't keep up with everything.
    And certainly patients can't. They might be influenced by ads or older treatments and be anxious if a doctor orders something else.
    Once when it was explained they brought up tonsils. It isn't much of an issue now but not long ago almost everyone got their tonsils out if they had repeated sore throats...but studies were showing something like 80% of surgeries were unneeded, do not decrease infections.

    Of course it is maybe socialist to take information from elite researchers and share it with everyone. Those researchers worked hard to gain that information, why is that Obama sharing it . Maybe that is even communism. Maybe Hitler would like it. Maybe Muslims from Kenya would.

    Or maybe it is a really good idea included in some of the bills that has nothing to do with rationing.

    (PS Do you just like how insurance companies determine cost effectiveness better....weighing their profit against our treatment?)

    •  This is not just making information available (0+ / 0-)

      Oy vey. Would this be the board that identifies
      what treatments are most effective (and that would show if they are cost effective to I guess) and have that information available to doctors and patients?

      It does not determine what treatment must be selected, there are obviously variances in a particular patients needs. Just Obama, silly guy, believes information is a valuable thing that can help people in their decisions.

      It does not determine what treatment must be selected.  But it does determine what treatments will not be paid for the government plan.

      Given that there are real concerns that the government plan will crowd private insurers out of the low and middle portions of the market that means there is a very good chance that it will determine what treatments will not be available to the majority of Americans.  (Yes, you can always pay for treatment on your own, but if you have the money to self insure then why buy insurance?)

      If I were a mischievous Republican I might suggest the following amendment to the plan...

      "No president who signs the healthcare bill into law or senator or representative who votes for it will be allowed to purchase or receive any medical procedure that is not paid for by the government plan."

      After all, if it's good enough for the American people...

      •  oh for heaven's sake (0+ / 0-)

        What a load of concern-laced fearmongering.

        You are birther/deather/teabagger idiot.

        <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

        by bronte17 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 07:57:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are real issues that must be addressed (0+ / 0-)

          if we are going to change how we pay for and deliver health care in this country.

          Calling anyone who points this out instead of engaging in mindless cheer leading a "birther/deather/teabagger idiot" is not useful.

          As the following commenter pointed out, there are 5 proposals currently on the table.

          Do I have to support all equally not to be a "birther/deather/teabagger idiot" or can I raise key issues that I think must be addressed by any final proposal?

          •  Is it not possible for you to raise your concerns (0+ / 0-)

            without injecting fear and apprehension into the discussion?

            Then you can proceed to present yourself as a legitimate face for honest proposals.

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 09:30:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What fear and apprehension? (0+ / 0-)

              If there's a public option there will be a limit to what the government pays for.

              If there is not public option there will still be a mandate on what the private plans must pay for.

              Either way, this will have a profound standardizing effect on what procedures get paid for for many Americans.

              Is this even controversial?  It seems a necessary result of any reform.

              Now make sure you understand the consequences.

              I don't foresee "death boards".  I do see brutal negative publicity and real issues with senators and congressmen trying to influence decisions for their constituents.

      •  Would you link to the section of whatever bill (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bronte17

        that says payment is limited to what panel says is most cost effective?  Maybe it is part of outcome based payment...
        There are about 5 bills right now, some not done. Neither the house nor senate have "the bill" yet. Once they do if they pass them then the house and senate bills have to be reconciled...and then that will be "the" health care bill

        If there are parts we are concerned with that is what it's good to bring to town halls or ask our congress people about (depending on what bill it is in). Good to have the bill #, the section and exact words when you ask because vaguer descriptions are harder to respond to with so many bills.
        But now is when to do it.

        Now that I know you are talking about public option I don't think this is something that differs from what private insurance does...That's why people have to get prior approval on so many procedures.
        People keep saying private option will crowd out private...I'm assuming you think employers will choose it if it is less expensive and that is the fear? The plans with public options all have sections protecting rights to keep current insurance but I haven't read the section closely.

        But you know people who will be getting subsidies to help pay for insurance can select any insurance on the exchange and get the subsidy? The private plan would just be one of many options.

        The main difference between the private and public plans would be, as it is between Medicare and private, are administrative costs. Public is lower because they don't advertise so much, not pay the executives 24 million in yearly compensation. OK that's just one. The other top ones make between 3-12 million.
        Oh and profit. Yes, that has been pretty good for these top groups too. That comes from our premiums...every denial of service adds to their profit. Every cancellation when someone gets very sick protects their profit.
        Did you hear or read the insurance whistleblowers?

        Or even the CEOs testifying before Congress?

        The act of retroactively canceling insurance is called rescission. It happens with individual health insurance policies, where people apply for insurance on their own, not through their employers. Their application generally includes a questionnaire about their health.

        (snip)
        The process begins after a policyholder has been diagnosed with an expensive condition such as cancer. The insurer then reviews the health status information in the questionnaire, and if anything is missing, the policy may be rescinded.
        Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who chaired the hearing, asked all three CEOs if they would agree to stop rescinding policies except in cases of fraud.

        All three said no.

        If they don't do something to stop it, said Barton of Texas, Congress will.

        Barton of course is a republican.

        The unreported condition doesn't have to be related to the condition they have when canceled, the people don't have to know they ever had it doesn't have to be a question on form. It is common.
        Whistleblowers report it is encouraged, praised and rewarded.

        People who work for a large company and get their insurance through them are pretty safe. A small company or individual you may face bad surprises. And one severe illness in a small company and the rates soar. Obama wants to provide reinsurance for them so that a catastrophic illness would not affect the company rates. That would help so much too.

        Small business and individuals have it hardest with private insurance.

        Among employer-based plans, the largest firms had the lowest costs. Plans covering companies with at least 1,000 employees had a mere 7 percent in administrative costs. Those covering companies with fewer than 25 employees spent 26 percent of premiums on administration. And the individual market was a mess: 30 percent.

        I wish people with concerns would honestly address them. I wish congress and the public would put politics aside. This really is life or death

        •  Are you suggesting that the government plan will (0+ / 0-)

          pay for any treatment?

          Would you link to the section of whatever bill that says payment is limited to what panel says is most cost effective?  Maybe it is part of outcome based payment...

          There are about 5 bills right now, some not done. Neither the house nor senate have "the bill" yet. Once they do if they pass them then the house and senate bills have to be reconciled...and then that will be "the" health care bill

          As you point out, there are many bills.

          However, if there is a public option then that public option must pay for some procedures and not others.

          Someone must make those decisions - presumably this "board".  If not it then some other group or person.

          If the public option crowds out private plans then those choices will become effective rules that most Americans live by... and die by.

          If you claim otherwise please explain.

          Can a public option plan pay for every procedure no matter how expensive that might add a few hours to a patient's life?

          •  Why are you putting the perfection rule upon the (0+ / 0-)

            public option?

            Insurance does not, and has not, and will not, in good faith pay for choices for the honest Americans who have paid into it for their lifetimes.

            I know a 53-year old man who was denied heart surgery by the heart specialist CEO of Humana. It was a death sentence for that man. My only brother died from insurance foot-dragging when time was of the essence.

            You have a lot of nerve to pretend that the insurance racket has Americans' best interests at heart for long healthy lives.

            <div style="color: #a00000;"> Our... constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. Thurgood Marshal

            by bronte17 on Sun Aug 09, 2009 at 09:36:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site