Skip to main content

View Diary: Dog bites man. Cantor promises Obamacare repeal vote. (70 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  BUT IT'S A GIFT TO INSURANCE COMPANIES WHY (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Clem Yeobright, JML9999, doroma, cactusgal

    DO THEY OPPOSE IT

    /s

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri May 03, 2013 at 11:16:18 AM PDT

    •  Because its Obama's gift, not theirs. (11+ / 0-)

      The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. Bertrand Russell

      by accumbens on Fri May 03, 2013 at 11:17:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There are a whole lot more companies than (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JML9999

      insurance companies.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Fri May 03, 2013 at 11:18:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's the modern GOP Logic&Reason need not apply nt (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cactusgal

      I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

      by JML9999 on Fri May 03, 2013 at 11:21:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's primaries (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cactusgal, david78209, Tfill

      All politicians worry about re-election and Republicans are no different that any other politician in any democracy.  The big difference is that for most of the House Republicans, their only real danger is losing in the primary.  Because of the tremendous gerrymandering, most of these members have no serious general election challenge, but rather legitimate primary challenges.

      Nothing strokes the happy spot for teabaggers than a vote to repeal Obamacare.  (Actually, they should get a room)

    •  Yeah. Here is What We Get! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Joe Bacon

      Why are People with Insurance going Bankrupt?

      ZEESE: [T]here’s several levels of insurance coverage [available under ObamaCare:] —90/10, where the insurance company pays 90 percent, consumer pays 10 percent; 80/20; 70/30; 60/40. The subsidy provided by Obamacare to people who can’t afford insurance will only cover 70/30 plans. So when you get a serious illness, you’re paying 30 percent of the cost of that health care.

      Now, what’s really bad about this is that prior to Obamacare, some of the state insurance regulators were pushing insurance coverers to a higher level, where they would provide more coverage rather than less. Obamacare has now put it into law that 60/40 is okay and 70/30 is what the government will pay for. And so the 80/20 and 90/10′s become less common. So you’re going to see more and more people with under-insurance and not going to see lack of insurance completely go away.

      Having to pay 30% for a really serious illness is “Lose your house” territory. Yikes! And maybe I’m old-fashioned, but when the Feds step in to set a standard, I tend to expect them to improve on what the states are doing, and not degrade the situation.

      Let's be honest about what we get.
      •  Forget all those people that can (0+ / 0-)

        get affordable insurance that have pre-existing conditions, etc.

        It was well known that for about 12% of insurance consumers, it was going to be worse.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Fri May 03, 2013 at 12:48:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  70/30 lose your house territory (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Tfill

          Not sure why you think that is going to work.

          •  Can I get a citation from somewhere other (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Tfill

            than an editorial site?

            And you don't 'lose your house'. You don't lose your house even in some case of bankruptcy...you're just being dramatic.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Fri May 03, 2013 at 02:27:18 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bull! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              splashoil

              My parents DID lose their house over catastrophic bills that their fucking insurance company would not pay.

              •  I'm sorry; I did not mean to claim that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Tfill

                no one has ever lost their house as a result of a financial situation involving medical bills, and insurance fraud. Implying Obamacare will CAUSE it regularly is completely another thing.

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Fri May 03, 2013 at 04:57:33 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The point is they will STILL lose their homes! (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  splashoil

                  A 70/30 policy is still going to bankrupt people when face with catastrophic medical expenses. And people will STILL lose their homes, just like Mom and Dad did. All because we have a President who decided to give Wall Street everything they demanded to pass watered down mandated health insurance.

            •  You need Citations? (0+ / 0-)

              PNHP:

              At the root of these problems is the fact that we have a fragmented, highly inefficient system. Employed Americans younger than 65 years of age have job- based insurance, if their employer chose to provide it; the elderly and disabled are covered through Medicare; the poor by Medicaid; military veterans through the Veterans Administration; and American Indians through the Indian Health Service. Persons who do not fall into any of those categories must try to purchase individual coverage in the private market, where it is often prohibitively expensive or unobtainable if they have a pre-existing health condition.

              We keep hammering on this problem: Too damn many buckets to throw people into, and too many damn people who fall between buckets, or not into any bucket at all.

              Owing largely to this fragmentation and inefficiency, a staggering 31 percent of U.S. health care spending goes toward administrative costs, rather than care itself. Inefficiency exists at both the provider and payer level. To care for their patients and get paid for their work, physicians and hospitals must contend with the intricacies of numerous insurance plans—which tests and procedures they cover, which drugs are on their formularies, which providers are in their network. Meanwhile, private health insurance companies divert a considerable share of the premiums they collect toward advertising and marketing, sales teams, underwriters, lobbyists, executive salaries and shareholder profits. The top five private insurers in the United States paid out $12.2 billion in profits to investors in 2009, a year when nearly 3 million Americans lost their health coverage.

              That's not a bug. It's a feature. The suffering and desperation of some make the others all the more anxious to get what they can. It's like a "Reserve Army of the

              Uninsured."
              Much more:

              Blacks, Poor thrown under the bus

              75 Citations to study

              No we all did not fall from the back of the truck.

              •  lol (0+ / 0-)
                Can I get a citation from somewhere other (1+ / 0-)

                than an editorial site?

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Sat May 04, 2013 at 06:09:59 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Just click on the links (0+ / 0-)

                  You will find many citations.  It's all there for you....
                   BTW, why don't you reveal your data sources like Rogoff & Reinhart?

                  •  PNHP best place to start (0+ / 0-)

                    Peeking through the fog.
                    PNHP Research:

                    1. Administrative costs consume 31 percent of US health spending, most of it unnecessary.
                    (Woolhandler, et al “Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada,” NEJM 349(8) Sept. 21, 2003)

                    2. Medical bills contribute to half of all personal bankruptcies. Three-fourths of those bankrupted had health insurance at the time they got sick or injured.
                    1. “Illness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy,” Himmelstein et al, Health Affairs Web Exclusive, February 2, 2005.
                    2. “Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study,” Himmelstein, D.U., Thorne, D., Warren, E., Woolhandler, S. (2009), Am J Med, 122, 741-746.
                    3. “Medical Bankruptcy Fact Sheet,” Himmelstein, D.U., Thorne, D., Warren, E., Woolhandler, S. (2009).
                    4. “Medical Bankruptcy Q&A,” Himmelstein, D.U., Thorne, D., Warren, E., Woolhandler, S. (2009).

                    3. Taxes already pay for more than 60 percent of US health spending
                    Americans pay the highest health care taxes in the world. We pay for national health insurance, but don’t get it.
                    (Woolhandler, et al. “Paying for National Health Insurance — And Not Getting It,” Health Affairs 21(4); July / Aug. 2002)

                    4. Despite spending far less per capita for health care, Canadians are healthier and have better measures of access to health care than Americans.
                    (Lasser et al. “Access to Care, Health Status, and Health Disparities in the United States and Canada: Results of a Cross-National Population-Based Survey,” American Journal of Public Health; July 2006, Vol 96, No. 7)

                    Citations!  Obamacare was shrouded in secrecy.  Now that we see it.  It is very ugly.  60/40 and 70/30 insurance is not acceptable and guarantees bankruptcy and bad health.
            •  Citation (0+ / 0-)

              Massachusetts Medical Banruptcy

              BACKGROUND: Massachusetts’ recent health reform has decreased the number of uninsured, but no study has examined medical bankruptcy rates before and after the reform was implemented.
              METHODS: In 2009, we surveyed 199 Massachusetts bankruptcy filers regarding medical antecedents of their financial collapse using the same questions as in a 2007 survey of 2314 debtors nationwide, including 44 in Massachusetts. We designated bankruptcies as “medical” based on debtors’ stated reasons for filing, income loss due to illness, and the magnitude of their medical debts.
              RESULTS: In 2009, illness and medical bills contributed to 52.9% of Massachusetts bankruptcies, versus 59.3% of the bankruptcies in the state in 2007 (P
      •  Someone with 70% coverage and a serious illness (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        davelf2, Tfill

        should tell the doctors and hospitals to be satisfied with 70% and quit trying to get blood out of a turnip -- a sick turnip, at that.

        There's more than enough overcharging built into the 'list price' on hospital bills and a lot of doctors' charges that getting 70 cents on the dollar is fine.  A lot of health care is priced in 'funny money'.  

        We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

        by david78209 on Fri May 03, 2013 at 01:51:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site