You make a good point. This article supports the idea that reform is necessary, it doesn't necessarily support any particular reform plan.
On the other hand, it does clearly show what many are trying to deny, that reform is necessary.
Honestly, I haven't heard anyone except maybe the insurance companies argue that reform is unnecessary. Clearly there are things that can be done better. My concern is that in an attempt to fix the things that are broken, we break the things that are working.
A valid concern, but if you don't know of anyone who is against reform, you must have missed all the extremely pissed off individuals that screamed and carried on at the town hall meetings this past summer. There was a very vocal, very angry opposition to any changes in this very broken system.
Sorry you missed it, it shows what we are up against in this country when any industry's ox is about to be gored, especially if it is really way past time to get some sanity back into it, so that it serves the public at least a bit more than it serves itself. They send in surrogates to do their dirty work for them, and the media gobbles it up like candy.
It seems a no-brainer that the health insurance industry needs some regulatory fresh air, I can give you a personal example. My pharmacy has been filling the same prescription for me (it is for high cholesterol) for well over a year. Sometimes my co-pay is $25 and sometimes it is $50. The other day, I asked the technician to call my provider to clarify a $50 charge when the previous month it was $25. Can you guess what they insurance people said? They said I should have been paying $50 all along every month. I walked out in frustration, but went back in today and discovered that the price was now $25 again.
Just a small insignificant story, but one that shows how these people use the power that is in their hands.
A valid concern, but if you don't know of anyone who is against reform, you must have missed all the extremely pissed off individuals that screamed and carried on at the town hall meetings this past summer.
I didn't say anyone, I said only a few I knew of were outright against it, specifically the health insurance industry. I also heard a lot of people screaming, but it was to specific portions of the changes. They didn't want Medicare to change, or they didn't want politicians deciding what doctors could do, and so on. I heard different people who disliked different portions. It was news organizations that marginalized the arguments to the point where those people were either for or against it, with no middle ground, and that was all the politicians responded to.
Sorry you missed it, it shows what we are up against in this country when any industry's ox is about to be gored, especially if it is really way past time to get some sanity back into it, so that it serves the public at least a bit more than it serves itself. They send in surrogates to do their dirty work for them, and the media gobbles it up like candy.
Again, that is where we disagree. I do not and will never believe that any private industry should serve the public over the interests of their business. Such groups who do are called charities. I will agree those businesses must do honest business (and it is there that the health insurance companies have gone overboard), and I am telling you right now I am not a surrogate for their dirty work.
It seems a no-brainer that the health insurance industry needs some regulatory fresh air...
I think it seems a no-brainer to believe that regulation is going to magically solve all the problems while preserving the working portions. Who is right? The thing is, no one knows. I've said this many times before, and I'll say it again. We need to figure out what will work where. I think adding regulations will help some (specifically where insurance companies are dropping people on the grounds of "prior conditions"), and I think socialization will help some (specifically in funding new drugs, equipment, and techniques - research is also fickle in turns of return on investment), and I think capitalism works best in other areas (specifically in attracting and keeping competent and motivated doctors). And while I think those are good ideas, I would be more than willing to change them if someone actually did honest studies into the effects of the proposed changes and found out what did and did not work, but the government has not done that at all and seems like they are not interested in doing so.
...I can give you a personal example. My pharmacy has been filling the same prescription for me (it is for high cholesterol) for well over a year. Sometimes my co-pay is $25 and sometimes it is $50. The other day, I asked the technician to call my provider to clarify a $50 charge when the previous month it was $25. Can you guess what they insurance people said? They said I should have been paying $50 all along every month. I walked out in frustration, but went back in today and discovered that the price was now $25 again.
Just a small insignificant story, but one that shows how these people use the power that is in their hands.
Anecdotal stories are the last refuse of a weak argument. How do you know the person on the phone simply didn't make a mistake? Perhaps after your phone call the individual researched into it and discovered a data entry error? You don't, yet you ascribe it to some conspiracy of power to rip you off. I certainly can't tell you what to believe, but if you want to convince people, you need proof.
I am not going to indulge your point by point rebuttals but I don't believe there was a conspiracy in my pharmacy charges. What I do believe is that the insurance company has nearly unlimited power to decide what they are going to cover and what they aren't. They can have two different employees look up my plan and come up with two different amounts that I have to pay and still claim that they are correct both ways.
I also don't believe that companies have to operate as charities, but they do serve the public with their products and services, so the public, in the persons of their elected representatives, have the right and even the obligation to make sure that those companies who serve the public do so in a manner that serves the public interest. But don't take my word for it, read the Preamble to the US Constitution. That should clear things up for you.
The electric power companies can't decide to provide service for part of a city, but not a certain section, for example. They are required, by law, to serve an entire service area to anyone who can pay the going rate per Kwh. They can't charge people on Elm Street more than they charge the folks on Maple Street. The insurance companies are largely exempt from such oversight. They pay a lot for lobbying and they get their money's worth. What they are not doing is making their services available to a large enough percentage of the American population, so they need some regulatory encouragement to do so, in the interest of the public at large. The "General Welfare" if you will.
I also don't believe that companies have to operate as charities, but they do serve the public with their products and services...
The simple fact is we will never agree on that point. In the interest of living harmoniously, what should we do? It would be as grossly unfair of me to tell you to suck it up and do things my way as it would be for you to tell me the same.
But don't take my word for it, read the Preamble to the US Constitution. That should clear things up for you.
Here it is. Point out exactly where it says the United States government is empowered with the right to force companies to serve the public. (Here's a hint: it doesn't. In fact, it gives no power nor restrictions at all to the United States government.)
The electric power companies can't decide to provide service for part of a city, but not a certain section, for example. They are required, by law, to serve an entire service area to anyone who can pay the going rate per Kwh.
By law, they are also given a monopoly against competition (at least that is the way it has worked in every state I have lived in - your mileage may vary depending on your state). Health insurance companies do not, which is why comparisons like that are pointless.
Again, I want real, scientific studies showing what we should do. I will never support random legislation enacting regulations until I do. Why is that so much to ask?
The problem is that the current bill does not fix the issues at hand, but create more red tape. Too allow the government to run a losing money system for public option will result in x4 or more in actual spending that they are projecting. They spent x9 for original medicare.
No one has proven that these reforms will even work as they claim and that is the real problem. The same with Cap and Tax, Bailouts, and too many bill/laws that should have never been done as they won't work as claimed.
Yeah, like turning it over to the government will get rid of waste!
Give me a break!
There are many in the government that promote and profit from the fraud. Expanding health care will only expand fraud.
This guys one!
More serious though, i can agree to a point.. From what i see though, most admit the system in place does not work.. So why not try something new?
From what i see though, most admit the system in place does not work.
I am not sure that is an accurate statement. I think you would be better off saying most admit the system is failing in some regards and needs improvement. Other than high cost, I have no problem with my personal healthcare. It works for me.
I dont know, another thread here the other day, several of the objectors said the system needed reform, they just could not agree on the type of reform... I can dig it out, i'd rather not waste the time though.
Reform is not necessarily the same thing as replacing the entire system.
Umm, isn't that the same thing?
jammer170
Unnecessary care such as the overuse of antibiotics and lab tests to protect against malpractice exposure makes up 37 percent of healthcare waste or $200 to $300 billion a year.
Perhaps you can explain how health care reform will fix this problem since the proposed laws don't currently provide protection to doctors again medical malpractice lawsuits?
Fraud makes up 22 percent of healthcare waste, or up to $200 billion a year in fraudulent Medicare claims, kickbacks for referrals for unnecessary services and other scams.
Perhaps you can explain how the proposed health care laws will be immune to this fraud, since it occurs in Medicare, the current government run health care program?
Administrative inefficiency and redundant paperwork account for 18 percent of healthcare waste.
Perhaps you can explain how more administration from the proposed health care laws will reduce administration inefficiency or redundant paperwork?
Medical mistakes account for $50 billion to $100 billion in unnecessary spending each year, or 11 percent of the total.
Perhaps you can explain how the proposed health care laws will prevent mistakes?