Aa
The hospital says they will not see patients for what the insurance is will ing to pay and the insurance refuses to pay the hospital more. Stalemate, did anyone see this one coming?
I just read in my local paper tonight. 2 major hospitals in the county will discontinue carrying Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida. The only way they will see these policyholders is if they pay the out of network fees. Otherwise 43 thousand people will have to go to another county for their healthcare. It seems the insurance company has had to lay off people and cut back due to the large volume of people on unemployment and no longer carrying health insurance. At the same time the hospital has had an increase in people with no insurance due to the econemy and have their own cutbacks they are dealing with.
Now, to date we have the same healthcare, no one as yet has changed it. No public option (unless you consider those to be medicare and medicaid). Who loses? the policyholder does! Now someone tell me again what wonderful healthcare we have in America! And dont blame it on Obama for a change. And explain to me how this can continue. Not blame, just solutions would be nice for a change?
Now, to date we have the same healthcare, no one as yet has changed it. No public option (unless you consider those to be medicare and medicaid). Who loses? the policyholder does! Now someone tell me again what wonderful healthcare we have in America! And dont blame it on Obama for a change. And explain to me how this can continue. Not blame, just solutions would be nice for a change?
Medicare or Medicaid automatically cover at a certain age. Sure there are always fakes of disablities that aren't. I can say, that going through this state, there can't be many. Looking at a person, one can't always tell if the person has a medical problem that is not visable. If they have arms and legs, can walk and talk, doesn't mean they don't have threatening diseases, or malfunctions. It took me 6 yrs to get disability through. I go to many drs and am on a lot of meds. I take pain medication constantly. People can't see my pain, when it is too bad, I am in bed. People on dialysis, look fully functional at lot of times. It is not always so easy to judge. You can't see cancer that a person deals with unless it causes a physical disability that you can see, or loss of hair from chemo, or in the latter stages.
Medicare and Medicaid is paid out of the person's income, just as insurance. I have looked at the % paid to drs that accept it, and it is very low. Mine does not pay out the amount I pay for the coverage.
They have so many restrictions on qualifications for those plans, and what they cover, it is controled as to what they spend and the care a person gets. Most people have to buy a supplement coverage, and then don't get all of what they need. My mother had acid reflux. Sounds simple. She could have had an operation to fix it. It was never offered. The dr gave her a prescription that would cost her $300 per month. How many elderly people do you think could afford it? She died of esophagel cancer from it. Why do you think AARP backs the Bill? They sell supplemental insurance. My mother had it. Didn't help her a bit. I'm surprised they didn't offer to "pull the plug" as they put it. Offering end of life options to the long term sick, and elderly, is a bad thing. How many people do you know that suffer from deep depressions from those things? We have been funding abortions for years. They were aborting up to 8 months. A reliable health care worker told me that back in the 70s.
Where do you think the illegal pregnant women go to have their babies? ER The child then is taken care of by state funds.
2,000 pages to change benefits. They decide if a person is worth living or "investing". We aren't really talking about helping get better care, we are talking about giving ownership of our bodies. Don't we have freedom of control of our own body? I have to do more reading in the Bill, because I think it starts affecting us sooner, on our care, and I know we loose private insurance from simple things. Yes we do conflict on this Bill, but have we ever known anything the government does that does good for us, that doesn't end up bad for us? Besides, I like owning my own body.
Ask someone that has experienced government health care in other countries what it is, that have come here. It is not like our government to make promises and fool us in the past.
Medicare and Medicaid is paid out of the person's income, just as insurance. I have looked at the % paid to drs that accept it, and it is very low. Mine does not pay out the amount I pay for the coverage.
They have so many restrictions on qualifications for those plans, and what they cover, it is controled as to what they spend and the care a person gets. Most people have to buy a supplement coverage, and then don't get all of what they need. My mother had acid reflux. Sounds simple. She could have had an operation to fix it. It was never offered. The dr gave her a prescription that would cost her $300 per month. How many elderly people do you think could afford it? She died of esophagel cancer from it. Why do you think AARP backs the Bill? They sell supplemental insurance. My mother had it. Didn't help her a bit. I'm surprised they didn't offer to "pull the plug" as they put it. Offering end of life options to the long term sick, and elderly, is a bad thing. How many people do you know that suffer from deep depressions from those things? We have been funding abortions for years. They were aborting up to 8 months. A reliable health care worker told me that back in the 70s.
Where do you think the illegal pregnant women go to have their babies? ER The child then is taken care of by state funds.
2,000 pages to change benefits. They decide if a person is worth living or "investing". We aren't really talking about helping get better care, we are talking about giving ownership of our bodies. Don't we have freedom of control of our own body? I have to do more reading in the Bill, because I think it starts affecting us sooner, on our care, and I know we loose private insurance from simple things. Yes we do conflict on this Bill, but have we ever known anything the government does that does good for us, that doesn't end up bad for us? Besides, I like owning my own body.
Ask someone that has experienced government health care in other countries what it is, that have come here. It is not like our government to make promises and fool us in the past.
Here's some good Ques.& Ans. about the Health Care Reform Bill, if anyone is interested..........
A universal health care system has many benefits. One benefit is that doctors and providers can turn their concentration to helping patients instead of insurer demands and liability insurance for malpractice. This can increase the efficiency of doctors, who do not have to worry about restrictions as a result of insurance company policies. Other benefits include not having individuals opt out of treatments or medical tests because of the high costs that are involved.
If Congress makes history and puts a bill on President Barack Obama's desk by Christmas, how long before the uninsured get medical coverage?
If you said three years or more, you'd be right. Yet many people don't realize that to keep costs down, lawmakers made compromises that might not appeal to consumers.
"There's going to be a long period of great expectations and very modest deliveries," said economist Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute public policy center. That's assuming Democrats prevail.
Some questions and answers on the House-passed bill and the version the Senate will begin debating in the week ahead; both measures were written by Democrats:
Q: How many people would be covered?
A: The Senate bill would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans under age 65; under the House bill, it's 96 percent.
That's a major improvement over the 83 percent now covered, but the safety net would have holes.
Some 16 million eligible people would remain uninsured under the Senate bill and 12 million under the House bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's not counting illegal immigrants, who would not be eligible for government assistance under either bill.
Both bills would eventually require Americans to get health insurance, or face fines.
Q: Why don't lawmakers just provide coverage for everyone?
A: Part of the reason is it would cost more, at least $250 billion over 10 years. The president wants to keep the total cost to about $900 billion. But it means workers and their families would be more than twice as likely to be uninsured as older people, virtually all of whom are now covered by Medicare.
Q: How affordable is the new middle-class coverage going to be?
A: It depends.
Most people would remain in their employer plans. Self-employed people and those working in small businesses would be able to buy coverage through a new insurance marketplace, with government subsidies available for many.
Ads by Google
GE's Healthcare Research - Learn About GE Healthcare Research Cutting-edge Healthcare Technology - www.healthymagination.com
The aid is substantial for lower-income households, but drops off rapidly for the middle class.
Under the House bill, a family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $44,000 a year would pay roughly $2,400 in premiums, or $200 a month, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
A similar family making $66,000 would pay about $6,580 in premiums, or about $550 a month.
That's a bargain compared to current rates, which can top $1,000 a month, but it still may be too much for some family budgets. About one-third of the uninsured say they'd be able to pay $200 a month in premiums, and only 7 percent say they can afford $400.
Q: Twenty-year-olds don't have many health problems. Would they be required to get coverage?
A: You bet.
Unmarried children could stay on their parents' plan until age 27 in the House bill, 26 in the Senate plan. That change would start in 2010.
But those buying coverage for themselves could be in for sticker shock. Insurers now charge the young and healthy much less than middle-age people who are more likely to get sick. Under both bills, age-related premiums would be limited. So the young would pay more than they do now.
"The people who are going to do best are older people with a problematic medical history," said health policy expert Paul Ginsburg, of the Center for Studying Health System Change.
Q: These bills are going to ban pre-existing conditions, right?
A: Yes, but not immediately.
Both bills would forbid insurers from denying coverage to people in poor health or charging them more. That would happen in 2013 under the House bill, and 2014 in the Senate's.
The reason for the delay is that it would be unfair to require insurers to take all applicants right away. The sick would sign up, but healthy people would probably wait until they faced the threat of government fines. Such a situation could raise premiums for everyone.
Q: So if I have a health care problem, I might still have to wait three years to four years for coverage?
A: At Obama's request, lawmakers tried to take care of that by setting aside $5 billion for temporary "high-risk" insurance pools to provide affordable coverage for people whose health is frail.
But there's a problem with the patch.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the money would run out in 2011 unless Congress pumps in more cash.
Q: Older people are concerned about what's going to happen to Medicare. Should they be?
A: Even though cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers are paying for much of the cost of covering the uninsured, benefits under traditional Medicare aren't reduced.
But those who've signed up for private insurance plans through Medicare Advantage could lose valuable extra benefits, according to the budget office.
For years, the government has been paying the private plans more than it costs traditional Medicare to deliver similar services. The plans used the money to provide extra benefits - mainly lower copayments and deductibles.
Both bills offer cheaper prescription drugs to those who fall into the "doughnut hole," the Medicare coverage gap. The House bill gradually would eliminate the gap. Both bills also provide better coverage for preventive care.
A universal health care system has many benefits. One benefit is that doctors and providers can turn their concentration to helping patients instead of insurer demands and liability insurance for malpractice. This can increase the efficiency of doctors, who do not have to worry about restrictions as a result of insurance company policies. Other benefits include not having individuals opt out of treatments or medical tests because of the high costs that are involved.
If Congress makes history and puts a bill on President Barack Obama's desk by Christmas, how long before the uninsured get medical coverage?
If you said three years or more, you'd be right. Yet many people don't realize that to keep costs down, lawmakers made compromises that might not appeal to consumers.
"There's going to be a long period of great expectations and very modest deliveries," said economist Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute public policy center. That's assuming Democrats prevail.
Some questions and answers on the House-passed bill and the version the Senate will begin debating in the week ahead; both measures were written by Democrats:
Q: How many people would be covered?
A: The Senate bill would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans under age 65; under the House bill, it's 96 percent.
That's a major improvement over the 83 percent now covered, but the safety net would have holes.
Some 16 million eligible people would remain uninsured under the Senate bill and 12 million under the House bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That's not counting illegal immigrants, who would not be eligible for government assistance under either bill.
Both bills would eventually require Americans to get health insurance, or face fines.
Q: Why don't lawmakers just provide coverage for everyone?
A: Part of the reason is it would cost more, at least $250 billion over 10 years. The president wants to keep the total cost to about $900 billion. But it means workers and their families would be more than twice as likely to be uninsured as older people, virtually all of whom are now covered by Medicare.
Q: How affordable is the new middle-class coverage going to be?
A: It depends.
Most people would remain in their employer plans. Self-employed people and those working in small businesses would be able to buy coverage through a new insurance marketplace, with government subsidies available for many.
Ads by Google
GE's Healthcare Research - Learn About GE Healthcare Research Cutting-edge Healthcare Technology - www.healthymagination.com
The aid is substantial for lower-income households, but drops off rapidly for the middle class.
Under the House bill, a family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $44,000 a year would pay roughly $2,400 in premiums, or $200 a month, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
A similar family making $66,000 would pay about $6,580 in premiums, or about $550 a month.
That's a bargain compared to current rates, which can top $1,000 a month, but it still may be too much for some family budgets. About one-third of the uninsured say they'd be able to pay $200 a month in premiums, and only 7 percent say they can afford $400.
Q: Twenty-year-olds don't have many health problems. Would they be required to get coverage?
A: You bet.
Unmarried children could stay on their parents' plan until age 27 in the House bill, 26 in the Senate plan. That change would start in 2010.
But those buying coverage for themselves could be in for sticker shock. Insurers now charge the young and healthy much less than middle-age people who are more likely to get sick. Under both bills, age-related premiums would be limited. So the young would pay more than they do now.
"The people who are going to do best are older people with a problematic medical history," said health policy expert Paul Ginsburg, of the Center for Studying Health System Change.
Q: These bills are going to ban pre-existing conditions, right?
A: Yes, but not immediately.
Both bills would forbid insurers from denying coverage to people in poor health or charging them more. That would happen in 2013 under the House bill, and 2014 in the Senate's.
The reason for the delay is that it would be unfair to require insurers to take all applicants right away. The sick would sign up, but healthy people would probably wait until they faced the threat of government fines. Such a situation could raise premiums for everyone.
Q: So if I have a health care problem, I might still have to wait three years to four years for coverage?
A: At Obama's request, lawmakers tried to take care of that by setting aside $5 billion for temporary "high-risk" insurance pools to provide affordable coverage for people whose health is frail.
But there's a problem with the patch.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the money would run out in 2011 unless Congress pumps in more cash.
Q: Older people are concerned about what's going to happen to Medicare. Should they be?
A: Even though cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers are paying for much of the cost of covering the uninsured, benefits under traditional Medicare aren't reduced.
But those who've signed up for private insurance plans through Medicare Advantage could lose valuable extra benefits, according to the budget office.
For years, the government has been paying the private plans more than it costs traditional Medicare to deliver similar services. The plans used the money to provide extra benefits - mainly lower copayments and deductibles.
Both bills offer cheaper prescription drugs to those who fall into the "doughnut hole," the Medicare coverage gap. The House bill gradually would eliminate the gap. Both bills also provide better coverage for preventive care.
I was reading today they are already planning limitations on coverage for home health care as part of Medicare cost reductions. As I've posted the funding was supposed to be redirected towards home health care from its current nursing home bias which is a proven reduction in costs and also allows people with disabilities and elderly people to live in the community. I had supported the community choice act and president Obama when he was running had stated that he would sign that specific bill into law. The only reason it hasn't been passed in the 15 years it has been proposed is the nursing home lobby. If that doesn't go through as part of it (just one of many examples) it shows hypocrisy in politics is very contagious and a politician is only as good as their actions not their words but that is nothing new. I doubt we'll get something workable or feasible at all especially if the specific increase in taxes is enacted long before the actual coverage.
Hey what am I saying....a weak moment heck...no Public option ....
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
