VI included in Heal...
 
Notifications
Clear all

VI included in Health Care Bill

Bombi
(@Bombi)
Posts: 2104
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

http://stcroixsource.com/content/news/local-news/2010/03/18/territories-be-included-final-health-care-reform-bill

I hope this gives us a shot at some affordable health insurance with all the reforms.

 
Posted : March 19, 2010 11:07 am
antiqueone
(@antiqueone)
Posts: 389
Reputable Member
 

does anyone wonder why, when we give so little back to the states, we should accept 300 million dollars from them? I mean, whose money was it before the government grabbed it? Don't they need it more than we? What right do we have to accept such a huge sum. Don't get me wrong, I know our health care system needs a great deal of shoring up, but don't we have a moral obligation to pull our own weight?

 
Posted : March 19, 2010 3:13 pm
Bombi
(@Bombi)
Posts: 2104
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

If the feds can give a million $ a day to Israel I suppose a few bucks to the VI is OK.

 
Posted : March 19, 2010 3:22 pm
(@speee1dy)
Posts: 8867
Illustrious Member
 

i feel it is an obligation of the us to help all us owned property wether in the us proper or not. the health care system and health insurance system needed a major overhaul and have for along time.
i read once where someone was denied treatment because this person had acne and that was a pre-existing condition. im willing to bet at least 80% of the population has had acne at one time or another and why should that preclude them to getting health care?

 
Posted : March 19, 2010 4:26 pm
 jay
(@jay)
Posts: 353
Reputable Member
 

I hope they move the government health care office to the dmv office so I can get everything done in one quick efficient stop. What a $%&* disaster this is going to be.:X

 
Posted : March 19, 2010 4:49 pm
 br1k
(@br1k)
Posts: 277
Reputable Member
 

If the feds can give a million $ a day to Israel I suppose a few bucks to the VI is OK.

Money given to Israel are given specifically to buy US-made weapons and military ammunition (i.e. Israel can't spend it in the way it would like). I suppose if local government would be obliged to use that money to buy something made stateside - it would be a great boon to US economy.

 
Posted : March 19, 2010 5:16 pm
Bombi
(@Bombi)
Posts: 2104
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

Just before Christmas,(when you weren't looking) the US President, Barack Obama, signed into law one of his country's biggest aid pledges of the year. It was bound not for Africa or any of the many struggling countries on the World Bank's list.

It was a deal for $US2.77 billion ($3 billion) to go to Israel in 2010 and a total of $US30 billion over the next decade.

Israel is bound by the agreement to use 75 per cent of the aid to buy military hardware made in the US: in the crisis-racked US economy, those military factories are critical to many towns.

For many years Israel has been the largest recipient of US foreign aid, followed by Egypt ($US1.75 billion), which also receives most of its assDuring a conference call with reporters Thursday, Gov. John deJongh Jr. said he is thrilled by the apparent final version. DeJongh said the legislation would deliver more than $300 million to the territory over the next nine years, up to $40 million of which the territory could use for the uninsured – “those who do not qualify for Medicaidistance in tied military aid.

They get 30 billion we get 300 million over the next 10 years

During a conference call with reporters Thursday, Gov. John deJongh Jr. said he is thrilled by the apparent final version. DeJongh said the legislation would deliver more than $300 million to the territory over the next nine years, up to $40 million of which the territory could use for the uninsured – “those who do not qualify for Medicaid

 
Posted : March 19, 2010 6:22 pm
(@STXBob)
Posts: 2138
Noble Member
 

Bombi, you need to edit that piece just one more time. It's all garbled.

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 12:29 am
Bombi
(@Bombi)
Posts: 2104
Noble Member
Topic starter
 

sorry, i was trying to do more than 2 things at once, to late to edit.I'll be more careful

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 10:53 am
(@STXBob)
Posts: 2138
Noble Member
 

We went to the Paul Krugman book signing at Undercover Books last night. There was an appreciative crowd of about 80 in attendance, and he was pretty entertaining during Q&A. He talked a lot about the current attempted healthcare reform, for which he is cheering. Some of his thoughts (and I am paraphrasing):
- If healthcare reform passes, it will be very hard to take away, and will probably improve with time. That's why Republicans are trying so hard to prevent it.
- Free markets don't work for health insurance, because insurers avoid insuring the sick, they make money by denying claims, and healthy people often don't buy insurance.
- The new healthcare system will have to keep the insurance companies, not because they provide any value, but because it would be bad to have so many unemployed people.

Paul Krugman is a liberal economist, columnist and author, and the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize winner in Economics for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography. He apparently has a house on STX.
More: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 10:59 am
swans
(@swans)
Posts: 1313
Noble Member
 

i read once where someone was denied treatment because this person had acne and that was a pre-existing condition. im willing to bet at least 80% of the population has had acne at one time or another and why should that preclude them to getting health care?

Good morning,
I found these other "pre-existing" conditions ( which are only a few of the remaining 250+ afflictions involving every other part of the human anatomy) for Cigna, Kaiser, Anthem(BC), Assurant: Pregnancy, Too fat, Too thin, Domestic Violence, Rape, Insulin use, Undiagnosed Symptoms.

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 1:59 pm
(@chefnoah)
Posts: 531
Honorable Member
 

I recommend watching Sicko, by Michael Moore. Obviously, it's slanted to all hell but he had several up close examples of how the big insurance companies avoid paying money for hospital bills. Any money spent on sick people is considered a loss.

My favorite part is when he packed up a boat full of ailing 9/11 heroes and floated down to Cuba and received free, high quality health care.

HMO's sure goofed things up

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 2:21 pm
(@Juanita)
Posts: 3111
Famed Member
 

Remember that whistle-blower woman a few years back who worked for an insurance company? Her company's policy was to deny every claim the first time...period! Didn't matter what it was. I don't remember which company, but it was one of the big ones.

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 3:01 pm
(@poorthang)
Posts: 312
Reputable Member
 

I am very confused over the whole thing....I have owned my own insurance agency.... read plenty of policies and I can't tell who the H... is telling the truth... I "m also a veteran and have used the VA system .....believe it or not it is very very good stateside... Doc's are good,follow up is good ...facilities are good....so I dont know??? other family members use Insurance related providers and to be honest I wish they had my benefits.... Time will tell who wins the debate and opinions will always differ....I'm no socialist but my instincts say if someone needs help with thier health ...help them...

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 3:17 pm
(@STXBob)
Posts: 2138
Noble Member
 

I think that private insurance companies are mostly bad. Aside from rejecting applications and denying claims, they add a lot of expense to the system.

From http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/why-does-us-health-care-cost-so-much-part-ii-indefensible-administrative-costs/?scp=2&sq=Uwe%20Reinhardt&st=cse :
"The United States spends nearly 40 percent more on health care per capita than its G.D.P. per capita would predict. Given the sheer magnitude of the estimated excess spending, it is fair to ask American health care providers what extra benefits the American people receive in return for this enormous extra spending. After all, translated into total dollar spending per year, this excess spending amounted to $570 billion in 2006 and about $650 billion in 2008. The latter figure is over five times the estimated $125 billion or so in additional health spending that would be needed to attain truly universal health insurance coverage in this country.

One thing Americans do buy with this extra spending is an administrative overhead load that is huge by international standards. The McKinsey Global Institute estimated that excess spending on “health administration and insurance” accounted for as much as 21 percent of the estimated total excess spending ($477 billion in 2003). Brought forward, that 21 percent of excess spending on administration would amount to about $120 billion in 2006 and about $150 billion in 2008. It would have been more than enough to finance universal health insurance this year.

The McKinsey team estimated that about 85 percent of this excess administrative overhead can be attributed to the highly complex private health insurance system in the United States. Product design, underwriting and marketing account for about two-thirds of that total. The remaining 15 percent was attributed to public payers that are not saddled with the high cost of product design, medical underwriting and marketing, and that therefore spend a far smaller fraction of their total spending on administration"

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 3:33 pm
(@stiphy)
Posts: 956
Prominent Member
 

I love the statement about how free markets don't work for healthcare...we have nothing even close to resembling a free market system in healthcare today. What we have today is awful, and IMO was created by the massive amount of government control over healthcare that we already have. What they are proposing for tomorrow could be slightly less awful or even worse. I doubt it will be good though.

Personally I think a true free market for healthcare would be much better. There are many with really good ideas on how to accomplish this. But it will never happen because in a truly free market politicians and lawyers don't get their cut.

On the upside, I can't wait until Healthcare is "free." It will make it much easier to quit my job that contributes tens of thousands to the tax system every year! You may see me waiting tables at your favorite dive for spending money sometime soon! I just hope I'm the only one who drops out so the system doesn't go bankrupt 😉

Sean

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 7:04 pm
(@stxfoodie)
Posts: 208
Estimable Member
 

Sean you nailed it. If you can believe the statistics published by "the economist" magazine, when you factor in all of the government "health" programs about 65% of "health care" is currently managed by the Government. But hey, one more handout for the VI has got to be a good thing...right?

🙂

 
Posted : March 20, 2010 7:22 pm
(@EngRMP)
Posts: 470
Reputable Member
 

From following this whole issue over the past year, I've come to the following thoughts:

- I don't believe the insurance companies are adding any value to "health care". Even if we were to let the free market rule, I think it's too late for the medical insurance industry. Their lawyers have already mastered the whole risk management concept to their own benefit.

- I would be willing to get the insurance companies out of the equation and deal directly with doctors and hospitals. That's a much more diverse free market. Let these folks garnish wages under the regulation of the government (if needed). That way, everyone that can pay, does pay. And they pay what they can afford. I can go to any doctor I want to. Right now, insurance companies effectively limit the doctors that I can go to. And, I don't mind the government regulating what individuals pay for health care. Let's face it, we're not going to deny poor folks of life saving care, no matter what it costs. I have to pay to subsidize this, one way or another (taxes to government or fee to providers).

- why is it a given that increased percentage of GDP on health care means that we are wasting money? Is it possible that this means that health care is a higher priority and we are spending more, to get more. Don't we have better diagnostic tools (like MRIs) and surgical tools (like Da Vinci robots)? I don't have any facts... I'm just wondering.

 
Posted : March 21, 2010 12:51 am
(@STXBob)
Posts: 2138
Noble Member
 

why is it a given that increased percentage of GDP on health care means that we are wasting money? Is it possible that this means that health care is a higher priority and we are spending more, to get more. Don't we have better diagnostic tools (like MRIs) and surgical tools (like Da Vinci robots)? I don't have any facts... I'm just wondering.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States :

"At least 15% of the population is completely uninsured,[1][2][3] and a substantial additional portion of the population is "underinsured", or less than fully insured for medical costs they might incur.[4][5] More money per person is spent on health care in the United States than in any other nation in the world,[6][7] and a greater percentage of total income in the nation is spent on health care in the U.S. than in any United Nations member state except for East Timor.[7] Despite the fact that not all citizens are covered, the United States has the third highest public healthcare expenditure per capita.[8][9] A 2001 study in five states found that medical debt contributed to 62% of all personal bankruptcies.[10] Since then, health costs and the numbers of uninsured and underinsured have increased.[citation needed]

Active debate about health care reform in the United States concerns questions of a right to health care, access, fairness, efficiency, cost, and quality. Many have argued that the system does not deliver equivalent value for the money spent. The US pays twice as much yet lags behind other wealthy nations in such measures as infant mortality and life expectancy, though the relation between these statistics to the system itself is debated. Currently, the U.S. has a higher infant mortality rate than most of the world's industrialized nations.[nb 1][11] The USA's life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th).[12][13][14] The USA's life expectancy is ranked 50th in the world after the European Union (40th).[15][16] The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study).[17][18] A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.[19]"

So, we pay a lot, and we get a little. And the US is the only industrialized country where you can go bankrupt from medical bills. If you don't have proper medical insurance, and you get seriously ill, the choice is often bankruptcy or death.

Maybe things will improve after Sunday.

 
Posted : March 21, 2010 1:53 am
(@STXBob)
Posts: 2138
Noble Member
 

I love the statement about how free markets don't work for healthcare...we have nothing even close to resembling a free market system in healthcare today. What we have today is awful, and IMO was created by the massive amount of government control over healthcare that we already have. What they are proposing for tomorrow could be slightly less awful or even worse. I doubt it will be good though.

Personally I think a true free market for healthcare would be much better. There are many with really good ideas on how to accomplish this. But it will never happen because in a truly free market politicians and lawyers don't get their cut.

On the upside, I can't wait until Healthcare is "free." It will make it much easier to quit my job that contributes tens of thousands to the tax system every year! You may see me waiting tables at your favorite dive for spending money sometime soon! I just hope I'm the only one who drops out so the system doesn't go bankrupt 😉

Sean

Currently, we have government regulated healthcare for some (Medicare, Medicaide, Veterans Adminstration), and essentially unregulated free market healthcare for the rest. The unregulated free market part is a mess, because they don't insure pre-existing conditions, they avoid insuring the sick, they avoid paying claims, etc.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care :
"Universal health care is implemented in all industrialized countries, with the exception of the United States.[1] It is also provided in many developing countries."

You often see fundraisers advertised for individuals who need an operation or a treatment because they don't have insurance. That doesn't happen in the rest of civilized world.

If it works everywhere else, why it is so bad for the US?

Universal heathcare will not lead to masses of people quitting their jobs, although for some who were tied to a job for the health insurance, it will be liberating, and they can finally quit and find a job or an area of the country they like better. If you added universal housing, food, clothing and spending allowances, then that would lead to the masses quitting. Until then, people need to work for everything else they want in life.

 
Posted : March 21, 2010 2:13 am
(@chockman)
Posts: 512
Honorable Member
 

The only thing I am going to say,is. Trust the Gov, are you freaking crazy ? I've got 25 years of Gov service and have only been alive for 45. At one point in time,not my time by the way,they used to be a good employer. They changed the retirement system in the 80's and try to sell you on how good the new one is,BS.

Health care needs reform and it will take the Gov to do it. They have never and will never, get their estimations correct. All I can say is that if 72 % of the country said do not do it. Then why in the hell do they do as they please and continue to promote health care.

I am not claiming any political affiliation here,but watch out house Dem's , your future is not looking to bright. Kind of like the Bankruptcy idea of, I know I'M going down,so I might as well go in style.

 
Posted : March 21, 2010 4:05 am
(@stiphy)
Posts: 956
Prominent Member
 

STXBob, I disagree that there is any semblance of "free market healthcare" for anyone in the US. The amount of government policy and regulation makes it impossible for anyone to unseat the special interests (aka insurance companies) that know how to play the government games and provide real competition. Real competition along with transparant pricing where the end consumer (patient) pays the bill is what would reduce costs.

I can agree that the system now we have is an absolute mess, but I have a real problem with using the messy healthcare system to attack "free markets" since the healthcare market is one of the least "free" and most regulated "markets" around. When 65% of the market is government controlled its impossible to say that the rest is "free" as the policies of the government controlled side affect whatever "market" is left. Where we are now is not a result of "free market" healthcare, it is a result of about 70 years of government controlling healthcare. I fail to see how adding more government control will make things much better, but maybe we are at a point where things can't be much worse. I see this as a classic example of government causing a problem and then trying to look like the savior in "fixing" the problem.

My biggest fear of socializing medicine further and providing "universal coverage" is that it is a huge disincentive for people to work. I have many friends who would probably still be waiting tables or bartending but decided to go back to school so they could get a job that provided health insurance. Health insurance is probably one of the biggest motivator's I now for people to do better in their life. To be more productive. And really our health should be one of the things we work hardest for, it is really the most important thing in our life. Give people universal coverage and many lose that motivation. I know that I might. Just something to think about.

Sean

 
Posted : March 21, 2010 4:35 am
 DUN
(@DUN)
Posts: 812
Prominent Member
 

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

~~~ The late Dr. Adrian Rogers , 1931 to 2005 ~~~

 
Posted : March 21, 2010 2:56 pm
(@Linda_J)
Posts: 3919
Famed Member
 

My reason for being in favor of mandated universal health insurance is enlightened self interest. We already have universal health care of a sort.

My son recently returned to the states after working overseas. He is working full time at a temp job while looking for a permanent position. He is totally uninsured. If he were badly injured in a car accident, the ambulance would come to get him, take him to a hospital where he would be cared for. His inability to pay would not be a factor. Upon discharge he would be totally unable to pay his $75,000 bill (hypothetical number). The hospital would either set up a payment plan, say $100 a month, and he would never finish paying the debt, or they would sue him and he would file for bankruptcy, or they would write off the debt. In all three scenarios who do you think ends up paying in the long run --- EVERYBODY. And this doesn't even apply only to low-mod incomes. Even the wealthy can be wiped out by catastropic illness.

Why is mandatory health insurance any different than mandatory automobile insurance? And yet we accepted that when it was implemented.

 
Posted : March 21, 2010 3:33 pm
(@STXBob)
Posts: 2138
Noble Member
 

All I can say is that if 72 % of the country said do not do it. Then why in the hell do they do as they please and continue to promote health care.

Please provide a citation for the 72% figure. I cannot find that survey.

I found a FoxNews survey taken last week that says 55% responded as "opposed" to the question, "Based on what you know about the health care reform legislation being considered right now, do you favor or oppose the plan?"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/18/fox-news-poll-oppose-health-care-reform/
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/031810_Obama_Health_Care_web.pdf

"Based on what you know" means based on whatever sound bites you've heard. You'd have to be a rather studious citizen to know what is really in the legislation.

Here is a 2-page summary of what the House passed on 10/29/09:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8023-H.pdf
Here is a 2-page summary of what the Senate passed on 11/18/09:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8023-S.pdf

Before this morning, I admittedly didn’t know much about the legislation either. I just knew what a mess we were in, and I’d heard that the legislation was a giant step out of that mess. After reading the summaries, I like the legislation.

I disagree that there is any semblance of "free market healthcare" for anyone in the US.

The healthcare market is one of the least "free" and most regulated "markets" around. When 65% of the market is government controlled its impossible to say that the rest is "free" as the policies of the government controlled side affect whatever "market" is left.

What are the current regulations affecting private insurers? I think we have free market healthcare there, which means no government regulation, and insurance companies can make their own rules. They can cover who and what they want (and why would they want to cover sick people? There’s no profit there), they can drop you when they want (like when you’re too sick), they can charge what they want, and they can make whatever profit they want. That’s what we have now. Any insurance company who behaves otherwise would have no customers because their premiums would be too high.

Among many other things, the current pending legislation would regulate private insurers. From the Senate summary above (similar to the House summary): “New insurance market regulations will prevent health insurers from denying coverage to people for any reason, including their health status, and from charging people more based on their health status and gender. These new rules will also require that all new health plans provide comprehensive coverage that includes at least a minimum set of services, caps annual out-of-pocket spending, does not impose cost-sharing for preventive services, and does not impose annual or lifetime limits on coverage.”

Sometimes government regulation is necessary because it stops businesses from screwing the people. This is one of those times.

 
Posted : March 21, 2010 3:53 pm
Page 1 / 10
Search this website Type then hit enter to search
Close Menu