Comments on: Will the Left or Right Kill Health Care Reform? http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102 Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:46:53 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: The Danger of Killing Health Care Reform From The Left - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218372 The Danger of Killing Health Care Reform From The Left - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:14:12 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218372 [...] has made an important point about the strategy of the “progressive block” to attempt to block any form of health care reform which does not meet their ideological goals. This now includes blocking plans which might serve the goals of health care reform if they do not [...] [...] has made an important point about the strategy of the “progressive block” to attempt to block any form of health care reform which does not meet their ideological goals. This now includes blocking plans which might serve the goals of health care reform if they do not [...]

]]> By: Compromise To Remain On The Path To Health Care Reform - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218341 Compromise To Remain On The Path To Health Care Reform - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:13:27 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218341 [...] that solutions be offered to problems.  Some on the left have concentrated too much on the path, threatening to vote against bills which achieve the desired goals if they do not do it in the manner they [...] [...] that solutions be offered to problems.  Some on the left have concentrated too much on the path, threatening to vote against bills which achieve the desired goals if they do not do it in the manner they [...]

]]> By: Political Blog Weekly: 3 July 2009 | U.S. Common Sense http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218280 Political Blog Weekly: 3 July 2009 | U.S. Common Sense Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:28:14 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218280 [...] "Will the Left or Right Kill Health Care Reform?" Originally published:  28 June 2009 Submitted by:  U.S. Common Sense Summary:  Examining the paradox that occurs on the Left regarding "too much" or "not enough" government involvement with the proposed health care reform. [...] [...] "Will the Left or Right Kill Health Care Reform?" Originally published:  28 June 2009 Submitted by:  U.S. Common Sense Summary:  Examining the paradox that occurs on the Left regarding "too much" or "not enough" government involvement with the proposed health care reform. [...]

]]> By: Ron Chusid http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218036 Ron Chusid Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:41:34 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218036 <p>True.</p> True.

]]> By: Fritz http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218035 Fritz Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:08:11 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218035 Tort reform will be hard to do.  The trial lawyers have been very, very civic minded.  In other words, they contribute handsomely to political campaigns.   Tort reform will be hard to do.  The trial lawyers have been very, very civic minded.  In other words, they contribute handsomely to political campaigns.
 

]]> By: Ron Chusid http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218033 Ron Chusid Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:48:53 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218033 <p>Yes, I recently noted in another post that it doesn't make any sense to talk about complex measures to try to reduce cost while ignoring tort reform.</p> Yes, I recently noted in another post that it doesn’t make any sense to talk about complex measures to try to reduce cost while ignoring tort reform.

]]> By: mike http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218031 mike Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:34:58 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218031 I advise on several health insurance boards such as http://www.benefitsmanager.net , http://www.bcbstx.info , and http://www.healthinsurancesource.net. I often quote the Switzerland health care system as an example of tough questions that we as a nation will have to answer someday, if we go down the path of nationalized government health care plan. We’ll have to at some point draw the line in the sand and refuse further care for patients receiving critical illness treatments, intensive care unit, trauma care, acute management services, disease management, neonatal intensive-care unit for newborns and seniors in extended care treatment nearing hospice stage . Did you know that premature babies are not resuscitated upon birth if they cannot draw breath in Switzerland? Did you also know that holds true with “senior care” experiencing system failure or multiple organ failures requiring support? Another example, they don't extend the life of a senior via medical equipment such as intubation or respiration for multiple organ failures. Not to be morbid….they are unplugged and allowed to pass. Anyone in the business of paying claims knows that the single most expensive bill in what carriers call “shock loss” is within NICU for newborns and seniors in acute / intensive care / hospital in the last three months of life. The Swiss apparently made decisions made based upon cost vs. quality outcome. Are we as a nation prepared to make that type of decision or to define when to incubate, resuscitate a newborn or a senior? Are we ready to define the conditions and rules of medical procedures with organ failure? With a litigious society I think not. This is why we need TORT REFORM. Without TORT REFORM medical provider costs will never drop. Liability costs with medical providers are nearly half of operating expenses. Humana health plans state that their costs of medical liability and defensive medicine accounts for nearly 10 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Compare that to Humana’s reported pharmaceutical claims of 15 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Or better yet, 21 cents out of every premium dollar collected is paid back to physicians for physician treatments. The cost of litigation is only obvious with Humana health plans. I sit on the board with several other health insurance carriers. Their books all show similar costs. They basically insure a shrinking populace that is mostly made up of people that only buy insurance because they need it. So is mandatory participation such a bad idea? I don't think we are hearing about TORT REFORM because most of the house and senate on the federal level are lawyers and have practicing law firm interest’s. In the healthcare system there is no total innocence. We hear about insurance executives with bonuses, doctors overbilling, hospitals overbilling because the street gang thug got dropped at their ER door with no insurance. The lawyers are there to stir the pot and promise lavish fortune at the end of the PERCEIVED misery chain. Am I saying we don’t need them? No, but I am saying there is clear and documented abuse of the legal system that awards outlandish claims in the millions for a questionable mistake. Are ambulance chasers not sociably recognized as being the most abusive? What about those that educate their clients on defraud and then use the legal system to pirate insurers? I sure wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of these serious decisions that we will have to make. My senator claims that the government would be held blameless but what about the medical provider that has to make the call? What about the insurance payer that has to deny continued care for an infant that will not survive? Without serious TORT REFORM we aren’t going to get costs down or have good people make headway. I advise on several health insurance boards such as http://www.benefitsmanager.net , http://www.bcbstx.info , and http://www.healthinsurancesource.net. I often quote the Switzerland health care system as an example of tough questions that we as a nation will have to answer someday, if we go down the path of nationalized government health care plan. We’ll have to at some point draw the line in the sand and refuse further care for patients receiving critical illness treatments, intensive care unit, trauma care, acute management services, disease management, neonatal intensive-care unit for newborns and seniors in extended care treatment nearing hospice stage . Did you know that premature babies are not resuscitated upon birth if they cannot draw breath in Switzerland? Did you also know that holds true with “senior care” experiencing system failure or multiple organ failures requiring support? Another example, they don’t extend the life of a senior via medical equipment such as intubation or respiration for multiple organ failures. Not to be morbid….they are unplugged and allowed to pass. Anyone in the business of paying claims knows that the single most expensive bill in what carriers call “shock loss” is within NICU for newborns and seniors in acute / intensive care / hospital in the last three months of life.
The Swiss apparently made decisions made based upon cost vs. quality outcome. Are we as a nation prepared to make that type of decision or to define when to incubate, resuscitate a newborn or a senior? Are we ready to define the conditions and rules of medical procedures with organ failure? With a litigious society I think not. This is why we need TORT REFORM. Without TORT REFORM medical provider costs will never drop. Liability costs with medical providers are nearly half of operating expenses. Humana health plans state that their costs of medical liability and defensive medicine accounts for nearly 10 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Compare that to Humana’s reported pharmaceutical claims of 15 cents out of every premium dollar collected. Or better yet, 21 cents out of every premium dollar collected is paid back to physicians for physician treatments. The cost of litigation is only obvious with Humana health plans. I sit on the board with several other health insurance carriers. Their books all show similar costs. They basically insure a shrinking populace that is mostly made up of people that only buy insurance because they need it. So is mandatory participation such a bad idea?
I don’t think we are hearing about TORT REFORM because most of the house and senate on the federal level are lawyers and have practicing law firm interest’s. In the healthcare system there is no total innocence. We hear about insurance executives with bonuses, doctors overbilling, hospitals overbilling because the street gang thug got dropped at their ER door with no insurance. The lawyers are there to stir the pot and promise lavish fortune at the end of the PERCEIVED misery chain. Am I saying we don’t need them? No, but I am saying there is clear and documented abuse of the legal system that awards outlandish claims in the millions for a questionable mistake. Are ambulance chasers not sociably recognized as being the most abusive? What about those that educate their clients on defraud and then use the legal system to pirate insurers?
I sure wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of these serious decisions that we will have to make. My senator claims that the government would be held blameless but what about the medical provider that has to make the call? What about the insurance payer that has to deny continued care for an infant that will not survive? Without serious TORT REFORM we aren’t going to get costs down or have good people make headway.

]]> By: Fritz http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218023 Fritz Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:13:40 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218023 Ron -- actually I am looking forward to the political battles when various groups think it is unfair for them to be charged higher premiums when they have well-documented risk factors.  The battles will be fought in the political arena, and should be nicely dramatic. Ron — actually I am looking forward to the political battles when various groups think it is unfair for them to be charged higher premiums when they have well-documented risk factors.  The battles will be fought in the political arena, and should be nicely dramatic.

]]> By: Ron Chusid http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218018 Ron Chusid Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:17:33 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218018 <p>At present it is private plans, not the government, which use health care coverage to alter such matters.  Some plans will even do things like charge a higher rate unless you sit thorugh their classes, meet with their health coach, etc.  They certainly vary rates based on these and far more factors (which they would not longer be able to if proposed health reform measures pass). In other words, you are afraid that the government will start doing what private insurance is already doing. <br mce_bogus="1"/></p> At present it is private plans, not the government, which use health care coverage to alter such matters.  Some plans will even do things like charge a higher rate unless you sit thorugh their classes, meet with their health coach, etc.  They certainly vary rates based on these and far more factors (which they would not longer be able to if proposed health reform measures pass). In other words, you are afraid that the government will start doing what private insurance is already doing.

]]> By: Ron Chusid http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218017 Ron Chusid Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:17:31 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218017 <p>At present it is private plans, not the government, which use health care coverage to alter such matters.  Some plans will even do things like charge a higher rate unless you sit thorugh their classes, meet with their health coach, etc.  They certainly vary rates based on these and far more factors (which they would not longer be able to if proposed health reform measures pass). In other words, you are afraid that the government will start doing what private insurance is already doing.</p> At present it is private plans, not the government, which use health care coverage to alter such matters.  Some plans will even do things like charge a higher rate unless you sit thorugh their classes, meet with their health coach, etc.  They certainly vary rates based on these and far more factors (which they would not longer be able to if proposed health reform measures pass). In other words, you are afraid that the government will start doing what private insurance is already doing.

]]> By: Fritz http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218016 Fritz Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:46:40 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218016 I look forward to watching the political process regarding what factors a government agency will be allowed to use to alter premiums for health and safety risks. I'm sure they will be able to use tobacco use, since that's the big no-no.  But what about other health and safety risks?   Owning a motorcycle?  Working on a farm?  Being in a high-risk group for HIV infection? I look forward to watching the political process regarding what factors a government agency will be allowed to use to alter premiums for health and safety risks.
I’m sure they will be able to use tobacco use, since that’s the big no-no.  But what about other health and safety risks?   Owning a motorcycle?  Working on a farm?  Being in a high-risk group for HIV infection?

]]> By: Ron Chusid http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218010 Ron Chusid Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:52:43 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218010 <p>Premiums should be calculated just like with insuranc e companies. The current proposals are that insurance companies will not be able to charge based upon pre-existing conditions. They will only be allowed to base charges on factors such as community rating and family size.</p> <p>Of course as there is no final legislation anything can still change from the proposed legislation.</p> Premiums should be calculated just like with insuranc e companies. The current proposals are that insurance companies will not be able to charge based upon pre-existing conditions. They will only be allowed to base charges on factors such as community rating and family size.

Of course as there is no final legislation anything can still change from the proposed legislation.

]]> By: Fritz http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218009 Fritz Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:25:57 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218009 So, Ron -- any notion of how the premiums are supposed to be calculated for the government plan?  Will they be allowed to alter premiums based on pre-existing conditions?  Web searches instantly go into a morass of mostly opinion pieces. So, Ron — any notion of how the premiums are supposed to be calculated for the government plan?  Will they be allowed to alter premiums based on pre-existing conditions?  Web searches instantly go into a morass of mostly opinion pieces.

]]> By: Ron Chusid http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218008 Ron Chusid Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:07:50 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218008 <p>Anyone can make a prediction, but you should state it is a prediction, not make a claim that it "hides the fact."</p> <p>As to predicting what will happen, there are a couple of major unknown factors. First we don't have the final legislation. Second, should it be passed the behavior of the insurance industry is an important factor.  Currently there is little support in Congress for anything which would force the insuranc e industry out of health care. This could certainly change if the insurance industry finds ways out of new legislation and continues to rip off consumers by failing to provide coverage.</p> <p>If the insurance companies continues to operate on a business model based upon maximizing profits by denying coverage and dropping those who develop serious illnesses, then it is likely that the industry will be removed from the health care market and they will deserve it. If they provide reasonable coverage then there currently is not enough support in Congress to eliminate them.</p> Anyone can make a prediction, but you should state it is a prediction, not make a claim that it “hides the fact.”

As to predicting what will happen, there are a couple of major unknown factors. First we don’t have the final legislation. Second, should it be passed the behavior of the insurance industry is an important factor.  Currently there is little support in Congress for anything which would force the insuranc e industry out of health care. This could certainly change if the insurance industry finds ways out of new legislation and continues to rip off consumers by failing to provide coverage.

If the insurance companies continues to operate on a business model based upon maximizing profits by denying coverage and dropping those who develop serious illnesses, then it is likely that the industry will be removed from the health care market and they will deserve it. If they provide reasonable coverage then there currently is not enough support in Congress to eliminate them.

]]> By: Fritz http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102&cpage=1#comment-218007 Fritz Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:53:28 +0000 http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=9102#comment-218007 Ron --I figure it is a good idea to try to predict the consequences (intended and unintended) of a piece of legislation. This is my prediction -- once this kind of system is set up, the tax subsidies (which will be there at the beginning, just perhaps hidden a bit) will increase, more and more people will have free (of direct payment) health care, non-government options will wither to niche (and expensive) markets, and the change will be politically impossible to reverse. Maybe that will be good. Maybe not.   But I don't think it makes sense to only comment on the precise wording of this first plan. Ron –I figure it is a good idea to try to predict the consequences (intended and unintended) of a piece of legislation.
This is my prediction — once this kind of system is set up, the tax subsidies (which will be there at the beginning, just perhaps hidden a bit) will increase, more and more people will have free (of direct payment) health care, non-government options will wither to niche (and expensive) markets, and the change will be politically impossible to reverse.
Maybe that will be good. Maybe not.   But I don’t think it makes sense to only comment on the precise wording of this first plan.

]]>