Hot-off-the-press: Health-care Bill to Go Nuclear

The reconciliation option will only be used for the changes to the current Senate bill after the House has passed the bill that passed the Senate using the 60 vote rule and the president has signed it into law.

Therefore, going "nuclear" is only for changes that will be made to the Senate bill, not the whole shebang.

"Democratic sources have said the general plan is for the House to pass the version the Senate passed last year with 60 votes. Meanwhile, negotiators in both chambers would agree to a separate package of changes to that legislation. That package would go before the Senate under reconciliation rules."

- www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/01/health.care.reconciliation/index.htm

 

How many Republican ideas are incorporated into the current bill?

 

None - the dems shut them out.

Where have you been for the last year?

 

I figured you and other Obama haters were ignorant of the fact that Republican ideas have been incorporated in the bill.

Republican ideas incorporated in the bill:

 

He knows. He doesn't care.

He is the smartest man alive and knows what is good for us, even if we object.

A pathological narcissist at work.

 

Let's take this first point.

This changes nothing. States currently regulate insurers and it is States that are not allowing insurance to sold across state lines. So the same States that don't want to allow insurers to sell across State lines can form compacts if they so choose. But why would they? Under current law any State could allow its citizens to purchase insurance in another State but they don't.

 

There used to be a time, as recent as five years ago, when all I had to do was go to the pharmacy, give them my insurance card, have them figure out how much the insurance charges for generics and how much for brands, then tell me how much my co-pay is.
Then at the doctor's office, I gave them my card, they swiped it, and told me how much I owed the doctor.
Same thing at the labs.
So I didn't worry if I had any money at the bank to cover anything beyond those charges.

Now, I have this co-pay, and every insurance I've contacted has co-pays.
This insurance I have at this job says after my employer covers so much of his share of co-pay, and after I've met my part of the co-pay, then the insurance will come in as far as the rest of bills are met.

co-pay is 1500.00 which includes prescriptions, doctors visits, lab work, etc.

I think I'm ready to consider Obama's socialism, if it works for people like me with no savings to pull out to meet the co-pay.

 

There is a difference between:

"Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices"

and

"Insurers are required to pool the risk of all the small businesses and individuals in the new markets."

In the first case it is individuals, small businesses, and trade associations deciding who to pool with and then shopping their insurance.

In the second case it is the insurance companies lumping all their small customers together.

Big difference but I doubt that you will be able to see it.

 

What you are ignorant of is Obama is a liar and these are watered down versions of what Republicans want which fails to add up to anything relevant.

 

This is the problem with health care today. The consumer is separated from the payment. When you don't pay much if anything, you don't care what it costs. And doctors have fees because big insurance companies are paying for it.

A few years ago someone hit my car. Since I had insurance, I took it to the dealer. It was the most expensive place to get it fixed, but I didn't care because I wasn't paying.

No other business is run that way.

this year I went to the doctor to get some places looked at on my back. He said, "there's nothing here that looks suspicious, but if you want I can cut them off and have them analyzed. Under regular insurance it wouldn't cost you anything because insurance would pay for all of it. But now, you have to pay for it, so you can decide."

I didn't have them checked. Under the old plan, I would have because someone else was paying.

So the plan you are on is a far better plan.

Your insurance premiums with this high deductible plan you speak of are lower than with your old plan. When I switched to a similar plan, my premiums went down by almost half. Now, my max out of pocket for the year (premiums plus $1500 deductible) is less than my old premiums alone before I ever had a copay. I take the difference between my old premium and my new ones and put them in an HSA so when I have a doctor bill, there is money to pay it. And if I don't spend that money, it is mine, not the insurance companies. And it is tax free. And last year, I didn't even spend $1500.

Now I think twice before going to the doctor because I am paying for it.

 

I think you are both missing the point and proving the point. The point is not about individuals, but about why costs are so high. It is because you never see it, so it doesn't really bother you. If the doctor runs another test, you don't care because you're not paying for it. You're not trying to save the insurance company money.

But you prove my point when you say that if your dr. visits cost more you would probably be dead. Why? Because you would be more conscious of the work that was being done. (And your assertion is wrong because no one can be denied medical care for inability to pay.)

I imagine that if insurance companies weren't paying costs would be lower.

Case in point: I had a medical bill which was higher than what insurance would have paid. For instance, using fake numbers (becuase i don't remember the real ones), I had a bill for $100, but insurance would have settled for $50. So I asked them to take the $50 that they would have taken from insurance and consider it paid in full. They agreed. Most doctors have a different rate for patients who pay in cash.

Now a few specific replies ...

So the Lord hasn't blessed those with different copays or different insurance?

Wow ... don't even know where to start with this. I probably have more education than you do (not that it matters), and probably as much dedication and determination and insight, but I don't have your medical plan. So what does that mean? I don't understand how this is relevant.

But there's even something deeper at work here, and that is the idea that your care is being funded (probably) by a broke government (or one that is going broke). You see, it was bad planning years ago because people didn't have the insight and the leadership to do something about it. Part of what is killing companies (and governments) is legacy costs. It is a large part of what killed two of the Big Three.

I am doing the same thing. Everyone can do this.

But that's quite different of an issue. I bet my insurance plan with a high deductible is probably cheaper than your insurance plan. But you don't care because you don't pay it. Which is fine. I am not complaining that you don't pay it. I am just saying that when it's not coming out of your pocket, you don't care what it costs.

Again, it's a simple matter of reality. Health insurance is the only thing that gets treated this way, so far as I can figure. And it's part of the problem that has to be addressed.

 

I agree.

Quite the contrary. I like my plan. It is excellent. It is far cheaper than what I had previously. It is far cheaper than what you have. I should have switched to this plan ten years ago.

My yearly max out of pocket (the greatest amount I can pay which is premiums + $1500) is less than what my premiums alone were under my old plan. And if I don't go to the doctor much (which I don't) my savings are even more. Essentially I pay the first $1500 out of pocket and then I am covered 100%. Last year, I spent less than $500.

Trust me, I am opposed to government health care. I am also opposed to employer health care, FWIW. I think everyone should have their own. It makes far more sense, and would control costs (which is part of my point). Most people have no idea what their healthcare costs.

As I say, you pay more than I do.

No problem.

 

I probably make less than a lot of people do. But we live a pretty simple existence. I am not complaining. I just don't think it takes nearly as much to live as most people think. I have no bills, no debts, no real luxuries (not even a regular cell phone). And I have no complaints. I am grateful for what I have.

I understand. A couple of years ago, I spent a week in the hospital, three weeks at home unable to move without severe pain, then back surgery, and recovery. So I have been there.

But you could have bought insurance. The reason I am opposed to employer paid benefits is that it belongs to the employer, and when you lose your job you lose your insurance, or have to pay COBRA which is exorbitant. It's not your insurance. Most people, again, have no idea how much insurance costs because they don't see it.

I know what mine costs, and if I lose my job, I still have it.

I am not begrudging you that in the least. I think it is great. And it's nothing you couldn't have through another means. That's my point.

My point is that government and employers are not the only way to do it, and in fact, they may be the least efficient ways. I am totally opposed to government, though I would benefit greatly from it. I am opposed to employer, but wouldn't object to it.

Absolutely.

 

One problem is the high cost of some services. A few weeks ago my doctor sent me to get an MRI on one of my knees. The total cost for this twenty minute procedure was $3500.

 

It's expensive hi-tech equipment.

MRI equipment varies in cost, depending on the strength of the scanner. Scanners with more strength produce more detailed images; therefore, these scanners cost more. MRI machines can range in cost between $1 and $3 million. Construction of MRI suites can easily add another $500,000 to the total cost.

http://www.ehow.com/about_4731161_much-do-mri-machines-cost.html

How many new MRI suites will be built if Obama care passes?

My guess is "Not many."