Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: dario73 on November 14, 2013, 08:59:54 AM
-
"A woman in a life and death battle with cancer was dealt another devastating blow," says the Florida anchor.
"This letter makes more problems for us," says the cancer victim. "That we don't need at this moment."
The anchor continues, "She just found out she's being dropped by her insurance company because of a loophole in Obamacare. Incredible story. Gloria Cantor has been fighting this illness for months with her husband ... at her side."
"As you can imagine, this insurance problem couldn't have come at a worse time," say another anchor.
"This letter makes more problems for us we don't need at this moment," says the cancer victim.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woman-cancer-dropped-insurance-due-obamacare_767085.html#
-
Obama lied, people died.
-
The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance
By Igor Volsky on November 4, 2013 at 9:08 am
woman_talking_to_doctorM onday’s Wall Street Journal features an op-ed from Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-4 gallbladder cancer survivor who won’t be able to keep the coverage she currently has. Her insurer, United Healthcare, is pulling out of the individual health care market, forcing Sundby to find new coverage in California’s health care exchange.
But the plans available through Cover California don’t offer in-network coverage for all of the care Sundby needs. As a result, she has to choose between her two health care providers if she wishes to remain in-network. “Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are,” she writes:
What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
But Sundby shouldn’t blame reform — United Healthcare dropped her coverage because they’ve struggled to compete in California’s individual health care market for years and didn’t want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby.
The company, which only had 8,000 individual policy holders in California out of the two million who participate in the market, announced (along with a second insurer, Aetna) that it would be pulling out of the individual market in May. The company could not compete with Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market. “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members,” UnitedHealth spokeswoman Cheryl Randolph explained. “We will continue to keep a major presence in California, focusing instead on large and small employers.”
The two insurers were also operating at a tax disadvantage in the state. As California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones explained, “One of the factors I believe contributed to this decision….is the special tax break that California law gives to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which has allowed and continues to allow those two companies to avoid paying $100 million in state taxes a year.” “Aetna and United Healthcare don’t get the special tax break provided to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and so they faced a major competitive disadvantage in California.”
And then there is the company’s own justification for leaving. “The company’s plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest,” UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October. “UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have ‘a pent-up appetite’ for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.”
Get that? The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still haven’t signed up for coverage.
Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California’s health care market. She’ll now have to enroll in a new plan that offers tighter networks of providers as a way to control health care costs and offer lower premiums. Eleven insurers are participating in Covered California and for the first time they won’t be able to deny coverage to Sundby or any other cancer patients.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/14/us-usa-healthcare-ahip-idUSBRE9AD14720131114
-
The Real Reason That The Cancer Patient Writing In Today’s Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance
By Igor Volsky on November 4, 2013 at 9:08 am
woman_talking_to_doctorM onday’s Wall Street Journal features an op-ed from Edie Littlefield Sundby, a stage-4 gallbladder cancer survivor who won’t be able to keep the coverage she currently has. Her insurer, United Healthcare, is pulling out of the individual health care market, forcing Sundby to find new coverage in California’s health care exchange.
But the plans available through Cover California don’t offer in-network coverage for all of the care Sundby needs. As a result, she has to choose between her two health care providers if she wishes to remain in-network. “Stanford has kept me alive—but UCSD has provided emergency and local treatment support during wretched periods of this disease, and it is where my primary-care doctors are,” she writes:
What happened to the president’s promise, “You can keep your health plan”? Or to the promise that “You can keep your doctor”? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician.
But Sundby shouldn’t blame reform — United Healthcare dropped her coverage because they’ve struggled to compete in California’s individual health care market for years and didn’t want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby.
The company, which only had 8,000 individual policy holders in California out of the two million who participate in the market, announced (along with a second insurer, Aetna) that it would be pulling out of the individual market in May. The company could not compete with Anthem Blue Cross, Blue Shield of California and Kaiser Permanente, who control more than 80 percent of the individual market. “Over the years, it has become more difficult to administer these plans in a cost-effective way for our members,” UnitedHealth spokeswoman Cheryl Randolph explained. “We will continue to keep a major presence in California, focusing instead on large and small employers.”
The two insurers were also operating at a tax disadvantage in the state. As California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones explained, “One of the factors I believe contributed to this decision….is the special tax break that California law gives to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which has allowed and continues to allow those two companies to avoid paying $100 million in state taxes a year.” “Aetna and United Healthcare don’t get the special tax break provided to Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and so they faced a major competitive disadvantage in California.”
And then there is the company’s own justification for leaving. “The company’s plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest,” UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October. “UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have ‘a pent-up appetite’ for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that.”
Get that? The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still haven’t signed up for coverage.
Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California’s health care market. She’ll now have to enroll in a new plan that offers tighter networks of providers as a way to control health care costs and offer lower premiums. Eleven insurers are participating in Covered California and for the first time they won’t be able to deny coverage to Sundby or any other cancer patients.
This.
She deserved to lose her coverage. She's probably a neocon tea bagging repukelican too so she deserves not to be covered at all
-
Single payer would avoid all this noise.
-
Single payer would avoid all this noise.
Yes. This would make everything perfect. The government would handle everything cheaply, efficiently, and effectively.
-
Single payer wouldnt even cover this. Have to buy a seperate cancer policy, fuckwits.
-
Single payer wouldnt even cover this. Have to buy a seperate cancer policy, fuckwits.
So racist. SMH...
-
So racist. SMH...
You say that like its a bad thing. 8)
-
"A woman in a life and death battle with cancer was dealt another devastating blow," says the Florida anchor.
"This letter makes more problems for us," says the cancer victim. "That we don't need at this moment."
The anchor continues, "She just found out she's being dropped by her insurance company because of a loophole in Obamacare. Incredible story. Gloria Cantor has been fighting this illness for months with her husband ... at her side."
"As you can imagine, this insurance problem couldn't have come at a worse time," say another anchor.
"This letter makes more problems for us we don't need at this moment," says the cancer victim.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woman-cancer-dropped-insurance-due-obamacare_767085.html#
Just so you know, insurance companies cancelled health insurance policies at the rate of about 10,000 per month across the US during 2009, one year before Obamacare. Typical year, typical number.
Well, it is now a perfect opportunity for those companies to cite Obamacare as the reason.
Here is another point of view:
http://prospect.org/article/another-phony-obamacare-victim-story
And, also just so you know, the person you cite, due to her pre-existing condition, would have been uninsurable if that cancellation had occurred and Obamacare was not around. You do understand that, right?
Yes, the President made a promise he could not keep, he has apologized, and he is now trying to fix it.
I know that's not good enough for you, but since you don't know what you are talking about, it doesn't matter.
-
As history has shown, any number of lives are expendable as long as the leftist agenda progresses.
They're showing their true colors with their vicious, disgusting attacks on these people. So much for keeping your own plan.
The Dem meltdown occurring is hilarious to watch.
-
Single payer wouldnt even cover this. Have to buy a seperate cancer policy, fuckwits.
What's "this", exactly? Single payer wouldn't cover cancer treatment? Or do you mean something else?
And, "Fuckwits"? Why plural, Showstoppers?
-
So racist. SMH...
Racist how? Someone gotta problem with 1/2 Portuguese folks?
-
Hahaha, single payer. These twats can't even build a fucking website. Single payer isn't coming anytime soon and you can thank Obama for it. LOL!!!!!!!!!
-
What's "this", exactly? Single payer wouldn't cover cancer treatment? Or do you mean something else?
And, "Fuckwits"? Why plural, Showstoppers?
By this I meant cancer. In many single payer systems it is purchased seperately.
-
By this I meant cancer. In many single payer systems it is purchased seperately.
Not true. Single payer means no one ever gets sick, like in the rest of the civilized world.
-
Just so you know, insurance companies cancelled health insurance policies at the rate of about 10,000 per month across the US during 2009, one year before Obamacare. Typical year, typical number.
Well, it is now a perfect opportunity for those companies to cite Obamacare as the reason.
Just so you know, your point has nothing to do with this case or the other 5 million other policies that have been cancelled.
5 million. You have a long way to go from 10K and while those 10K are cancelled by insurance companies, these 5 MILLION, AGAIN 5 MILLION in 1 MONTH is due to OBAMACRAPCARE.
Stop spreading the BS that it falls only on insurance companies and that they are conveniently using crapcare as AN EXCUSE to cancel the policies.
CRACARE CAHNGED THE STANDARD OF MINIMUM COVERAGE, therefore making all those 5 MILLION POLICIES, and COUNTING, ILLEGAL. So INSURANCE COMPANIES HAD NO CHOICE UNDER THE NEW LAW BUT TO CANCEL THEM. PERIOD.
CRAPCARE CAUSED ALL THIS. Don't twist it.
Again, OBAMA LIED, PEOPLE DIED.
-
As history has shown, any number of lives are expendable as long as the leftist agenda progresses.
They're showing their true colors with their vicious, disgusting attacks on these people. So much for keeping your own plan.
The Dem meltdown occurring is hilarious to watch.
And you can see the idiots of this board believing, like the moronic drones that they are, that insurance companies are the bad guys here and oh, oh, here comes the clowninchief to the rescue against the evilllllllll insurance companies.
The fag in the white house made all individual policies that did not have all the unnecessary coverage like maternity coverage, pediatric vision, mental health illegal. People that don't need any of that coverage and did not have them on their policy were canceled because Democrats made those policies obsolete. Since it's now the law, as libtards always like to point out, insruance companies have to cancel those policies, they don't have a CHOICE, they have to cancel them and offer those people new policies that are acceptable to the standards set by democrats. All of the sudden, Democrats whant insurance companies to BREAK THE LAW.
There is no way around it, idiots. Crapcare caused all those cancellations and more are coming. MORE ARE COMING!!!
You can see who the idiots on this board are when they see exactly what is going on but their first instinct is to start spewing the white house talking points. Oh, "insurance companies always cancel policies". Oh, "its only 5%" (which is another lie).
Yes, they sure did cancel policies. All insurance companies have a right to cancel based on their guidelines and CHANGE IN LAW!!! THE LATTER is the reason why all these people are getting canceled now. They are getting canceled now because of CRAPCARE. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
OBAMA LIED, PEOPLE DIED.
-
Sorry I disagree.
Obamacare mandated certain minimum requirements. Instead of upgrading this lady's policy to include them, the insurance company cancelled her policy. But now she can get better insurance at the same rates as healthy people and she cannot be denied coverage due to her cancer.
Your numbers are also faulty.
And no one has died, jerko.
Perhaps you recall Medicare reform under George W. Bush? Rollout was a disaster. A year later, everyone was happy.
Except you, of course.
Tell me, genius and bona fide Obama hater, what's your solution to healthcare in this country. Got one?
I didn't think so.
Just so you know, your point has nothing to do with this case or the other 5 million other policies that have been cancelled.
5 million. You have a long way to go from 10K and while those 10K are cancelled by insurance companies, these 5 MILLION, AGAIN 5 MILLION in 1 MONTH is due to OBAMACRAPCARE.
Stop spreading the BS that it falls only on insurance companies and that they are conveniently using crapcare as AN EXCUSE to cancel the policies.
CRACARE CAHNGED THE STANDARD OF MINIMUM COVERAGE, therefore making all those 5 MILLION POLICIES, and COUNTING, ILLEGAL. So INSURANCE COMPANIES HAD NO CHOICE UNDER THE NEW LAW BUT TO CANCEL THEM. PERIOD.
CRAPCARE CAUSED ALL THIS. Don't twist it.
Again, OBAMA LIED, PEOPLE DIED.
-
False - Obama wrote the regulations forcing the carrier to comply or be fined. He is to blame solely for this disaster.
Sorry I disagree.
Obamacare required certain minimum requirements. Instead of upgrading this lady"s policy to include them, the insurance company cancelled her policy. But now she can get better insurance at the same rates as healthy people and she cannot be denied coverage due to her cancer.
Your numbers are also faulty.
And no one has died, jerko.
Perhaps you recall Medicare reform under George W. Bush? Rollout was a disaster. A year later, everyone was happy.
Except you, of course.
Tell me, genius and bona fide Obama hater, what's your solution to healthcare in this country. Got one?
I didn't think so.
-
By this I meant cancer. In many single payer systems it is purchased seperately.
For reals? Is cancer covered under Medicare?
-
False - Obama wrote the regulations forcing the carrier to comply or be fined. He is to blame solely for this disaster.
Swoooooosh. This huge fact flies right over their heads.
This fools act like changing the entire system is nothing. As if it insurance companies are not bound by the new law.
I mean these libtards are pathetic.
-
And, also just so you know, the person you cite, due to her pre-existing condition, would have been uninsurable if that cancellation had occurred and Obamacare was not around. You do understand that, right?
Yes, the President made a promise he could not keep, he has apologized, and he is now trying to fix it.
I know that's not good enough for you, but since you don't know what you are talking about, it doesn't matter.
If, if, if, if.
That is not the issue. The woman ALREADY HAD HER INSURANCE and was COVERED for her cancer treatment. Her insurance was intact.
The only reason it is now cancelled is because of CRAPCARE. If it wasn't for crapcare she wouldn't be in this situation. How are you so sure that if crapcare wasn't around, the insurance company was going to cancel her anyway?
The "president's" "fix" does nothing. It is not a fix since it's only temporarily and already insurance companies have come out stating that it would be impossible for them to implement it.
You are right. A liar's word is never enough. Too bad your too naive to understand that.
-
If, if, if, if.
That is not the issue. The woman ALREADY HAD HER INSURANCE and was COVERED for her cancer treatment. Her insurance was intact.
The only reason it is now cancelled is because of CRAPCARE. If it wasn't for crapcare she wouldn't be in this situation. How are you so sure that if crapcare wasn't around, the insurance company was going to cancel her anyway?
The "president's" "fix" does nothing. It is not a fix since it's only temporarily and already insurance companies have come out stating that it would be impossible for them to implement it.
You are right. A liar's word is never enough. Too bad your too naive to understand that.
I did not say that if Obamacare wasn't around she would be cancelled anyway. What I said was that before Obamacare, if someone's insurance was cancelled and they had a pre-existing condition like cancer, they could not buy insurance at any price. Understand? I have had cancer and I know what that fear is like.
She will be insured under Obamacare before her current policy is no longer in effect. She will not miss one of her treatment sessions.
But Republicans don't want it to work. Not because it won't work, but because they are against any new government program that adds to the deficit. But Obamacare doesnt't, according to numerous impartial sources.
Also, please stop saying people are dying. No one is dying because these cancellations are effective January 1st, not now. Please pound that through your thick skull, OK? If you want to challenge that statement, please do so with facts, not propaganda from Fox News.
I see you have no response to the link I provided you debunking your claims. Didn't read it, I guess.
He did not lie. He just didn't do his due diligence. You are right about that.
Since you seem unfamiliar with the Bush Medicare changes, I urge you to familiarize yourself with that bit of history.
In the past, before this destructive polarization that is dividing our country, most bills implementing government programs have had glitches. In the past, Congress would quietly and in a bipartisan way, pass tweaks and fixes to make everything work.
Too much vitriol for that to happen now.
-
For reals? Is cancer covered under Medicare?
I think it is but not sure. Single payer cant support catastrophic conditions in large amounts. You need a very healthy population to support it long term.
-
False - Obama wrote the regulations forcing the carrier to comply or be fined. He is to blame solely for this disaster.
There is no fine with respect to the coverage requirements. There is a requirement to cover more, and the law required all policies to adhere to the new requirements or they could not be marketed.
What many insurance companies did instead is just cancel the policies.
People in the administration knew this was a possibility a while ago, but Obama made his promise anyway. Bad mistake indeed.
But not the end of American civilization (I hope). And all cancellations are effective January 1st. So, as of now (contrary to what one poster has claimed) no one has lost their medical care and no one has died.
-
I think it is but not sure. Single payer cant support catastrophic conditions in large amounts. You need a very healthy population to support it long term.
Medicare covers testing for cancer.
Medicaid covers some treatment and drugs.
Social Security, under disability coverage, covers treatments.
In addition to that there are programs like Charity Care that will pay the treatments.
In other words, crapcare was not needed. There was no need to destroy the insurance plans of 90% of the population to try cover 10%. Why didn't they come up with a separate plan for those 10%?
-
Not true. Single payer means no one ever gets sick, like in the rest of the civilized world.
I appreciate your work.
;D
-
I think it is but not sure. Single payer cant support catastrophic conditions in large amounts. You need a very healthy population to support it long term.
Cancer is covered.
-
Medicare covers testing for cancer.
Medicaid covers some treatment and drugs.
Social Security, under disability coverage, covers treatments.
In addition to that there are programs like Charity Care that will pay the treatments.
In other words, crapcare was not needed. There was no need to destroy the insurance plans of 90% of the population to try cover 10%. Why didn't they come up with a separate plan for those 10%?
Again.
-
I think it is but not sure. Single payer cant support catastrophic conditions in large amounts. You need a very healthy population to support it long term.
A healthy or small population. A system with a better ratio of contributors to beneficiaries.
-
Single payer wouldnt even cover this. Have to buy a seperate cancer policy, fuckwits.
And depending on how old she is, what stage the cancer is and the cost associated the care rationing boards might choose to just let her die.
-
And depending on how old she is, what stage the cancer is and the cost associated the care rationing boards might choose to just let her die.
There are no such "rationing boards", brainiac.
-
Medicare covers testing for cancer.
Medicaid covers some treatment and drugs.
Social Security, under disability coverage, covers treatments.
In addition to that there are programs like Charity Care that will pay the treatments.
In other words, crapcare was not needed. There was no need to destroy the insurance plans of 90% of the population to try cover 10%. Why didn't they come up with a separate plan for those 10%?
Republicans would never pass something benefitting those 10% and you know it.
-
There are no such "rationing boards", brainiac.
LMFA!!!!
-
LMFA!!!!
Put up or shut up. And cutting and pasting Teabagger propaganda does not count. The ACA is online, so point out where in it "rationing boards" are created. And if you can't do that, shut the fuck up.
ps, As you appear to be mentally challenged, let me know if you need the link.
-
Republicans would never pass something benefitting those 10% and you know it.
Really?
Democrats needed Republican approval when they had majorities on both houses?
They rammed crapcare through even when no Republican voted for it on 2010. Why would they need a Republican vote to pass a plan to benefit those 10% back in 2010?
They, dems, didn't do it because they want to socialize everything in america.
-
You still have the health insurance system so where does the Socialism thing fit in exactly?
-
Put up or shut up. And cutting and pasting Teabagger propaganda does not count. The ACA is online, so point out where in it "rationing boards" are created. And if you can't do that, shut the fuck up.
ps, As you appear to be mentally challenged, let me know if you need the link.
IPAB!!!!
-
IPAB!!!!
Is that a section in the ACA ???
-
IPAB!!!!
You cryptic bastid, you. I don't know what "IPAB" or "LMFA" stands for.
-
You cryptic bastid, you. I don't know what "IPAB" or "LMFA" stands for.
Look it up dummy
-
Look it up dummy
No, you lazy dick. You post links with little or no description that people have to click and now you're using acronyms you won't explain?
Why don't you just admit that you have no real interest in politics and just want attention?
-
No, you lazy dick. You post links with little or no description that people have to click and now you're using acronyms you won't explain?
Why don't you just admit that you have no real interest in politics and just want attention?
You're asking what IPAB is while claiming he isn't interested in politics? lol.
That was one of the most hotly debated boards during the entire healthcare debate. It has the ability to alter payment rates to healthcare providers.
-
You're asking what IPAB is while claiming he isn't interested in politics? lol.
That was one of the most hotly debated boards during the entire healthcare debate. It has the ability to alter payment rates to healthcare providers.
Lol. He is a tpical clueless lib idiot.
-
IPAB!!!!
I believe the canard that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is "a rationing board" has been put to bed numerous times. Here's a recent example:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/29/news/la-ol-howard-dean-obamacare-ipab-wrong-20130729.
There is nothing in the ACA that would establish rationing of care. Controlling the cost of care, which is the function of the IPAB, is not rationing of care; if anything, it helps prevent such rationing from occurring as a result of rising costs making such care unaffordable for many people.
Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid already regulate reimbursement costs.
If the IPAB is your song and dance on rationing, you had best dip back into your Glenn Beck hymnal and come up with a better tune.
-
why bother ::), most on this board get their news from fox and friends :D :D
-
Citing Howard Dean?
LMFAO!
I believe the canard that the Independent Payment Advisory Board is "a rationing board" has been put to bed numerous times. Here's a recent example:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jul/29/news/la-ol-howard-dean-obamacare-ipab-wrong-20130729.
There is nothing in the ACA that would establish rationing of care. Controlling the cost of care, which is the function of the IPAB, is not rationing of care; if anything, it helps prevent such rationing from occurring as a result of rising costs making such care unaffordable for many people.
Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid already regulate reimbursement costs.
If the IPAB is your song and dance on rationing, you had best dip back into your Glenn Beck hymnal and come up with a better tune.
-
Citing Howard Dean?
LMFAO!
Hi numbskull. Why don't you read something for a change. He actually makes some of your same arguments. It is the rebuttal that is interesting.
But you know, I think it is probably a waste of time to try to communicate with you. Keep shouting nonsensically, Dittohead. There is a place for the brain dead in our society. Not in the Navy, though.
-
Hi numbskull. Why don't you read something for a change. He actually makes some of your same arguments. It is the rebuttal that is interesting.
But you know, I think it is probably a waste of time to try to communicate with you. Keep shouting nonsensically, Dittohead. There is a place for the brain dead in our society. Not in the Navy, though.
did I miss something ??? what's this mean
-
You're asking what IPAB is while claiming he isn't interested in politics? lol.
That was one of the most hotly debated boards during the entire healthcare debate. It has the ability to alter payment rates to healthcare providers.
Yep. Here is part of what Dean said:
“The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them,” Dean wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
“Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/316045-obamacare-cost-cutting-board-faces-growing-opposition-from-democrats
-
Yep. Here is part of what Dean said:
“The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them,” Dean wrote in The Wall Street Journal.
“Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/316045-obamacare-cost-cutting-board-faces-growing-opposition-from-democrats
Dean is against anything but a single payer system. However, his analysis, which ironically echoes a lot of Republican criticism, is refuted in the link I posted.
It is impossible to have insurance without regulation. Under the existing system, both health insurance companies and government agencies, regulate reimbursement rates and have been doing so for forty years.
Which has not resulted in rationing of health care. Except through affordability, which ACA addresses.
-
Dean is against anything but a single payer system. However, his analysis, which ironically echoes a lot of Republican criticism, is refuted in the link I posted.
It is impossible to have insurance without regulation. Under the existing system, both health insurance companies and government agencies, regulate reimbursement rates and have been doing so for forty years.
Which has not resulted in rationing of health care. Except through affordability, which ACA addresses.
I'm not sure the article refuted Dean's comments. The author certainly thinks so. But he said this: "IPAB will be able to propose changes in the rate of growth for Medicare fees -- for doctors at first, and later for hospitals as well." That is consistent with what Dean is saying. They will "propose changes in the rate of growth" to point where no doctor or hospital will perform certain treatments.
-
I'm not sure the article refuted Dean's comments. The author certainly thinks so. But he said this: "IPAB will be able to propose changes in the rate of growth for Medicare fees -- for doctors at first, and later for hospitals as well." That is consistent with what Dean is saying. They will "propose changes in the rate of growth" to point where no doctor or hospital will perform certain treatments.
The problem is in Dean's conclusion, stated in your last sentence. That would be like states setting speed limits on roadways to 2 miles an hour. The IPAB has no interest in undoing the access to affordable health care that the ACA strives for. However, there needs to be a mechanism to control costs.
The Republicans (not Dean, BTW) would respond that, left unfettered by government control, the private health insurance market, through competition, would keep consumer costs reasonable.
The problem is the positive feedback loop in escalating costs caused by doctors ordering too many expensive tests and treatments (for many reasons, including to cover themselves against potential malpractice claims). And that problem is not solved by competition. It is solved by providing reasonable limits on reimbursements, which all health insurance companies do today.
-
There are no such "rationing boards", brainiac.
Comprehension may not be your strong suit, friend.
I was speaking on a true single payer system.
-
Comprehension may not be your strong suit, friend.
I was speaking on a true single payer system.
You are right. My apologies.
However, I do not think that single payer requires "rationing boards" either in the sense discussed in this thread.
If you look at overall mortality rates for serious illnesses such as heart disease and cancer, the UK (with its single payer system) does as well or better than the US (with the best system only the moneyed can buy). Medical procedures should be evaluated for their efficacy. For example, coronary bypass operations are performed much more often in the US than in the UK where medical treatment is the more frequent course. Results are the same - so there may be no benefit to the more expensive, more invasive surgical option in many cases.
That's not rationing, it's just good medical practice. I would understand rationing to entail withholding effective treatment from people, and that would be an abuse of any system, single payer or private. And of course private insurance companies do the type of efficacy evaluation mentioned now.
Without it, everyone would be paying the cost of providing worthless Laetrile treatments to cancer patients.
-
Boy with cancer loses coverage after Obamacare launch
The insurance company initially told Krista that Hunter’s information was lost while it was making changes required under the newly implemented health-care law.
Hunter was insured under the Children’s Health Insurance Program in Texas, or CHIP.
According to the CHIP website, “Families with children who get Children’s Medicaid pay nothing and children with CHIP pay no more than $50 a year for health care coverage.”
Krista explained that CHIP is different from Medicaid.
“With CHIP you have to pay a copay for every doctor’s visit, and you’ve got to pay so much for prescriptions,” she said.
Did she have any suspicions as to why her child was dropped?
She said “No” and suspected the company might be confused.
“They sent me a letter asking me why Hunter was being hospitalized, and if he had been in an accident,” she explained. “I sent back a letter saying that he has cancer, a very rare type of cancer, and that he is seeking chemotherapy.”
She hopes it is just one big bureaucratic blunder.
WND restated the question to make sure the facts were straight, asking: “Your husband has a police officer’s salary and your insurance company is telling you that now, under the new insurance rules once Obamacare went into effect, he makes too much money for them to cover your child’s chemotherapy. Is that correct?”
“Yes, sir,” Krista replied
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/boy-with-cancer-loses-coverage-after-obamacare-launch/#MudwTfo5tSy2x8SQ.99
-
Libtards HATE people with cancer
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/994951f8-5e71-11e3-8621-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2mzqb2O00
Americans who are buying insurance plans over online exchanges, under what is known as Obamacare, l have limited access to some of the nation’s leading hospitals, including two world-renowned cancer centres.
Amid a drive by insurers to limit costs, the majority of insurance plans being sold on the new healthcare exchanges in New York, Texas, and California, for example, l not offer patients’ access to Memorial Sloan Kettering in Manhattan or MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, two top cancer centres, or Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, one of the top research and teaching hospitals in the country.
Experts say the move by insurers to it consumers’ choices steer them away from hospitals that are considered too expensive, or even “inefficient”, reflects the new competitive landscape in the insurance industry since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Barack Obama’s 2010 healthcare law.
It could become another source of political controversy for the Obama administration next year, when the plans take effect. Frustrated consumers could then begin to realise what is not always evident when buying a product as complicated as healthcare insurance: that their new plans do not cover many facilities or doctors “in network”. In other words, the facilities and doctors are not among the list of approved providers in a certain plan.