Nobody could scream about death panels or other made up ridiculous horror stories. It would be deficit-neutral and pay for itself. Congress could draw up a one- or two-page bill that everyone could read and understand for a change.

Any existing problems with Medicare can be repaired at the time they do this. It could also be tweaked later to provide a more full coverage option for those willing to pay a little more. But at least something could be there right away for those who need it. No muss, no fuss.

I just wrote the WH and suggested this, and I hope some others will too. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ The "Contact us" link is on the upper right.

While you're there, please send another post asking them to stop the wars (both) and bring our troops home now.

Please pass it on.

This is just to common sensical for our politicians to embrace. It sure would eliminate all of the confusion and fear of the unknown by the public.

- Medicare reimbursement does not cover actual cost of services rendered
- You have to pay into the system minimum 10 years ( many pay 40 + years) before you can start receiving benefits, and then you still have to pay a co-pay.
-Medicare is in trouble and running out of money because there are many more retirees or soon to be retirees than there are working folks paying into the system but not eligible taking out, including your young and healthy folks.

I am not saying expanding Medicare is good or bad idea, I am just pointing out why this is not easy. So it all comes down to money, there is just not enough in the current system to cover all even if young are included. Taxes or co-pays have to be increased a lot to pay for it and reimbursement rates need to go up for doctors and hospitals to just cover their cost.

I know that in Germany it is 35.5% and in Estonia 30% of gross income to pay for single payer (medicare type) health care plus SS retirement service. I have also read that many in US say that they would not mind to pay additional $ 200 - 300 a month to get Medicare like coverage. Unfortunately that would not be nearly enough. The smallest possible number I read was additional 12.3% tax from gross to get this type of coverage in US.

I can't wait to hear what the Sour Twins will say about this.

I'm waiting to see chase's answer to why canadian dr's do not have to pay the malpractice premiums that dr's here pay. If those came down, that would certainly lower cost. And we are also talking about millions paying into a system that are young and healthy and won't be pulling anything out of the system until they are much older.

We wouldn't be setting up an entirely new bureaucracy, which of course the cost would be tremendous. But only expanding one that is already in place.

Currently Medicare is being stretched because ONLY the elderly and the disabled are on it. There is a lot of fraud and abuse.

My suggestion earlier was to get rid of Medicare and put it under the new bill. I guess it would be the same thing. They also need to get rid of Medicaid, subsidies, grants. YES! Medicare can pay for ALL that under ONE payer.

Watch the Republicans scream, because YOU know why they don't want a public plan ;)

But guess what? The elderly would not be afraid of death panels, and Republicans should not complain because they all were saying that Medicare WORKS (We know their agenda is that they don't want to burden the private ins with the elderly and the disabled!). Teehee, Oceanna.

Lots of people are already paying around $1000/month for insurance premiums plus high deductibles and co-pays. I think that is probably a lot more than 12.3% of most families incomes.

This time, I told him that *I* convinced Richard Milhous Nixson's first cousin (extremely Republican) to vote for him and that should count for something. lol.

What is standing in the way of these 18,900 babies surviving? The right wing -- for opposing universal health insurance. Sorry if you don't like hearing this -- it is the truth.

So how about we start figuring how things could work, rather than shooting everything down? Can't we do as well as Singapore? Don't say "it couldn't work because of this." Say, "if we do this, it could work."

Now you are speaking my language, Oceanna! Let cooler heads prevail! There's a lot of brain cells here. Let's not waste them on petty arguments!

I think your idea demonstrates why it makes sense to slow down. We can get "something" the quick and dirty way, but that is not a responsible and thoughtful approach.

Whoa! people, this is really scary. People are fighting over things they don't even understand (townhalls and the boards). It's amazing how well the Republicans have brainwashed everyone with SEMANTICS. Here we are thinking that Medicare for everyone would be ok, thinking that Republicans are rallying up their base to rebel against a plan that is BETTER than Medicare, when in essence it would have provided only half of what Medicare offers, if at all.
The Democrats gave the Republicans half of what they wanted, and they don't even want that.

I knew that Obama should have ran with at least the watered down version instead of giving the Reps time to mobilize, and brainwash people so the fat cat insurance co's can proliferate.

Forget it all. It's dead.
I have to laugh how some of the Republicans posting here started thinking that maybe Medicare extended to poeple may not be a bad idea. Goes to show you that they were scared out of their wits and mislead by their party. IF they thought joining Medicare was better than the current offer on the table, they had no idea what they were saying no to. As I said-mob mentality took over.

Obama is spineless. He started off this thing giving half away to the Republicans. Whose in charge?
He needs to put his foot down and do a ONE PAYER Medicare like bill, period.

And this really tickled me, from KOS:

Dear Medicare: I Want You To Have My $820 A Month
by word player

Dear Medicare: I Want You To Have My $820 A Month.

I am one of the lucky ones. I have a great job in local government where I get to help people in dire straits. I'm not quite 40. I'm quite healthy minus some pretty bad allergies, but who doesn't have allergies these days. I go to the Doctor every other year or so and call in when I need to update my allergy prescriptions. I have no dependents. I also have health insurance. My job is one where insurance is just considered a benefit so in 3.5 years on the job I have never had to think about how much it costs. I did have a sty a couple of years ago and not knowing what it was I called the Doc's office who sent me to the eye doctor who squeezed it for me and told next time to put a hot compress on it. Then I a got a bill for $300 which apparently was the uncovered portion of my "eye sugery."

Today that changed. My services as a Lead Paint Risk Assessor are being lent to another agency and I had to calculate how much I really cost per hour. That was the first time I saw how much it costs to insure a healthy 39 year old who goes to the Doctor less than once per year.

$820 mother fu*^ing dollars a month! Call me naive. I assumed it would be highway robbery at $400 a month. In 3.5 years on the job I have paid approximately $34,440 into the private insurance system. That is more than my take home pay for a year. I figure I have cost the health care industry about $1000 (and I think I'm being generous here). The thing about this that really pisses me off is that I wouldn't mind paying this much money one little bit, if I knew that the money not being spent on my health care was paying the healthcare bills for someone else and not going to make yacht payments for some CEO. Medicare, I want you to have my money. I promise I won't hardly even use you. Maybe my money can get rid of that donut hole for a couple of seniors skimping on prescription drugs. Maybe my money can pay for check ups for 8 kids every month. Please just let me know where you want me to send the check and we can make a deal.

Rant Over.

Keep fighting for a Public Option. It won't be Healthcare Reform without it.

Please take this opportunity to write your congresscritters and the WH and tell them what you want. Even if you already have, do it again.

Let it evolve organically from there.

In hindsight, HC reform probably should have started down that road from the beginning. Tactically, it would have changed the narrative of the debate. The Right Wing Obama antagonists would be hard pressed to distinguish Medicare as it now exists from the reformed Medicare on an ideological basis. They could oppose it but not without opposing a program that benefits so many elderly people in both parties. This is the kind of political gamesmanship that Karl Rove made famous when he forced Democrats in Congress to vote to authorize Bush to invade Iraq lest they be accused of being unpatriotic. Bush and Rove pulled the same tactic when they essentially pressured Dems to vote to authorize borrowing Billions more to "support our troops" in Iraq.

Aside from the fact that I admire the strategy from a political perspective, I do like the idea of fixing Medicare at the same time that a sensible public option is being formulated to operate within its existing framework.

How's Fannie Mae doing lately?

Hay

The issue is still whether we really want the government to get involved in the first place. That doesn't change.

Medicare is indeed going broke. We've already got more government social programs than we can handle. We've already got more government intrusion in our lives than I want.

These are the real issues involved, not the details of the government structure that will handle the mess.

I don't want the government involved. Period. You're jumping ahead and assuming that part is a given. It's not for me. Keep the government away from my body.

Hay

I really don't get it when I say that I don't want a program and I get back something like,

"Does that mean you will not apply for Medicare when you reach 65?"

I'm pragmatic. If it's there, I'll take it. I wish it weren't there, and I'm forced by you to work with what you put on the table. I'm going to take advantage of every opportunity that I can.

Still, I'm opposed to them. I'm forced to pay into them. I will take advantage of them. There's no inconsistency there.

Same thing with Social Security. I don't like it. I don't like that I've been paying into it for 50 years. Not one bit do I like it. But, as a matter of fact, I'd give up all those fifty years, right this moment, for the sake of the future generations if it would put a stop to it.

But, short of that, I'm not about to pay into a program for 50 years and then, out of principle, turn down the benefits.

So? What does that prove?

Hay

Guess what, it was forced on him. Turning down the benefits is not an option at this time.

Oceanna, Medicare is broke today. I hope you have alot of money to support your idea because it'll definitely be coming out of your pocket to pay for this.

It has been tweaked and tweaked and in 2041 it will paying out considerably more than it takes in.

This is in the thread about Health Care and the Elephant, part one.

"Hay, I heard a report Sunday that said the "dire" projections for Social Security were based on 2% growth in the economy, and that if the economy were to grow at a rate of 2.5%, all problems disappear.

That was in January, 2008.

What happens if we have less than 2%?

Do you remember the charts that showed government spending going through the rood during WWII? God help us if we're about to bankrupt ourselves with all these social programs and somehow we end up facing some real catastrophe. We've squandered all our reserves. We don't have anything left, as a society we don't have a reserve to tap for emergencies.

Let's hope everything goes really smoothly.

Hay

lido, we know it's broke, but will another huge bureaucracy fix it? No matter what, there is going to be some kind of healthcare plan, whether people want it or not. It's a matter of choosing the right venue. If we can fix Medicare and have a healthcare plan that is included, wouldn't that be the best option? And that is simply a question because I don't have the answers. It just seems the most logical to me.

Here's one of the reasons - my Dad has been on Coumadin for 20 years and the only medicine that works effectively for his low blood count is Aranesp. He gets his blood checked monthly and usually gets an Aranesp injection every 10-12 weeks. Medicare has decided that they won't reimburse the physician for the medicine. They will only cover Procrit. Gee that's great. He'd have to take that weekly and have blood work done weekly prior to getting a shot. He did try it but his blood levels became erratic.

His cardiologist also prescribed Coreg CR- Medicare denied it. And although Dad has supplemental health insurance as part of his retirement package Principal won't pay for anything that Medicare has denied.

I agree that our health delivery system has evolved into a financial mess- but I am concerned about who will be making medical decisions.

My Dad's cardiologist will continue to treat my Dad. He's eating the cost of the Aranesp (several hundred dollars an injection) but he had to prescribe a different heart medicine that Medicare will cover. But with an aging population which increases the number of Medicare patients a physician has in his practice and fewer individuals paying into the system how can this continue? More importantly where will all the money come from to expand this type of coverage?

If the mindset could be overcome, to get it to work will require the same thing that balancing any budget requires - cutting expenses (and since seniors are such a huge demographic - guess whose benefits get cut??) and increasing income (someone has to pay more taxes).

What politician is going to publicly raise taxes and cut benefits? You guys know of any???

Canada's spend on healthcare is 10% of GDP which is considered high but reasonable by WHO. The US spends almost 16% of its GDP. So let's say that we could get to 11% of GDP. That would mean the entire healthcare system would run 1.8trillion (15trillion GDP x 11%). Subtract from that what is already collected via medicare taxes (400b?) and you have 1.4trillion. That is a huge nut to cover, given that the US collects only 1.2trillion in personal income taxes. If you divide the cost among those that are employed (154m), you get $9k per worker. My guess is that you would need an 11% uncapped payroll tax (split between employee/employer). Regardless, its still a huge nut.

I am coming to the conclusion that just fixing the insurance side is not going to be enough. If you remove all the profits the insurance companies make (14b?), we are still a long way from where we need to be. In fact even if we took all profits out of the system (30% of the total), we still don't get there. We need to find a way to lower costs substantially. We need to wipe almost 1 trillion in costs.

Does anyone have better numbers or a source that has all of the numbers pulled together. One thing I can't answer is what is in the 2.4trillion we spend now on healthcare.

Does anyone know where all the waste is?

A different perspective than we're used to.

It still comes down to finding a way to pay for it.

The representatives would all have to secretly agree that the idea has to be presented from a respected Republican rep. in order to have a chance in the congress/senate if this is a viable option with tweaks allowed. That's just the truth of it. Otherwise, no Republican reps would be willing to put their careers on the voter's chopping block in support of a Democrat, especially an Obama party idea.

Colorado has a limit as well, and there hasn't been a whole lot of difference in what we pay.

The point, I think, is while worthwhile to cap malpractice awards, thats just a piece of the puzzle.

Dennis Kucinich is making the rounds with this as of late.

If a person is incapacitated for life, then a cap is not a fair compensation at all. But, fair is the key word and some people have gotten stupid judgements over rediculous claims.

Also, there must be disclosure by hospitals about their doctors - if the public were better informed, some of this would resolve itself.

But not it all - because we are a dishonest and greedy society as much as the crooks and incompetents we so detest. I have never sued a person in my life (nor have I been sued) but I don't know another person in my circle of acquaintences who hasn't sued or been sued at some point in life.

That honestly shocks me.

Medicare pays only 80%. Many seniors are on Medicaid because they cannot afford the extra 20%.
So, how many low-income people can also withstand a sudden $5-10,000 bill for an accident, heart attack, cancer treatment?

I think its important to have a means to get recourse for legitimate issues and I don't support award limitations. What I would like to see is a panel of judges that decide if the case has merit and I would love to do away with the way lawyers are compensated by taking a percentage of any award. The rest of the world already does this, so it can't be that hard to accomplish. Its also clear that we are no better off then anywhere else because of our very liberal tort laws.

mylab, I don't have the stats to talk about this on a national basis, but in my freinds practice, most of his clients are on Medicaid and medicare. Most are very low income.

Medicare as it is, is not perfect, but it's a better starting point than nothing.

Not if the patient has assets. I agree that some may just write it off...but not all, and not in all areas.
And what happens when millions of low income people go on Medicare, don't pay the 20% co-pay to hospitals and doctors? Hospitals can't afford to write off what they are writing off now.

Medicare is not the answer. If those millions start ignoring bills for that 20% - hospitals and doctors will be forced to go after them.

monica, I don't think we are even talking about leaving Medicare just as it is...with the 20% copay etc. But using the bones of a bureaucracy already in place instead of starting from sctratch.

Monica, I think most agree that medicare is not going to be the absolute answer, but only a starting point. I think it makes sense to start with a known then to tell people that you are coming up with a new system. Much of the reason for all the misinformation and fear that is out there, is that this reform was never sold to the American people as a concrete and defined package. People hate change, even if it can be demonstrated that it will improve their lives in the long run. In my job we implement change every day and I know how hard people cling to what they know, even though you are showing them a better way. What the medicare option does is allow the President to sell a defined plan that people already know and trust. Who is going to argue about death squads or what ever fear is dreamed up, when its already known how the program operates.

You are right that there are gaps in medicare that need to be dealt with to make it work, but I think those can be addressed. What I fear still cannot be addressed is that even when you remove insurance and tort reform, we may find that our health care is still very expensive when compared to the rest of the worlds. That is a bridge I can't figure out how to cross.

Lastly, what ever the plan is, we will always have the naysayers (Rush's, etc) of the world. That shouldn't be something to be discouraged, just something to be dealt with. If the plan is well defined and financially sound, those people and the noise they create will be relegated to the side lines. The only reason these people are getting heard now is that the American people are being sold a moving target that has lots of gaps and unknowns in it that opens the doors for lots of controversy. When the Obama admin indicated the other day that the Public option was negotiable, a new can or worms was opened, and he made the entire healthcare initiative look even more dubious and less well defined, thus opening the doors for more controversy and fears.

Our standard of living is also higher than most countries. Although, Obama is trying hard to lower it.

But is your standard of living better than most developed, democratic countries? If so, what criteria do you base a "higher standard of living" on?

Bingo.

Home ownership
car/truck owners (and C&T/household)
savings
disposable education
education level (HS and Univ degrees)

I could not tell a difference between the Canada standard of living and ours, except nobody worried about losing their homes like people here do.

The notion that Americans are so much better off than the rest of the world is ancient history - that has not been true for quite a while now. Everyone caught up and are now leaving us in the dust.

And that is why changing a lot of how we do things, including our mindset, is so vital to our well being and survival. We are falling behind.

I never said we were...just better off than most.

And they are happier, more content people - check that out also, it's true

I have met and known many Canadians over the years, from Nova Scotia to Vancouver, and I have worked with Canadians up there...even at OHIP. I have seen no difference...there are people who are content, and people who are not.

In fact, there are differences in standards of living all over this country....and there are people who are content, also. Those happy, contented US citizens are not all wealthy, either.

The anger I read here in this forum against faceless corporations...ignoring the fact that corporations are composed of people.
US citizens are people with various levels of skills, education and yes, ambition. The hatred that I read directed at those who have used their talents to the the utmost, and reaped the rewards...well, it wavers between disgust and pity.

No government can make unhappy people happy.

So, I miss your point, why would you be content with stating that our country is better off than most poor countries on earth, what exactly does that prove?

You asked the question, I only answered you. Just what were you trying to prove?

How many countries,outside of North America, have you visited? Worked in, and visited people's homes? You seem to know a lot about how others live.

Tobr24u: Is it that our spending in so many areas has not been reigned in that we can't afford universal health care such as Medicare for everyone?

Lido: I hope you have alot of money to support your idea because it'll definitely be coming out of your pocket to pay for this.

As I said, you charge the under 65 crowd enough to make Medicare solid and help those who need help. I don't see why that can't come out cheaper than an insurance company whose CEO lives in a $40M house. You will save administration costs, you will save from increasing the pool, and you can negotiate drugs (if someone doesn't give away the farm).

Lido: Fixing Medicare will require the US to adopt the mindset that I've been hearing people scream against for the last month - it's a public option and enough people appear not to want it.

In polls, people love Medicare. Google it yourself. They're happy with it.

KS: I am coming to the conclusion that just fixing the insurance side is not going to be enough. If you remove all the profits the insurance companies make (14b?), we are still a long way from where we need to be.

There is also a huge savings in administration costs, as has been discussed. There is a savings in increasing the pool. There could be immense savings in negotiating drug costs.

I'm curious about something else, too... we've all read that doctors do a lot of unnecessary tests and surgeries just for the bucks (heck, insurance will pay for it). Could some brakes be put on that to bring our overall costs down? Thank you David for linking to that book again -- folks, read the comments on that page.

Cait1: Tort reform must be in there.

So you'd like to give up your right to sue a doctor who carelessly kills or maims your child? Would you right now sign a release form on that? You want the doctor to know no matter what he does he won't be held accountable? Savings: 1.4% I think KT said. Piddly drop in the bucket for your safety. And see David's post about how it hasn't saved much of anything in CA or CO.

Again, I ask that we all think about how to make it work, rather than how to tear it down. If you see problems, good for you -- now look for solutions to those problems.

Swanz: Study just came out by the Atlas group that proves throwing more money at health care doesn't translate into better health.

Right. So let's save money by making it more efficient (billing procedures, pooled buying power, computerized records, etc.).

Mylab, I think Medicare made it through the "socialism" stuff a long time ago, and has a verifiably good track record. It's not nearly as scary as something new.

Interestingly, Oceanna, Canada's health care system is an evolution of the National Medicare system we had back in the 50's.

Just a bit of useless trivia......Tommy Douglas, the "father" of universal health care in Canada , is Donald Sutherland's Grandfather and Kiefer Sutherland's great grandfather. Maybe "Jack" can get it done for you !!!!

David is correct that limiting the upper end does not bring down insurance costs since its the little suits that kill the system. The suits my lawyer friend brings that he knows will not be challenged and basically paid off to go away.

I also beleive it is illegal for a Dr to take a referral fee for ordering a test done outside of their office. Maybe that is just a Florida thing though. Regardless, much of the administration and tests that go on in hospitals are done as defense against future litigation. Being sued is not fun and it can consume a huge amount of your time and resources. The lawyers know this and know that the insurance companies will payout rather then spend a ton of money to defend a small dollar case.

From what I have read, all the other developed countries with universal healthcare do not have the problem we have with nuisance and frivolous law suits. Why not have a panel of judges decide the merit of a case and the reasonable award if the case is won?

If you are for real reform, then everything should be on the table including tort reform. Even the piddly stuff. I know it will not be easy since the Trial Lawyers have a lot of control over the Democratic party, but it needs to be done, otherwise this will be nothing more then a political solution.

"My Dad's physician said that if we need a framework for this proposed health system he thought Medicare would be a good choice. He's afraid that an entire new bureaucracy will be instituted with another czar to oversee it. But the bad news is that he may not be taking any new Medicare patients."

Again: HE MAY NOT BE TAKING ANY NEW MEDICARE PATIENTS

This is the point I made in the last thread and I was blown off by Oceanna as: the problem can be solved

Talk to your doctor any doctor
They do not trust the government to take care of this because right now they are being screwed over by the government.
That is why they are opting out
Who is going to force them to opt in?
Force them to depend on the "lifeline" of the government?

I'm sure tort reform has got to be on the table and passed before any doctors are going to agree to take more medicare patients, not to mention you need more doctors.

(The car dealers should have talked to the doctors about cash for clunkers before they opted in to that program)
You cannot force reform without first attacking the issues that are causing all of the problems.

Again Canadas health system is imploding
again: CANADAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS IMPLODING

If privatized insurance is so great, how come not one single country who has gone to universal medical coverage has ever gone back to a privately-owned system?

The U.S. ranks #37 in our health care system.

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

How come thirty-six other countries can figure out how to do it but we Americans are just too stupid?

The surgeon who performed my Mom's surgery in Philadelphia doesn't deal with insurance at all. You pay her up front and then if you want to apply to your insurance company for reimbursement that's up to you. This physician doesn't have to employ a large clerical staff to handle complicated billing, or worry whether the patient has been precertified, or prescribe medicine based on whether the patient's insurance will cover it or appeal when the insurance company has denied a claim.

And since she is busy it hasn't limited her practice at all. Granted it would be difficult for all physicians to follow suit but there are many who are considering it.

As a small business owner, I called around and spoke to hospital administrators and small, local medical groups about what kind of insurance was best. They all said BS/BC was the most difficult insurance company to work with. It's been several years ago and I can't remember the two they liked now. Well, I checked into them and couldn't even hope to afford either plan. I went with BS/BC, the hated company.

Medicare would be the same way, I imagine. We do have a few Drs here who want you to pay upwards of $2,000 per year out of pocket, just for the honor of calling them 'my Dr'. Same insurance deducible and co-pay. No thanks. I changed Drs when my Dr sent me her new business plan (bill). I wonder how many people stayed on.

Are you saying all americans would be on medicare?
So there would be no competition?
How does this help lower fees?
No competition, so the government can dictate prices? practices? who gets medical care? who waits?
Rationing of care?
Is that what you're saying?
What about profits? Who makes the profits?
I'll assume the doctors don't (because they don't get paid by medicare), but insurance and pharma companies do.
What is the incentive to become a doctor?
Most people become doctors because they want to help people and very soon realize their ideal dream of medicine isn't what they thought it was.
Ungrateful patients, sleepless nights, 80 hour work weeks, major backlogs of bureaucratic nightmare of paperwork.
Let's just add to that mountain why don't we?

Did you read my post about Canada? please do
see how well many doctors are feeling about the "sick" canadian system

How many canadian doctors leave the system for other countries?

This is true but now they will be able to get our insurance premiums as well.

Kitchen, here in northern CA, hardly anyone takes the insurance that often comes with Welfare benefits. It only pays $13. per visit so the Drs refuse to see those patients. They must go to the clinic.

We don't do that around here, yet.

I guess this is where we're headed. They're apparently always legislating about it and recently they made these changes.

" * Requires every German to have health insurance and requires insurers to provide it
* Mandates that children's care be funded by taxes rather than by employee premiums
* Requires new drugs to be cost-effective and bans direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs
* Sets up a mechanism to evaluate new medical technologies and decide whether they should be covered
* Equalizes payments among sickness funds so younger, healthier people don't flock to lower-cost insurers."

Hay

Page 29 - Annual Limitation -

The cost-sharing incurring under the essential benefits package with respect to an individual (or family) for a year DOES NOT exceed the applicable level specified in sub-paragraph (B)..

Sub-par. (B) .... $5000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family per year.

How I understand it - Health care rationing.
_________________________________________________
Page 30 - Health Benefits Advisory Committee.

In General - There is established a private-public advisory committee which shall be a panel of medical and other "experts" to be knos as the "Health Benefits and Advisory Committee" to "recommend" covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

How I understand it - In the end, Govt decides what care, treatments, benefits you get. It goes say, there will be no appeals process. Take it, or um, take it.
________________________________________________

Page. 42 - Duties and Authority of Commissioner.

I'm not gonna type it all out...Everyone needs to read it.

How I understand it - The “Commish” will decide you health benefits. You get to except them.
________________________________________________

Page 50 - Prohibiting Discrimination in Health Care.

Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this act and by the subsequent regulation consistent with this act, all health care and related services covered by this act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

How I understand it - All non US Citizens (legal or illegal) Welcome! Mi Casa, Su Casa!!!!
_____________________________________________________

Page 57-59 - Standardize Electronic Administrative Transaction.

page 59;

1173 section C - Enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice.

How I understand it - The Govt will have direct, "real-time" access to everyone's bank accounts for electronic funds transfer
______________________________________________________

Page 65 - Reinsurance Program for Retirees.

Another one I'm not gonna type out...you need to read it.

How I understand it - SEIU, UAW and ACORN, We got your back because taxpayers will subsidize all your retirees health plans.
______________________________________________

Page 91 - Culturally and Linguistically Appropriated Service and Communications.

The entity shall provide for culturally and linguistically appropriate communications and health services.

My understand of this - Government mandates "Mi Casa, Su Casa!!!" I.E. illegal immigrants

_________________________________________________]

Page 95 - Outreach and enrollment of exchange eligible individuals and employers in exchange participating health benefits plan.

read it yourself...

Kate

What I have found is that a huge percentage of young American adults are uninsured because they can't afford insurance.

Please share the poll results that you obviously have found.
Health care reform clearly isn't only about old people.

More like...it's not in their budget.
Unmarried young adults(especially males) have things like new cars, vacations, electronics and other "necessities" that they just don't include health insurance on that list. They're young, healthy...and don't think they need it.

Their parents may try to talk them into it...but this group will not buy health insurance, no matter how cheap it is.

Yes. I think I've mentioned somewhere before that I'm the child of a career military man and married a career military man at the beginning of his own career.

I've lived in quite a few countries and worked there and visited in their homes since we preferred to live off base and experience the countries than live on base and be too insulated. While in many of those countries, I had the opportunity to visit the neighboring countries we weren't stationed in. The only country I was very leery of leaving the base while there was Afghanistan, during the early 80's. I was young and had a small child and was too unsure of the details over the dress code for women or how to behave if a man approached agressively, which we were constantly warned about. Had I been older, I wouldn't have been so fearful.

Your's is a personal question but I was willing to answer it.

How about you?

Never Middle East - with the exception of Israel, they refused to accept business women who had any real or assumed authority over men.
During breaks, after work...here or there...people mix and exchange questions about each other, talk about family. It's natural. I was often invited to homes for dinner and weekend visits, where I met friends and neighbors.

My contacts were not upper management, just employees. Amazing when you talk to people, how many misconceptions are on both sides.

I worked for an international company, and have friendships that have continued after business relationship ended.

that's not spam. it's my personal layman's assessment of the bill. some of us ain't afraid to read it. some will sign of on anything that's endorsed by ultra-lib demagogues.

There is the "SEC. 123. HEALTH BENEFITS ADVISORY COMMITTEE which shall be a panel of medical and other experts to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans.

The HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE will administer coverage for all individuals or companies who are required to obtain coverage through enrollment in an Exchange-participating health benefits plan unless such individuals are enrolled in another qualified health benefits plan or other acceptable coverage. However, all OTHER health plans must also adhere to the rules as set forth by the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, so even if you keep the same insurance company you have now, there is NO guarantee it will be the same COVERAGE you have now. So when Mr. Obama said you could keep the insurance you have now, he only meant it might be the same company, but the coverage will have to conform to the HBAC rules.

If you choose not to participate, you will have to pay a tax that will be equal to what the average insurance premium would have been. Company�s that do not comply will also have to pay various fines, taxes and assessments. Company�s that participate, will be given "credits", but no credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with respect to qualified employee health coverage expenses paid or incurred with respect to any employee for any taxable year if the aggregate compensation paid by the employer to such employee during such taxable year exceeds $80,000. So if you make more than $80,000, your company doesn�t get any "credits."

From on page 973 of the House Version of the bill,
��SEC. 1709. ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR HEALTH INFORMATION
Among the many duties of the Assistant Secretary for Health Information is ensure "the collection, collation, reporting, and publishing of information (including full and complete statistics) on key health indicators regarding the Nation�s health and the performance of the Nation�s health care. To ��(ii) include standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care by race, ethnicity, primary language, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, socioeconomic status, rural, urban, or other geographic setting, and any other population or subpopulation determined appropriate by the Secretary;"

RETIREE RESERVE TRUST FUND
The Plan calls for a "Retiree Reserve Trust Fund" and allocates $10 Billion dollars to it. Apparently this is a provision to subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans such as UAW and ACORN.

Medical Devices Registry
The government will establish a Medical Devices Registry. Purpose, validating methods for analyzing patient safety and outcomes data from multiple sources and for linking such data with the information included". Is this another way of saying, "this device may possibly help you to get well, or allow you to live a productive life, but it didn�t help ENOUGH people, so you won�t get approved to use it."

I feel sure that there will be many cuts in payments made to Medicare Suppliers, because of these Advisory Commissions, and their way of determining what is the appropriate fee. Payments made to nursing homes for instance, "shall be based on aggregate costs during a stay in a skilled nursing facility and not on the number of days in such stay." Obviously the nursing homes are going to want to get people "out" as soon as possible.

I know one thing for sure. There is no way this plan can be accomplished without hiring an outrageous number of people to keep up with all these rules and regulations. People to verify your income, people to take your payments, people to process your claims, people to check up on the people who are processing your claims, an "Inspector General", and all his staff to make sure insurance companies are playing by the rules. And of course let�s not forget the Assistant Secretary of Health Information who is going to keep track of your sexual preference.

The number of government employees will have to increase at a preposterous rate to keep up with all of this. I suppose this is what Mr. Obama meant when he said our "economic recovery" depended on the passage of this health plan.

I can understand your mom's point of view. Just brainstorming here:

What is her idea for stabilizing Medicare? It's going broke. That said, I'd hate to stress out our seniors. What if we lowered the age to say, 40, when people are beginning to become aware of their own parents health issues, yet they are still healthy enough to help spread risk.

What if we cloned Medicare and called it something different for the younger set? Of course it could also help keep medicare going with profits but would eliminate political posturing by people who have no clue about aging?

I have no idea if this would work. Just trying to work around the seniors possible fears. Bring in your ideas and concerns!

What is her idea for stabilizing Medicare?

I have no idea and I doubt she thinks much about it since she's in her 80's. But knowing how she thinks I would imagine that she would want to remove the business aspect out of most areas of healthcare which means Docs work for the government, hospitals, labs and imaging centers the same.

As well, and as part of the Health Care Overhaul of the Bush Administration with the not paid for prescription coverage came a multi-billion dollar hand out to the private insurance companies so they could run the various medicare programs more profitably. Also put on the nations credit card.

So am I...Obama has said several times that the cost of "health care reform" will come first from "cuts in the Medicare program".
When asked to elaborate...he stutters and gives no answer.

Would you care to explain how, and where the figure for the undocumented workers comes from?

I read that the number of uninsured Americans is somewhere betwwen 45-46 million. Since studies say that the undocumented are less likely to seek medical services than documented workers, permanent residents, and citizens, I'm curious as to why you think they are "breaking" the system.

I would be interested in knowing what those cuts are.

Did you mean the cuts to Medicare? This information has been around. President Obama and congressional Dems have vowed repeatedly to protect Medicare benefit levels. What I read said the cuts in Medicare would come not from cutting actual health care, but from computerizing patient records, streamlining billing, and the cuts to the insurance companies that do Medicare Advantage programs.

You all know there is no "final" bill yet, not even just for the House. We'll know more as more gets finalized. The public won't tolerate certain things. If politicians are dumb enough to try to do something to Medicare the public doesn't want, there would be a humungus uproar. Like when they said they were going to privatize Social Security. lol!

It is estimated that there are currently more than 6.1 million uninsured adult illegal aliens in the U.S., and more than 700,00 uninsured children who are illegal immigrants. These numbers are provided by the non-partisan Pew Hispanic Center, and are based on census figures. Taking into account that many illegals do not take part in the census, the numbers are probably much higher.

Hospitals do not track immigration figures so determining the estimated cost of providing health care to illegals is very difficult. According to Reuters, The Federation for American Immigration Reform estimates the cost at somewhere near 10.7 billion dollars annually, but calls that estimate conservative.

A Basis Is Seen for Some Health Plan Fears Among the Elderly

"The zeal for cutting health costs, combined with proposals to compare the effectiveness of various treatments and to counsel seniors on end-of-life care, may explain why some people think the legislation is about rationing, which could affect access to the most expensive services in the final months of life."

Mark D. Eaton, a 59-year-old AARP member in Lancaster, Mass., said: "Medicare might stay the same. But by the time you provide insurance to millions and millions and millions of people, we will be out of money, and we�ll be out of doctors."

Mr. Obama has repeatedly said, "Nobody is talking about cutting Medicare benefits." At the same time, he wants to eliminate what he describes as "unwarranted subsidies" and giveaways to private Medicare Advantage plans, which use some of the money to provide extra benefits.

More than one-fifth of the 45 million Medicare beneficiaries are in Medicare Advantage plans operated by insurance companies like Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealth. The House bill would cut payments to private plans by more than $160 billion over 10 years. Mr. Obama says those payments "boost insurance company profits, but don�t make you any healthier."

In the past, insurers reacted to such cuts by increasing premiums, reducing benefits or pulling out of the Medicare market, and beneficiaries complainedloudly.

Knowing that Medicare itself faces a financial crisis, many older Americans object to Congress�s tapping the program to help pay for coverage of the uninsured. They say they do not believe that all the Medicare savings will come from eliminating waste and inefficiency, as Mr. Obama says.

A new survey, released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation, found that 34 percent of people 65 and older believed they would be worse off "if the president and Congress passed health care reform," while 23 percent said they would be better off.

These old geezers have lived long enough to know not to believe everything anything that a politician says.

Hay

Erroneous conclusion, Hay. They believed Palin and Grassley.

Fox Viewers More Likely to Believe Death Panel Myth

For the second time this week, polling shows that a worrying number of people believe that health-care-reform legislation will create so-called death panels. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Tuesday found that 45 percent of respondents believe that the proposals would allow government to make end of life decisions on behalf of Americans. A poll released by the Pew Research Center today isn't quite as disturbing��only 30 percent of those polled believed the myth. But here's where it gets interesting. Unsurprisingly, Republicans are more likely to believe in death panels, but fully 20 percent of Democrats also bought into the notion. The numbers also vary markedly depending on which news outlet is the preferred source of information, with Fox News viewers significantly more likely to think death panels are part of reform. Here's the breakdown:

Perhaps the difference should be expected. Fox attracts a conservative audience who are more likely to believe the worst of the President, and Fox's conservative commentators revel in stoking that unrest. Republican leaders like Chuck Grassley haven't helped matters, appearing to have little interest in quelling the controversy. (Grassley, it turns out, would rather drop funding for legitimate end-of-life counseling than dissuade his supporters of the notion of death panels.) But, putting questions about whether Fox has done it's journalistic duty in combating false information aside, it's possibly most concerning that an ill-considered, factually incorrect statement made on a social-networking site by Sarah Palin can resonate for this long, and this loud.

I think Fox's numbers are more representative of the lower IQ of Fox viewers.

************************************

Hay,

TG, that Obama understands the waste in providing SUBSIDIES. I am so glad he said that.
Now, I am MORE supportive of this public plan than EVER!

Medicare patients don't need subsidies for private ins. What they need is FRAUD panels. If fraud and abuse (doctors doing extra tests)would be eliminated from Medicare we would be paying less into the system.

Oceanna,

A friend of mine joined an
"against the public plan group" at her place of employment. Someone hit the 2 things that throws people into a tizzy-death and taxes rising. Why did she do it? EVERYBODY was against it. That was her answer. There must be something to it. People are soo loud about it.

It wasn't until she was explained how the system works now with subsidies, and private insurances that she stopped her craziness. She compared her ins benefits and premiums with one who has Medicare, and she concluded that she's better off with a public plan. It really ticked her off when the Medicare patient gets the same meds in brand name, but my friend's insurance will only cover generic. Her premiums are going up and the coverage is decreasing every year.

Mr. Obama should look a little closer.

Many of the best doctors don't take Medicare patients, unless they have an Advantage account...better doctor usually means better and more efficient care in better facilities.

Why do they prefer some Advantage accounts?
Because they get paid in a timely manner, with much less "hassle".
Because they can give necessary treatment without waiting days or weeks for certification...and without repeated submissions.
Because of less interference with "primary care" physicians, who are encouraged by medicare to avoid specialists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 'Medicare Advantage' an insurance 'supplement' to the regular medicare? You're paying extra for it, while the Bush Administration gave them a several billion a year to figure out what the government owes them to run the regular medicare part?

Paying extra depends on the Advantage account.

HMO-type advantage plans often cost the insured nothing or very little. They accept the Medicare payment, and provide HMO services(must have referrals,etc) to those who can't or don't want to pay extra for bypassing billing to medicare, and getting bills from providers when Medicare fails to pay.
They usually lower fixed co-pays rather than Medicare's fixed 20%.

PPO-type advantage plans do cost extra, but for seniors who are used to a PPO insurance plan(or have chronic conditions that generate high medical expenses) the transition in benefits and co-pays may be seamless (and waaay less than the 20% medicare co-pay)...with a steep drop to, say only $200-400/month.

Around here, many specialists also don't accept new patients with the HMO-type advantage plans, but do take the PPO's.

Who watches Fox news? Can you name any of their newscasters?

The only time I ever hear about Fox news or the likes of Rush is from the most liberal people here on this forum. They seem to be totally tuned into these shows.

If you want to know what's going on at Fox news, ask a liberal. They seem to always know.

Hay

The only names I know are the ones the libs watch and talk about...Beck(the idiot), Hannity(the wasp),and O'Reilly(the insane one).

Your denial of Fox News reminds of a TH meeting in my state where the cameras interviewed "Independents" against Obama's public plan.

The local news had a field day how the Independents crossed over to the Republicans, and Obama will be in trouble next election because of this health plan.

They took these anti-Obama people at face value. They didn't check the voting registry. They couldn't check it on the spot. After the fact, someone took their names, checked the registry and guess what? They were registered as REPUBLICANS pretending to be Independents, so the Democrats would be afraid that they are loosing the Independent vote. People are such liars.

I wonder if they thought of it themselves, or someone put them up to it. You are seeing reports on Fox News that Obama is losing the Independent vote-LOL
What a crock.

Monica and I just said that we don't watch Fox News. So who is this YOU that is seeing reports on Fox News.

LOL, indeed.

Hay

I don't know of or give a rat's a$$ what Fox says...I don't watch it.

And, BTW - I'm a registered Democrat, and have been since Y2000...but my vote is an independent one - I take no orders from any political party.

The reason Fox News is mentioned on these boards is because some of the terminolgy echoes Hannity and O'Reilly. I'm reading almost identical phrases used on that channel.

I watch Fox News. It's the best entertainment around.

I'm equally astounded at a similar coincidence. Nobody listens to wingnut radio, yet the same misinformation, lies, and absurd attacks just show up. Word for word. Uncanny it is.