![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
kylinrouge.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsObamacare is frankly, not the best bill. By forcing Americans to purchase insurance without actually making it easier to do so is nothing but a big give-away to the private insurance industry. However, this is what it's done so far:
1. If you have pre -existing conditions you can not be denied coverage.
2. You can not be dropped by insurance companies for getting sick;
3. Young adults can stay on parents until they are 26
4. New health care plans are required to provide free preventative care
5. All patients are guaranteed emergency care
6. No lifetime limit on care
7. Seniors get a free wellness checkup ,no copay or deductable
8. small businesses get a tax cut to help them pay for employee health care
9. Increased funding for community health care available
10. if insurance company denies care an appeal process is available.
11. Insurance companies must spend 85 percent on revenues on medical care.
- http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/mxypm/the_bomb_buried_in_obamacare_explodes/c34t44l (because he said it better than i could)
Today, there was another neat little caveat to the last one:
That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.
This has been in the law already, so why bring this up now?
Today, the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.
[...]
Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have.
It seems like only a chink in the chainmail worn by the powerful insurance industry, but every chink can eventually lead to the entire piece of armor being rendered unusable. While many have disagreements over the content of Obamacare, it's definitely not a step back from eventually having a single-payer system.
For me, the only problem is that hospitals still over-charge quite a bit, causing such high payouts of insurance and high premiums in the first place. This federal provision should extend to hospitals in my opinion. Also, it should be 90%, as 80% is not all that different than what was going on before if not the same. This isn't going to affect insurance companies that much, but it will prevent excessive price gouging and, well, usury.
So, how do you feel about Obamacare now? The same, or different? Does anyone believe it's a stepping stone for more progressive legislation in the realm of health care?
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/
1. If you have pre -existing conditions you can not be denied coverage.
2. You can not be dropped by insurance companies for getting sick;
3. Young adults can stay on parents until they are 26
4. New health care plans are required to provide free preventative care
5. All patients are guaranteed emergency care
6. No lifetime limit on care
7. Seniors get a free wellness checkup ,no copay or deductable
8. small businesses get a tax cut to help them pay for employee health care
9. Increased funding for community health care available
10. if insurance company denies care an appeal process is available.
11. Insurance companies must spend 85 percent on revenues on medical care.
- http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/mxypm/the_bomb_buried_in_obamacare_explodes/c34t44l (because he said it better than i could)
Today, there was another neat little caveat to the last one:
That would be the provision of the law, called the medical loss ratio, that requires health insurance companies to spend 80% of the consumers’ premium dollars they collect—85% for large group insurers—on actual medical care rather than overhead, marketing expenses and profit. Failure on the part of insurers to meet this requirement will result in the insurers having to send their customers a rebate check representing the amount in which they underspend on actual medical care.
This has been in the law already, so why bring this up now?
Today, the Department of Health & Human Services issues the rules of what insurer expenditures will—and will not—qualify as a medical expense for purposes of meeting the requirement.
[...]
Here’s an example: For months, health insurance brokers and salespeople have been lobbying to have the commissions they earn for selling an insurer’s program to consumers be included as a ‘medical expense’ for purposes of the rules. HHS has, today, given them the official thumbs down, as well they should have.
It seems like only a chink in the chainmail worn by the powerful insurance industry, but every chink can eventually lead to the entire piece of armor being rendered unusable. While many have disagreements over the content of Obamacare, it's definitely not a step back from eventually having a single-payer system.
For me, the only problem is that hospitals still over-charge quite a bit, causing such high payouts of insurance and high premiums in the first place. This federal provision should extend to hospitals in my opinion. Also, it should be 90%, as 80% is not all that different than what was going on before if not the same. This isn't going to affect insurance companies that much, but it will prevent excessive price gouging and, well, usury.
So, how do you feel about Obamacare now? The same, or different? Does anyone believe it's a stepping stone for more progressive legislation in the realm of health care?
Source: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/02/the-bomb-buried-in-obamacare-explodes-today-halleluja/
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 04:57 (UTC)Regarding the ratio, I also think it should be higher. Insurances companies are a racket and deserve the heaviest regulations possible.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 06:04 (UTC)Otherwise, it's too bad that republicans have nothing to offer to fixing healthcare other than doing nothing. I refuse to believe that America is somehow unable to implement universal coverage of its citizens like every single other industrialized country. Is the argument really that we're poorer and stupider than all of those nations? Because we certainly aren't receiving better health care outcomes, especially for the money spent.
Not to change the subject.....much
Date: 3/12/11 16:26 (UTC)Re: Not to change the subject.....much
Date: 3/12/11 18:25 (UTC)And then yesterday the winds felt just as bad as far as I'm concerned.
Re: Not to change the subject.....much
Date: 3/12/11 18:57 (UTC)(So Cal)
Re: Not to change the subject.....much
Date: 3/12/11 18:53 (UTC)The winds are going again today I noticed.
Re: Not to change the subject.....much
Date: 3/12/11 18:59 (UTC)Re: Not to change the subject.....much
Date: 5/12/11 01:10 (UTC)Re: Not to change the subject.....much
Date: 5/12/11 01:27 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 10:13 (UTC)But then you won't have health insurance.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 18:23 (UTC)Let's say we have a number of insurance companies A through Z. For a tablet of Tylenol company A will pay the hospital $1 and company Z $3. The rest of companies are somewhere in between. So the hospital will charge $5 to make sure that they get the maximum payment and ensure that if reimbursement rates increase they won't have to change their pricing for a while.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 18:56 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 21:51 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 20:26 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 21:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 22:20 (UTC)Are you saying that insurance companies are responsible for high hospital prices?
In your example it's half and half on this, but I'm really wondering if there are any stats on a 'base price' of a generic good and what the hospital has to pay the insurance companies.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 23:08 (UTC)Or I've also worked in a hospital - for a noninvasive cardio stress test good insurance company pays well over the cost about $2,400 for this test and medicare pays $800 which is under the cost. So the hospital charges some ridiculous amount, let's say $3000 in order to capture everyone and maybe offset their medicare losses with cash-paying customers.
I blame the current system in general in which the customer doesn't have to shop around and usually doesn't see the real cost and prices.
(no subject)
Date: 4/12/11 03:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/12/11 03:29 (UTC)Also there are quite a few of those funds. I think 300 or so... a lot. So the key word there except non-for-profit is also competition which we don't have in the states.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 05:27 (UTC)The same. It's shelf life is probably very short.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 21:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 22:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 05:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 12:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 22:24 (UTC)http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 23:26 (UTC)It might seem counter-intuitive, but it has led to new tech. Panasonic now builds a very basic MRI scanner that costs an order of magnitude less than the standard models, all because the cost of an MRI scan was set so low.
(no subject)
Date: 3/12/11 18:53 (UTC)thank you Oodles for this prelude (:
i still feel the same of 'Obamacare.' i realize running an insurance company is a business even it it is for medical/health care. but the word insurance tells all.....
(no subject)
Date: 5/12/11 01:07 (UTC)