Special Session???

[Kythas]

By the way, in cases like Mr. Ephram Nehme which you cite, there is legal recourse available to the patient who is denied the claim. In Mr. Nehme's case, he won his suit and Blue Cross had to pay him $206,000.

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.as ... CA&d=43287

Are you aware of the percentage of claims denied by private insurance companies? How about these statistics from the 2008 American Medical Association Health Insurance Report Card (http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload ... rtcard.pdf):



So you think the government really has your back?

Edit: I had the wrong amount that Mr. Nehme won originally.

[marksiwel]

In any system which insures over 200 million people, I'll guarantee you can find a handful of people, or even several handfuls, who have been given the shaft over the years. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your claim of 'record insurance company profits', of which there are none and which was a major rallying cry behind this legislation.

You just can't admit to yourself that you, along with many other people, were bamboozled, flimflammed, and jibjabbed by the government.

Let me ask you this, then. If hundreds of thousands of events such as you describe are occurring every year, as we've been lead to believe by the Democrats who were pushing for this bill, why do the major portions of it not take effect until after the next presidential election cycle? If the insurance industry is so evil and our healthcare system is in such crisis, why wait another 4 years to stop these abuses? Why don't these things take effect immediately?

By delaying the provisions of the bill until 2014 (again, conveniently after Obama's re-election bid) aren't the Democrats who ram-rodded this bill effectively condemning hundreds of thousands (their figures, not mine) of Americans to death at the hands of the evil insurance companies?

What cant I admit to myself? I'm sorry how was I bamboozled? I didnt vote for this Bill, I'm not a senator.
Why the delay? well 1, there are things taking effect RIGHT Now, 6 months from now, and by the end of the year. Also the Bill is 2000+ pages, there are shorter bills that take awhile to take effect as well. It takes TIME to get through the silly politics of Washington and get real CHANGE.Not to mention the Insurance Companies have DEEP Pockets and are dragging their feet on this kicking in right away.
Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.
really if the Republicans had been willing to work with the dems, you would have seen a less crappy bill. Its a crap bill, i'll be the first to admit it, it needs massive cutting, reforming and changes. Like i've said, dont whine, fix it

[SQLGeek]

Record profits? The insurance industry has profit margins which range from 3% - 5%.
*snip*

Even if they did have 'Record Profits', who's to say how much profit is too much? As soon as the government starts regulating how much profit a company is allowed, what's to stop them from regulating how much salary a person is allowed?

Sounds a lot like the cries over "record profits" the oil companies were realizing back in 2008. The health care industry is just the latest corporate boogieman.

Republicans willing to work with the Dems? Seems to me the Republicans and most of their alternative ideas were shut out every step of the process.

[TxDrifter]

The day will come when the Federal government - waiving the commerce clause like a preacher waives the Bible - will regulate what salary each of us is allowed. The government is already taking steps with regulating pay in the auto and insurance industry saying they have the authority under the commerce clause to do so. Well, if anything can be regulated by the commerce clause, then so can the salaries of each and every American.

They already tried it once. It was called the NRA, a part of FDR's New Deal, and it was a dismal failure. Read the book New Deal or Raw Deal. FYI, Ford Motor Co. defied the government then as it did just recently during the bailouts. Very interesting read though and eerily some parallels to what is happening now. Fair warning though, you will lose a lot of respect for FDR once you read it. He didn't do much "for the people", but rather to accumulate power.

explain to me why Anthem Blue Cross raised its rates more than 30% also why did the spend 10 million on lobbying Law Makers? Could it be, they are jerks?

also
http://www.newyorkinjurynews.com/2010/0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... 42951.html
Anthem Blue Cross denied California man transplant coverage
March 24, 2010 (NewYorkInjuryNews.com - Injury News)

New Source: JusticeNewsFlash.com
Legal news for California insurance litigation attorneys. Blue Cross refused to pay for out-of-sate transplant, lawsuit soon followed.

A lawsuit was filed after Anthem Blue Cross denied a liver transplant at an Indianapolis hospital.

Los Angeles, CA—Anthem Blue Cross has been ordered by a Los Angeles jury to cover the costs of a liver transplant that the insurance company pulled out of because the patient received the surgery out-of-state. Blue Cross was also ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal expenses, which could exceed the $206,000 cost of the transplant, as reported by the Los Angeles Times.

In 2006, the plaintiff’s, Ephram Nehme, 62, liver began to fail, and he was subsequently placed on the UCLA’s transplant list. Blue Cross approved the procedure, because UCLA was apart of its contracted network of hospitals. As Nehme’s health steadily deteriorated, the UCLA physician recommended that he be put on the transplant list at Clarian Transplant Center in Indianapolis; the wait was a mere 6 weeks at Clarian, compared to UCLA’s median wait time of two years. Blue Cross denied Nehme coverage because he had the procedure done at the unaffiliated Indianapolis hospital, which caused him to pay out-of-pocket for his transplant in January 2007.

I'm voting their just jerks

They were jerks and a jury resolved the issue and it is a perfect example of our approach if you include the rest of the facts to gain context:

The lawsuit asserts that Blue Cross denied him coverage for the Indiana transplant to save the insurance company money. The jury, which consisted of three Blue Cross medical coverage holders, decided on a 10 to 2 vote that the insurance company broke its contract with the plaintiff, after a two-day deliberation. A 9 to 3 vote contended that Blue Cross acted in “bad faith by refusing to pay for the out-of-state operation.” Lawyers representing Nehme are seeking to broaden the jury’s ruling to be covered under California’s unfair competition law. Nehme’s attorneys will be asking the court to order the insurance giant to “allow California members to pursue organ transplants at hospitals nationwide that do business with its parent, Indianapolis-based WellPoint Inc., the nation’s largest health insurer.”

Blue Cross stated they offered to settle with Nehme out-of-court, for a larger sum of money that was awarded, but he denied. Nehme contends that the case is “not about the money,” instead he saw the lawsuit as an avenue to “pressure Blue Cross to stop denying out-of-state transplants.”

I am also glad the settlement was declined so that it was heard in a courtroom and the issue was brought to light.

A law allowing competition across state lines, rejected by Dems in the bill, would have resolved the problem without the government starting a socialist program. The difference is approach. We want to maintain freedom, your perspective removes it. A great analogy was the vending machines in schools. A liberal's idea of choice is remove the soda and candy bar machines and only allow fruit and vegetables, fruit juice and water. A conservative, or even libertarian approach is to add the fruit and vegetable while leaving the candy bar and chips. You get full freedom of choice from that perspective, the other mandates what you can and can't have, therefore freedom gone.

Bottom line is freedom.

[Kythas]

In any system which insures over 200 million people, I'll guarantee you can find a handful of people, or even several handfuls, who have been given the shaft over the years. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing your claim of 'record insurance company profits', of which there are none and which was a major rallying cry behind this legislation.

You just can't admit to yourself that you, along with many other people, were bamboozled, flimflammed, and jibjabbed by the government.

Let me ask you this, then. If hundreds of thousands of events such as you describe are occurring every year, as we've been lead to believe by the Democrats who were pushing for this bill, why do the major portions of it not take effect until after the next presidential election cycle? If the insurance industry is so evil and our healthcare system is in such crisis, why wait another 4 years to stop these abuses? Why don't these things take effect immediately?

By delaying the provisions of the bill until 2014 (again, conveniently after Obama's re-election bid) aren't the Democrats who ram-rodded this bill effectively condemning hundreds of thousands (their figures, not mine) of Americans to death at the hands of the evil insurance companies?

What cant I admit to myself? I'm sorry how was I bamboozled? I didnt vote for this Bill, I'm not a senator.
Why the delay? well 1, there are things taking effect RIGHT Now, 6 months from now, and by the end of the year. Also the Bill is 2000+ pages, there are shorter bills that take awhile to take effect as well. It takes TIME to get through the silly politics of Washington and get real CHANGE.Not to mention the Insurance Companies have DEEP Pockets and are dragging their feet on this kicking in right away.
Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.
really if the Republicans had been willing to work with the dems, you would have seen a less crappy bill. Its a crap bill, i'll be the first to admit it, it needs massive cutting, reforming and changes. Like i've said, dont whine, fix it

Republicans offered numerous ideas, all of which were shot down by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, all the while saying Republicans had no ideas.

House GOP health care plan: http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Summ ... -04-09.pdf

Basically, Republican plans centered on four needed reforms, none of which would have cost $1.2 trillion:

* Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.
* Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.
* Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.
* Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.

If you want to peruse other GOP ideas to reform health care, which have been offered all along while the Democrats have been saying the GOP wanted to do nothing and had no ideas, see http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare

If it's a crap bill, why pass it? Why not get it right the first time? Something as important as this should have been done methodically, out in the open, with input from doctors, the public, and the insurance companies, not slammed through behind closed doors with backroom deals and voted on in the dead of night.

[SQLGeek]

Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

[marksiwel]

Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare ... vate_cover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thats what I want to see

[TxDrifter]

Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare ... vate_cover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thats what I want to see

Then move to Switzerland.

[marksiwel]

Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare ... vate_cover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thats what I want to see

Then move to Switzerland.

Why? Why cant I have that done here? America is the Melting pot? lets melt this in.
Do you want Full Weapon Rights and little government interference? Move to Somalia
or
how would you like a Strong Government based on Religious Values that founded the country? Move to Iran.

I'm sick of this "Dont like it get out" mentality. Obviously I'm not the only one (well maybe on this forum) who thinks that they are taking the Right Steps.

All I hear here is "Well do you think the Government can do it better" "Socialist" and other such nonsense. Why cant the government do it better? Stop whining and help fix it.

[SQLGeek]

Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare ... vate_cover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thats what I want to see

OK, thank you. Why do you object to that being considered Socialist? Is it because of the negative connotation of the word in this country? It certainly seems to fit the definition.

[marksiwel]

Honestly I would have loved to have seen a Public option, to compete with the insurance companies.

A serious question: Would your ultimate preference be a single payer system similar to many European models?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare ... vate_cover" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thats what I want to see

OK, thank you. Why do you object to that being considered Socialist? Is it because of the negative connotation of the word in this country? It certainly seems to fit the definition.

Define Socialism.

[SQLGeek]

If you'll forgive the Wikipedia reference:

"Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making, and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists. "

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/socialism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Perhaps "socialist" would've been a better word to use rather than "Socialist".

[Chip]

From what I can tell, there is little in Obamacare that actually reduces the cost of providing healthcare except to reduce reimbursements. Instead, costs will necessarily rise dramatically, and new taxation will damage the economy. Leave out the Medicare reduction nonsense for a moment - Obamacare removes a half trillion dollars from the economy in the form of new taxations, most of which (I assume) goes to pay for something like 158 new federal agencies and to provide subsidies to those who think they have more of a right to my property than I do. So sure, Nancy was right, it will create jobs - government jobs, which do nothing for economic growth. Some of the taxes are on medical devices, and those costs will get passed to consumers. I can't keep track of what's passed and what hasn't at this point, but there will be new capital gains taxes, which reduce investment, new income taxes on the "wealthy" (since when was $250K/year wealthy?) and businesses which will inhibit economic growth, and (at least at one point - did this pass?) capital gains taxes on the sale of your home.

From an economic sense, it's foolish to raise taxes during a recession. The unemployment rate is not coming down, the underemployment rate was rising slightly at last check, and now this Obamacare thing will provide further downward pressure on growth.

That's not even talking about the problems with the actual healthcare delivery!

A free market solution would look to the things that are driving up the cost of health care and attempt to mitigate them, instead of raising the cost but spreading the cost over more people. Texas has demonstrated that tort reform will lower health care costs. I read today that a huge percentage of health care cost, I think it was something like 40%, is simply administrative. Medical professionals and insurance companies both have a mountain of regulations to deal with - simplify that and costs come down. (Outsourcing companies in India will experience real growth as this thing takes effect.) I learned long ago that if you want to reduce costs, you first have to understand why the costs are where they are. I do not believe that the authors of Obamacare did that. Kevin Brady, my congressional rep, spent months working on a plan in conjunction with the Texas Medial Center. How much of what he found is in Obamacare? Nothing.

There has been a lot of demonization of the insurance industry during this process. My view is this: Profit is good. I don't own any stock in insurance companies, so I have no right to complain about how they operate their businesses. If I think their profit margins are too high, or they pay their executives too much, my responsibility is to take ownership - literally, by purchasing stock - and bring the issue to a shareholder meeting. If I don't do that, I have no right to complain. There are individual problems, just as there are in any industry, and the legal system is there to take care of them. But of course, those problems give Obama an excuse to bring out little Johnny who is being mistreated by the insurance companies as part of his incessant sales job - which we taxpayers are funding, of course. The fallacy is that with more government control, there will be more, not fewer, sob stories like little Johnny's.

Obamacare: Combining the efficiency of the DMV with the compassion of the IRS.

Ah, that's enough of a rant, I think I'll go read 'Atlas Shrugged'.

[Kythas]

Obamacare: Combining the efficiency of the DMV with the compassion of the IRS.

I'm stealing this quote.

[Chip]

^^ I wish I could claim it, I stole it from someone else