Printable View
Just sitting in my hospital room after doing some physical therapy(walking the halls with my walker) and was pondering the effects of the Obama health plan. There are 3 guards from the federal prison in Lee county guarding an inmate who apparently got into a fight with another inmate the other day. I guess they get really good healthcare while in prison now, and, will the government make them pay a fine for not having health insurance like most of us on the "outside"?
Friend you have no idea just how bitter I get when I have to escort a murderer,child molester,rapist...etc to the hospital to get quality medical that you and I on the street cannot afford,yet we have to pay for his. I'll stop now before I blow a fuse. BTW hope your PT is going well.
I had to have the knee joint replaced again:( This one seems to really be doing a lot better as I am already able to "bear" full weight on it. I'll tell ya, man, this doctor seems to really be able to do wonders with repairing the Veteran's administration's goof-ups. I just wish he had been around 10 years ago. Just to be able to walk without the aid of a brace is a miracle. And everything else he thought was wrong, he fixed, too. It feels really great.
I understand where you are coming from, but what is a solution? How can it be fixed?
Deny prisoners health care? That is not a logical solution, if we start refusing prisoners health care, we are no better than some of those 3rd world countries.
It does suck to see a murder get healthcare while I cannot afford it, but I understand why.
Its also a huge reason why the health care bill was passed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by centennialdawg
The VA and it's doctors (at least the 2 that I have spent alot of time in with loved ones-Salem and JC respectively) are terrible-not much better than a MASH unit. I'm glad that you finally found a good doctor.
\Quote:
Originally Posted by centennialdawg
congrats on things improving.
Biggin, does an inmate really deserve healthcare? Honestly, if they murder, rape, molest, etc. why should they be treated that well? If they're to have halthcare then the quality of that healthcare should be determined by their crime and sentence. Or at least have differing levels of care for low, medium, and high level institutions.
Centennialdawg, I'm glad your doing better. I'll send up a prayer for your continued and complete recuperation.
I know one thing, as much as my family pays for health insurance right now in the present, 2010, I will welcome any change if it brings my premium down some. I don't care if it is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Jackleg that passes. I am not saying this current healthcare bill will help or not but if it does I'm throwing a party. No way should health insurance cost more than most peoples mortgages.
Please tell me you just didn't go there. Was reading today before leaving work on Yahoo that it appears as though healthcare costs are rising since the health insurance plan has been passed. (Lets be honest, this wasn't truly a healtcare plan that done anything to actually improve healthcare, just to boost insurance practices, and the drug makers once you look at it.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggin
What I was getting at was that theres no excuse for prisoners being able to go to the hospital and be treated with great care while the average person would get crushed by the medical bills for one tenth of that care.
The US has always prided itself on being one of the best countries in terms of human rights, but when we start letting people die in prisons because of inadequate health care, its a huge black mark on our crusade against human rights violations.Quote:
Originally Posted by SBG
Because if we start letting people just die, we lose the right to go after other countries for the atrocities committed against various people.
At least something was done...even if it has to be "fixed" in the future. Had it gone through as it was initially conceived, it would have been much better. The partisan wrangling eliminated much of the good points that would have immediately brought costs down such as the public option. But, I think within the next decade or so that will be a reality as well. I'm like UTVols2, anything that will bring my premiums down is what I'm for...regardless of who sponsors it. As far as prisoners go, funding their health care is just one of the prices we pay to be the country we are. It's not exactly right, but that's how it goes sometimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
I really don't believe this is going to bring our premiums down is the problem. In the end, this just ended up being a bigger money maker for insurance companies, and drug manufacturers the way it is looking. Costs are already going up, and the cost savings had to do with Medicare leveling out, and everyone knows that is just going to continue to rise.
It may not, but with the public option it would have. The problem is, the GOP wouldn't have it and politicized it to the point that we ended up with what we have now. But, there is now legislation in place and it's not going away....there is a good chance it sees a fix or two tho.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1inStripes
Quote:
Originally Posted by UTVols2
Report says health care will cover more, cost more
AP
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer ? Fri Apr 23, 5:58 am ET
WASHINGTON ? President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.
Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance ? adding 34 million 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, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.
It's a worrisome assessment for Democrats.
In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability 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 from Medicare's Office of the Actuary carried a disclaimer saying it does not represent the official position of the Obama administration. White House officials have repeatedly complained that such analyses have been too pessimistic and lowball the law's potential to achieve savings.
The report acknowledged that some of the cost-control measures in the bill ? Medicare cuts, a tax on high-cost insurance and a commission to seek ongoing Medicare savings ? could help reduce the rate of cost increases beyond 2020. But it held out little hope for progress in the first decade.
"During 2010-2019, however, these effects would be outweighed by the increased costs associated with the expansions of health insurance coverage," wrote Richard S. Foster, Medicare's chief actuary. "Also, the longer-term viability of the Medicare ... reductions is doubtful." Foster's office is responsible for long-range costs estimates.
Republicans said the findings validate their concerns about Obama's 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan to remake the nation's health care system.
"A trillion dollars gets spent, and it's no surprise ? health care costs are going to go up," said Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., a leading Republican on health care issues. Camp added that he's concerned the Medicare cuts will undermine care for seniors.
In a statement, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sought to highlight some positive findings for seniors. For example, the report concluded that Medicare monthly premiums would be lower than otherwise expected, due to the spending reductions.
"The Affordable Care Act will improve the health care system for all Americans, and we will continue our work to quickly and carefully implement the new law," the statement said.
Passed by a divided Congress after a year of bitter partisan debate, the law would create new health insurance markets for individuals and small businesses. Starting in 2014, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Tax credits would help many middle-class households pay their premiums, while Medicaid would pick up more low-income people. Insurers would be required to accept all applicants, regardless of their health.
The U.S. spends $2.5 trillion a year on health care, far more per person than any other developed nation, and for results that aren't clearly better when compared to more frugal countries. At the outset of the health care debate last year, Obama held out the hope that by bending the cost curve down, the U.S. could cover all its citizens for about what the nation would spend absent any changes.
The report found that the president's law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent. To put that in perspective, total health care spending during the decade is estimated to surpass $35 trillion.
Administration officials argue the increase is a bargain price for guaranteeing coverage to 95 percent of Americans. They also point out that the law will decrease the federal deficit by $143 billion over the 10-year period.
The report's most sober assessments concerned Medicare.
In addition to flagging provider cuts as potentially unsustainable, the report projected that reductions in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans would trigger an exodus from the popular alternative. Enrollment would plummet by about 50 percent. 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.
That looks to be the same link I read on yahoo.
I really don't think any of these groups putting out reports really KNOW how it's going to turn out. For that matter, I don't think anyone does. Many of these reports are skewed politically just as the health care debate was. I don't believe any of 'em because none of them offer you anything to substantially back up their predictions. But, any legislation was a starting point at least on and issue that needed to be dealt with 40 years ago...too bad it took this long to get started on it.
Open enrollment is comeing up at my job and premiems are NOT going up this year however a few drugs like Percription allergy medication will no longer be covered but overall not any REAL changes for the good or the Bad for next year