Hr 4872

[jrnyc]

there are alot of inaccuracies being stated here...and according to Section 1312 part D of the bill i read online in reference to Congress...they will have to be insured in the same manner by 2014...

maybe folks should give this whole thing a chance before stating so very surely that it will be so very very awful...

jess

[Pooka1]

This is a complicated matter. I do not think PhD economists agree on the forecasts.

The so-called exemption for Congressmen stumped a healthcare insurance expert. There is no need for that... Feds have access to a plan that I believe is going to become available to everyone.

I realize Grassley did have some sort of something for Congressmen or their staffs but I don't think it is what people are claiming.

Anyone know?

[mamamax]

Double Standard?

The double standard will no doubt become a hot topic.

http://stevescomments.wordpress.com/...lth-care-bill/

(D) MEMBERS OF CONGRESS IN THE EXCHANGE-

(i) REQUIREMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, after the effective date of this subtitle, the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff with respect to their service as a Member of Congress or congressional staff shall be health plans that are–

(I) created under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act); or

(II) offered through an Exchange established under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act).

[mariaf]

Karen,

You asked:

Why do you bother posting it if the claims might not be real???

I guess I could ask why you claimed "the fortunate (insured) in this country are afraid of helping..."

How can you know that? Do you speak for them? If not, then I guess you had no business posting that either. As I stated, I am 'insured' but certainly not financially 'fortunate' as you put it, so please don't speak for me. Unless you feel you are the only one with "the facts".

By the way, I would gladly share my wealth.......IF I HAD ANY.

I simply posted something that is already out there, hoping others could shed some light. The claims could very well be accurate. I was simply pointing out that there is no way that I, or anyone, can know if half of the studies, information or data out there is totally accurate, yet folks refer to these things all the time.

No need to get so defensive.

[Pooka1]

I read that. That is no exemption. That is saying members of Congress shall be treated like everyone else.

[mamamax]

I read that. That is no exemption. That is saying members of Congress shall be treated like everyone else.

Depends upon how it is read? The wording is quite confusing, like most government-speak.

Here's Grassly's take:

http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Arti...eID_1502=24645


And his newsletter from March 24th: http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Arti...eID_1502=25931

[mariaf]

Some Medicare reform down the road, companies with 50 employees or more will be required to provide insurance, and parents will be able to keep their kids on their family policies until they reach age 26.

I just wanted to say that many insurers currently allow one's children to remain on their policies through college. My husband and I have, at various times, covered our kids on our respective health plans (one policy allows it until age 25, the other until age 26, provided they are full-time students). So this is not completely new.

For the record, I am not against everything in this bill, just hoping that, among other things, we don't end up with very long waiting times like many other countries. And unfortunately, since it's a very real possibility that fewer people will choose to become doctors, that's not an unrealistic concern by any stretch. But I am all for doing away with the pre-existing conditions loophole for insurers and other aspects of the bill.

I'm just still quite skeptical.

[jillw]

Maria, I can't see how we won't end up with very long waiting times - supply and demand...after all the demand will be going up - this is good since it will be because people who might not have had as much health care due to a lack of insurance will finally have access to health care. That alone should make wait time longer, but at least we know its for a good reason. On the other hand, it seems likely that the number of doctors will go down...probably drastically when the pipeline of future doctors from med school and residency programs fall as a result of this program (not to mention any early retirements). If this is the case, there will be a very large gap between supply and demand and wait times will have to go up. Hopefully the wait times won't go up so much that people miss the window of opportunity for services. God forbid because somebody has to wait for an appointment, diagnosis of something like cancer is delayed until it is too late to treat (in which case treatment might be denied since statistics will show they have a low chance of surviving - hey, but at least that will help control the cost of the program, right? OK, I admit, that last part is a curmudgeon's remark- but the skeptic in me had to say it)

I hope the program works as intended, I am just very afraid to leave something like this up to our government. Weren't they fighting over whether Viagra should be paid for for convicted child molesters and rapists? Come on, lets give the country health care, but I don't want to subsidize that! (by the way, did that coverage remain in the bill or was it eliminated? hopefully the latter)

[mamamax]

MariaF - I'm both hopeful and skeptical. I don't think you've come across as completely against this bill ... looks to me like you're just wondering, like all of us - how this is going to effect us in the future. So far the greatest advantage seems to be doing away with the pre-existing limitations on insurance policies.

I *think* I understand that for those who already have insurance policies in place, that most of this will be a non issue (for the moment). It's the people without insurance that will be offered affordable (supposedly) coverage - right? And fined if they choose not to take it. Which does seem a little unconstitutional. The effect on Medicare is something many are worried about also.

As for supply and demand .. the spin is that this should create more jobs in the health care industry. We'll see.

Lots of questions - few answers.

[mariaf]

Yes, Mamamax, there certainly seem to be lots of questions and few answers. I wish I could be more hopeful, of course I'd love to see things change for the better, but I think Jill said it best when she said "I am just very afraid to leave something like this up to our government" - Amen Sister!

It would appear that the government is ignoring the very real possibility of the scenario Jill decribed playing out over and over - where someone with cancer would have their diagnosis and TREATMENT delayed because of the inevitably long wait times we'll be facing. I think we all know that with cancer, early detection and treatment are key. I recall a story not too long ago about a man from Canada with brain cancer who was trying to get to the states for treatment because the wait time he was facing at home for treatment was longer than he was likely to live without treatment! (This story is not an example of mass hysteria, as Karen called it, but someone's husband, brother or father not being given the chance to live because of a flawed health system).

But I guess Jill is right - if someone like this dies before receiving treatment, that'll help control the cost of the program.

[jrnyc]

i think the doomsday scenarios should hold off and give this a chance...just a chance...

my sister has lived in Canada for 35 years...she has no complaints about the health care system there...and gets the care she needs...she has had abdominal surgery there as well...

i have insurance that i pay plenty for since i retired...but i am sure that if i had no insurance, this bill would be an improvement for me.....

jess

[mamamax]

Well said jrnyc ... in fact, didn't the Prime Minister of Canada recently have heart surgery performed here in the US? I heard that when he was questioned about it, he simply said: hey, it's my health (my choice). Many Americans travel to Canada to purchase prescriptions because of finances ... I think regulation on that was left out of this bill, hopefully it will be addressed down the road.

I'll be retiring in a few years and prior to this bill, would have to pay a ton for insurance that would match the benefits I currently enjoy ... hope this new law cuts me some slack. Currently there are doctors who refuse to accept new Medicare patients - that is unbelievable to me.

Both Medicare and Medicaid were very controversial when signed into law in 1965 (after 20 years of heated political debate). There was some pretty wild speculations, including the opinion that passage into law would turn this country into a Communist state. Without both these services, well - I can't imagine how difficult life would be for many.

The 2010 law looks to expand benefits to those falling outside qualification for them, and to refine services (hopefully expanding choices) - resulting in affordable health care for all citizens. The companion bill involves making higher education easier to obtain/afford.

It has taken forever and a day to put something in place that covers all in the US, and working towards this was Ted Kennedy's life's work. So, overall I'm hoping it will be a good thing - I also think we may see many amendments as time goes on, as well as some major colorful political posturing as is done every election year via scare tactics involving Medicare and Social Security.

Either way - we are watching history unfold.

[Pooka1]

Both Medicare and Medicaid were very controversial when signed into law in 1965 (after 20 years of heated political debate). There was some pretty wild speculations, including the opinion that passage into law would turn this country into a Communist state. Without both these services, well - I can't imagine how difficult life would be for many.

Great post but this comment is what folks should think about.

I don't understand the nexus between this bill and people not going into medicine. How is that supposed to happen? What other highly technical highly lucrative job will these bio majors choose? They aren't just going to switch to biomedical research en masse for at least three reasons:

1. graduate schools can only take what there is funding and space for,
2. biomedical research doesn't pay nearly as much as medicine and certainly nothing like certain medical specialties, and
3. you have to have the mindset for research. Many doctors don't have it and are not even trained to do it.

So I don't view the claims of less medical students after the passage of this bill as credible.

I lived in Canada and had several conversations of the medical system. A doctor told me the way Canada controls costs is rationing doctors. That means they control the number of medical schools and immigration of doctors. If anyone thinks either of those things will happen in the US then I disagree.

[mariaf]

I truly hope you're right, Sharon.

I guess another reason I am skeptical of any system the government comes up with is that several years ago the company my husband worked for went bankrupt. I was working part-time at the time and not eligible for medical insurance. Since COBRA wasn't an option (there was no company left to administer it), we went on the NY State plan (Health Plus) until my husband found a new job.

OK, so it was better than no insurance - but not what I expected. First of all, they said that with my part-time salary and his unemployment we made too much money to qualify for free or low-cost care so we paid the maximum for Health Plus (at that time about $400-500 for the family). Yes, that's cheaper than private insurance, but remember we had just lost my husband's income and this was a HUGE burden financially.

In addition, I came across several doctors in that relatively short time who did not accept it because they said 'it paid them very little'.

So here we were paying several hundred dollars a month for insurance that a lot of doctors wouldn't accept. And I found it laughable that we didn't qualify for a cheaper rate since as I said, we had very little income but the maximum one could make to qualify for a cheaper rate was ridiculously low.

So I guess I'm thinking it could turn out the same for the currently uninsured. Currently the uninsured can go to city hospitals for example. So what if the insurance they will have under this bill is not accepted by a lot of private doctors, will they be back where they started?

Hopefully not. And again, I'm just pointing out how ill-thought out government plans in the past have been - hopefully history won't repeat itself and our leaders have learned something over the past decades. In any event, we have no choice but to wait and see how things turn out. Hopefully, better than some of us expect

[Pooka1]

Maria,

Those are good points and I think we will have to see how things play out.

I just question the mechanics that would necessarily be in place if some of these predictions came true.

There is no other obvious outlet for all these people who would have gone into medicine but chose not to due to something in this bill. Therefore I don't believe the number of doctors is going to decrease. As long as their average salary is still much higher than any alternative, the numbers will hold steady.