Knowledgeable Member
How long have I been saying that is what was going to happen with our I surance, no privacy? Several years at least.Originally Posted by Hazard
People keep saying and thinking everything they say to a doctor is confidential and I have been giving examples of how its going away but now faster than ever.
People be warned and don't be sheep.
Productive Member
We pay for a lot of stuff we will never get to use. I would like though for everyone to go ahead and see how this plan does for say a year, but also keep it open to where both sides can fine tune it whenever there is an issue that needs fixing with the healthcare plan. But we know this wont happen because both sides cant come together on anything anymore. So that is the problem right now. It does not matter if the republicans came up with an idea for health care as the dems would strike it down. And on and on it goes as we the public suffer including your grandmother who deserves better health care than she is receiving. Congress and the Senate both have better health care than we will ever get and why is that? That's an idea in itself. Why not allow all Americans the same policy that Congress and Senate now have? Bring that up and watch Congress and Senate both squirm in their seats as they try to spin their way out of that idea and ban that suggestion forever. Lets hope something good comes out of this healthcare plan or some healthcare plan in our lifetime that we all can afford and wont break the bank. Granted I personally think now was not the time to bring up healthcare for the nation as we have way too many other pressing matters like our national debt at 17 trillion, and millions still out of work and thousands on medicare/medicaid, disability that should not be on it at all. Not to mention the food stamp issue. And the USA still buying it's oil when we are sitting on 300 years of it now that hasn't even been tapped yet. And so on. I have an idea Hazard, lets us go up there to Washington for a few years and we can get it all straightened out.Till then it's the same ole bull....
Associate Member
This is partially correct. The statement about no reasonable expectation of privacy is NOT in the actual agreement, it's in the source code. This is STILL troubling. To my knowledge HIPPA has to do with healthcare info. This wouldn't violate HIPPA because you're not submitting any medical records, it's just the application process. Despite that it's STILL troubling because sensitive info (social security I believe as well as income name DOB address) is submitted that could be used to steal your identity.
Snook~ AR Lounge Monitor
The way Republicans reacted to this law just reiterates how stupid they are. If they really believed this law was going to hurt the American people they should have said so, sat back and reaped all the benefits when it crashed. Instead they shut down the government and now 45% of the people hate Republicans. Way to go guys.
Senior Member
The good ole prez approval ratting is at an all time low. No one likes what is going on in Washington. Same % as George W
Snook~ AR Lounge Monitor
And shutting down the government was the answer.
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
Here's the problem tho man.....
We pay for a lot of stuff we will never get to use. I would like though for everyone to go ahead and see how this plan does for say a year, but also keep it open to where both sides can fine tune it whenever there is an issue that needs fixing with the healthcare plan. But we know this wont happen because both sides cant come together on anything anymore. So that is the problem right now. It does not matter if the republicans came up with an idea for health care as the dems would strike it down. And on and on it goes as we the public suffer including your grandmother who deserves better health care than she is receiving. Congress and the Senate both have better health care than we will ever get and why is that? That's an idea in itself. Why not allow all Americans the same policy that Congress and Senate now have? Bring that up and watch Congress and Senate both squirm in their seats as they try to spin their way out of that idea and ban that suggestion forever. Lets hope something good comes out of this healthcare plan or some healthcare plan in our lifetime that we all can afford and wont break the bank. Granted I personally think now was not the time to bring up healthcare for the nation as we have way too many other pressing matters like our national debt at 17 trillion, and millions still out of work and thousands on medicare/medicaid, disability that should not be on it at all. Not to mention the food stamp issue. And the USA still buying it's oil when we are sitting on 300 years of it now that hasn't even been tapped yet. And so on. I have an idea Hazard, lets us go up there to Washington for a few years and we can get it all straightened out.
This is $1 trillion experiment. Does it not bother you?
Im all for reform..... But shouldn't we iron out as many wrinkles as possible and really think about cause and effect BEFORE we make it law?
What if a law slipped through that allowed everyone to shoot eachother before asking questions and then those for it said "lets just see how it works....."
Productive Member
Sounds like someone has been listening to too much Rush and Sean and not enough Savage Nation......Here's the problem tho man.....
This is $1 trillion experiment. Does it not bother you?
It kind of makes me wonder what was going through Roosevelt's mind when he enacted the Social Security System in August 14th, 1935. Some today still argue it is a disaster waiting to happen, that it is running out of money soon if we don't do something to fix the system. The thing is Social Security was set up to work. But what was not taken into account and never was even thought of at the time was American Legalized Abortions. Since Row Verses Wade became law in 1973, Over 50 million babies have been aborted. What does all this have to do with Social Security you might ask. Well, those 50 plus million babies are 50 plus million people who will never be around to pay into the system so instead of constantly getting healthier, less and less are paying into the fund. Add to this the millions of Jobs that were allowed to be sent to China by Greedy Corporations wanting to get by with paying 50 cents an hour instead of 7 dollars an hour for labor, and we have a recipe for disaster.
Im all for reform..... But shouldn't we iron out as many wrinkles as possible and really think about cause and effect BEFORE we make it law?
Yes we should have. The idea was correct, imo but the timing was not. With the 17 trillion dollar debt, I think we are not able to handle yet more debt to our economy. Yes we agree..
What if a law slipped through that allowed everyone to shoot eachother before asking questions and then those for it said "lets just see how it works....."
Thing is this law did not slip through. Everyone on both sides had time to either change or stop it in it's tracks. but it was like they all froze or went after too many other bills instead of concentrating on this one major bill. and now both sides are so polarized that nothing gets done due to the fact that each side is willing to look bad to stop anything else going through, regardless of what it is. In the past the democrats and republicans argued and fought right up till it became a law. But once it made it, both sides would just move on to another bill to argue over. Not anymore. Now both sides argue a bill clear through to when it becomes law. Then continue to what end? Lets face it our system has croaked, our country is broke and we all look like a joke.
Right now though Hazard, I feel that you and I both feel more passion and concern for America than any of our Congress or Senate do. That is what really bothers me.
Knowledgeable Member
Senior Member
I think a lot of people are forgetting that this is not about taking care of people it's about control. The republicans will use it just like the Democrats. Just wait until the government is regulating your appointments, medications, and treatment plan. It will happen.
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
Well.... It was a 2700 page document that had to be read and signed over a weekend right before their 1 month vacation. Coincidence?
Now..... Our representatives in congress SHOULD have read it all. It's disturbing that they may have signed off on something they didn't fully read or understand.
The whole thing is shady..... It really is a sad day. I truely believe that this healthcare reform is for the governments benefit and not the people.
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
For the record I don't watch Rush Limbaugh or any of those idiots. I don't buy into one sided TV. I collect my info and make a decision based on what I know and not what ppl tell me
Banned for repping Dangerous Substances
This is cool lol. ...crazy mike
Productive Member
I think what is also sad is the fact that this president spent nearly all his time on his first term dedicated to this healthcare reform and little else. Well except for wall street bailout, which by the way they will never pay back.
Yeah Haz we agree on more, a lot more than we don't agree on. And for the record, thank fvck you don't listen to those radio crazies. Well there is nothing wrong with listening to them unless you start believing all they say.
Banned for repping Dangerous Substances
Being on SSD my Medicare drug coverage dictates to the doctors what they can prescribe to me in many occasions. Due to the expense of some drugs I nickel and dime them (some) and when I have the money I by a little at a time. So they tell me when I can get some or when I can't. So if I have the money to up my stash of a script at home cause I have extra money they won't fill it. That's not a refill it's just a partial on the entire script. You prob don't understand, but in general pls understand they tell me when I can have it over and above what my doctors says.
It is all fvcked up. The gov't and insurance companies are controlling everything....crazy mike
Anabolic Member
One step closer to chaos. Some people may fear it, some people may not think they want it, but it's the only thing that will be true FREEDOM.
Otherwise, be prepared to continue to...
Senior Member
Two men enter one man leaves.
Knowledgeable Member
Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
U.S. 65%
England 46%
Canada 42%
Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
U.S. 93%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six
months:
U.S. 90%
England 15%
Canada 43%
Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
U.S. 77%
England 40%
Canada 43%
Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
U.S. 71
England 14
Canada 18
Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":
U.S. 12%
England 2%
Canada 6%
And now for the last statistic:
National Health Insurance?
U.S. NO
England YES
Canada YES
Senior Member
According to NBC News, approximately 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million Americans who buy their health insurance individually should expect to receive a cancellation letter over the next year "because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law."
Productive Member
They started getting letters already today. They are saying they cannot tell you if its going ot be better or worse for these people.
Knowledgeable Member
Most all the news agencies are now reporting by mid January there will be a lot mor uninsured people than there are now only they won't qualify for any aid.
Designed chaos.
Senior Member
That's what it is. I read that when the bill was signed they knew this would happen. And do you know what they will do to save us? Single payer health system. This was designed to fail from the begging. GOVERNMENT CONTROL.
Knowledgeable Member
Yup that's what I understood also. Unfortunately people still won't see it for what it is until its to late and we have no way out and we will let the government take evej more control as you said. Its all down hill from there.
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
Taken from the Cato institute:
Universal Health Care Won't Work -- Witness Medicare
At first glance, many Americans might find the idea of single-payer health insurance appealing, given current economic conditions and high health insurance costs. However, before we accept such a drastic shift in national health policy, we should examine how single-payer health insurance could affect all individuals' health care costs, choices and privacy.
If history is any indication, any single-payer initiative will end up costing much more than advocates claim. That, in turn, will lead to higher taxes and/or rationing under which the government will determine which medical treatments will and will not be covered. How do we know this will happen? Because single-payer health care has already been empirically tested on seniors in the United States. Many people may not realize it, but the Medicare program is one of the largest single payers of health care in the U.S. and in the world. An examination of Medicare's 38-year-old track record provides evidence of what happens when the government controls the financing of health services for millions of U.S. citizens. Consider the following facts.
When Medicare was debated in 1965 (the year it was signed into law), business and taxpayer groups were concerned that program expenditures might grow out of control. However, single-payer advocates assured them that all seniors could easily be covered under Medicare with only a small increase in workers' payroll taxes. The federal government's lead actuary in 1965 projected that the hospital program (Medicare Part A) would grow to only $9 billion by 1990. The program ended up costing more than $66 billion that year.
Just three years after Medicare was passed, a 1968 Tax Foundation study found that public spending on medical care had nearly doubled in the first few years of Medicare. In subsequent decades, Medicare payroll taxes and general taxes have continued to rise to pay for skyrocketing health care costs.
Tom Miller, director of health policy studies at the Cato Institute, explains the main problems with Medicare (single-payer) financing. "As fiscal pressures mount, the federal government does not 'negotiate' with medical providers for lower prices for covered services," says Miller. "It dictates below-market reimbursements with its near-monopoly power as a purchaser of health care for seniors. The full costs of such price discounts eventually reduce access to quality care and hold health care markets hostage to political exploitation."
Before Medicare was passed, seniors were promised that the program would not interfere with their choice of insurance. However, existing rules force most seniors to rely on Medicare Part A to pay their hospital bills -- even if they can afford to pay for private insurance. Additionally, today's seniors and doctors must abide by more than 100,000 pages of Medicare rules and regulations dictating what types of services are covered or not under the program.
Currently, many Americans choose to pay privately for health services to maintain their medical privacy. However, a single-payer health plan would eliminate that option and all citizens would be forced to give up their ability to maintain a confidential doctor-patient relationship. Just look at what has happened with Medicare.
Under Medicare rules established in 1999, patients receiving home health care are required to divulge personal medical, sexual, and emotional information. Government contractors -- mainly home health nurses -- are directed to record such things as whether a senior has expressed "depressed feelings" or has used "excessive profanity." If seniors refuse to share medical and lifestyle information, their health care workers are required to act as proxies. This means total strangers will be permitted to speak for seniors.
Medicare officials stress that the government protects patients' privacy. However, the General Accounting Office reported to Congress several years ago that at five of 12 Medicare contractors' sites, auditors were able to penetrate security and obtain sensitive Medicare information. At a time when citizens are concerned about high health care costs, fewer choices and loss of medical privacy, a single-payer health plan could exacerbate these concerns. Given our empirical evidence from the single-payer Medicare program, a single-payer health insurance program for Americans of all ages would most definitely lead to increased costs, reduced choices and less medical privacy for everyone. These are warning signs that no American -- including the moderates pushing universal health care -- can afford to ignore.
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
From balanced politics
There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care? Quick, try to think of one government office that runs efficiently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? The Department of Transportation? Social Security Administration? Department of Education? There isn't a single government office that squeezes efficiency out of every dollar the way the private sector can. We've all heard stories of government waste such as million-dollar cow flatulence studies or the Pentagon's 14 billion dollar Bradley design project that resulted in a transport vehicle which when struck by a mortar produced a gas that killed every man inside. How about the U.S. income tax system? When originally implemented, it collected 1 percent from the highest income citizens. Look at it today. A few years back to government published a "Tax Simplification Guide", and the guide itself was over 1,000 pages long! This is what happens when politicians mess with something that should be simple. Think about the Department of Motor Vehicles. This isn't rocket science--they have to keep track of licenses and basic database information for state residents. However, the costs to support the department are enormous, and when was the last time you went to the DMV and didn't have to stand in line? If it can't handle things this simple, how can we expect the government to handle all the complex nuances of the medical system? If any private business failed year after year to achieve its objectives and satisfy its customers, it would go out of business or be passed up by competitors. Consider the health care bill passed by the Obama administration in 2009--it's over 2000 pages and barely scratches the surface for how the law will be implemented!
"Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc. There's an entitlement mentality in this country that believes the government should give us a number of benefits such as "free" health care. But the government must pay for this somehow. What good would it do to wipe out a few hundred dollars of monthly health insurance premiums if our taxes go up by that much or more? If we have to cut AIDS research or education spending, is it worth it?
Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness. Government workers have fewer incentives to do well. They have a set hourly schedule, cost-of-living raises, and few promotion opportunities. Compare this to private sector workers who can receive large raises, earn promotions, and work overtime. Government workers have iron-clad job security; private sector workers must always worry about keeping their jobs, and private businesses must always worry about cutting costs enough to survive.
Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility. At first glance, it would appear universal health care would increase flexibility. After all, if government paid for everything under one plan, you could in theory go to any doctor. However, some controls are going to have to be put in to keep costs from exploding. For example, would "elective" surgeries such as breast implants, wart removal, hair restoration, and lasik eye surgery be covered? Then you may say, that's easy, make patients pay for elective surgery. Although some procedures are obviously not needed, who decides what is elective and what is required? What about a breast reduction for back problems? What about a hysterectomy for fibroid problems? What about a nose job to fix a septum problem caused in an accident? Whenever you have government control of something, you have one item added to the equation that will most definitely screw things up--politics. Suddenly, every medical procedure and situation is going to come down to a political battle. The compromises that result will put in controls that limit patient options. The universal system in Canada forces patients to wait over 6 months for a routine pap smear. Canada residents will often go to the U.S. or offer additional money to get their health care needs taken care of.
The health-care industry likely will become infused with the same kind of corruption, back-room dealing, and special-interest-dominated sleaze that is already prevalent in other areas of government. In President Obama's push for health insurance "reform", we saw firsthand how politics rears its ugly head. In order to secure 60 votes in the Senate, the Democrats put in special payoffs for Nebraska (the "Cornhusker kickback"), Louisiana (the "Louisiana Purchase"), and Florida in order to secure votes from reluctant senators. In other words, the merits of the bill and the good of the nation took a backseat to politics as usual. Another example was the proposed tax on "Cadillac Health Plans", which was one of the few things in the 2000+ page bill that economists predicted would actually help reduce overall costs. Unfortunately, Obama's biggest political supporters--big unions--were set to be hit. So of course, a deal was struck to exempt his union supporters, whereas non-union members in the same boat still faced the tax hikes. With something as important as health care, can we really have politicians and special interests taking power? How long before funding/regulatory decisions on certain drugs, treatments, research, etc. are decided based on those who give the most political support, as opposed to which will save lives and improve quality of life?
Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now. Co-pays and deductibles were put in place because there are medical problems that are more minor annoyances than anything else. Sure, it would be nice if we had the medical staff and resources to treat every ache and pain experienced by an American, but we don't. For example, what if a patient is having trouble sleeping? What if a patient has a minor cold, flu, or headache? There are scores of problems that we wouldn't go to a doctor to solve if we had to pay for it; however, if everything is free, why not go? The result is that doctors must spend more time on non-critical care, and the patients that really need immediate help must wait. In fact, for a number of problems, it's better if no medical care is given whatsoever. The body's immune system is designed to fight off infections and other illnesses. It becomes stronger when it can fight things off on its own. Treating the symptoms can prolong the underlying problem, in addition to the societal side effects such as the growing antibiotic resistance of certain infections.
Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. While uninsured Americans are a problem in regards to total system cost, it doesn't mean health care isn't available. This issue shouldn't be as emotional since there are plenty of government and private medical practices designed to help the uninsured. It is illegal to refuse emergency treatment, even if the patient is an illegal immigrant.
Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care. When government controls things, politics always seep into the decision-making. Steps will have to be taken to keep costs under control. Rules will be put in place as to when doctors can perform certain expensive tests or when drugs can be given. Insurance companies are already tying the hands of doctors somewhat. Government influence will only make things worse, leading to decreased doctor flexibility and poor patient care.
Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc. Universal health care means the costs will be spread to all Americans, regardless of your health or your need for medical care, which is fundamentally unfair. Your health is greatly determined by your lifestyle. Those who exercise, eat right, don't smoke, don't drink, etc. have far fewer health problems than the smoking couch potatoes. Some healthy people don't even feel the need for health insurance since they never go to the doctor. Why should we punish those that live a healthy lifestyle and reward the ones who don't?
In an effort to cut costs, price & salary controls on drugs, medical equipment, and medical services are likely to be put in place, meaning there is less incentive to pursue medical-related research, development, and investment. Regardless of whether medical costs are paid for publicly or privately, the costs are extremely expensive and going higher every year. Rising costs of drugs, diagnostic tests, advanced treatments, physician & nurses' salaries, and so on all contribute to the skyrocketing overall cost. Politicians are likely to jump in and try to limit costs by putting in price caps on various items they deem "excessively profitable." This de-incentivizes businesses from investing in new drugs or medical advances. As an example, new drugs often take over a decade to develop, test, and pass FDA standards. That means companies must spend sometimes millions of dollars over the development period without grossing dollar one! The only thing that keeps companies in the market at all is the potentially lucrative payout of that patent along with the ability to sell their new drugs at whatever cost the market will bear. Drug price controls, or even the mere threat of price controls, will likely dissuade many companies from taking on the new investment. Consequently, medical advances are likely to curtail.
A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation. A universal health plan means the entire health insurance industry would be unnecessary. All companies in that area would have to go out of business, meaning all people employed in the industry would be out of work. A number of hospital record clerks that dealt with insurance would also be out of work. A number of these unemployed would be able to get jobs in the new government bureaucracy, but it would still be a long, painful transition. We'd also have to once again go through a whole new round of patient record creation and database construction, which would cost huge amounts of both time and money.
Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession. Government jobs currently have statute-mandated salaries and civil service tests required for getting hired. There isn't a lot of flexibility built in to reward the best performing workers. Imagine how this would limit the options of medical professionals. Doctors who attract scores of patients and do the best work would likely be paid the same as those that perform poorly and drive patients away. The private practice options and flexibility of specialties is one of things that attracts students to the profession. If you take that away, you may discourage would-be students from putting themselves through the torture of medical school and residency. A recent study showed that nearly 1/3 of doctors would leave the profession if the Obama health care bill was put into law.
Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits. When you're dealing with any business, for example a privately-funded hospital, if an employee negligently causes an injury, the employer is ultimately liable in a lawsuit. If government funds all health care, that would mean the U.S. government, an organization with enormous amounts of cash at its disposal, would be ultimately responsible for the mistakes of health care workers. Whether or not a doctor has made a mistake, he or she is always a target for frivolous lawsuits by money-hungry lawyers & clients that smell deep pockets. Even if the health care quality is the same as in a government-funded system, the level of lawsuits is likely to increase simply because attorneys know the government has the money to make settlements and massive payouts. Try to imagine potential punitive damages alone. When the government has the ability to spend several trillion dollars per year, how much will a jury be willing to give a wronged individual who is feeble, disfigured, or dying?
Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms. With government-paid health care, any risky or unhealthy lifestyle will raise the dollar cost to society. Thus, politicians will be in a strong position to pass more "sin" taxes on things like alcohol, high-fat food, smoking, etc. They could ban trans fat, limit MSG, eliminate high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. For some health nuts, this may sound like a good thing. But pretty soon, people will find they no longer have the option to enjoy their favorite foods, even in moderation, or alternatively, the cost of the items will be sky high. Also, it just gives the government yet another method of controlling our lives, further eroding the very definition of America, Land of the Free.
Patient confidentiality is likely to be compromised since centralized health information will likely be maintained by the government. While a centralized computer health information system may reduce some costs of record keeping, protecting the privacy of patients will likely become very difficult. The government would have yet another way to access information about citizens that should be private. Any doctor or other health professional would be able to access your entire health history. What if hackers get into the data?
Health care equipment, drugs, and services may end up being rationed by the government. In other words, politics, lifestyle of patients, and philosophical differences of those in power, could determine who gets what. Any time you have politicians making health care decisions instead of medical or economics professions, you open a whole group of potential rationing issues. As costs inevitably get out of control and have to be curtailed, some ways will be needed to cut costs. Care will have to be rationed. How do you determine what to do with limited resources? How much of "experimental" treatments will have to be eliminated? If you're over 80, will the government pay for the same services as people under 30? Would you be able to get something as expensive as a pacemaker or an organ transplant if you're old? Would your political party affiliation or group membership determine if you received certain treatments? What if you acquire AIDS through drug use or homosexual activity, would you still receive medical services? What if you get liver disease through alcoholism, or diabetes from being overweight, or lung cancer from smoking--will the government still help you? Just think of the whole can of worms opened by the abortion & birth control issue? You may or may not trust the current president & Congress to make reasonable decisions, but what about future presidents and congressional members?
Patients may be subjected to extremely long waits for treatment. Stories constantly come out of universal health care programs in Britain and Canada about patients forced to wait months or years for treatments that we can currently receive immediately in America. With limited financial and human resources, the government will have to make tough choices about who can treatment first, and who must wait. Patients will like be forced to suffer longer or possibly die waiting for treatment.
Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control. Social security was originally put in place to help seniors live the last few years of their lives; however, the retirement age of 65 was set when average life spans were dramatically shorter. Now that people are regular living into their 90s or longer, costs are skyrocketing out of control, making the program unsustainable. Despite the fact that all politicians know the system is heading for bankruptcy in a couple decades, no one is rushing to fix it. When President Bush tried to re-structure it with private accounts, the Democrats ran a scare campaign about Bush's intention to "take away your social security". Even though he promised no change in benefits, the fact that he was proposing change at all was enough to kill the effort, despite the fact that Democrats offered zero alternative plan to fix it. Despite Republican control of the presidency and both houses, Bush was not even close to having the political support to fix something that has to be fixed ASAP; politicians simply didn't want to risk their re-elections. The same pattern is true with virtually all government spending programs. Do you think politicians will ever be able to cut education spending or unemployment insurance?...Only if they have a political death wish. In time, the same would be true of universal health care spending. As costs skyrocket because of government inefficiency and an aging population, politicians will never be able to re-structure the system, remove benefits, or put private practice options back in the system....that is, unless they want to give up hope of re-election. With record debt levels already in place, we can't afford to put in another "untouchable" spending program, especially one with the capacity to easily pass defense and social security in cost.
Senior Member
It's not meant to work NBC news reported that months before the bill was passed the administration knew millions would lose their coverage. This is all a trick. Look this way while I fvck your sister over here. The programmers knew the website would fail. These are facts not opinions. My opinion is the government has us right where it wants us. We are all in trouble so who can save us from this awful mess. The same people that spy on us and lie to us.
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
From NBC
Larry Downing / Reuters
President Barack Obama walks out to deliver remarks on the Affordable Care Act in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington on Oct. 1, 2013.
By Lisa Myers and Hannah Rappleye
NBC News
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans that after the Affordable Care Act became law, people who liked their health insurance would be able to keep it. But millions of Americans are getting or are about to get cancellation letters for their health insurance under Obamacare, say experts, and the Obama administration has known that for at least three years.
This story has been republished here
Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a "cancellation" letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don't meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience "sticker shock."
None of this should come as a shock to the Obama administration. The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be "grandfathered," meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don't meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered.
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, "40 to 67 percent" of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, "the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range."
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, "if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan," was still saying in 2012, "If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance."
"This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn't keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn't make it either," said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.
The White House does not dispute that many in the individual market will lose their current coverage, but argues they will be offered better coverage in its place, and that many will get tax subsidies that would offset any increased costs.
"One of the main goals of the law is to ensure that people have insurance they can rely on - that doesn't discriminate or charge more based on pre-existing conditions. The consumers who are getting notices are in plans that do not provide all these protections - but in the vast majority of cases, those same insurers will automatically shift their enrollees to a plan that provides new consumer protections and, for nearly half of individual market enrollees, discounts through premium tax credits," said White House spokesperson Jessica Santillo.
"Nothing in the Affordable Care Act forces people out of their health plans: The law allows plans that covered people at the time the law was enacted to continue to offer that same coverage to the same enrollees - nothing has changed and that coverage can continue into 2014," she said.
Individual insurance plans with low premiums often lack basic benefits, such as prescription drug coverage, or carry high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs. The Affordable Care Act requires all companies to offer more benefits, such as mental health care, and also bars companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions.
Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president's promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. "What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide," Carney said. "So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act."
Courtesy of Heather Goldwater
Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, says that she received a letter from her insurer saying the company would no longer offer her plan, but hasn't yet received a follow-up letter with a comparable option.
Other experts said that most consumers in the individual market will not be able to keep their policies. Nancy Thompson, senior vice president of CBIZ Benefits, which helps companies manage their employee benefits, says numbers in this market are hard to pin down, but that data from states and carriers suggests "anywhere from 50 to 75 percent" of individual policy holders will get cancellation letters. Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger, who chairs the health committee of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, says that estimate is "probably about right." She added that a few states are asking insurance companies to cancel and replace policies, rather than just amend them, to avoid confusion.
A spokesman for America's Health Plans says there are no precise numbers on how many will receive cancellations letters or get notices that their current policies don't meet ACA standards. In both cases, consumers will not be able to keep their current coverage.
Those getting the cancellation letters are often shocked and unhappy.
George Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, said he was "perfectly happy" with his plan from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly premium. But this past September, he was surprised to receive a letter saying his policy was no longer available. The "comparable" plan the insurance company offered him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible.
And the best option he's found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium, to $948 a month.
"The deductible is less," he said, "But the plan doesn't meet my needs. Its unaffordable."
"I'm sitting here looking at this, thinking we ought to just pay the fine and just get insurance when we're sick," Schwab added. "Everybody's worried about whether the website works or not, but that's fixable. That's just the tip of the iceberg. This stuff isn't fixable."
Heather Goldwater, 38, of South Carolina, is raising a new baby while running her own PR firm. She said she received a letter last July from Cigna, her insurance company, that said the company would no longer offer her individual plan, and promised to send a letter by October offering a comparable option. So far, she hasn't received anything.
"I'm completely overwhelmed with a six-month-old and a business," said Goldwater. "The last thing I can do is spend hours poring over a website that isn't working, trying to wrap my head around this entire health care overhaul."
Goldwater said she supports the new law and is grateful for provisions helping folks like her with pre-existing conditions, but she worries she won't be able to afford the new insurance, which is expected to cost more because it has more benefits. "I'm jealous of people who have really good health insurance," she said. "It's people like me who are stuck in the middle who are going to get screwed."
Richard Helgren, a Lansing, Mich., retiree, said he was "irate" when he received a letter informing him that his wife Amy's $559 a month health plan was being changed because of the law. The plan the insurer offered raised his deductible from $0 to $2,500, and the company gave him 17 days to decide.
The higher costs spooked him and his wife, who have painstakingly planned for their retirement years. "Every dollar we didn't plan for erodes our standard of living," Helgren said.
Ulltimately, though Helgren opted not to shop through the ACA exchanges, he was able to apply for a good plan with a slightly lower premium through an insurance agent.
He said he never believed President Obama's promise that people would be able to keep their current plans.
"I heard him only about a thousand times," he said. "I didn't believe him when he said it though because there was just no way that was going to happen. They wrote the regulations so strictly that none of the old polices can grandfather."
For months, Laszewski has warned that some consumers will face sticker shock. He recently got his own notice that he and his wife cannot keep their current policy, which he described as one of the best, so-called "Cadillac" plans offered for 2013. Now, he said, the best comparable plan he found for 2014 has a smaller doctor network, larger out-of-pocket costs, and a 66 percent premium increase.
"Mr. President, I like the coverage I have," Laszweski said. "It is the best health insurance policy you can buy."
More from NBC News Investigations:
Credit data giant Experian tangled in ID theft case
Romanian ring that targeted online car buyers in US is broken up
Two killings do not a trend make; homicides remain rare in schools
Follow NBC News Investigations on Twitter and Facebook
Productive Member
Hey Our President would not lie to us. He is fair and balanced. No wait that's the Fox Network...Nevermind...
Senior Member
Really hate this dumb alcoholic bitch.
Nancy Pelosi: ObamaCare Implementation "Gone Very Well," Dismissed Obama's Broken Promises - YouTube
HRT Specialist ~ Knowledgeable Member
goos show by Neil Cavuto exposing Obama's lies regarding healthcare,
Cavuto: Mr. President, we at Fox News are not the problem - YouTube
AR-Elite Hall of Famer
Lmao owned
HRT Specialist ~ Knowledgeable Member
I wish Obama was sitting in front of Cavuto while he's going at it!
Knowledgeable Member
Did you hear that most normal drugs especially those use for high end diseases like cancer, aids and such will not be covered.
Knowledgeable Female Member
I didn't hear that, but are drugs for cancer and HIV *normal* drugs? I thought normal drugs were pain meds, statins, blood pressure meds, abx, thyroid, antacids/proton pump inhibitors, antihistamines, corticosteroids, diabetes meds, antidepressants, cox 2 inhibitors, birth control, ADHD, glaucoma, osteoporosis, even antipsychotics. I just went and had a look at the most commonly prescribed meds in several states, and for several years and none of them had any HIV antiretrovirals or cancer drugs, but I only read each list to the top 100 and then I gave up.
Knowledgeable Member
They are normal to the people who need them. I mean the well known branded name drugs for them. They might be some alternative drugs but many have found out there is nothing so it means if they can not afford out of pocket they will just suffer and die. The out of pocket does not count against the co pay either.
Knowledgeable Female Member
Well, a drug used by three people in the world is normal to those people. I thought you meant the usual understanding of the word 'normal'.
What do those people who use those rare normal drugs do now in order to pay for them?
Knowledgeable Member
3 people? X 100, 000 maybe. I think there are a few more than 3 or just a few being treated for aids and cancer. It is not just thkse. Epilepsy medications, anti seizure meds and many others. The list goes on and on how obamacare will do nothing to help the masses bit I n fact hurt 10x more than it was ever marketed to help.Well, a drug used by three people in the world is normal to those people. I thought you meant the usual understanding of the word 'normal'.
What do those people who use those rare normal drugs do now in order to pay for them?
Their end goal is to have socialized medicine and even more control over I'm individuals life's as well as dealth.
Knowledgeable Female Member
Um, I didn't say that there are three people being treated for cancer, did I? I was making some commentary on a word choice that seemed to be leading people to believe that ordinary drugs were not going to be paid for, when in fact the sort of drugs you seemed to be alluding to didn't even appear in the top 100 prescribed drugs (and perhaps even the top 150 or 200, as I said, I got tired of checking, so we don't really know). Then you say that you are using the word normal in what is really a very unusual way. I may be the only person in the world who does something, and so it is normal for me, but really, is that what the word 'normal' really means? Particular to one person, or even to a minority of people?
Then I asked a question which you did not answer, but instead you decided to attribute a claim to me which I did not actually make.
I understand there is some concern about obamacare and prescription drugs, and I am interested to know more, but when I see comments about cancer and HIV meds as being "normal" it seems like it is intended to be inflammatory and makes me wonder whether I should take what you are saying seriously.
Known Troll
5 years ago I had 100% of my expenses paid after a 5k deductible. This plan cost 700/mo for a 40yo healthy male.
2 years ago this plan was not offered anymore. The best I could get is 80% paid by insurer. I have to pay 20%. This plan also costs 700/mo.
Today I got my letter. I will have to choose a new plan in february, as yet undetermined since the plans are still being constructed. I will most likely still pay around 700/mo. But my coverage has to include prenatal care, pregnancy, child birth, breast cancer. Even though I am a male and don't posses the equipment necessary. This is what the government does. Treat everyone equally. The fact is, we are not equal. This has only just now begun to fbck everyone who once had good insurance. Just wait. I can only laugh because if I think about it seriously I will lose my mind. The transformation of the once enterprising and independent American is nearly complete. We the sheeple.
Knowledgeable Member
You can play word games and the blame game all day and it won't change the facts that it is already affecting more negatively than it is helping and its going to hurt a lit more as well as cost us financially.
Many have insurance that pays for them, some get them via donations from private citizens and groups, some from special programs via the drug companies, hospitals or charities or they pay for them out of pocket. Most of these options are being eliminated and wont be available in the near future under Obamacare.Well, a drug used by three people in the world is normal to those people. I thought you meant the usual understanding of the word 'normal'.
What do those people who use those rare normal drugs do now in order to pay for them?
A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which taxes effect under Obamacare , sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals.
Last edited by lovbyts; 12-14-2013 at 10:11 PM.
There are currently 11 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 11 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote