Health overhaul to increase costs

[1bad65]

"A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the new health care law will expand insurance but won't reduce runaway costs

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance -- adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, however, since the report also warned that Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, forcing lawmakers to roll them back.

The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.

The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.

In addition to flagging the cuts to hospitals, nursing homes and other providers as potentially unsustainable, it projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular program. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent, as the plans reduce extra benefits that they currently offer. Seniors leaving the private plans would still have health insurance under traditional Medicare, but many might face higher out-of-pocket costs.

In another flashing yellow light, the report warned that a new voluntary long-term care insurance program created under the law faces "a very serious risk" of insolvency."

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...de-new-report/

So now an independant source has said it will indeed end up costing more money than the regime said it would. Gee, who called that one?

And it sure sounds like seniors are gonna face rationed care and/or reduced services. Again, who called that one?

Parts of his plan face a "very serious risk of insolvency"? Like Social Security, right?

[solo1]

who is shocked by this? Obama care is going to be a nightmare, starting with Medicare cuts. Hope your parents enjoy a substantial chop in the benefits. But thats the goal get rid of these older Americans, they remember, they know what the country is supposed to be if we get rid of them we open up the floodgates. Welcome to European style socialism, its worked so well over there.

[mawali]

So now an independant source has said it will indeed end up costing more money than the regime said it would. Gee, who called that one?

And it sure sounds like seniors are gonna face rationed care and/or reduced services. Again, who called that one?

Parts of his plan face a "very serious risk of insolvency"? Like Social Security, right?

At least 10 years ago, there were a group of legislators who foresaw this event i.e. Social Security problems, insufficient pension funding, etc but these same legislators were accused of being un American and that their assessments were false. I am sure you can find this out yourself. Additionally, many elected representatives (congressmen/women and Senators) echoed this same sentiment. All of the above were solvent according to many of the talking heads. Al this you can find yourself!

Now we are seeing all these problems and you think they started on January 15, 2010!
Did you examine why McCain was compassionate a few years ago and now he is struggling to retain his seat, so he is resorting to party strategy !

Do you see a pattern here?

[1bad65]

who is shocked by this? Obama care is going to be a nightmare, starting with Medicare cuts. Hope your parents enjoy a substantial chop in the benefits. But thats the goal get rid of these older Americans, they remember, they know what the country is supposed to be if we get rid of them we open up the floodgates. Welcome to European style socialism, its worked so well over there.

Sadly, this is true.

And now you know why the Democrats would not wait for an independant cost analysis and had to resort to bribery and back-room deals to pass this bill.

[Reality_Check]

Maybe one of the reasons they wanted to pass the bill was because of practices like this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36711197...-health_care//

The women all paid their premiums on time. Before they fell ill, none had any problems with their insurance. Initially, they believed their policies had been canceled by mistake.

They had no idea that WellPoint was using a computer algorithm that automatically targeted them and every other policyholder recently diagnosed with breast cancer. The software triggered an immediate fraud investigation, as the company searched for some pretext to drop their policies, according to government regulators and investigators.

Once the women were singled out, they say, the insurer then canceled their policies based on either erroneous or flimsy information. WellPoint declined to comment on the women's specific cases without a signed waiver from them, citing privacy laws.

...

But WellPoint also has specifically targeted women with breast cancer for aggressive investigation with the intent to cancel their policies, federal investigators told Reuters. The revelation is especially striking for a company whose CEO and president, Angela Braly, has earned plaudits for how her company improved the medical care and treatment of other policyholders with breast cancer.

The disclosures come to light after a recent investigation by Reuters showed that another health insurance company, Assurant Health, similarly targeted HIV-positive policyholders for rescission. That company was ordered by courts to pay millions of dollars in settlements.

[Reality_Check]

But thats the goal get rid of these older Americans, they remember, they know what the country is supposed to be if we get rid of them we open up the floodgates.

Get rid of them how?

[1bad65]

Get rid of them how?

By denying them care. When healthcare is rationed, the Government gets to choose who gets care and who does not.

[1bad65]

Maybe one of the reasons they wanted to pass the bill was because of practices like this?

So we can have practices like this?

"In July, Christina Gundlach was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. The doctor told her she had 6 months to 2 years to live.

There is no cure for MS but with medication that costs several thousand dollars a year the disease can be slowed down.

"A lot of people that get on the medication extend their life by years in addition it also provides a good quality of life," Connie Woods
Gundlach's mother said.

"If I could just get this medication," Gundlach said.

Gundlach is one of the 46 million uninsured americans we all keep hearing about. So she turned to the government for help. In turn she and her mother say they've been treated like criminals trying to scam the system.

"Yes all the time and that hurts too because I'm being honest and it hurts," Gundlach said.

After initially being denied, Gundlach got social security disability. That pays her 866 dollars a month and the family thought she would start receiving medicaid.

"We were really excited oh we can get an appointment, we can get her in to see an MS specialist, get her some medication, start physical therapy," Gundlach's mother said.

But none of that can happen now. Gundlach's medicaid was denied. Why? Now that she receives about $10,000 a year from social security she makes too much money.

While social security considers Gundlach disabled, that federal agency says the 866 dollars it pays her every month disqualifies her for medicaid.

Gundlach said social security told her she might be eligible for medicare in about 24 months. An impossible time to wait for a woman whose been given only two years to live. "

Source:
http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news...enied_medicaid

See RC, no system is perfect. But when an insurance company denies you, you have options. You can sue them, or go to another company. When the gov't denies you, what options do you have?

[Reality_Check]

By denying them care. When healthcare is rationed, the Government gets to choose who gets care and who does not.

So, you're claiming the the Government will intentionally let older Americans die, right? You're saying the the Government is actively conspiring to, in effect, murder older Americans by denying them care, correct? All this so that President Obama can turn the United States into a socialist hellscape. Because older Americans know "what the country is supposed to be" and they need to be silenced so that his evil plan can go forward. Is that a reasonable inference from the assertion by solo1 (supported, and expounded on, by you), that the Obama Administration wants to "get rid of these older Americans"?

[1bad65]

So, you're claiming the the Government will intentionally let older Americans die, right? You're saying the the Government is actively conspiring to, in effect, murder older Americans by denying them care, correct?

Nowhere did I say that. I said that certain people could be denied care, and this is 100% true.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Obama regime has pure motives, and means no ill will at all to anyone. Let's say their hearts are in the right place. But that's alot of power to give a Government. Who is to say a future Administration will not abuse this power?

[SanHeChuan]

See RC, no system is perfect. But when an insurance company denies you, you have options. You can sue them, or go to another company. When the gov't denies you, what options do you have?

So the insurance company is going to be magnanimous and give her health care she can't afford, now?

And you can’t just change insurance companies; there is no free market competition when they ALL deny you coverage with pre-existing conditions. Oh, wait problem solved, point Obama.

You could sue the insurance company but, how long do you think that’s really going to take, less than 24 months?

[Reality_Check]

Nowhere did I say that. I said that certain people could be denied care, and this is 100% true.

Let's say for the sake of argument that the Obama regime has pure motives, and means no ill will at all to anyone. Let's say their hearts are in the right place. But that's alot of power to give a Government. Who is to say a future Administration will not abuse this power?

Interesting. You find that this is too much power for the Government to have because "Who is to say a future Administration will not abuse this power?" Yet, you seem to be okay with torture, indefinite detention and Presidential hit lists containing the names of US citizens.

Oh, I was also referring to solo1's contention that "get rid of these older Americans" which you supported.

who is shocked by this? Obama care is going to be a nightmare, starting with Medicare cuts. Hope your parents enjoy a substantial chop in the benefits. But thats the goal get rid of these older Americans, they remember, they know what the country is supposed to be if we get rid of them we open up the floodgates. Welcome to European style socialism, its worked so well over there.

Sadly, this is true.

Getting rid of someone implies an active effort. So my questions stand:

So, you're claiming the the Government will intentionally let older Americans die, right? You're saying the the Government is actively conspiring to, in effect, murder older Americans by denying them care, correct? All this so that President Obama can turn the United States into a socialist hellscape. Because older Americans know "what the country is supposed to be" and they need to be silenced so that his evil plan can go forward. Is that a reasonable inference from the assertion by solo1 (supported, and expounded on, by you), that the Obama Administration wants to "get rid of these older Americans"?

[1bad65]

So the insurance company is going to be magnanimous and give her health care she can't afford, now?

And you can’t just change insurance companies; there is no free market competition when they ALL deny you coverage with pre-existing conditions. Oh, wait problem solved, point Obama.

You could sue the insurance company but, how long do you think that’s really going to take, less than 24 months?

No matter what I say, you will defend socialized medicine.

But I'll stick by my guns on this point; I'd rather fight ANY private company than the Federal Government. If you disagree, you're either naive or ignorant of history's long lists of Government abusing its power..

[1bad65]

Interesting. You find that this is too much power for the Government to have because "Who is to say a future Administration will not abuse this power?" Yet, you seem to be okay with torture, indefinite detention and Presidential hit lists containing the names of US citizens.

It is not torture just because liberals say it is. Sorry bud.

And obviously Obama's regime is ok with it, because they kept Gitmo open despite his promises to close it, and he signed the 'hit lists'!

Oh, I was also referring to solo1's contention that "get rid of these older Americans" which you supported.

I said that the Government gets to choose who does and who does not get care when care is rationed. I stand by that statement.

So my questions stand:

And I've answered them. Just because you don't like my answer does not mean I ducked the question.

Do you need me to explain it differently perhaps? Or maybe you could rephrase your question? Again, I'm not ducking anything. Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted does not mean I didn't answer it.

[SanHeChuan]

No matter what I say, you will defend socialized medicine.

But I'll stick by my guns on this point; I'd rather fight ANY private company than the Federal Government. If you disagree, you're either naive or ignorant of history's long lists of Government abusing its power.

I will defend socialized medicine because you criticize out of the specter of GOP fear. When there are actual problems with health care you point them out and try to fix them. When there is unsubstantiated fear over possible futures you just . Your fears have about as much merit as Steven Hawking's predictions of alien invasions. If there is a problem with a government program you legislate to try and fix it, if there is a problem with a private buisness you sue, fine, and then finally legislate. Same solution, fewer steps.

You want to talk about real health care in the United States, what about Hawaii or Massachusetts. Those states are regular death camps, where is the rationing of care there? The Fedgov isn't even going to be covering the cost of most of it, it’s still insurance provided by private companies paid for by private citizens, mostly.

I'd rather deal with a well intentioned government than a mal intentioned corporation.