Health Care

[BJean 16]

Ah, ah, ah, AH-CHOOOOO!!!!!

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Ah, ah, ah, AH-CHOOOOO!!!!!

Too funny. That fuzzy math implies that every man, woman and child would now buy their health insurance across state lines, when in reality, most people get their health insurance from their employers and have very little say, if any, as to where it's bought. Not to mention a family policy covers all members so it wouldn't be 301 million.

[LeighaMason 19]

Plus there is a difference between 5% and 5 cents.

[BJean 16]

You two are the best.

Har!

[pattygreen 5]

Too funny. That fuzzy math implies that every man, woman and child would now buy their health insurance across state lines, when in reality, most people get their health insurance from their employers and have very little say, if any, as to where it's bought. Not to mention a family policy covers all members so it wouldn't be 301 million.

Employers are the ones who will purchase the best deals for their employees across state lines. Not everyone has 'family' policies. There are many individual policies. Even if it doesn't save as much as I estimated with that math problem it will save something, and isn't that what we are looking for? A break in health care premiums for the people? Oh yeah, it wasn't that. It was government having the control. I forgot.:cursing: This is not the "whole" answer to HC reform, but it is something, so why not put it into legislation and pass it? Then work on anything else that can be done to help the cost of insurance for the people. I'll tell you why. Because that's not the liberals true or primary agenda. Obama's agenda is insuring those without insurance, you know, the 30 million he estimates. It's his plan to insure those people with a plan to bill the rest of the people for it. Oh yeah, I forgot again:rolleyes:. It's going to SAVE us money.:crying:

[LeighaMason 19]

That is what insurance is spreading the risk (cost) out over all the people. The more people involved, the less the cost.

[pattygreen 5]

I was just watching CNN. They had someone talking about choosing across state lines. The lady said people would save an average of 5%. She said the average New Yorker pays $6000.00. That would save $300.00 a year. Not the answer we need! She said the cost differences from state to state are, cost of living, state mandates(EXAMPLE certain states require more mandates, more coverages, NY requires prostate cancer screening to be covered, Iowa doesnt). Just a few. So you could choose what coverages you want but only save avg. 5%.

In this post, Bob said the average New Yorker. Each person could save $300. a year. That's almost the cost of this years tax credit per working person. What are they waiting for? Pass a bill allowing it!

[LeighaMason 19]

Insurance for me and my husband is over $12000 a year. Making it $11,700 doesn't help me buy it.

[pattygreen 5]

Insurance for me and my husband is over $12000 a year. Making it $11,700 doesn't help me buy it.

You need to shop around. Like I said, It is one small thing that can be done to curb the expense among many other things. How about tort reform after that?

[LeighaMason 19]

Yeah because tort reform worked so well in the Texas workers compensation fund. Tort reform was sold to us as a way to lower costs (in our Oilfield Construction company, it is a huge expense) so we voted for it. Guess what? Now the costs are the same but the benefits that the workers are entitled to is limited. The insurance companies just took the profits and increased their bottom line. So now we still pay the same but if one of our employees gets hurt they don't get paid as much as they would have, great plan.

[LeighaMason 19]

Patty, Do I look stupid to you? "You need to shop around." Please. Do you think I didn't? Some plans were over $20,000 a year, the $12,000 number is a high deductible, low lifetime limit, preexisting condition exempt, piece of crap policy.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

The New York Times

By TOM BAKER

Published: July 11, 2009

OUR medical liability system needs reform. But anyone who thinks that limiting liability would reduce health care costs is fooling himself. Preventable medical injuries, not patient compensation, are what ring up extra costs for additional treatment. This means taxpayers, employers and everyone else who buys health insurance — all of us — have a big stake in patient safety.

Eighty percent of malpractice claims involve significant disability or death, a 2006 analysis of medical malpractice claims conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health shows, and the amount of compensation patients receive strongly depends on the merits of their claims. Most people injured by medical malpractice do not bring legal claims, earlier studies by the same researchers have found.

On the other hand, medical liability has improved patient safety — by leading hospitals to hire risk managers, for example, and spurring anesthesiologists to improve their safety standards and practices. Even medical societies’ efforts to attack the liability system have helped, by inspiring the research that has documented the surprising extent of preventable injuries in hospitals. That research helped start the patient safety movement.

When it comes to rising medical costs, liability is a symptom, not the disease. Getting rid of liability might save money for hospitals and some high-risk specialists, but it would cost society more by taking away one of the few hard-wired patient safety incentives.

Besides, there’s a better answer for doctors worried about high malpractice insurance premiums.

Critics point to defensive medicine as the hidden burden that liability imposes on health care. Yet research shows that while the fear of liability changes doctors’ behavior, that isn’t necessarily a burden. Some defensive medicine is, like defensive driving, good practice. Too often, we can’t distinguish between treatments that are necessary and those that are wasteful. Better research on what works and what doesn’t — evidence-based medicine — will help. And it will address the more general challenge of avoiding costly but unnecessary care.

Just as we need evidence-based medicine, we also need evidence-based medical liability reform. The research shows, overwhelmingly, that the real problem is too much malpractice, not too many malpractice lawsuits. So medical providers should be required to disclose injuries, provide quicker compensation to deserving patients and — here’s the answer for doctors worried about their premiums — shift the responsibility for buying malpractice insurance to hospitals and other large medical institutions. Evidence-based liability reform would give these institutions the incentive they need to cut back on the most wasteful aspect of American health care: preventable medical injuries.

LM - you're absolutely right - any "savings" would go right into the pocket of insurance companies not reduction in costs to consumers.

Edited February 27, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[loserbob 11]

Shes not saying the insurance company would cut costs. Shes saying If I chose to buy across state lines I would save 5%. (Just using the numbers she used)I would save $300.00 a year by buying insurance at a cheaper rate(because It basically wouldnt cover as much as the more expensive coverage I have now). Thats not the point, to save only 5%. Its still not affordable. The 15bill. you talk about isnt money saved because insurance companies are cutting cost, its money($300.00) a year each one of us isnt spending towards healthcare. Besides, 15bill. dollars isnt alot when you divide it over 300plus million people. Like Rush said the other day,Hes not going to lose sleep over Scott Browns vote for the 15bill. dollar job bill. Its just 15bill. Insurance cos. still arent cutting costs. They also said on that same show that the average insurance premium for each individual who purchases insurance by 2015 will be $28000.00 a year! The problem isnt us buying too expesive of a plan, its the ever rising costs. Its not what can I do to make insurance cheaper, its what can we do to get insurance companies to stop raising premiums and to lower healthcare costs, we arent the problem, the greedy corporations and health insurance companies are the problem! My insurance premiums costed me $13,800 a year May 2005. When I quit paying in May 2009 the premium per year was $22,188.00. Thats rediculous. Then a dr. on the show said health savings accounts are becoming popular. Like i said yesterday, its popular because its one of the few ways of getting any coverage because the usual way isgetting too expensive. Republicans, all of theis solutions involve ways for us to cut costs by taking lesser coverage,paying more up front(health savings). They say nothing about the companies themselves cutting costs, its all coming from our end. Buying across state lines doesnt have them cut cost. When the "cheaper company" gets more people theyll raise their costs even more(supply- demand, first rule of business). Like when you buy a car, Toyota(pre-recall) never offered incentives because there was a high demand. (I was going to use Hyundai)but I saw a toyota commercial that offered $2500.00 cash back(post-recall) because of basically no demand now. The higher the demand the higher the cost. If it is cheaper it will be temporary.

[loserbob 11]

Patty, heres how much that 15bill. means. I cant remember the dfigures, The cost of CEOs, and upper management salaries and expenses was over $27bill dollars. When questioned, one employee said even if they didnt make millions(personal salaries of execs.) and pya for extravagant parties and trips, the 27bill. would have no effect on premiumd!! One high level manager said her annual salary was $1.1mill. $8.5mill. in stock options!

[loserbob 11]

Leigha, If I could purchase good health insurance for 12-13000 a year, I would be ecstatic, my wife would quit her job tommorrow. Like I said When I started in 05 my cost was 13800.00 a year, I was happy with that. By 09 it was 22188.00.