SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Repeal of Obamacare

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Repeal of Obamacare (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=179255)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117 (Post 1580082)

Its sad that healthcare should be profit based in the first place. Your health is a right, not just a privilege like a new car or a T.V.

its a lot like college.

Education and health are two things that should never be profit driven, or allowed to have prices skyrocket like they are currently. I still wonder why our government allows this madness

Totally agree. When it comes to the lives of people, it is the governments duty to protect life. We go to war over so called self interest, it would seem the, pain, suffering and death of millions of US citizens would be such an interest when it can be denied by those seeking mass profit.

As I stated earlier, medicine has becompe a political based monopoly, the whole health spectrum is driven now by mass profits, Doctor's, Insurance, Pharma and Lawyers getting rich off all.

The GOP is big on stopping abortions because of life, yet they have no problem denying life after your born.

Course that's how you create two class cultures, create a system by law where only the elite can have either. In the end it doomed any nation that's tried it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1580085)

K-12 education is a right. College is not, and it is entirely profit-driven.

but why is that? To get almost any kind of job over minimum wage now you need at least 4 year degree.

maybe when you were younger you could go work at gm or something takeda, but its not anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117 (Post 1580114)

but why is that? To get almost any kind of job over minimum wage now you need at least 4 year degree.

maybe when you were younger you could go work at gm or something takeda, but its not anymore.

I don't have a really good answer for that. And you are right; nowadays an undergraduate degree is practically a minimum if you don't want to end up in a dead-end job making minimum wage for the rest of your life. The masters degree is the new bachelors degree, and the doctorate is the new masters degree. If this trend continues, your children will likely need a doctorate if they want to compete for the highest-paying jobs.

I dunno if thats even right. Doctorates are getting more common too. Maybe they need to make an even higher level

I vote uber super doctor :O:

This is why this beast has to go away:

Quote:

Three SEIU Locals--Including Chicago Chapter--Waived From Obamacare Requirement
Monday, January 24, 2011
By Fred Lucas (CNSNews.com) – Three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received temporary waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law.
The three SEIU chapters include the Local 25 in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.
The waivers allow health insurance plans to limit how much they will spend on a policy holder’s medical coverage for a given year. Under the new health care law, however, such annual limits are phased out by the year 2014. (Under HHS regulations, annual limits can be no less than $750,000 for 2011, no less than $1.25 million in 2012 and no less than $2 million in 2013.)
The SEIU, with more than 2 million members nationally, includes health care workers, janitors, security guards, and state and local government workers.
The three SEIU locals, covering a total of 36,064 enrollees, are covered by the federal waivers, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS gave a waiver to Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees on Oct. 1, 2010; to Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees on Oct. 10, 2010; and to the SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees on Nov. 15, 2010.
So far, the Obama administration has issued waivers to 222 entities, including businesses, unions and charitable organizations. Of that total, 45 were labor organizations.
A total of 1,507,418 enrollees are now included in the waivers. More than one-third -- 512,315 – of the enrollees affected were insured by union health plans.
SEIU Local 1199’s health plan put a $50,000 cap on medical expenses for its New Jersey nursing home workers, according to 1199 SEIU spokeswoman Leah Gonzalez. That’s $700,000 under the 2011 limit stipulated by HHS regulations.
In September, HHS announced it would grant waivers to employers to prevent some workers from losing their benefits if the insurer could not meet new health care law’s requirements on annual limits. The waivers are granted by HHS if the department determines “compliance with the interim final regulations would result in a significant decrease in access to benefits or a significant increase in premiums,” according to a Sept. 3 memo by Steve L. Larson, director of the HHS Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight.
Local 1199, SEIU's Greater New York Benefit Fund, requested the waiver specifically with respect to its separate plan for New Jersey members, according to Gonzalez. This waiver primarily affects low-wage New Jersey nursing home workers whose health care plan provides medical, hospital, prescription, dental and vision benefits.
The New Jersey members now have an annual maximum health care benefit of $50,000. Gonzalez said fewer than 1 percent of members have ever reached that cap, and that those members who did received additional help.
“The members’ health benefits are paid for by the employer and are negotiated through collective bargaining,” Gonzalez said in a written statement to CNSNews.com. “Several years ago, facing limited dollars from the employers for this small group, the members themselves chose how to shape their health plan to get the most out of their coverage.”
Gonzalez added that prescriptions are excluded from the cap. “For example, if a member maxes out from a hospital stay, she/he can continue to get their life-saving medications throughout the year while accessing alternative coverage at low-cost community clinics.”
Neither SEIU Local 25 nor Local 1, nor the national organization responded to CNSNews.com’s request for comment.
The SEIU's Committee on Political Education made $27,829,845.91 in independent expenditures on Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008. SEIU-affiliated groups in Illinois have long supported Obama’s campaigns and endorsed him for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate in 2004. In 2008, the national union backed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. (See earlier story.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117 (Post 1580126)

I dunno if thats even right. Doctorates are getting more common too. Maybe they need to make an even higher level

I vote uber super doctor :O:

Oh god, don't make me go back to school again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1581251)

Oh god, don't make me go back to school again.

:haha::wah: Same here. I took a community ed Korean class, and after two sessions I though to myself "what the hell am I doing here!":dead:

While apparently Mookie has decided to avoid a serious discussion on this issue, I would like to inform some of the readers regarding the points he - and by extension - the person quoted in the article/blog he linked were making.

Now, Its important to actually read the blog/interview, since the first thing one notes is that it is dated 2009. Sounds fairly recent - but the latest medical data study (not costs study) that the good Dr. Baker could point to was 1996. Hmm wait a second - thats 15 year old data. Well, it gets better - or worse, depending on your perspective. Dr. Baker is a "critic" of tort reform - in other words - he is perfectly HAPPY with the system as it is. Wonder why? Well, could it be because he is a professor of LAW and Health Services? In other words, he teaches lawyers - who are the ones that get the nice big contingency fees for such cases. He teaches folks like John Edwards, who by "channeling" the spirit of a dead child, made over a million dollars in contingency fees for a malpractice suit.

So now that its clear that the Dr. Baker has a reason to not want tort changes, lets look at his data for arguing against it. After all, judging an argument on the desires of the person is unwise - their facts may hold water. Dr. Baker is correct on some things - for example 2.1 Trillion dollars was spent on health care in 2007. He then quotes the Towers Perrin Study saying Tort Costs totaled 30.4 Billion, or 1 to 1.5 percent of the total costs. Dr Baker is telling an out and out LIE here - the 2008 update for the total tort costs in 2007 from Towers Perrin is not 30.4 Billion, but 252 Billion. Verify this at:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...j-eJdxTYkg34qA

If you prefer not to use the google doc viewer - just google TOWER PERRIN TORT and read it yourself. I will quote it here (page 5):

Quote:

Towers Perrin estimates that total insured and self-insured tort costs in the U.S. were $252 billion in 2007. This is an increase of $5.1 billion, or 2.1%, from the estimated $246.9 billion of tort costs in 2006.

$252 billion is nearly over 10% of the TOTAL costs in 2007. Yet this is only the TORT costs - it doesn't even take into account the increase in insurance premiums the doctors - and thus by extension - we the consumers - pay. Considering the same study notes that insurance premiums have risen beyond the rate of inflation - the link between excessive RISK of tort claims and the increases in costs cannot be ignored.

Tort reform is not a panacea for health care. Anyone who thinks it is could not be more wrong. But - taking on a segment of costs that is more than 10% right now, plus the (very conservative) 7% extra defensive medicine costs, along with the decrease in risk exposure insurers would face - could easily equate to a 20%-25% drop in costs. Is it a total fix? No way. But knocking about 1/4 of the costs off is a really good start!

Why did Dr. Baker lie? I don't know. But look at the CBO's numbers from 2007 - then look at Towers Perrin. 10% is nothing to sneeze at - and when your talking the associated savings as well, tort reform is a major piece of the puzzle.

The only folks who don't like the idea of tort reform seem to be those in the law field, or those who get suckered into taking someone's word as gospel.

EDIT: Ah nevermind. It's probably best I excuse myself from the "debate" altogether. Too much to take and make personal here.

Quote:

My issue isn't with tort reform - if you want to take rights away from people in order to shield bad doctors from facing financial and legal accountability for their mistakes, that's your prerogative. But quit acting like that's the be all and end all solution to all problems. It's not. It will do nothing to solve the long term problems inherent in our health care system - problems that can be laid at the door of the crooked health insurance cartel.

You want real reform? Try repealing the antitrust exemption that the healthcare industry enjoys. Funny how these people with such a hardon for the free market and capitalism will never talk about eliminating the anti-competitive scams that the insurance companies run. Collusion isn't the free market. Price fixing isn't a free market.

I wish there was a way to weed out the frivolous lawsuits vs the legitemate ones.

For point two, just sic Teddy the trust-buster on them.

Quote:

Or the ones who have seen it do jack sheet in practice, like here in Texas - home to three of the top ten most expensive cities in the country for health care: Harlingen, McAllen and Corpus Christi. But by all means, keep repeating the mantra. Proof is in the pudding.

For now, how about looking at the reality of the tort reform in Texas:

$2.6 billion increase in annual state tax revenue
$468.9 million in annual benefits from safer products
$15.2 billion in annual net benefits of enhanced innovation
499,000 permanent jobs
430,000 additional Texans have health insurance today as a result of the medical liability reforms

Source? The relevant Perryman Group Report of 2008 which can be found here: http://tlrfoundation.com/beta/files/...eport_2008.pdf

Oh - want more?

Quote:

Texas physicians have witnessed a 25% overall drop in liability rates since 2003, the state insurance department says. For the first time, the state's largest medical liability carrier, Texas Medical Liability Trust, saw a 50% reduction in lawsuit filings, this from 2003 to 2008. Texas went from four insurers to more than 30 during that period.
According to the Texas Medical Board, medical license applications have soared from 2,561 to 4,041 -- a 58% jump. At the same time, the number of neurosurgeons has climbed 12%, while the supply of orthopedic surgeons has risen 9%.
The results seen in Texas, with lowered liability insurance premiums, are repeated in experiences from other states that have enacted caps of varying degrees. In February, the AMA released an analysis of independent research that showed caps on noneconomic damages are effective and have lowered premiums at least 17%, with some specialties seeing even greater drops.

Source: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/200...5/edsa0915.htm

Oh - and before we forget, lets deal with the the three cities listed. Take a look at the map and see how close they are to the southern border....

Harlinger? About 10 miles from Mexico.

McAllen? Less than 10 miles from Mexico.

Corpus Christi? About 100 miles, but its also the largest major city that close to the border - meaning its going to get more than its "fair share" of illegal, non-paying customers with issues that the local small town hospitals in McAllen and Harlinger can't handle.

Like I said, bringing health care costs down is more than just tort reform - but when your giving away health care to illegals who just crossed the border with a sneeze, you can't reasonably expect tort reform to fix it all.....

Quote:

Corpus Christi? About 100 miles, but its also the largest major city that close to the border - meaning its going to get more than its "fair share" of illegal, non-paying customers with issues that the local small town hospitals in McAllen and Harlinger can't handle.

Like I said, bringing health care costs down is more than just tort reform - but when your giving away health care to illegals who just crossed the border with a sneeze, you can't reasonably expect tort reform to fix it all.....

Here's my fix, we treat the people and send the country of origin the bill, vis-a-vie, deduct it from their foreign aide.:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo (Post 1581622)

• The percentage of uninsured people in Texas has increased, remaining the highest in the country with a quarter of Texans now uninsured; - is tort reform going to insure the uninsured?
• The cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled; THE ONLY STATISTIC THAT MATTERS.
• The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average; and
• Spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average.

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=3018

Quote:

The only improvement shown by the data is a decline in doctors’ liability insurance premiums. But the reported 27 percent decrease in those premiums is dwarfed by the 67 percent reduction in malpractice payments, suggesting that liability insurance companies have pocketed most of the gains. The Texas data provide no evidence that patients or taxpayers have shared in the windfall at all.

And you completely ignore the 800 lb gorilla in the room - the failure of the corrupt politicians to repeal McCarran Ferguson. Where's your free market now? But go ahead and keep arguing for folks who are victims of malpractice to be unable to find a lawyer. If that's your answer to skyrocketing medical costs, then it's a terrible answer. Let's spend our time and energy on things that will give more bang for the buck. Institute a truly free market for insurance if we're not going to go the single payer route. As it is, the game is rigged for the insurance companies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1580117)

That's just depressing. I blame executives for sending middle class jobs over sea's so they can pad their personal bonuses. I blame the rest on automation. I've seen that happen first hand, With what was my primary function here at work for the last 8 years. Frankly, im amazed I haven't been laid off yet. I consider myself dead man walking. I won't quit though. Not with 10 years worth of severance pay on the table. With my luck they'll find a reason to fire me to cheat me out of my severance. Man that would suck, but it would be my luck.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimpy117 (Post 1580126)

I dunno if thats even right. Doctorates are getting more common too. Maybe they need to make an even higher level

I vote uber super doctor :O:

Doctorates in the United States are pretty steady at 2% of the adult population.

And there is actually something higher than a Doctorate, but it is not recognized in the United States. cf "Habilitation"